CULTURAL MARXISM IN THE CHURCH
From the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Sympathy for the Devil
“THE REVOLUTION FROM MARX TO LGBTQ”
“And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.” Rev. 13:2
OPPRESSED VS. OPPRESSORS
The Marxist language of the Homosexual “Manifesto” expresses the rage of the “oppressed” toward the “oppressors.” In their perverted worldview, sodomites and pederasts are the oppressed “victims” of their heterosexual “oppressors.”
“This essay is an outré [outrage], madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.
“We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages.”
The great irony of the Gay Manifesto and the radical Left LGBTQ social justice warriors is that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, authors of the Communist Manifesto, loathed homosexuals and referred to them as “paederasts.” In Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Friedrich Engels denounced the ancient Greeks for “the abominable practice of sodomy” and for degrading “their gods and themselves with the myth of Ganymede.” In 1869, Engels mocked homosexuals in response to a booklet Marx had sent him by the gay German, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-95), which advocated for the rights of homosexuals. Engels feared for the younger generation the increasing power of the German paederasts who were secretly organizing and only needed their crime to be legalized to move into positions of power. The following excerpt from Engel’s personal correspondence is rather graphic but clearly proves his “homophobia”:
“The Urning you sent me is a very curious thing. These are extremely unnatural revelations. The paederasts [homosexual paedophiles] are beginning to count themselves, and discover that they are a power in the state. Only organisation was lacking, but according to this source it apparently already exists in secret. And since they have such important men in all the old parties and even in the new ones, from Rosing to Schweitzer, they cannot fail to triumph. Guerre aux cons, paix aus trous-de-cul will now be the slogan. It is a bit of luck that we, personally, are too old to have to fear that, when this party wins, we shall have to pay physical tribute to the victors. But the younger generation! Incidentally it is only in Germany that a fellow like this can possibly come forward, convert this smut into a theory, and offer the invitation: introite [enter], etc. Unfortunately, he has not yet got up the courage to acknowledge publicly that he is ‘that way’, and must still operate coram public ‘from the front’, if not ‘going in from the front’ as he once said by mistake. But just wait until the new North German Penal Code recognises the droits du cul [rights of the arse-hole] then he will operate quite differently. Then things will go badly enough for poor frontside people like us, with our childish penchant for females. If Schweitzer could be made useful for anything, it would be to wheedle out of this peculiar honourable gentleman the particulars of the paederasts in high and top places, which would certainly not be difficult for him as a brother in spirit.” (Letter from Engels to Marx, June 22, 1869)
Socialism and Gay Liberation: Back to the Future
“Well before the invention of the word ‘homosexual’ by Karoly Maria Kertbeny in 1869, the correspondence of Marx and Engels is riddled with what we would now characterize as unmistakable homophobia of a vicious character. When the pioneering German homosexual liberationist Karl Ulrichs sent Marx one of his books on the subject, which Marx forwarded to his collaborator, Engels described Ulrichs’ platform of homosexual emancipation from criminal laws as ‘turning smut into theory.’ Marx, in commenting on Karl Boruttau’s Gedanken über Gewissens Freiheit (Thoughts on Freedom of Conscience), disparaged the author as ‘this faggoty prick’ (Schwanzschwulen) The homophobia of Marx and Engels has been meticulously documented by Hubert Kennedy of San Francisco State University, Ulrichs’ U.S. biographer, in his essay ‘Johann Baptist von Schweitzer: The Queer Marx Loved to Hate,’ which is included in the anthology Gay Men and the Sexual History of the Political Left, edited by Gert Hekma, Harry Oosterhuis, and James Steakley (Haworth Press) and is also available online.”
The following paper by David Waggoner documents the strong aversion to homosexuality expressed by the infamous Marxist leaders—from Marx to Castro—and the criminalization of sodomy in Communist countries, e.g. Russia and Cuba, although the daughter of Raul Castro is now leading the LGBT movement in Cuba.
Of Feathers and Trembling:
MARXISM AND HOMOSEXUALITY
“As mentioned, Capital (Marx 1992) and The Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels 1991), are silent on the issue of homosexuality. In fact, there is a general dearth of primary or secondary texts on the subject of Marx, Engels and homosexuality, per se. Any overt discussion of the subject is limited to 21st century commentary on the 19th century primary texts. For example, a 2006 essay provides a feminist and queer reading (Klotz 2006) of Marx’s 1844 manuscripts (Marx 1964). However, such overtly queer readings of Marx are rare. Rather, other contemporary authors have highlighted the clear heterosexist views of Marx and Engels (Halle 2004: 107). Marx and Engels very much believed in a ‘natural relationship of the sexes’ (Ibid.) where the ‘direct, natural and necessary relationship of person to person is the relation of man to woman’ (Ibid., emphasis by Halle). Engels went on to condemn ‘boy-love’ in ancient Greece as a sign of perversion and degradation (Ibid. 110).
“While neither Marx nor Engels wrote about homosexuality in their main works, what few words they did put to paper on the subject in private correspondence and notes were uniformly negative and reflective of a deep-seated loathing and antipathy for homosexuality. Evidence of their homophobia is revealed in correspondence to one another about homosexuals known to them at the time (Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley 1995). Marx and Engels both repeatedly used anti-gay slurs and innuendo to refer to the German workers’ movement figures, Johann Baptist von Schweitzer and Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (Miller 1995; Kennedy 1995).
“The term, ‘homosexuality,’ originated vis-à-vis an English translation of Kraft-Ebbing’s Psychopathia Sexualis in 1892 (Somerville 1994: 258). In contrast, Marx and Engels used the term, ‘pederast’ (Kennedy 1995: 85). Though Marx and Engels made no distinction between an adult homosexual and a pederast, the epithets and crude language employed in their private writings can leave little doubt as to their feelings on the subject (Ibid.). While the introduction of the discursive categories of ‘homosexual’ and ‘pederast’ into the modern lexicon advanced social and state control of the subjects associated with those categories, it can also be argued that it was precisely those new categories that legitimized and empowered queer communities (Foucault 1978: 101).
“Both Marx and Engels were heavily influenced by the German philosophers, Immanuel Kant and Frederick Hegel (Fromm 1961). It is thus not surprising then to learn that both Kant and Hegel predated and perhaps were key influences of the homophobia of Marx and Engels. Kant believed sexuality outside of a heterosexual marriage to be ‘unnatural’ and ‘loathsome’ (Halle 2004: 37). Hegel shared essentially the same view (Ibid., 107).
