The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Gottfried Archive
The Intellectual Roots of the American Left’s Emerging Totalitarianism
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

A recent incident in Wallingford, Connecticut, not far from where I grew up, caused Editor Peter Brimelow to comment: “Cultural Marxist totalitarianism is coming to an America near you.” A complaint was lodged with the local police that “hate” merchandise— Nazi and Confederate memorabilia—was being publicly exhibited and sold at a popular flea market. Following a police investigation, an Anti-Defamation League official named Joshua Sayles expressed the view that “It’s unfortunate that under the law people have the right to sell these things; but it doesn’t mean they should sell these things. It’s not a crime but I would call it hate…”[Wallingford police look into complaint about Nazi, Confederate items sold at flea market, by Mary Ellen Godin, Record-Journal, July 10, 2015].

Chillingly, the assistant regional director of the Connecticut ADL thus unmistakably indicated he was deeply disturbed that a “right” to deal in what he considered “hate” was still allowed. Presumably, in a more sensitive world, no one would be allowed to exhibit or sell either Nazi or Confederate memorabilia. Needless to say, no moral distinction was made between Nazi Germany and the Confederate States of America. They both stood, or so the ADL official implied, for pure “hate.”

Peter properly suggests if such hate-inspectors get their way, we will be living in a condition of almost Stalinist oppression. We might not be shipped off to gulags(yet), but the control of speech and thought that these professional sensitizers would impose would be reminiscent of the worst examples of Leftist tyranny. I say “Leftist” intentionally—because rightist or non-leftist regimes have never tried to control their subjects’ minds as systematically as the Left.

Even Adolf Hitler’ s Nazi regime largely lost interest in mind reconstruction. It closed up universities as an unnecessary expense by the early 1940s, left the economy in private hands except for those businesses it expropriated, and tolerated a surprisingly wide range of intellectual dissenters. Of course, this had nothing to do with being nice. It was simply that the Nazis, aggressive thugs as they were, had no interest in the worldwide indoctrination program dreamed of by the universalist, conversionary and egalitarian zealots of the true Left.

In contrast to the Nazis, the Left has regularly used every means at its disposal to reconstruct the human personality in accordance with its world vision. Perhaps even more significantly, for the last seventy years the Left has imagined itself as a brave force of resistance against a supposedly implacable but entirely fictitious and shape-shifting enemy— the great evil of “fascism.” As I document in my forthcoming book, Fascism: Career of a Concept, the Left’s eternal enemy of “fascism” is variously depicted as racism, Christian fanaticism, European nationalism, or even opposition to Israeli foreign policy.

Curiously, the post-war Italian fascist Movimento Sociale Italiano was fervently pro-Israel as well as pro-NATO. But Jewish “antifascists” can’t be bothered by such details.

The popular concept of fascism also identifies all forms of the European-wide fascist movement with Hitler, who was actually influenced far more by Stalinist totalitarianism than Mussolini’s ramshackle, not particularly repressive government. “Fascist” is arbitrarily equated with both Nazi genocide a nd anything the cultural Left disapproves of at the moment.

This propagandistic sleight of hand is so blatant that, unless one grasps the current political landscape, it is almost impossible to understand how it works every single time. We are looking here at interlocking political, corporate, and cultural elites when we search for who maintains the system. And there is a unifying doctrine, which for want of a better and more up-to-date name we shall have to call “Cultural Marxism.”

Cultural Marxism‘s central teachings go back genealogically to the Institute for Social Research in interwar Germany. Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and their radical Leftist colleagues attempted to fuse Marxist economics and Freudian psychology into a critique of bourgeois society. The synthesized result had less to do with serious Marxism than with attacking “repressive” and “patriarchal” family life and offering utopian alternatives.

A major aspect of this emerging self-described “Critical Theory,” particularly after the rise of Nazism and the transfer of the Frankfurt School to the US, was describing and combatting “fascism.” This mission became integral to Critical Theory, together with a continuing crusade against anti-Semitism, which, by a certain internal logic, always accompanied the supposed fascist threat. Since the Frankfurt school theorists were mostly Jewish leftists, these facile associations suited them and their followers rather well.

However, in their interpretation, the ominous fascist threat lurked where you least expected it. Middle-class, churchgoing goyim, even those who professed to like Jews and supported women’s rights and labor unions, could not be trusted. Those who did not resolutely break from the existing order slipped easily into such evils as “latent anti-Semitism” and “pseudo-democracy.”

The_Authoritarian_Personality_(first_edition)[1] These psychic and social dangers were described by Horkheimer, Adorno, and others in their massive anthology The Authoritarian Personality, commissioned by the American Jewish Committee after the Second World War and published in 1950, as part of a much larger “Studies in Prejudice” project. [American Jewish Committee News, March 15, 1950.] While in the US, Adorno also created the F-Scale (F for “Fascist”) in social psychology testing, supposed to determine someone’s degree of propensity to subscribe to the hated ideology.

It’s important to remember Critical Theory isn’t a weapon of revolution. It’s a weapon of repression. And it was quickly and thoroughly Americanized. It’s ridiculous to treat it as an exotic import: it took root in American society and culture almost immediately after it was introduced.

Critical Theorists not only found a congenial home in the US, but some were even sent back to “reeducate” the Germans, who had been supposedly corrupted by their “authoritarian” families and “pseudo-democratic” experiences.

Although the Critical Theorists were mostly soft on the Communists, Cold War liberals like Seymour Martin Lipset and other contributors to Commentarystressed the usability of the Frankfurt School’s form of analysis for investigating all enemies of “liberal democracy,” including the Soviets.

The Soviet enemy, in this analysis, were defenders of patriarchal repression and “authoritarian personalities” that stood in the way of democratic progress.


Lipset was also concerned about “working class authoritarianism,” a focus very much present in the work of Adorno and Horkheimer [Political Man, by Seymour Martin Lipset, by Andrew Hacker, Commentary, June 1, 2015]. Communists, fascists and all the benighted simpletons toiling in factories potentially opposed American pluralism. Since we were engaged in a struggle to preserve our democratic, pluralist identity, we also had to be sure that young Americans were instilled with the proper attitudes about tolerance and equality.

One can find in the call for war against “un-American” prejudice beginning in the 1950s the tendency toward Leftist totalitarianism. One major change since then: the number and variety of supposed victims of “prejudice” continue to grow, together with the repressive measures that must be taken to intimidate possible dissenters.

There has also been a collapse in effective opposition to the Leftist Social Justice Warriors. Recent events in the South indicate even many descendants of Confederate soldiers are unwilling to defend their ancestral heritage against hysterical detractors.

The cultural Left, and no other political force, can put gigantic, screaming crowds into the streets in any American city on the spur of the moment. The official Right, by contrast, stays home watching Fox News.

In the absence of real opposition, the cultural-social Left is free to bully and lie as much as it wants. Media-empowered anti-anti-Semites, like ADL officials, freely equate the Confederacy with the perpetrators of the Holocaust, treating both as violent haters and sources of hate for later generations.

Our bogus Conservative Establishment happily rallies to Leftist social positions. No one on the Left sounds as unhinged as “conservative” journalists like Max Boot [Furling the Confederate flag is just the start, Commentary, June 22, 2015]. Or for that matter, Jeff Jacoby [The Confederate flag is anti-American, Boston Globe,July 9, 2015]. Republican congressmen and governors have been at least as zealous as their supposedly more Leftist opposition in calling for the obliteration of Confederate symbols and names.

One also discovers from the Beltway Right press that homosexual rights, including homosexual marriage, is a basic Western value and that European leaders like Victor Orban and Vladimir Putin don’t really belong to the West because they don’t welcome gay activists into the political and educational process [The Authentic Right vs. The Neocons, by Ilana Mercer, WND, December 21, 2007].

Even the relatively isolated, belated complaints of Donald Trump about the crime caused by Third World immigration have elicited frenzied attacks on bigotry from such GOP stalwarts as Linda Chavez and Jeb Bush [Trumped Up, Townhall, July 10, 2015]. Chavez, we might note, has taken valuable time out from bashing the Confederate Battle Flag to deal with the anti-immigration bigots on the right [Linda Chavez: No defending the indefensible, Daily Local News, June 28, 2015].