“Later Marxist authors’ views of homosexuality were no more enlightened. Influenced by authors such as Wilhelm Reich (Reich 1970), the intellectuals of the Frankfurt School – including Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Jurgen Habermas – continued the conception of homosexuality as deviance from the natural patriarchal family (Halle 1996: 38-78). Reich himself viewed homosexuality as a perversion (Balbus 1982: 210) which would disappear after the communist revolution (Robinson 1969: 55). The Frankfurt School theorists took it a significant step further, however, in arguing that homosexuality was connected to fascism (Ibid.)…
“Stalin, following his ideological mentors, Marx and Engels, also viewed homosexuality as a function of imperialist degeneracy. Male homosexuality was criminalized by Stalin in 1934 (Ibid., 239). The same year, Soviet cultural spokesman, Maxim Gorky, following the Frankfurt School, published an essay equivocating fascism and homosexuality (Healey 2001: 189)…
“Leon Trotsky instead simply ignored the homosexuality of famous writers (Ibid. 359). The de facto erasure and/or de jure persecution of homosexual men reached a crescendo with Stalin’s outright recriminalization in 1934.”
The Marxist rationale for criminalization was, besides their perversion of nature, that homosexuals were deviants of the bourgeoisie, too feminized and soft for revolution.
“An article in an official [Cuban] newspaper declared: ‘No homosexual represents the revolution, which is a matter for men, of fists and not feathers, of courage and not trembling, of certainty and not intrigue, of creative valor and not sweet surprises.’” (El Mundo, 1965)
Fabian founder LAID foundation for LGBT
Although the LGBTQ activists portray the original Marxists as advocates for their cause, the opposite was true. The early Marxists violently opposed homosexuality as a mental disorder of bourgeois decadence. It was the Gay founder of the socialist Fabian Society in England, Edward Carpenter (1844-1929), who developed a long-range plan to legitimize and legalize homosexuality. “Fabian socialism is an English variety, driving its inspiration from Marxism, but more evolutionary than revolutionary in character.” It was also intellectual and elitist rather than proletarian. In the following histories of the Fabians, the reader may recognize the names of Edward Pease and Frank Podmore who were members of the Society for Psychical Research founded by students of the Anglican Bible revisers, Bishop, B.F. Westcott, and Cambridge professor, F.H.A. Hort. Wescott and Hort were members of the Cambridge Ghost Society and the more politically oriented Apostles Club, of which Victor Rothschild was also a member. Appropriately, the symbol of the Fabian Society was the “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
“The 19th Century Occult Revival”
“In this same period a group of young dons from Trinity College, Cambridge, were also turning to psychic research as a substitute for their lost Evangelical faith. In February 1882, Podmore took Pease to a meeting at which this group founded the Society for Psychical Research… Among those who founded the SPR were Henry Sidgwick, Arthur Balfour—later a conservative Prime Minister—and his brother, Gerald.” (MacKenzie, The Fabians, 1977, p. 18)
The Fabian Society (Wikipedia)
“The Fabian Society was founded on 4 January 1884 in London as an offshoot of a society founded a year earlier called The Fellowship of the New Life. Early Fellowship members included the visionary Victorian elite, among them poets Edward Carpenter and John Davidson, sexologist Havelock Ellis, and early socialist Edward R. Pease. They wanted to transform society by setting an example of clean simplified living for others to follow. Some members also wanted to become politically involved to aid society’s transformation; they set up a separate society, the Fabian Society. All members were free to attend both societies. The Fabian Society additionally advocated renewal of Western European Renaissance ideas and their promulgation throughout the world.
“The Fellowship of the New Life was dissolved in 1899, but the Fabian Society grew to become the pre-eminent academic society in the United Kingdom in the Edwardian era. It was typified by the members of its vanguard Coefficients club. Public meetings of the Society were for many years held at Essex Hall, a popular location just off the Strand in central London.
“The Fabians, questioning some of the Marxian theories, and doubting the wisdom of Marxian tactics, believe that socialism will come through compromise as well as struggle, even as the British constitution has grown, little by little, to the model of democratic government. They wish to work through the regular political parties, obtaining what concession they can and spreading socialist doctrines by ‘peaceful penetration.’
“The Fabian Society was named—at the suggestion of Frank Podmore—in honour of the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus (nicknamed ‘Cunctator,’ meaning the ‘Delayer’). His Fabian strategy sought gradual victory against the superior Carthaginian army under the renowned general Hannibal through persistence, harassment, and wearing the enemy down by attrition rather than pitched, climactic battles…
“According to author Jon Perdue, ‘The logo of the Fabian Society, a tortoise, represented the group’s predilection for a slow, imperceptible transition to socialism, while its coat of arms, a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’, represented its preferred methodology for achieving its goal.’ The wolf in sheep’s clothing symbolism was later abandoned, due to its obvious negative connotations.”
The Fabian Society
It was the Gay founder of the socialist Fabian Society in England, Edward Carpenter, whose 1908 book, The Intermediate Sex: A Study of Some Transitional Types of Men and Women, would become a foundational text of the LGBT movements of the 20th century. In same-sex culture, heterosexuality is a curse imposed on Adam (originally “Adam-Kadmon” was a “divine spark”) for being attracted to the material world and as a result “fell” from the his original condition of androgyny to become Adam and Eve; homosexuality and lesbianism are therefore stages in the evolutionary process toward mankind’s return to its original state of divine androgyny. Edward Carpenter wrote, “Remember, the serpent is still alive in the Garden of Eden. Only the heterosexual couple was expelled.”
Socialism and LGBT Rights (Wikipedia)
“The connection between left-leaning ideologies and LGBT rights struggles has a long and mixed history. Prominent socialists who were involved in early struggles for LGBT rights include Edward Carpenter, Oscar Wilde, Harry Hay, Bayard Rustin, Emma Goldman and Daniel Guérin among others.” (“Socialism and LGBT”)
“Edward Carpenter was a leading figure in late 19th- and early 20th-century Britain being instrumental in the foundation of the Fabian Society and the Labour Party. The 1890s saw Carpenter in a concerted effort to campaign against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. He strongly believed that same-sex attraction was a natural orientation for people of a third sex. His 1908 book on the subject, The Intermediate Sex, would become a foundational text of the LGBT movements of the 20th century. The Intermediate Sex: A Study of Some Transitional Types of Men and Women expressed his views on homosexuality. Carpenter argues that ‘uranism’, as he terms homosexuality, was on the increase marking a new age of sexual liberation. He continued to work in the early part of the 20th century composing works on the ‘Homogenic question’. The publication in 1902 of his groundbreaking anthology of poems, Ioläus: An Anthology of Friendship, was a huge underground success, leading to a more advanced knowledge of homoerotic culture. In April 1914, Carpenter and his friend Laurence Houseman founded the British Society for the Study of Sex Psychology. Some of the topics addressed in lecture and publication by the society included: the promotion of the scientific study of sex; a more rational attitude towards sexual conduct and problems and questions connected with sexual psychology (from medical, juridical, and sociological aspects), birth control, abortion, sterilization, venereal diseases, and all aspects of prostitution.”
THE FABIAN STRATEGY
Fabianism, the London School of Economics, and Big Business
“Part of the strategy of the Fabian Society for gaining power gradually was infiltration and replacement. It sought allies in the universities, Churches, and newspapers, trained speakers, writers, and politicians, and indoctrinated young scholars who would eventually infiltrate educational institutions, government agencies, and political parties to promote Fabian socialism. For example, Henry Hutchinson, a Derby Fabian, left a generous sum of money (£20,000) to the Society for ‘propaganda and other purposes,’ which was ‘used by the Webbs, Graham Wallas and [George Bernard] Shaw to found a research institute to provide proof positive of the collectivist ideal.’
“In 1895 the Webbs, Shaw, and Wallas set up this institute as a branch of the University of London, called the ‘London School of Economics and Political Science’ (LSE). According to Kerry Bolton it ‘provides an influential means by which Big Business can foster its [Fabian Society] aims’ … According to the UK Fabian Society’s own website, ‘[t]oday, the Fabian Society and the LSE continue to work closely together.’
“In relation to Big Business, the Fabian LSE has been funded by members associated with the financial assets accrued from [British East India Company] as stated above. The major financial contributors include the Indian millionaire Ratan Tata, the Rockefeller Foundation (in 1923 it contributed $1 million and between 1929-1952 it contributed $4,105,592), the Rothschilds, Sir Julius Wernher, Carnegie United Kingdom Trust, Mrs. Ernest Elmhurst, widow of Willard Straight who was partner of J.P. Morgan, and Sir Ernest Cassel (and just recently, £1.5 million from Saif al-Islam Gaddafi).
“According to Bolton, a friend of Ernest Cassel (1852-1921), Lord Haldane, said: ‘Our object is to make this institution a place to raise and train the bureaucracy of the future Socialist state’ (Bolton, p. 102). Cassel was a major merchant banker and capitalist, and a partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and Vickers Maxim Armaments. This obviously begs a particular question: why did major capitalists and international finance organisations want to train the bureaucracy for the creation of a future socialist state? Isn't socialism, in its very essence, antithetical to capitalism?
“H.G. Wells explains this seeming paradox, in part, in something he wrote in 1920: ‘Big Business is in no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism’ (Russia in the Shadows, Chapter VII, ‘The Envoy’, 1920).
“In other words, not only is Fabian Socialism different from Marxist Socialism by strategy, it is also different by source of revolutionary potential: wealthy elites (intellectual, political, economic) rather than proletarians (working classes).”
That the London School of Economics was funded by the Rothschild family was confirmed by this author whose family were members of the Fabian Society. The London School of Economics also has ties to Gay Liberation and the “Pedophile Information Exchange,” a place where pedophiles can share information!
Fabian / Gay Liberation / Pedophilia Information Exchange
“Round Table founding member Lord Rothschild ‘was personally involved, with Sidney Webb, in the restructuring of the University of London into which the Fabians’ London School of Economics (LSE) was incorporated in 1898 (LSE was founded by the original Fabians, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Graham Wallas, and George Bernard Shaw; Annie Besant and Bertrand Russell were early participants). Rothschild also provided funds for the LSE and served as its third president, after his relative Lord Rosebery.” LSE is connected, not just to the various Fabian groups, but also to Gay Liberation and PIE, the Pedophilia Information Exchange, a faction within the Labor government in the 1970s (more on whom later).”
In 1932, two Soviet spies against England, Victor Rothschild and Guy Burgess, were elected to the Cambridge Apostles Club, of which the Bible revisers, F.H.A. Hort and B.F. Westcott, had been members.
“‘The Fifth [Man] provided Stalin almost on a daily basis with what Churchill and Roosevelt were saying about the USSR. The spy also had particular links to the US military and intelligence during and after the war… The Fifth Man was Nathaniel Mayer Victor Rothschild (1910 to 1990), better known as the third Lord Rothschild. He was the British head of the famous banking dynasty, which apart from prolific achievements in art, science, wine and charity, had shaped recent history by such acts as the financing of the British army at the Battle of Waterloo and the purchasing of the Suez Canal for Great Britain and Prime Minister Disraeli…[Anthony] Blunt made much play towards the end of 1932 about his efforts to have Rothschild and Burgess elected to the Apostles... On 12 November 1932 Burgess and Victor were both voted in.’ (Roland Perry, The Fifth Man, London, Sidgwick & Jackson, 1994, pp. 20-21, 44-5)
“Victor Rothschild, who worked for J.P. Morgan & Co., and was an important part of MI5 (British Intelligence). Victor Rothschild was also a communist and member of the Apostles Club at Cambridge... The Rothschilds have several agents which their money got started and who still serve them well, the Morgans and the Rockefellers. The Rockefellers were Marrano Jews. The original Rockefeller made his money selling narcotics, (they weren't illegal then). After acquiring a little capital he branched out in oil. But it was the Rothschild capital that made the Rockefeller's so powerful. 'They also financed the activities of Edward Harriman (railroads) and Andrew Carnegie Steel.'" (77:155)
The following excerpt from “The Nineteenth Century Occult Revival” shows the Socialist alliance of the Fabian Society, Church of England, B.F. Westcott and F.H.A. Hort, Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, the House of Rothschild and the Eugenics Society:
‘…the first Fabians…had almost all been lapsed Anglicans from Evangelical homes. There was a Christian fringe to the London socialism of the eighties, but this too was Anglican. The Christian Socialists came together in Stewart Headlam’s Guild of St. Matthew and the Land Reform Union; and the more respectable Christian Social Union, formed in 1889—seeking in Fabian style to permeate the Anglican Church—soon attracted more than two thousand clerical members. Dissenting clergymen too began to find a place in the Fabian Society and the London Progressives, while Unitarian churches and centres like Stanton Coit’s Ethical Church provided a meeting place for believers and idealist agnostics… Socialism was for all of them, the new Evangelism.’ (65)
“As Bishop of Durham, B.F. Westcott also served as first president of the Christian Social Union. The subject of an address at Manchester in November of 1895 was Christian Law, which Westcott postulated changes to adapt to variable social conditions:
‘The Christian Law, then is the embodiment of the truth for action, in forms answering to the conditions of society from age to age. The embodiment takes place slowly and can never be complete. It is impossible for us to rest indolently in conclusions of the past. In each generation the obligation is laid on Christians to bring new problems of conduct into the divine light and to find their solution under the teaching of the Spirit.’ (66)
“In 1894, the Fabian Society designated a large bequest to found the London School of Economics and Political Science. Philosopher Bertrand Russell served on the Administration Committee while Arthur Balfour contributed £2000 and also collaborated with Sidney Webb to introduce legislation in Parliament which would give the school university status. H.G. Wells, who had recently joined the Fabians, was ‘branching out into speculations about a new social order which naturally interested the Webbs.’ (67) An elite group of Twelve Wise Men, which included Russell and Wells, were selected as the ‘Co-Efficients’ who met to discuss and formulate:
‘Ideas about racial improvement by selecting out the efficient…and Shaw was working on these ‘eugenic’ notions in his new play Man and Superman. Beatrice Webb called it ‘the most important of all questions, the breeding of the right sort of man.’