The Cultural Marxist threat isn’t an epidemic coming from outside: It is raging among our make-believe conservatives, who now often sound as radical as the Frankfurt School.

The critical difference, or so I’ve been told, is that our politicians are usually not self-described socialists, whereas the Critical Theorists were. But even that distinction may no longer be important. Our government and that of other Western countries has grown enormously and now interferes in our social and commercial life far more than it did eighty years ago. Moreover, the major thrust of Cultural Marxism has never been toward the nationalization of productive forces and other classical socialist schemes. It has always been cultural—toward the smashing of bourgeois values, Christian families, gender roles, and what was viewed as a repressive political culture. Government control of the economy was merely an instrument for moving toward the social-cultural goal that the Frankfurt School set for us.

And the social goals of Cultural Marxism are portrayed as the only alternative to a dark night of “fascism” that the ADL, the SPLC, and other like organizations are ostensibly protecting us from.

Yet the specter is never banished. The “Far Right” threat always remains. And as an ever greater number of people find themselves marginalized as “haters,” the actual tyranny taking shape in America could indeed be something even worse than the fevered “fascist” nightmares of the Left’s imagination.

Paul Gottfried [ email him ] is a retired Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt and The Strange Death of Marxism His most recent book is Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
Hide 82 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Earlier this week, National Review proved Dr. Gottfried right. They published an absurd piece–absurd even for National Review–arguing that Bernie Sanders is really a fascist: This piece validates Dr. Gottfried’s point that Neoconseratives and mainstream conservatives act like leftists: they attack anything they don’t like as fascistic.

    • Replies: @Ewan MacErc
    , @tbraton
  2. Hepp says:

    [You might want to save your Handle+Email in a cookie by checking the “Remember My Information” box. Once you’ve become a “regular user” with the new Email, you’ll be able to use it again with your regular handle.]

    The Cultural Marxist threat isn’t an epidemic coming from outside: It is raging among our make-believe conservatives, who now often sound as radical as the Frankfurt School.

    They do not “often” sound as radical as the left. They only do because the author makes a habit of finding the most left sounding conservatives possible and saying that they represent the American right. That’s why he’s always beating up on Max Boot and Linda Chavez. People like Heather McDonald and Charles Murray are just as much a part of the “official” right, while Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter hover just around the fringes.

    • Replies: @Vendetta
    , @guest
  3. […] I am amazed that Gottfried didn’t feel obligated to give more shout-outs to Kevin MacDonald&#8… […]

  4. Vendetta says:

    Heather McDonald doesn’t have anything remotely close to Ann Coulter’s name recognition or notoriety. Charles Murray is still a condemned racist in polite conversation. Would any of these people have a prayer of running for president on the Republican ticket? Ann Coulter, maybe, on an outrage campaign like Trump’s.

  5. Hepp says:

    The cultural Left, and no other political force, can put gigantic, screaming crowds into the streets in any American city on the spur of the moment. The official Right, by contrast, stays home watching Fox News.

    Looks like one faction of the right can turn out a crowd in New York City.

    Who on earth are these people? Are there that many writers at the Weekly Standard and Commentary?

    [You might want to save your Handle+Email in a cookie by checking the “Remember My Information” box. Once you’ve become a “regular user” with the new Email, you’ll be able to use it again with your regular handle.]

    Is there a way to get my old handle back?

    [Yes, once you’ve used your new email a few more times, all your comments can be converted back to your old handle, which you’ll then be able to use with your new email]

    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
  6. A very good article. People really should ask themselves who hired and financed the Frankfurt School emigres and the many other tenured saboteurs? Why would foundations and universities set up by the great capitalists of the last century want such people to thrive and have a widespread impact? We need to ask whether the Frankfurt School types were offering solutions to certain problems the Rockefeller Foundation types felt needed solving. Did the old American Establishment share the Cultural Marxists’ atavistic hatred for Old Europe? Did they also see the clergy, nobility, peasantry and gentry as enemies, rivals and obstacles to their full-spectrum dominance on this side of the Iron Curtain? I think so. I think that’s why they gave the Frankfurt School types offices and paycheques and told them to do their worst.

    The old Establishment types likely thought this stuff would never climb up the ivy-covered walls of their alma mater and corrupt their descendants but it did. The old OSS veterans did not foresee Mattress Girl at Columbia or the Duke and University of Virginia outbreaks of rape hysteria.

    Meanwhile in Russia we have people who survived the far more brutal and obvious form of Marxism. They went through the tunnel faster and came out first. I think they have useful lessons for the rest of us:

    Putin About Cultural Self Preservation of European Tradition, Religion and Race

    Here’s the full transcript at the Kremlin site:

    • Replies: @guest
    , @Gutenberg
  7. vinteuil says:

    Vladimir Putin is, quite obviously, a far more impressive figure than, say, Hillary, or Jeb. At least he’s not actively & explicitly opposed to the interests of his own people.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  8. Mark Green says: • Website

    This is an outstanding summary. Paul Gottfried must be commended.

    And yes, as brilliant as it is, it is permeated by the ideas and observations of Kevin MacDonald.

    • Replies: @MQ
  9. @vinteuil

    True and the funny thing is that the United Russia Party years under Putin and Medvedev would seem entirely unremarkable and even admirable to the liberals, progressives and reformers of our 1950s and ’60s in the West. It’s only people whose minds gelled after 1968 or so who would consider Putin the new Hitler. I wanted to say they’d consider him the new Francisco Franco but nine out of ten of them would have no idea who he was.

  10. Maj. Kong says:

    A five figure crowd in Times Square is not very impressive, IMO. In the popular imagination of many, the power of the pro-Israel groups is practically unlimited. That would imply crowds of seven figures in all major US cities. Sort of like Friday prayers in Iran.

  11. Ewan MacErc says: • Website
    @David Bruce

    No one unpacks the “Everything Is Fascist” mindset as ably as Gottfried.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  12. @Ewan MacErc

    No one unpacks the “Everything Is Fascist” mindset as ably as Gottfried.

    Fascism is just social democracy in uniform. Lipset rightly saw it as centrist, albeit mad.

  13. […] The Intellectual Roots of the American Left’s Emerging Totalitarianism […]

  14. Now that I think of it, both opposition to Israeli foreign policy and support of it are called “Fascist” by leftists. Just not the same leftists at the same time. 😉

  15. MQ says:
    @Mark Green

    1) Kevin MacDonald is a nutty anti-semitic conspiracy theorist, Gottfried is Jewish

    2) Gottfried was writing about this stuff way back in the 90s, so if anyone stole anything it was MacDonald stealing from him

    • Replies: @neutral
    , @Mark Green
  16. tbraton says:
    @David Bruce

    “They published an absurd piece–absurd even for National Review–arguing that Bernie Sanders is really a fascist. . .This piece validates Dr. Gottfried’s point that Neoconseratives and mainstream conservatives act like leftists: they attack anything they don’t like as fascistic.”

    If I may, I would point out that Sanders is a proclaimed Socialist. The true fascists, the Nazis of Germany, called themselves the “National Socialist German Workers Party,” so there is not that much separation between a Socialist and a fascist. On the other hand, the “neoconseratives” were founded by Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol of The Weekly Standard, who was a “Trotskyite” into his early 20’s. Trotsky, of course, was one of the three leading members of the Communist Party in Russia, and he was as bloody as Lenin who was as bloody as Stalin. Of course, some would argue that there is not that much separating “fascists” from “communists,” despite the fact that they were bitter enemies in Germany and elsewhere. For years, the “neoconservatives” were happily ensconced in the Democratic Party as very liberal Democrats, who, surprise, surprise, favored large, centralized government. They exited the Democratic Party when they became unhappy with its peaceful turn under George McGovern after Vietnam and managed to latch on to the Reaganite conservative Republican Party. Unfortunately, Reagan allowed them to come on board where they managed to hijack the Republican Party’s foreign policy. There is nothing “conservative” about “neoconservatives,” as far as I can tell, beyond part of their name, which they adopted for purely political reasons.