“…Above all they were avowed elitists, intolerant of the cumbersome and apparently wasteful processes of democracy, who wanted to see England ruled by a superior caste which matched an enlightened sense of duty with a competence to govern effectively. All of them, moreover, shared Sidney’s belief -- which had led him to spend so much effort on London education and on the School of Economics—that social improvement depended upon the training of the superior manpower needed to carry out schemes of reform. Shaw was suggesting in his latest play that universal suffrage was a disaster, putting power in the hands of the ‘riff-raff’ and… Webb who could not wait until a new race of supermen had been bred up to establish the millennium, felt that improved education and intelligent politics would at least start the necessary process of regeneration.” (68)
The Fabians’ eugenics agenda was carried forward by sexologist Havelock Ellis, a co-founder of the Fabian Society, and Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Havelock Ellis famously stated, “Socialism also brings us up against a hard rock of eugenic fact which, if we neglect it, will dash our most beautiful construction to fragments.”
“Havelock Ellis (1859- 1939), was an English physician, writer, progressive intellectual and social reformer who studied human sexuality. He was co-author of the first medical textbook in English on homosexuality in 1897, and also published works on a variety of sexual practices and inclinations, as well as transgender psychology. He is credited with introducing the notions of narcissism and autoeroticism, later adopted by psychoanalysis. Like many intellectuals of his era, he supported eugenics and he served as president of the Eugenics Society…
“He joined The Fellowship of the New Life in 1883, meeting other social reformers Eleanor Marx, Edward Carpenter and George Bernard Shaw.”
“Like Freud, Henry Havelock Ellis (1859-1939) considered sex to be the essence of life (influenced by his own unorthodox sexual desires). He catalogued the sexual practices of cultures from around the world. His scientific, approving compilation of sexual practices Christians regarded as taboo and sinful went a long way in promoting naturalism. If different varieties of sexual practices were acceptable across the world, they must be natural, not sinful. In view of this, Ellis attacked Christian sexual morality as repressive and harmful.”
Margaret Sanger – PPFA – Importance of Sex Education
“The importance of sex education. Many fighting for the normalization of any and all sexual practices admit that the only way they can win is through sex education. It has long been recognized by such important historical figures as Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill and John Dewey that education plays a vital role in shaping society and beliefs about right and wrong, and organizations like Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) recognize this. Therefore, the schools have become the main battleground of sexual mores in America. PPFA, the organization begun by Margaret Sanger, was one of the first to realize that the only way to win the battle for a naturalist, rights-dominated sexuality was to indoctrinate children. Mary Calderone, the former medical director of PPFA, left her position as medical director of PPFA in 1964 to help form the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). SIECUS develops naturalist sexual education guidelines for schools, and is connected to such ‘progressive’ sexual organizations as the Kinsey Institute and the Playboy Foundation (the latter provided SIECUS some of its original funding).”
Fulfilling the eugenic goals of Havelock Ellis, Margaret Sanger and Mary Calderone in our day, Planned Parenthood’s pornographic Comprehensive Sexuality Education is disseminated and mandated for children worldwide by the United Nations. How does CSE advance the eugenics program? Homosexuality, lesbianism, AIDS, abortion, transgenderism all lead to population reduction. The LGBTQ agenda will result in mass sterilization. Gays and lesbians do not reproduce and gender reassignment requires hormones that sterilize young people for life. According to the Gay manifesto, churches and heterosexuals who resist the Gay agenda will be eliminated.
“Still, whether we like it or not, the task of speeding up the decrease of the human population becomes increasingly urgent.” (Havelock Ellis)
Few readers of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World realize that the works of Huxley and H.G. Wells were blueprints for and not exposes of the New World Order.” Both were members of the Fabian Society which was plotting the extermination of most of the human race.
Aldous Huxley / Fabian Society / “Brave New World” / Blueprint for final revolution
“Aldous Huxley gave this speech to a Berkley audience, in which he admits that his novels such as ‘Brave New World’ were not just fiction, but real blueprints for types of controlled and enslaved societies.
“A shocking look at the results of the Fabian Society and the Cecil Rhodes Round Table efforts to resurrect the British empire, control of the United States, and dominate the planet. This is similar to the work of H. G. Wells, also a Fabian Society / Round Table insider, and his works of futurism which entail the enslavement of society. His works also were not entertainment or merely theoretical, as he points out in his book ‘The New World Order.’ Wells more or less defected and tried to warn the world. But his books meant to warn the ordinary person were mostly destroyed, and unavailable until recently (see PDFs below.
‘There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.’” (Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961)
Antonio Gramsci was a key figure in transitioning the old Marxist ideology to the Cultural Marxism, euphemistically labeled “Progressivism” which we see today. Instead of violent revolutions, cultural Marxists collaborate secretly to transform Western culture by the creation and political agitation of various interest groups cast as “victims” of “capitalism.”
Deus Ex Machina, Chris Pilie and Trey Roberts, 2015
“In American Progressivism otherwise understood as Cultural Marxism, we can see the delineation of the American Cultural Hegemony. Progressive groups segregate and balkanize society into special interest groups. Some of these groups may be worker unions, pro-African American groups, pro-homosexual groups, pro-Palestinian groups, pro-Islamic groups, pro-Environmental groups, pro-illegal immigration groups, pro-Women groups, pro-Science groups.
“All of these groups represent a stratum of the American Cultural hegemony that is agitated politically in order to advocate and progress the culture to socialism. Progressive politicians often visit these groups during political campaigning in order to combine their efforts in defeating the Bourgeoisie.
“The Bourgeoisie consists of Wall Street profiteers, corporations, the Chamber of Commerce, and the political class that represent these groups. More broadly, the Republican Party has been polarized and labeled as the caricature of the Bourgeoisie.
“Once the culture has converted its worldview to a Marxist worldview, the political environment will be ripe for policy that promotes redistribution of wealth from the Bourgeoisie to the Proletariat. This is evident in the current political environment in the United States...
“Gramsci led the way for modern day Progressivism. Cultural Revolution was imperative for the progress towards communism. In order to fundamentally transform the country to the Marxist utopia, a complete cultural transformation was needed. The people would have to reject the intangible and unfathomable greatness of God for the finite knowledge and fallible essence of man. Gramsci's revolution was not only to destroy humanity but was ultimately a war against God.”
Recall that Rosaria Butterfield’s field of study was Marxism, and that we have seen how she, Albert Mohler, Russell Moore and other wolves in sheep’s clothing are stealthily conspiring to transition the Christian Church from the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality to a Satanic affirmation of the “vile affections” of “reprobate minds.” Romans 1:25 states that those who promote this abomination have “changed the truth of God into a lie.”
Antonio Gramsci’s Grand Plan: The End of Christianity
“Before his death from tuberculosis in 1937, Gramsci produced nine volumes of observations on history, sociology, Marxist theory, and, most importantly, Marxist strategy. Those volumes, known as the , have since been published in many languages and distributed throughout the world. Their significance comes from the fact that they form the foundation for a dramatic new Marxist strategy, one that makes the "spontaneous revolution" of Lenin as obsolete as hoop skirts and high button shoes, one that promises to win the world voluntarily to Marxism, and one based on a realistic appraisal of historical fact and human psychology, rather than on empty wishes and illusions.
“As we shall see, Gramsci’s shrewd assessment of the true essence of Marxism and of mankind makes his writings among the most powerful in this century. While Gramsci himself would die an ignominious and lonely death in a fascist prison, his thoughts would attain a life of their own and rise up to menace the world. What are these ideas?
“Gramsci’s signal contribution was to liberate the Marxist project from the prison of economic dogma, thereby dramatically enhancing its ability to subvert Christian society…
“The civilized world, Gramsci deduced, had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years and Christianity remains the dominant philosophical and moral system in Europe and North America. Practically speaking, civilization and Christianity were inextricably bound together. Christianity had become so thoroughly integrated into the daily lives of nearly everyone, including non-Christians living in Christian lands, it was so pervasive, that it formed an almost impenetrable barrier to the new, revolutionary civilization Marxists wish to create. Attempting to batter down that barrier proved unproductive, since it only generated powerful counter-revolutionary forces, consolidating them and making them potentially deadly. Therefore, in place of the frontal attack, how much more advantageous and less hazardous it would be to attack the enemy's society subtly, with the aim of transforming the society's collective mind gradually, over a period of a few generations, from its former Christian worldview into one more harmonious to Marxism. And there was more.
“Whereas conventional Marxist-Leninists were hostile towards the non-Communist Left, Gramsci argued that alliances with a broad spectrum of leftist groups would prove essential to Communist victory. In Gramsci’s time these included, among others, various ‘anti-fascist’ organizations, trade unions, and socialist political groups. In our time, alliances with the Left would include radical feminists, extremist environmentalists, ‘civil rights’ movements, anti-police associations, internationalists, ultra-liberal church groups, and so forth. These organizations, along with open Communists, together create a united front working for the transformation of the old Christian culture…
Aldous Huxley's , a classic study of modern totalitarianism, contains a line that epitomizes the concept that Gramsci tried to convey to his party comrades: "A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude.” While it is improbable that Huxley was familiar with Gramsci's theories, the idea he conveys of free persons marching willingly into bondage is nevertheless precisely what Gramsci had in mind.
Gramsci believed that if Communism achieved "mastery of human consciousness,” then labor camps and mass murder would be unnecessary. How does an ideology gain such mastery over patterns of thought inculcated by cultures for hundreds of years? Mastery over the consciousness of the great mass of people would be attained, Gramsci contended, if Communists or their sympathizers gained control of the organs of culture — churches, education, newspapers, magazines, the electronic media, serious literature, music, the visual arts, and so on. By winning "cultural hegemony," to use Gramsci's own term, Communism would control the deepest wellsprings of human thought and imagination. One need not even control all of the information itself if one can gain control over the minds that assimilate that information. Under such conditions, serious opposition disappears since men are no longer capable of grasping the arguments of Marxism's opponents. Men will indeed "love their servitude," and will not even realize that it is servitude.
The first phase in achieving "cultural hegemony" over a nation is the undermining of all elements of traditional culture. Churches are thus transformed into ideology-driven political clubs, with the stress on "social justice" and egalitarianism, with worship reduced to trivialized entertainment, and with age-old doctrinal and moral teachings "modernized" or diminished to the point of irrelevancy. Genuine education is replaced by "dumbed-down" and "politically correct" curricula, and standards are reduced dramatically. The mass media are fashioned into instruments for mass manipulation and for harassing and discrediting traditional institutions and their spokesmen. Morality, decency, and old virtues are ridiculed without respite. Tradition-minded clergymen are portrayed as hypocrites and virtuous men and women as prudish, stuffy, and unenlightened.
Culture is no longer a buttress supporting the integrity of the national heritage and a vehicle for imparting that heritage to future generations, but becomes a means for ‘destroying ideals and ... presenting the young not with heroic examples but with deliberately and aggressively degenerate ones,’ as theologian Harold O.J. Brown writes. We see this in contemporary American life, in which the great historical symbols of our nation's past, including great presidents, soldiers, explorers, and thinkers, are shown to have been unforgivably flawed with "racism" and "sexism" and therefore basically evil. Their place has been taken by pro-Marxist charlatans, pseudo-intellectuals, rock stars, leftist movie celebrities, and the like. At another level, traditional Christian culture is condemned as repressive, "Eurocentric," and "racist" and, thus, unworthy of our continued devotion. In its place, unalloyed primitivism in the guise of ‘multiculturalism" is held as the new model.
Marriage and family, the very building blocks of our society, are perpetually attacked and subverted. Marriage is portrayed as a plot by men to perpetuate an evil system of domination over women and children. The family is depicted as a dangerous institution epitomized by violence and exploitation. Patriarchally oriented families are, according to the Gramscians, the precursors of fascism, Nazism, and every organized form of racial persecution.”