  17. The “intellectual roots” are an illusion. The biological roots are deep.

    Why call the first principle of a complex adaptive system “the conformity enforcer,” objected a well-meaning colleague. “Doesn’t the notion smack of a police state?” Yes. The conformity enforcers pressing perception, behavior and appearance into a common mold can be far more brutal than we might like to think. And they begin their work at a disturbingly early age.

    Man is not so much a rational animal as an animal that rationalizes its impulses. The fact that we can not completely explain the biological process that makes social animals does not mean they do not exist.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  18. neutral says:

    So if a non jew says the same as what a jew says, he becomes a nutty conspiracy theorist ? MacDonald is just a few years older than Gottfried, so he has been writing his stuff as long as Gottfried has.

    • Replies: @Santoculto
  19. guest says:

    “A complaint was lodged with the local police that ‘hate’ merchandise— Nazi and Confederate memorabilia—was being publicly exhibited and sold at a popular flea market. Following a police investigation…”

    Why would the cops bother responding to such a complaint? Would they come to my house if I said there was a ghost under my bed? Or were they just bored that day?

    • Replies: @tbraton
  20. guest says:

    “People like Heather McDonald and Charles Murray are just as much a part of the ‘official’ right”

    Is that a joke?

    “while Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter hover just around the fringes”

    Buchanan at least gets a hearing, but “fringe” is exactly how he’s treated. Coulter is afforded about the same respect as your more serious stand-up comedians.

    • Replies: @Hepp
  21. guest says:
    @Cagey Beast

    “Why would foundations and universities set up by the great capitalists of the last century want such people to thrive and have a widespread impact?”

    I’d say because Big Business is leftist, at least functionally. But I don’t want to give them that much credit for foresight. You might also ask why the great capitalists allowed the architects they hired to infect our cities with bauhausism. The only reason they didn’t build the ugliest cities in the history of the world is because they were outdone by socialist workers’ paradises like Brasilia. How did that happen? God only knows.

    • Replies: @guest
    , @rod1963
  22. guest says:

    It occurs to me that the best answer to “how did that happen?” is that the lunatics took over our cultural asylum around the turn of the twentieth century (and not after WWI as lazy popular history keeps repeating). Little else was left on the shelves when the money men showed up at the High Culture store.

  23. guest says:

    “They exited the Democratic Party when they became unhappy with its peaceful turn under George McGovern after Vietnam and managed to latch on to the Reaganite conservative Republican Party. Unfortunately, Reagan allowed them to come on board where they managed to hijack the Republican Party’s foreign policy”

    Reagan, remember, was a New Deal Democrat, a union leader, etc. So it’s not that surprising. He did have something of a real conversion, unlike true neoconservatives, who stood still while the political spectrum shifted around them. Although, Reaganite conservatism of 1980 wouldn’t be recognized as such by the Old Right, I maintain.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  24. Hepp says:

    Coulter is a regular on Megyn Kelly and Hannity, which is basically as mainstream conservative as is humanly possible. McDonald and Charles Murray write op-eds for the Wall Street Journal.

    If you get all your info on the xconservative movement from Paul Gottfried, this may be surprising to you.

  25. tbraton says:

    “Why would the cops bother responding to such a complaint? Would they come to my house if I said there was a ghost under my bed? Or were they just bored that day?”

    No, they would simply call Ghostbusters and let them handle that. Do you think cops have time to deal with petty issues like ghosts under your bed? Do you realize how many Confederate flags there are out there to track down? Besides, they’re are busy looking out for new names to replace Jefferson Davis Highway following Max Boot’s complaint about that offensive appellation.

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  26. @tbraton

    I completely agree with you that there’s nothing really conservative about Neoconservatism. But you’re missing the point about Bernie Sanders. The Necons aren’t criticizing Sanders for his extreme egalitarianism, which would be a real conservative critique. They’re criticizing Sanders for being skeptical about globalization and unlimited free trade, which betrays the Neoconservatives as globalists and internationalists. Also, their attempt to smear Sanders and their other enemies as fascist/racist/ultra nationalist is a quintessential leftist strategy, which betrays them as leftists. Lastly, I think it’s absurd to believe that Sanders believes in Hitler’s National Socialism. I doubt that Sanders wants to be the Fuhrer, or that he wants to expand into Mexico for “Lebansraum.” George Orwell was a self-described socialist, does that also make him a “National Socialist?”

  27. Art says:

    Trump is the closest thing to a genuine American conservative – period — all the other Republican leaders are owned by Jews. Thus we have a warmongering big bank Republican Party that is distrusted by the American people. The Republican leaders are virtually traitors. They support the big bank big money Jew corporate structure and they support Israeli wars – they fly a false flag. They give lip service to conservative social issues. They have nothing in common with the average conservative American.

    Does the average American conservative really realize the evil situation America is in – do they know about the mendacious Jew control – clearly NOT – but they are finding out.

    • Replies: @Realist
  28. rod1963 says:

    Perhaps because the great capitalists were simply pigs with no aesthetic sense at all – which seems to plague Leftists in general. Perhaps they wanted to break away from the more humanistic Greco-Roman and wanted the more brutalist style of contemporary Europeans architects. Or simply they could only choose what the architectural firms gave them.

    Whatever the reason, it helped dehumanize cities and demoralize people. Prior to our modern/scientific way of thinking. Cities in the past strove to make their building architecture a thing of beauty. Think Venice or many other old European cities.

    We don’t do that anymore. We just churn out tacky, brutalist boxes saying our cities are garbage.

    It’s the same with modern “art”.

  29. tbraton says:

    “Although, Reaganite conservatism of 1980 wouldn’t be recognized as such by the Old Right, I maintain.”

    I agree, but I also believe that were Reagan to return to life he would shake his head at his stupidity for throwing a lifeline to the neoconservatives. Despite their small numbers, they succeeded in hijacking the Republican Party’s foreign policy, all the while disdaining traditional conservative views on domestic policy. Today’s Republican foreign policy views bear no relationship to Reagan’s foreign policy views, despite the fact that every Republican wants to invoke Reagan’s name. But I’m not counting on a Second Coming of Reagan, so I guess we will never know.

  30. Realist says:

    “Trump is the closest thing to a genuine American conservative …”

    And that is so sad, because he is only right about thing.

    • Replies: @Realist
  31. What about the People’s Republic of China?

    Neocons never call that spade a spade!

    And the neocon pro-PRC position goes beyond merely passive approval: they promote policies to advance the PRC’s agenda. The neocons that surround or have penetrated the NSC push policies with foreseeable results that accrue to the benefit of the PRC.

  32. @tbraton

    Unfortunately, Reagan allowed them to come on board where they managed to hijack the Republican Party’s foreign policy.

    To some extent, true. But at least Reagan–who, despite his own rhetoric, war more of a realist than a true neocon–had sense enough not to let them near mid-east policy. The Soviet Union, fine. Latin America, OK. But not the middle east!

  33. Sorry, Nazis were into mind control and conducted ideological purges of universities and banned and burned books and artwork. Goebbels was a pioneer in the field. The one party totalitarian system allowed no opposition. There were no elections and no democracy. Concentration camps for dissidents. Torture and medical experimentation on victims.

    I just don’t understand how Gottfried always manages a good word for the Nazis in his critiques of leftist totalitarian impulses. He thereby discredits not only himself but the accurate portions of the critique. Thanks for nothing.

    A pox on both the authoritarian houses of left and right.

  34. @Fran Macadam

    I think Prof. Gottfried is working to counter the almost endless flow of nonsense and hype said about the German Nazi and Italian Fascist regimes. People can happily say Hitler lived on nothing but poison mushrooms, slept standing up or was responsible for the last ice age and no one has the courage to correct them.

    I don’t admire the Nazi regime (there, I said it!) but I do find it annoying how people talk about it endlessly and most of the time they say something stupid or untrue when they do.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  35. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    What a load of tripe. I stopped reading after about twenty paragraphs — around the time that Hitler shut down the universities because he wasn’t interested in thought control. Conflating the Nazi flag with the Confederate flag? How about adding the Stars and Stripes, the Union Jack, the Israeli flag … left or right it makes no difference, this world is under the control of financial fascists and their number one means of thought control is the media, which has more than a century of practice in bombing young minds with garbage.

  36. Escher says:

    Objects bearing communist logos and pictures of Che Guevara are also objects of hate for plenty of people who suffered under Soviet and Chinese oppression. No one talks about banning them.

  37. @Fran Macadam

    Fran says about Nazi Germany: “The one party totalitarian system allowed no opposition.”

    But can anyone think of a contemporary global power to which that summation could equally well apply? The People’s Republic of China?

    Yet no neocon (and no neoliberalco) ever will unambiguously state that the one-party totalitarian system of the PRC allows no opposition.

    And that is, as well, a huge blind spot in all of America’s corporate mainstream media! And a huge blind spot in the worldview of almost all Americans!

    • Replies: @tbraton
  38. Realist says:

    Should read….right about one thing.

  39. Referring to the entrenched liberal left as “cultural Marxists” may be technically accurate but it just isn’t having much cultural traction. It sounds too intellectual, too obscure, and something that an overly paranoid anti-communist from the 1950s would come out with.

    For me the best word is the French-right’s phrase “”ultra liberalism” – it’s easy to comprehend, it captures the ideological extremism of the modern left and it’s unrealistic obsession with protecting the individual from sex, race and gender related micro-aggressions, and it can also be used to describe the globalist policies and free market excesses of the liberal right.

  40. @another fred

    The biological roots are the hunter-gatherer/left and the pharaonic/right cultures whose survival was tribal and mostly egalitarian versus hierarchical with nascent property rights.

    The resulting violent 10,000+ year culture war of the foragers against the sedentary folk has evolved into a political and economic war within government structures and has caused the antagonists to adopt some of the other’s positions to out posture them. In the US, this hybridization has resulted in the implementation the worst characteristics of both cultures as a means of each scenting their own territory while simultaneously attempting forays into the enemies territory.

    The world is going to hell because two dysfunctional cultures from our savage primitive past are absolutely and wrongfully certain that the best way for survival is their way.

  41. @Fran Macadam

    Another annoying thing is that people talk about the Nazi regime as if it really did last a thousand years, rather than twelve. NS Germany was led by only one guy and his entourage and that was it. It only had two eras: six years or so of peacetime and then another six or so of wartime. The way people go on about it you’d think it lasted as long as the Roman Empire.

  42. tbraton says:

    “Yet no neocon (and no neoliberalco) ever will unambiguously state that the one-party totalitarian system of the PRC allows no opposition.”

    Several years ago, I posted on The American Conservative and referred to China as a Communist dictatorship , and another poster actually took issue with my characterization. I responded as follows:

    ” tbraton says:
    November 5, 2010 at 11:11 am
    “””tbraton: “As evidenced by the disappearance of the Communist dictatorship in China. ”

    Compare 2010 to 1980.””””

    I guess I must have missed the news that the Communist dictatorship in China has vanished after 30+ years of trade with the U.S. and the West. You should email the CIA since they also didn’t get the news:

    In describing China’s government, the CIA says:
    “Communist state”
    In describing elections to the legislature, the CIA notes
    “only members of the CCP, its eight allied parties, and sympathetic independent candidates are elected ”

    Even Wikipedia hasn’t gotten the news:

    “Post-1978 reforms in mainland China have led to some relaxation of control over many areas of society. However, the PRC government still has almost absolute control over politics, and it continually seeks to eradicate what it perceives as threats to the social, political and economic stability of the country. Examples include the fight against terrorism, jailing of political opponents and journalists, custody regulation of the press, regulation of religion, and suppression of independence/secessionist movements. . .Since 1949, mainland China is administered by the People’s Republic of China—a one-party state under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party—while the island of Taiwan and surrounding islands are administered by the Republic of China—a democratic multi-party state.”

    While I would concede that the Soviet Union under Brezhnev was a “kinder, gentler” Communist dictatorship (the term “compassionate Communism” comes to mind) than the Soviet Union under Stalin, it was a Communist dictatorship none the less.”

  43. Mark Green says: • Website

    Paul Gottfried’s intellectual contributions are substantial, but the thread of his ideas on this particular subject has followed the groundbreaking work of Prof. Kevin MacDonald.

    MacDonald’s first critical tome on the Jews was “A People that Shall Dwell Alone”, published in 1994. It was followed by another brilliant book, “Separation and its Discontents”, two years later. MacDonald’s opus on the subject of the unacknowledged but damaging impact of Jewish intellectual movements on Western civilization was “The Culture of Critique”, published in 1998.

    Your attacks on MacDonald suggest that you are either ignorant on this subject or–more likely–a Jewish troll.

    I have read many of MacDonald’s books and articles on this hot-button subject and, as a former TV talk show host, interviewed Kevin MacDonald at length on my program ‘Flashpoint’. MacDonald is no ‘nutty conspiracy theorist’ in the least. Ha! You wish. MacDonald’s will reputation will surely grow along with the impact of his extraordinary analyses.

  44. Yeah I got to say, as a formerly self-described progressive, I’m alarmed at where the left is headed in this regard. I’m all for tolerance and equal rights but good grief it’s turning into what is described here, where “intolerance” and quite legitimate conservative, traditional values are simply NOT tolerated, with obvious glaring hypocrisy. Anyway the article covers it well, and while I still lean left on a few issues here and there I find myself increasingly at odds with “the left” as a whole. Glad I came across this piece, I’d forgotten about this site, really great work here.

    • Replies: @unpc downunder
  45. ” NS [Nazi] Germany was led by only one guy and his entourage and that was it. ”

    Yeah, it’s amazing – after the war, you couldn’t find anyone in Germany who’d either been a Nazi or supported them. Everyone was apparently just following orders and had no free will. Even at the Nuremberg rallies, Leni Riefenstahl must have used trick photography or hired extras. It really was a “triumph of the will” for one guy and his entourage (sounds like a rock group front man and his roadies) to have such Svengali-like powers mesmerizing everyone as if they were asleep for 12 years and just woke up and couldn’t remember anything. It was all a harmless “ubermensch” practical joke, at Jewish expense – Oy Vey! – like 3 year old Queen Eliz’ cute Heil Hitler salute in Royal Family home movies.

    • Replies: @Art
    , @guest
  46. joe webb says:

    The fundamental…here it comes…wait…is the liberal do-gooder altruistic impulse to make a better world than God did. No Christian person can go along with the “heaven on earth” crowd of secular humanists, lefties, new-agers, and the legion “ists” and “isms” of “progressivism.”

    It is a torrent of ego, grandstanding, complaining, whining, abusing, accusing, holier-than-thouing, sex nuts, Maximum Leaders (think Jack London’s The Iron Heel, ( and characters like Israel Shamir who love that little mad novel) resenters, all-or nothing types, and the Generally Aggrieved…that they are so stupid, so ugly, so talentless, so bitter, that murder-suicide is the Order of The Day.

    That is what Revolution fundamentally is. Losers who have, fundamentally lost the first thing…love…of ordinary normal people, children, nature, The World (per the Church) and you name it, they hate it. It is either reactionary, racist, ageist, sexist, speciesist, or beautyist.

    They are murder-suicides waiting to happen. Arm yourselves , they are coming for us.

    Joe Webb

  47. Rurik says:
    @Cagey Beast

    The one defense I’d offer of the Nazis (however reluctantly) were that they were a consequence of the victorious Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Had there been no commies starving millions of the most prosperous and able (a fact I’m sure was not lost on the notoriously prosperous and able Germans) of the Ukrainians under Stalin’s genocidal domination, and had there been no attempts of the commies to take over Germany, then there would have been no need of a man like Hitler to act as a rebuff to the Bolsheviks. IMHO.

    No commie Bolsheviks = no Nazis

    One was a direct consequence of the other. And I think all historians would agree that Hitler’s main agenda was the destruction of communism from the planet. He wanted peace with the west.

    Too bad he went insane and took Germany down with him.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  48. Gutenberg says: • Website
    @Cagey Beast

    I think you’re so spot on here.

    What’s done for one reason can take on a life of its own.