With respect to the subject of the undermining of the American family, and to many other aspects of the Gramscian technique, let us explore briefly the story of the Frankfurt School. This organization of leftist intellectuals, also known as the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, was founded in the 1920s in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. There it flourished amidst the decadence of the Weimar period, both compounding and feeding off the decadence, and extending its influence throughout the country.”
Frankfurt Institute founded BY ComINTERN
I. The Frankfurt School: Bolshevik Intelligentsia
The single, most important organizational component of this conspiracy was a Communist thinktank called the Institute for Social Research (I.S.R.), but popularly known as the Frankfurt School.
In the heady days immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, it was widely believed that proletarian revolution would momentarily sweep out of the Urals into Europe and, ultimately, North America. It did not; the only two attempts at workers' government in the West— in Munich and Budapest—lasted only months. The Communist International (Comintern) therefore began several operations to determine why this was so. One such was headed by Georg Lukacs, a Hungarian aristocrat, son of one of the Hapsburg Empire's leading bankers. Trained in Germany and already an important literary theorist, Lukacs became a Communist during World War I, writing as he joined the party, "Who will save us from Western civilization?" Lukacs was well-suited to the Comintern task: he had been one of the Commissars of Culture during the short-lived Hungarian Soviet in Budapest in 1919; in fact, modern historians link the shortness of the Budapest experiment to Lukacs’ orders mandating sex education in the schools, easy access to contraception, and the loosening of divorce laws—all of which revulsed Hungary's Roman Catholic population.
Fleeing to the Soviet Union after the counter-revolution, Lukacs was secreted into Germany in 1922, where he chaired a meeting of Communist-oriented sociologists and intellectuals. This meeting founded the Institute for Social Research. Over the next decade, the Institute worked out what was to become the Comintern's most successful psychological warfare operation against the capitalist West.
The Frankfurt Institute of Social Research rabbit hole appears to go deep indeed, leading to American Jewish Committee, OSS/CIA and MK-Ultra:
“MKULTRA: From the Frankfurt School to the AJC”
Not far from Frankfurt in those days was the B’nai B’rith in Berlin, Bucharest, Hungary (where Lukacs’s mandated radical sex education in the schools, easy access to contraception, and the loosening of divorce laws), and Vienna, Austria:
Freemasonry and Judaism (1929) by Comte Leon de Poncins
“The order of B’nai B’rith is an order of international Freemasonry reserved exclusively for Jews... It was founded in New York in 1813 but at present its headquarters are at Chicago. It divides the world into 11 districts of which 7 are in the United States. The number of its lodges is about 500 with nearly a hundred thousand adherents. The four members of its executive committee who do not live in the United States are respectively at Berlin, Vienna, Bucharest and Constantinople.
“Nobody has cast doubt on the importance of the B’nai-B’rith. When in 1909 the United States Government denounced the Commercial Treaty with Russia, President Taft, putting the interests of his country before Jewish interests at first resolutely opposed this rupture, but without success for he was speedily vanquished. In order to show clearly that this sacrifice was mainly due to the B’nai-B’rith the President presented it with the pen which had served to notify Russia of the denunciation of the treaty.”
Frankfurt institute / Fabian Society Connection
The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory
“The Frankfurt School, also known as the Institute of Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), is a social and political philosophical movement of thought located in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. It is the original source of what is known as Critical Theory. The Institute was founded, thanks to a donation by Felix Weil in 1923, with the aim of developing Marxist studies in Germany. The Institute eventually generated a specific school of thought after 1933 when the Nazis forced it to close and move to the United States, where it found hospitality at Columbia University, New York.
The academic influence of the ‘critical’ method is far reaching in terms of educational institutions in which such tradition is taught and in terms of the problems it addresses. Some of its core issues involve the critique of modernities and of capitalist society, the definition of social emancipation and the perceived pathologies of society. Critical theory provides a specific interpretation of Marxist philosophy and reinterprets some of its central economic and political notions such as commodification, reification, fetishization and critique of mass culture…
Frankfurt School Cultural Marxism
“The early beginnings of the Frankfurt School emphasised the reformulation of Marxism. The Marxist proletariat revolution was not going according to plan, as signified by World War I (the working classes, rather than aligning with their class, gave preference to their nations and fought each other), and by the socialist regimes under Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin in Russia spawned by the 1917 Bolshevik revolution. Marxist intellectuals gathered in the Weimar Republic to discuss why the revolution had not taken place in Europe, and returned to the drawing board to perform a "searching reexamination of the very foundations of Marxist theory with the dual hope of explaining past errors and preparing for future action." The Frankfurt School was explicitly created to do this research and planning "to become a major force in the revitalization of Western European Marxism in the postwar years."12
“As they reworked Marxist theories they developed a new strain of Marxism that gave priority to the radical transformation of the cultural superstructure (foundations) of Western civilization. They perceived Christianity and Western cultural traditions as obstacles to the revolution, which needed to be severed at their roots. This Marxist ideology came to be called cultural Marxism, a non-violent but revolutionary collectivist ideology that seeks the gradual gain of power via the modification of laws, institutions, and social organisations.
“Other than Korsch, there were three European Marxist theorists who had a significant impact on Frankfurt School cultural Marxism: in the initial founding stages, Georg Lukács (1885-1971), and in the later stages, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) and Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), whose writings were particularly influential in the 1960s, especially on the British-created Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, or the Birmingham School (1964) and the counter-culture movement and the New Left.
“While he was Deputy Commissar Lukács sought to destroy society along with the traditional values of the West, writing: ‘I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution,’ and:’ ‘A worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.’ His methods became known as cultural terrorism. One of these methods to undermine traditional Western culture was the introduction of a radical sex education program; ‘special lectures and supportive literature were developed to instruct Hungarian children’ about free love and sexual intercourse, to repudiate middle class family codes of monogamy, and ‘to deride and ignore the authority of parental authority, and precepts of traditional morality.’ In addition, the promiscuity and rebellion of women against patriarchy was promoted.
“Lukács participated in the 1922 Marxist work week in Thuringia, and thus helped found the Frankfurt School. In 1923 he published History and Class Consciousness, the same year that Korsch published his Marxism and Philosophy. Lukács argued that the Christian cultural institutions of the West were oppressive, intolerant, and had "blinded" people "to their true class interests" (Bill Lind, The Origins of Political Correctness). He wanted to destroy the cultural institutions of the West so that power would "fall into their laps like ripened fruit" and the Communist state could be created.15
Lukács also influenced the Frankfurt School development of Critical Theory.