    What’s more horrifying than any conspiracy theory is that no one intelligence is unfolding these developments, they have a certain dynamic of their own.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  49. tbraton says:

    Rurik, the antipathy towards the Communists of those Germans who followed Hitler predated Stalin’s starvation of Ukrainians. Immediately following the end of WWI and the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm, there were uprisings by Communists in several cities (most often led by Jews) in Germany and neighboring countries, including Munich where Hitler was stationed in the army. In fact, one of Hitler’s assignments for the army was to track and follow and infiltrate the numerous small “parties” that were sprouting up and deemed a potential threat by the army. It was one those tiny parties (7 members when he joined), the German Workers Party, which became, under his leadership, the “German National Socialist Party” which became the “National Socialist German Workers Party” and succeeded in taking over Germany. This all started in 1919-1920, whereas the Ukrainian famine project of Stalin didn’t happen until 1932-33.

    • Replies: @Rurik
  50. @Colinjames

    If you take any ideology to extremes it will become a self-contradiction. Committed liberals now have a cultural hegemony and so are pushing their ideology to its logical conclusion.

    This is why the liberal left is totally intolerant of any form of non-liberal criticism and supports mass immigration of non-Western immigrants who are less liberal than most white conservatives.

  51. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The Nazis were not “in contrast to Leftists”– NAZIS ARE LEFTISTS! Naziism is National SOCIALISM. It’s a different flavor of socialism than marxism but it’s still socialism.

    The whole marxist/left–nazi/right paradigm is just another propaganda lie. The popular image of a political pendulum is false. If anything, the pendulum is lying on its side with the pivot point on the right and the swinging arc on the left. The Leftist, big powerful government totalitarian arc swings between national socialism and communism. The opposite pivot point is freedom.

    We could finesse the definition of the pivot point– is it anarchy or is it true, self-governing personal responsibility? But that’s not my point here. My point is that the logical end result of small, limited government is not naziism. Naziism is not a product of the Right, but rather an alternative product of the oppressive Left.

  52. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    I don’t see a totalitarianism.

    That would require one ideology and one power center, usually representing the majority.

    US is too diverse, and Jews, the ruling elites, cannot represent the majority.

    The ‘left’ has been hijacked by globalist capitalism that made narcissistic vanity and hedonism(favorable to vapid consumer culture) the center of ‘progressivism’.

    And there are too many disparate voices that agree on little: blacks, browns, yellows, Jews, Muslims, homos, Hindus, illegals, ethnics, etc.

    Communism suppressed differences with one idea.

    The current ‘left’ encourages every group to spout its grievances, thereby making everyone disagree with everyone. Hardly a recipe for totalitarianism.

    Though the Frankfurt School sought power and control, I think its example, in some ways, is a useful means to counter political correctness and consumer culture.

    The style/manner of the FS was mature ans serious. We need this in an age beset with infantilism.
    Their critique of power took direct aim at the core of American power dynamics.

    As the power is now held by forces of PC controlled by Jews, it is up to the right to lead the critique of core power that is essentially Jewish-supremacist.
    As did the FS, the right must delve into the psychological as well as the political and economic dimensions of this phenomenon.
    We need to understand the pushy domineering Chutzpah Personality.

  53. @tbraton

    On the other hand, the “neoconseratives” were founded by Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol of The Weekly Standard, who was a “Trotskyite” into his early 20′s. Trotsky, of course, was one of the three leading members of the Communist Party in Russia, and he was as bloody as Lenin who was as bloody as Stalin.

    In 1953 England, Kristol founded the magazine Encounter, secretly funded with seed money from the CIA by way of the Congress for Cultural Freedom. He is the father of present-day right-wing pundit Bill Kristol.

    CIA threw a lot more US taxpayer dollars to the zionists — with comic effect, according to Yossi Alpher —

    “. . .to the extent that Trident [Israel’s 3-pillars periphery doctrine, Iran, Turkey and Israel] produced fruit, let’s say with Iran in the form of weapons sales, those were clandestine as well, all channeled, more or less, through the Mossad. It’s a rather interesting history, and in some ways, kind of comical, because when Ben-Gurion set this up in 1957, ’58, one of the first things he did is write to Eisenhower and Dulles and say,
    Hey, you’ve got NATO, we have Trident. And Trident is directed against Soviet influence in the region and we want to — we want your blessing.”
    He got a kind of lukewarm blessing from Dulles, but he — we, then, in the Mossad, also got money from the CIA. And one of the first things the money from the CIA did to finance Trident was, you know, there was NATO headquarters in Paris, later in Brussels, well, Trident headquarters is going to be in a suburb of Tel Aviv. And so with CIA money we built a super modern, beautiful — you’ve been there — structure, Trident headquarters. You walk in and you turn left for Turkey, you turn right for Iran.
    Well, what happened is, very quickly it emerged that Trident is only going to meet at the senior level of heads of services every half year and that will rotate between Ankara, Tehran, and Tel Aviv. So, there’s only a big meeting there once every year and a half. In the meantime, we’d hired the best cook in Tel Aviv, good Hungarian cuisine, non kosher, and we — the Mossad — turned this into a training facility very quickly.
    When Trident met, you cleared out all the — everybody is learning something, and for a few days you had just Trident, but this is a kind of comic example of what went on. “

  54. Art says:
    @Fran Macadam

    “Yeah, it’s amazing – after the war, you couldn’t find anyone in Germany who’d either been a Nazi or supported them. Everyone was apparently just following orders and had no free will.”

    Yeah, it’s amazing – after the war, you couldn’t find anyone in America who’d either been a Zionist or supported them. Everyone was apparently just following orders and had no free will.

    US Congress!

  55. @Anonymous

    The opposite pivot point is freedom.

    Like American freedom.
    The Freedumb that the American sheeple are persuaded their military is imposing upon endowing upon the poor, downtrodden, oppressed people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria (but not Palestine), Cuba, Iran.
    America, the Creator; America, Nature’s god.

    Americans are so very inherently free that the just two days ago 18 (out of 30) US Senators voted to allow Americans to travel to Cuba —

    If you are American and were born after 1960, this is the first time in your life that you have had that freedom to travel.

    Americans are not yet allowed to purchase goods in Iran and carry them into the United States — US Customs have the freedom to relieve one of such goods, a freedom enforced by the full power of the US government to dispossess, incarcerate, and even kill.


    Americans have the freedom to speak for, or against, the policies of their government and its elected and selected officials, provided they do so in places where the elected and selected government permits them to do so —



    Hip Hip Hooray!

  56. @Gutenberg

    Yes and one thing I think came back to foul their own nests were the feminists:

    I think the Ford Foundation and CIA types liked how “the personal is political” mantra gummed-up leftist movements but didn’t anticipate it would eventually choke out all other forms of human life on American campuses.

  57. The New Soviet man or New Soviet person . . . as postulated by the ideologists of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was an archetype of a person with certain qualities that were said to be emerging as dominant among all citizens of the Soviet Union, irrespective of the country’s cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity, creating a single Soviet people, Soviet nation.[1]

    From the early times[when?], ideologists of Communism have postulated that within the new society of pure communism and the social conditions therein, a New Man and New Woman would develop with qualities reflecting surrounding circumstances of post-scarcity and unprecedented scientific development.[2] For example, Leon Trotsky wrote in 1924 in Literature and Revolution about the “Communist man”, “man of the future”:[3]

    The absorbing discipline of learning – and educating – about zionism most properly starts with the understanding that it’s ideological framework is more Bolshevik/Haskalah Russian than German Jewish.

    Vladimir Jabotinsky was far more enamored of Russian (as well as Italian) literature, poetry and ideas than of anything culturally, spiritually, religiously or even ethnically Jewish. The ideology of the “new Soviet man” can be traced to the nihilist concepts fleshed out in Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons.

    The Soviet “new man” had its counterpart in the “new Jew” ideology — and creation — of the earliest zionists.

    “My use of the definition “Modern Hebrews” is based on the perceptions and representations of the Jewish intelligentsia and the Zionist groups which operated in both Europe and Palestine at the end of the 19th century. In Palestine, they conceived themselves explicitly as the continuation of the ‘ancient Hebrews’ as opposed to the ‘Jews’ who were linked to what seemed to them the degenerate tradition of the galut.