MARXISM / FASCISM BEDFELLOWS
Michel Foucault (1926–1984), an intellectual Marxist, also studied the works of the conservative Austrian School such as Friedrich von Hayek who was affiliated with the British Fabian Society and taught at London School of Economics. Foucault advocated for a Third Way, which merged Conservative and Leftist ideologies to advance the Marxist agenda of a global dictatorship.
Can We Criticize Foucault?
“Foucault was highly attracted to economic liberalism: he saw in it the possibility of a form of governmentality that was much less normative and authoritarian than the socialist and communist left, which he saw as totally obsolete. He especially saw in neoliberalism a ‘much less bureaucratic’ and ‘much less disciplinarian’ form of politics than that offered by the postwar welfare state. He seemed to imagine a neoliberalism that wouldn’t project its anthropological models on the individual, that would offer individuals greater autonomy vis-à-vis the state…
“Even Colin Gordon, one of Foucault’s principal translators and commentators in the Anglo-Saxon world, has no trouble saying that he sees in Foucault a sort of precursor to the Blairite Third Way, incorporating neoliberal strategy within the social-democratic corpus…
“Sequestered in the usual sectarianism of the academic world, no stimulating reading had existed that took into consideration the arguments of Friedrich Hayek, Gary Becker, or Milton Friedman. On this point, one can only agree with Lagasnerie: Foucault allowed us to read and understand these authors, to discover in them a complex and stimulating body of thought. On that point I totally agree with him. It’s undeniable that Foucault always took pains to inquire into theoretical corpuses of widely differing horizons and to constantly question his own ideas.
“The intellectual left unfortunately has not always managed to do likewise. It has often remained trapped in a ‘school’ attitude, refusing a priori to consider or debate ideas and traditions that start from different premises than its own. It’s a very damaging attitude. One finds oneself dealing with people who’ve practically never read the intellectual founding fathers of the political ideology they’re supposedly attacking! Their knowledge is often limited to a few reductive commonplaces.”
See also on Watch Unto Prayer: The Third Way: Politics of the Radical Center; The Synarchy: The Conservative Revolution
“Obama, Hitler & Exploding the Biggest Lie in History”
“The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator.” John T. Flynn...
“In the Thirties, intellectuals smitten by progressivism considered limited, constitutional governance anachronistic. The Great Depression had apparently proven capitalism defunct. The remaining choice had narrowed between communism and fascism. Hitler was about an inch to the right of Stalin. Western intellectuals infatuated with Marxism thus associated fascism with the Right.
“Later, Marxists from the Frankfurt School popularized this prevailing sentiment. Theodor Adorno in The Authoritarian Personality devised the ‘F’ scale to demean conservatives as latent fascists. The label ‘fascist’ has subsequently meant anyone liberals seek to ostracize or discredit.
“Fascism is an amorphous ideology mobilizing an entire nation (Mussolini, Franco and Peron) or race (Hitler) for a common purpose. Leaders of industry, science, education, the arts and politics combine to shepherd society in an all encompassing quest. Hitler’s premise was a pure Aryan Germany capable of dominating Europe.
“While he feinted right, Hitler and Stalin were natural bedfellows. Hitler mimicked Lenin’s path to totalitarian tyranny, parlaying crises into power. Nazis despised Marxists not over ideology, but because they had betrayed Germany in World War I and Nazis found it unconscionable that German communists yielded fealty to Slavs in Moscow.”
Thus, the Frankfurt School and Fabian Society merged Conservative and Progressive ideologies to undermine Western Civilization which was based on Christian morals. To weaken and eventually destroy Christian and Western traditions, the Frankfurt School devised a strategy called “critical theory,” protracted “criticism” of Western values–in the media, education, religious institutions, etc., in particular targeting the basic unit of society – the traditional “patriarchal” family. This strategy went into high gear in the 1960s with the sexual revolution, leading to the 1973 Supreme Court decision to allow abortion and culminating with Same-Sex marriage and Planned Parenthood’s Comprehensive Sexuality Education which is being mandated for public schools.
Herbert Marcuse / The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory
“From the beginning, psychoanalysis in the Frankfurt School was conceived in terms of a reinterpretation of Freud and Marx… The School’s interest in psychoanalysis was characterized by the total abandonment of Marxism as well as by a progressive interest into the relation of psychoanalysis with social change and the maintenance of Fromm’s insight into the psychic (or even psychotic) role of the family. This interest became crucial in empirical studies in 1940, which culminated in Adorno’s co-authored work The Authoritarian Personality (1950). The goal of this work was to explore, on the basis of submission of a questionnaire, a ‘new anthropological type”’– the authoritarian personality (Adorno et al. 1950, quoted in Jay 1996, p. 239). Such a character was found to have specific traits, such as, among others: compliance with conventional values, non-critical thinking, an absence of introspectiveness…
“…What The Authoritarian Personality was really studying was the character type of a totalitarian rather than an authoritarian society. Thus, it should have been no surprise to learn that this new syndrome was fostered by a familial crisis in which traditional paternal authority was under fire” (Jay 1996, p. 247).)…
“In 1933, due to the Nazi takeover, the Institute temporarily transferred first to Geneva and then in 1935 to New York and Columbia University. Two years later Horkheimer published the ideological manifesto of the School in his ‘Traditional and Critical Theory’ ( 1976), where some of the already anticipated topics were addressed, such as the practical and critical turn of theory. In 1938 Adorno joined the Institute after spending time at Merton College, Oxford as an ‘advanced student.’ …
“In 1941, Horkheimer moved to Pacific Palisades, near Los Angeles. He built himself a bungalow near other German intellectuals, among whom were Bertold Brecht and Thomas Mann, and those working for the film industry or aiming at doing so (Wiggershaus 1995, p. 292).
“In 1956 Horkheimer retired just as several important publications emerged, such as Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization and the essay collection Sociologica. These events gave character to the precise research phase reached by the ‘Frankfurt School’ and ‘Critical Theory.’
“The sixties – which saw famous student protests across Europe – also saw the publication of Adorno’s fundamental work, Negative Dialectics (1966). While far from being conceived either in terms of materialism or of metaphysics, this maintained important connections with an ‘open and non systemic’ notion of dialectics. Marcuse had just published One-Dimensional Man (1964), introducing the notion of ‘educational dictatorship’, which implied that for the sake of liberation there was a need for the advancement of material conditions for the realization of a higher notion of ‘the good’. While Marcuse quite ostensibly sponsored the student upheavals, Adorno maintained a much more moderate and critical profile.”