    More than reformers of Judaism or the Jews, they regarded themselves as revivalists of the ancient Hebrew culture and it was for this reason that they tried to emulate the ancient Hebrew heroes, as is evident from their naming Zionist sport clubs and para- military organizations after such figures as Samson, Bar Kochba, Yehuda Hamaccabi (Judas Maccabaeus),** Shimon bar Giora and others whom they considered models for the Modern Hebrews.

    Concerning Zionist revivalism, Mosse notes that, in reality, the body and looks so essential to the making of the new Jew were a product, not of Biblical times, but of the Greek revival in late 19th century German culture:

    “The conditions of the galut Jews, out of their original soil, were to be blamed for their stunted bodies, for in Biblical times they had produce strong men who could compete on equal terms with Greek athletes or Nordic barbarians” (Mosse 1991, 166).

    We can find this differentiation between the Jew and the Hebrew among the first Zionist thinkers such as the writer Micha Berdyczewski (1865-1921) who wrote that “the Jews have the choice of being the last Jews or the first Hebrews.”7 One of those first new Hebrews, Avshalom Feinberg,8 wrote to his friend Segula Bekman:

    “We are the children of our land, we are not from the galut and the ghetto, and we are not ill with black-mood, we are…Oh you Hebrew [woman]! Don’t be a Jew (Yehudia)***” (in: Elboim-Dror 1996, 123).

    This quotation is typical of many “new Hebrews” and, as we can see here, women as well as men were expected to be “Hebrews” as opposed to “Jews.” In fact, according to Elboim-Dror, in the vocabulary of the New Yishuv’s youth, “Jew” was a curse and one can frequently find in their letters and diaries the expression “yehudonim”, a degrading utterance, similar to “kikes.”9


    “During the PO’s first decade, Ruppin organized an admistrative network to begin the process of selection already in Europe. These “natural” processes were intensified and complement by an immigration policy that:

    “raises to the maximum the percentage of desirable elements, with regard to profession, health and character, for the creation of the Jewish Yishuv in Eretz Yisrael and reduces to a minimum the percentage of undesirable ones” (Ruppin 1919e, 64).

    The first stage of the selection was managed by physicians and clerks at the ports of departure and entry. This procedure aimed to prevent the arrival of all the “old,” “sick,” “diseased,” “morally less valuable,” “anarchists,” or those having “egoistic or anti-social inclinations,” who must be rejected because they are “utterly undesirable” (Ruppin 1919e, 64).

    The system of selection was supposed to weed out the “bad elements” (the seekers of fast financial profits, for example) who would otherwise become a “sore”145 on the “healthy social foundation” and “infect” the new Yishuv with “non productivity and beggary” (Ruppin 1919e, 64). If this were to be achieved, the selection could not be carried out in “a general way […] because the concepts healthy and strong are very meaningful” (Ruppin 1919e, 72). In this plan – which he formulated explicitly in his 1919 article Die Auslese des Menschen materials für Palaestina – one can detect Ruppin’s monistic, bio-purifying view on culture: mental, economic, moral and ideological inclinations are linked to biological qualities. The contrast between desirable and undesirable Jews or “elements,” is defined in terms of health and disease, and the healthy new Jew is the one who has “the most understanding and love of the ideal side of Eretz Israel as a land for Jewish settlement” (Ruppin 1919e, 64), i.e., the enthusiastic-vitalistic approach as defined above. “

    ** re the zionist valorization of the rebel Maccabees, the clubs where Herzl first propounded his zionist ideology was the Maccabee Club, and he closed der Judenstaat with this call to arms:

    “But we must first bring enlightenment to men’s minds. The idea must make its way into the most distant, miserable holes where our people dwell. They will awaken from gloomy brooding, for into their lives will come a new significance. Every man need think only of himself, and the movement will assume vast proportions.

    And what glory awaits those who fight unselfishly for the cause!

    Therefore I believe that a wondrous generation of Jews [157]will spring into existence. The Maccabeans will rise again.

    *** “Yehud” was the name attached to Jews in the immediate aftermath of their liberation from Babylonian captivity by Persians under the Zoroastrian King Cyrus.

    The visceral disdain for that name is curious in light of this statement of Yossi Alpher’s, that Jewish Israelis think themselves as one with the great, ancient Persian and Ethiopian empires —

    “Now, here I have to go back a little bit to explain how we related, particularly to Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia, which were, indeed, the pillars of the periphery in the ‘50s and ‘60s and ‘70s. We Israelis, again, back to that isolation — we Israelis, to this day, have a need to — a deep need to be recognized and accepted by the region. You see, Bibi’s demand, which is supported by most Israelis, that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, or the state of the Jewish people — the nation-state of the Jewish people — this goes way back, this need to be recognized. It explains our relationships with some of the Christian and Kurdish and Druze minorities as well, and so at the height of the periphery doctrine, when things are going well, there’s this sense that the ancient peoples of the Middle East have created an alliance, the people who precede the Arabs, okay. We go back with Iran, we just celebrated Purim, all right, we go back 2,600 years with Iran. The Egyptian, the Ethiopian national narrative is King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. So, this is almost a biblical — a new biblical chapter.
    This is how some people in Israel felt. . . .

    [But] Tehran and Addis and Ankara . . . did not reciprocate. They said, we kidded ourselves that they did. And we still do to this day, because if you believe that . . . we are somehow Middle Eastern, ancient blood brothers, then who’s Khomeini? This wasn’t meant to be. “

    (btw, aside from radically contradicting supposed Hebrew zionist doctrine, Alpher’s belief of Jews (Yehud — based not on the Cyrus-era relationship but on that of the murderous Esther myth) as “ancient blood brothers” to Persia is just head-smacking astonishing: the dogma formulated by David Ben Gurion, born to Avigdor Grun in in Płońsk, Congress Poland (Russia), is “ancient blood brother” to the Persian empire, but Ruhollah Khomeini, whose ancestors were noblemen in Iran’s northwestern province of Nishapur and who was himself born in Markazi Province (Arak), is not, and Israeli zionist Jews have been on a crusade to overthrow the Khomeini revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran and place themselves in its stead.
    Just like Esther and Mordechai.

  58. @Fran Macadam

    “Sorry, Nazis were into mind control and conducted ideological purges of universities and banned and burned books and artwork. Goebbels was a pioneer in the field. The one party totalitarian system allowed no opposition. There were no elections and no democracy. Concentration camps for dissidents. Torture and medical experimentation on victims. “

    You got at least one word right, Fran: “Sorry.”

    as in, Your assertions are a Sorry excuse for an argument.

    1. Nazis were into mind control

    Not nearly to the extent that British, American and Jewish propagandists practices “mind control” via the office created in WWI as the Creel Commission and continued to “educate” the American public on the need to “hate the Hun,” a process necessary to condition soldiers to kill another human being, and necessary to gain the acquiescence of a quasi-democratic people to finance it and endorse the mass killing of Germans and Japanese that was planned and carried out in WWII. Lynne Olson’s “Those Angry Days” takes the usual stance that FDR and Churchill are heroes trying to persuade a reluctant public to go to war, but every so often Olson’s narrative lets down its guard:

    “Pioneering a tactic that would be used by subsequent presidents, Roosevelt sought to discredit his opponents by questioning their patriotism and went on to enlist the FBI to wiretap their phones and seek derogatory information that could be used against them.”

    Compare Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will” to the US answer to it, Frank Capra’s seven-part clips-flicks

    Riefenstahl applied her skill to highlighting German accomplishments and uplifting German morale.
    Capra, aware that he lacked skill, devolved to hate-mongering.

    2. “Goebbels was a pioneer in the field. “

    Wrong again.
    Goebbels was a student of Bernays’; he kept Bernays’ book on Propaganda on his shelf.

    Edward Louis James Bernays was an Austrian-American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, referred to in his obituary as “the father of public relations”

    Fran Macadam wrote:

    3. “The one party totalitarian system allowed no opposition. “

    It’s puzzling why scholars of neoconservativism and of Leo Strauss fail to factor in the Machiavellian principles so evident in the NSDAP dictatorship of Germany (Strauss studied Machiavelli intensively, and Michael Ledeen held his interpretation of Machiavelli as a model for US-based neoconservatives.)