How Cultural Marxism took root
“They had two strategies: ensconcing themselves into academia, and the criticism of society (hence “critical theory”). Ultimately, this meant ideological subversion and basically badgering society to death. (It seems incredible that they did so much without picking up a single rifle.) They stressed moral relativism and the “question everything” atmosphere that became the 1960s counterculture zeitgeist. A few of their books, such as Eros and Civilization by Herbert Marcuse and The Authoritarian Personality by Theodor Adorno, have become classics in academia.
“Many of their students graduated and became professors elsewhere, just in time for the 1960s. Young people are at the most impressionable time of their lives, so indoctrinating college students was a very effective strategy. It’s little wonder that campuses became hotbeds of student activism! College draft deferments surely helped them reach more students sympathetic to their message.
“Further, the ideological seeds of the Frankfurt School—along with the Communist Party USA—fell onto fertile ground. There were several groups that they—cultural Marxists and garden variety Communists—infiltrated and subverted, for instance:
“There was already a feminist movement, mostly moderate and mostly simply about equal rights (a goal which was nearly complete by then). Under leftist influence, second wave feminism began, which was anything but moderate and effectively about deconstructing society.
“There was already a beatnik counterculture. With a little encouragement, this became a much larger youth counterculture, the hippies. Having a significant toehold in academia put the Critical Theory folks in a very good position to influence the young Baby Boomers.
“There was already a civil rights movement, which the Communists had put a lot of effort into influencing. This included figures such as W.E.B. DuBois, Paul Robeson, Stanley Levison (MLK’s top advisor), and Frank Marshall Davis (called “Pops” in Obama’s autobiography).
“The gay movement was heavily influenced in the beginning by the Mattachine Society, founded by Harry Hay, of which most members were Communists.”
“The psychological shock, when they will see in future what the beautiful society of equality and social justice means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy, frustrated people. And the Marxist Leninist regime does not tolerate this people. Obviously they will join the ranks of dissenters, dissidents. Unlike in present United States, there will be no place for dissent in Marxist Leninist America… In future this people will be simply squashed like cockroaches... You may kiss goodbye to your freedom, including freedom to homosexuals…” (Yuri Bezmenov)
Yuri Bezmenov, who defected from the Soviet Union’s KGB to the United States in 1972, explained in 1984 the Marxist tactics of ideological subversion. The following excerpt from an interview of Bezmenov by G. Edward Griffin describes the now complete first stage of ideological subversion – the “de-moralization” of America – and, by implication, the work in progress of “de-moralizing” the Christian Church. The dictionary definition of the word “demoralization” is not only to “destroy morale” but, as defined in the Etymology Dictionary to “remove the morals.” 1. Whether or not a former KGB propagandist can be trusted, it is obvious that the demoralized condition of the United States today is precisely as Bezmenov predicted.
KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov’s Warning to America
“Only about 15% of time, money and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion or active measures…or psychological warfare. What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite their abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their family, their community and their country. It’s a great brainwashing process that goes very slow, and is divided into four basic stages. The first one is demoralization. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years it requires to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy—exposed to the ideology of your enemy. In other words Marxist-Leninist ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students, without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism, American patriotism. The result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the ‘60s – drop outs or half-baked intellectuals – are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, educational system. You are stuck with them. You cannot get rid of them. They are contaminated, they are programmed to react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind, even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still cannot change their basic perception and illogical behavior. In other words, the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To get rid of this people, you need another 15 or 20 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society…
“The psychological shock, when they will see in future what the beautiful society of equality and social justice means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy, frustrated people. And the Marxist Leninist regime does not tolerate this people. Obviously they will join the ranks of dissenters, dissidents. Unlike in present United States, there will be no place for dissent in Marxist Leninist America… In future this people will be simply squashed like cockroaches.
“The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already. For the past 35 years, actually it’s over fulfilled because demoralization reaches such areas where previously not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would have even dreamed of such a tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans, thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him. Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp, he will refuse to believe it, until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom, when a military boot crashes it. Then he will understand, but not before then. That’s the tragedy of demoralization.
“If people will fail to grasp the impending danger…nothing can ever help the United States. You may kiss goodbye to your freedom, including freedom to homosexuals…”
“Yuri Bezmenov predicted SJWs”
SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL
ACCUSERS OF THE BRETHREN
A NEW CONVERSATION
BORN THIS WAY
CLASSICAL PAGAN CURRICULUM
THE SOCIAL GOSPEL COALITION
UNDER TALMUDIC LAW
THE REVOLUTION FROM MARX TO LGBTQ
1. Online Etymology Dictionary Word Origin and History for demoralize v. c.1793, “to corrupt the morals of,” from French démoraliser, from de"remove" (see de-)moral (adj.) (see moral). Said to be a coinage of the French Revolution.
The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, published in 1905, is a declaration of war against the Gentiles with special attention to eliminating Christianity. To subdue the Gentiles under Jewish rule and put an end to Christianity and Christian morals, Zionists have used Communism, Socialism, Anarchy, Atheism and Freemasonry.
3.6. The people, under our guidance, have annihilated the aristocracy, who were their one and only defense and foster- mother for the sake of their own advantage which is inseparably bound up with the well-being of the people. Nowadays, with the destruction of the aristocracy, the people have fallen into the grips of merciless money-grinding scoundrels who have laid a pitiless and cruel yoke upon the necks of the workers.
3,7. We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces – Socialists, Anarchists, Communists – to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule (of the solidarity of all humanity) of our social Masonry. The aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy, and strong. We are interested in just the opposite – in the diminution, the killing out of the Goyim…
9.10. We have fooled, bemused and corrupted the youth of the ‘Goyim’ by rearing them in principles and theories which are known to us to be false although it is by us that they have been inculcated.
14.1. When we come into our kingdom it will be undesirable for us that there should exist any other religion than ours of the One God with whom our destiny is bound up by our position as the Chosen People and through whom our same destiny is united with the destinies of the world. We must therefore sweep away all other forms of belief. If this gives birth to the Atheists whom we see to-day, it will not, being only a transitional stage, interfere with our views, but will serve as a warning for those generations which will hearken to our preaching of the religion of Moses, that, by its stable and thoroughly elaborated system has brought all the peoples of the world into subjection to us. Therein we shall emphasize its mystical right, on which, as we shall say, all its educative power is based…
17.2. Freedom of conscience has been declared everywhere, so that now only years divide us from the moment of the complete wrecking of that Christian religion…
17.4. The King of the Jews will be the real Pope of the Universe, the Patriarch of the International Church.
17.5. But, in the meantime, while we are re-educating youth in new traditional religions and afterwards in ours, we shall not overtly lay a finger on existing churches, but we shall fight against them by criticism calculated to produce schism.