    Germany had been in turmoil since at least 1914. In 1918 it experienced a revolution and forces considered contrary to German values dominated German government and subverted German mores. German people starved to death and experienced staggering unemployment, its economy was a shambles. The Weimar political system was ineffective at establishing sound governance, prostitution was rampant, rioting in the streets was an everyday experience; Bolsheviks overtly sought to overthrow Germany; tens- if not hundreds of thousands of Russian and Polish Jews flooded Germany, which was incapable of defending its own borders.

    Machiavelli held that in such a situation, when the virtu of the people has failed, the only means of restoring the health of the body politic was through a strong-man dictator who would hold power only so long as was necessary to right the damaged ship of state. That is what Hitler did, and accomplished. Like it or not, Fran Macadam, Hitler, Göring and the NSDAP accomplished in five years what Weimar and its dithering intelligentsia — Leo Strauss among them — failed to accomplish in 15 years.

    Fran wrote:

    4. “Concentration camps for dissidents. “

    Damn right.
    That’s where subversives, infiltrators and traitors belong. (Interesting to note that no Jew was subjected to physical violence or sent to concentration camp from the time of NSDAP accession to power until immediately after the Nov. 10, 1938 false-flag riots. see “FDR and the Jews,” by Breitbart and Lichtman.)

    ‘course, the zionized USA does things differently — Where Are They Now?
    The trillion dollar a year war on terror is a witness protection program for government felons

    Fran wrote:

    5. “Torture and medical experimentation on victims. “

    You’re going to have to provide some evidence to support that assertion, Fran, and “lampshades and soap” do not qualify. The implausible story of a ‘holocaust survivor’ who was recruited to testify against Oskar Groenig went a long way to cause me to question the oft-repeated meme that “Nazis carried out medical experimentation.” The woman claimed that she and her twin sister, then-10 years old, were interred at Auschwitz. She became deathly ill with a fever; she claims that Dr. Mengele came to her bedside and said that she would be “dead in two weeks.” The woman said that if she had died, then her sister would have been killed also. Of course, that’s a wild hypothetical, and obviously the woman did not die — Dr. Mengele’s German hospital nursed her back to health. Why do Jewish people think the rest of us do not recognize the utter bogusity of their tales? They damn themselves.

    On the other hand, there is ample proof that Jews and Americans engaged in torture of German POWs as well as German civilians for as long as 5 years after Germany surrendered, the war was over, and Geneva Conventions were supposed to dictate how those two groups were treated.

    check it out —

    John Sack: “An Eye for an Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945”

    or try this:

    Thomas Goodrich: Hellstorm: The Real Genocide of Nazi Germany

    or read Freda Utley’s The High Cost of Vengeance.

    This is all AFTER the war; no mention of the Allied crimes against humanity during the war — the fire storming of 131 German cities, and the rape of ~2 million German women. That’s another story for another time.

  59. Maj. Kong says:

    There are multiple axes of political division, in academese “cleavages”.

    Stalinism was hard left on economic policy, but during the war years was fairly centrist on religious policy. It’s military policy can only be described as “right-wing”.

    Left/right is not just one single spectrum. There are those that say the left/right paradigm is false, but they are wrong. Just as wrong is the two axes Libertarian model. In reality there are far more dimensions.

    In the Nazi’s own words, they saw themselves as a departure from the left/right paradigm, as they wanted to found a “thousand year reich”. Some called it “reactionary modernism”. Others called it “syncretic”. Communists called the Nazis, “right wing”. Notably, Communists have almost always seen themselves as “left wing”.

  60. @Anonymous

    The liberal left also wants “freedom”. Freedom from micro-aggression and social disapproval, freedom from traditional sex, race and gender constraints, freedom from being financially dependent on the traditional nuclear family for financial support, etc etc.

    The problem isn’t socialism, nationalism, traditionalism, populism or liberalism per se, but extreme, unworkable versions of these ideologies which are forced to censor sensible criticism.

    In the 50s and 60s, most western societies were a moderate combination of various of ideologies but then in the late 60s liberalism started to push all competing ideologies aside and reached a monopoly position following the collapse of economic communism.

    Now any country which deviates from the ultra-liberal agenda becomes a target of western media criticism. Japan is attacked for having a nationalistic economy, Syria was undermined for closing its economy to western corporations, Russia is under attack for supporting aspects of traditional Christianity, Australia is under fire from the liberal left for being tough on illegal immigrants and so on.

  61. Let me recommend Roger Kimball’s lucid work The Long March.

  62. Olorin says:

    Outstanding piece. Thank you.

    However one dissent: the American left’s totalitarianism isn’t “emerging.” It’s in the DNA of the beast.

    Read dyed-in-the-fiber leftist Paul Berman’s analysis, now over a decade old:

    He is critiquing Islamism, but it’s hard to come away from his analysis without concluding that liberalism, with its roots in Communism and love of Islamism, isn’t another totalitarian death cult. I don’t think that’s what he intended his readers to conclude from his argument, but I sure did. Granted, I’d had suspicions about that for some time prior.

    See also:

    The other problem with all this is that if we approach the 20th century history of Germany from a completely dispassionate stance, removing the Hitler Demon from its altar of dark anti-worship, “totalitarianism” suddenly seems to look very different in that century…and downstream from it.

    Seems to me that the problem of our day isn’t tracking down the centenarian Gardener of Auschwitz or Poolboy of Dachau and making them pay, but figuring out how to roll back the state religion of the left that has infested every aspect of political, social, and even family life, and the extreme interference in individuals’ lives imposed by the Super State. Of course this would require judgments on such things being in the hands of the intelligent rather than the mob, and today our electoral, executive, judicial, and legislative systems are controlled by a UniParty of ochlocrats.

  63. Rurik says:

    Yes, you’re right of course, the German anger at the Jewish communists/capitalists started with the treachery at the end of the first war, when Germany was betrayed and starved into signing the Treaty of Versailles, thereby enslaving Germany to the bankers and handing over its levers of power and cultural institutions to Jews who were hostile to Germans and used their children as sex toys in the brothels of Berlin.

    But the mass starvations in the Ukraine I’m sure were significant in steeling the German resolve to destroy the fend of Jewish funded and administered communism once and for all, lest they too be starved to death en masse and genocided forever. (see the Morgenthau Plan)

  64. guest says:
    @Fran Macadam

    “after the war, you couldn’t find anyone in Germany who’d either been a Nazi or supported them. Everyone was apparently just following orders and had no free will.”

    In their defense, we were killing, imprisoning, kidnapping, enslaving, and otherwise disrupting the lives of former Nazis upon conquest of their reich. Some of them got off scot-free; others gained in status. But you never knew which fate was yours. No one knew, for there was no order to the thing.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  65. guest says:

    “The whole marxist/left–nazi/right paradigm is just another propaganda lie.”

    It’s not just a lie, as it’s based on a fundamental truth. Nazis are to the right of commies, and commies to the left of nazis. But we don’t have here one of those “identity of opposites” things. Both commies and nazis are to the left of most of the rest of us. They’re only appear like mighty opposites because the rest of us are absolutely irrelevant to them, and to the intellectual elite of the past century-plus, which went both mad and bafflingly esoteric (see modern art). To them classical and “progressive” liberals (who aren’t Fabians) might as well be Guelphs and Ghibellines.

    Partly this can be blamed on the misapplication of French revolutionary factionalism to politics writ large. The left-center-right model emerging from those times plain can’t explain every dispute ever, nor can it tell us where ideologies from vastly different times and circumstances stand relative to eachother. I’ve seen the spectrum warped to such bizarre shapes as to make the epicycles of medieval astronomy seem as simple as Newton’s laws of motion,

  66. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    Though communism turned out to be a bad ideology & movement, Marxist ideas did have a certain value, at least in non-communist nations.
    In communist nations, one couldn’t get away from the repressive ideology that was drummed into everyone 24/7.

    But in non-communist nations, Marxism did serve as a means of defense, defiance, resistance, and critique of society, whether it be traditional or capitalist/consumerist.

    Gottfried is correct that leftism can be more intrusive and repressive because of its utopian character. I’d say leftist utopianism is rooted in Christian concept of redemption, purity, kingdom of heaven, etc. Once such notions were secularized, it was natural for leftists to seek kingdom of heaven on earth. And because Christianity is about the soul as well as behavior, it had a tendency to be totalitarian. The saving grace of Christianity was that it believed that man was born in sin and cannot be saved in flesh in this world. He could only be redeemed by Jesus and find salvation in Heaven with God. But because leftism is secularist, it looks for every hint of ‘sin’ in the material world.

    So, it’s not good when leftism gains too much power cuz society will turn into something like Stalinist Russia. And even social democracies can be a big pain in the ass with constant PC agitation about this and that and whatever.

    BUT, it is also true that society can be dominated by excess of hedonism, narcissism, idolatry, mammonism, vanity, greed, piggishness, wild-ass Negro ghastliness, sluttiness, trashiness, thuggishness, gangsterishness, self-centered-ness, celebrity-mania, decadence, wantonness, and bootiliciousness.
    And our modern global society is like that. It is so excessive and indulgent in its celebration of vulgarity, narcissism, nihilism, homo-decadence, and punkassness.
    Though Chris Hedges is a fool, he is right to say a society that favors ‘spectacle’ over literature and power of word is not sane or civilized. It is through words that we think, and it is through words that we build our resistance against the powers-that-be.

    The real problem of today’s Left is it happens to be non-intellectual, un-serious, immature, and retarded. When the main issues are ‘trigger warnings’, the new Leftism is about hurt boo-hoo feelings of namby pamby kids brought up by helicopter parents and drone-teachers. Or the main issue is something like ‘trannies should be allowed to use the women’s washroom’. Though ostensibly ‘leftist’, such idiocies are pretty much in line with the current capitalist-consumer system that promotes self-centered narcissism — if Bruce Jenner says he is a ‘woman’, he is, and we better believe it because… uh… ‘truth in advertising’? Besides, the point of capitalism is to expand market share by making no one feel offended. I’d like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. Capitalism will sacrifice any moral principle for greater market share. Once Jews used their power over media and academia to promote homo-mania, capitalists fell in line by praising homos to high heaven. With all that big corporate dollars, homo-worship became the new religion of America. Hot damn, most people are so retarded.

    The Frankfurt School’s ideas may have been the basis for some of the PC today, but one could argue that something like Frankfurt neo-Marxism would actually serve people well today by providing some kind of intellectual, moral, psychological, and even ‘spiritual’ framework by which one might form a resistance against pop culture, Political Correctness(mostly in tune with consumer-capitalism), and government powers-that-be. Capitalists say, “don’t think, buy”. Government says, “don’t think, obey”. Political Correctness says, “don’t think, believe.”

    FS was a means by which to create an intellectual and moral resistance against the prevailing communist/Marxist ideology at the time dominated by Moscow. And it was a means by which to critique, question, and defy the power of capitalism and consumerism that was to turn everyone into a zombie, sheep, or buffoon eager to keep with the Joneses. It was also a means by which to probe into the mind-set of the American Right that harbored dark emotions behind its mask of respectability. I don’t have a problem with the theory of the Authoritarian Personality because human psychology is indeed pretty dark and anxious. Instead of attacking the Frankfurt theory of the Authoritarian Personality, I’d urge that the Right probe into Jewish power by discussing the Manipulation Personality that is so prominent among Jews. I’m for probing and critiquing all Personalities, be they gentile and authoritarian or Jewish and manipulative. After all, there is a mind behind every value system and ideology, and there are always bound to be darker fears behind the official facade of respectable opinion. There is a dark personality to the White Right, but there is also a dark personality to Jewish Power. And there is a dark personality to the ghastly Negro. It’s like Howard Stern did an amateur version of the Frankfurt School in his book PRIVATE PARTS when he said the other reason why Negro men were eager to push through the Civil Rights movement was to gain access to white women.
    And Beavis has his own Frankfurt-School-ish explanation about the true male nature behind male actions.

    So, what is the value of something like the FS?

    Now, imagine poor Negroes in some part of America.

    Suppose one Negro has no sense of ideology beyond what he gets from the 2 PC’s: pop culture and political correctness. Pop Culture encourages him to yap about blings, gold teeth, dicks, booties, guns, ho’s, cars, fuzzy dice(though that may be a 70s thing), baggy pants, and all that trashy-ass shit. And Political Correctness just makes him bitch endlessly about how ‘black lives matter and shit’ and how ‘black bodies be hurting, shoo’.

    Suppose another Negro be into some Marxist intellectual stuff. Suppose he done read some Frankfurt School stuff. Suppose he be versed in the language of critique, culture, thought, and life of the mind.
    Even if FS ideas were ultimately wrong, misguided, or disingenuous, they still provide a framework and instrument with which to stimulate the Negro think about the world instead of just responding to it like a dumbass child, the favored attitude according to consumer-capitalism and political correctness whose goal is to snuff out thinking via the power of mindless spectacle and idiotic sloganeering.

    Whatever fault FS may have had, it was a genuinely intellectual movement, and to the extent that the Practice of Thought serves as a shield, resistance, defiance, and criticism against the Powers-that-be, it was not without value, especially in our current world where people are bombarded with the power of spectacle and sloganeering(either PC or consumerist advertising) 24/7.

    Paradoxically, it is precisely because (genuine)leftism is good at critique of power that it is dangerous once it gains power. Leftism obsessively thinks a lot about the nature of power.
    But when out of power, the left, more than the right, has provided a powerful means by which individuals can use their minds, hearts, hands, and feet to resist and stand up to the Power.
    Even as we reject leftist utopianism, there is a valuable lesson to be learned from the restless leftist critique of power. We should never be complacent or trusting of power. We should tirelessly wonder about power, worry about power, think about power, resist power, critique power, defy power, even when the power is on our side. Even if we have no power and can’t gain power, we need to resist and critique power so that each of us, as individuals, can be free in mind and soul. And in order to do this, we need some kind of intellectual framework, a mental box and filter and shield that exists between us and the world controlled by the powers-that-be.

    We don’t want a leftist revolution but we want the leftist art of dissent.

    • Replies: @guest
    , @guest
  67. tbraton says:

    ” No one knew, for there was no order to the thing.”

    Unless you were a Nazi connected to the Reich’s rocket program, in which case you got an express ticket to the U.S.S.R. or the U.S. There was a joke around the early days of the Sputnik-U.S. rocket competition that the success of one program or the other merely proved that the German scientists who worked for the U.S.S.R. were better than the German scientists working for the U.S., or vice-versa.

    • Replies: @guest
  68. guest says:

    “Unless you were a Nazi connected to the Reich’s rocket program, in which case you got an express ticket to the U.S.S.R. or the U.S.”

    That’s just my point. Some of them got reprieves and some more prestige and power than ever before, if they happened to be useful. Or I should say if they happened to be recognized as useful, and nothing else–resentment, caprice, fate–got in the way. Because there were plenty of useful Germans who nevertheless fell into the maelstrom. It wasn’t about merit, by any means.

    • Replies: @tbraton
  69. guest says:
    @Priss Factor

    You expend an awful lot of text to make a rather simple argument. I can never explain why Marxism became so influential, nor why leftism gobbled up a majority of the intellectual class of the previous century. But it’s a fact, and that fact demonstrates a couple of things self-evidently: one, unless they were all mad–and what are the odds?–there must be some truth to it; two, there’s no way that many smart people could spend that much of their lives on it without putting it to some good use, even if accidentally.

    But so what? What does that amount to, really? The rabiddest atheist could admit that Christianity couldn’t have survived as long as it has without containing some truth, and that that many smart people over that many centuries writing about it must have made some sense at some point.

  70. guest says:
    @Priss Factor

    Oh, and about the spiritual critique of capitalism, Marxism is one school uniquely unable to offer such a thing, being materialist to the core. Not that everything we label Marxist took that part of it seriously. Actually, reading Marx’s own throw everything against the wall and see what sticks arguments against the culture of the industrial revolution might trick one into thinking he were a prudish preacher and moral majoritarian. I suppose that inconsistency is endemic to the movement.

    But if “cultural Marxism” is un-Marxist enough to be spiritual, I submit that it’s merely decadent, and to be intellectually honest ought to have dropped the Marxist baggage, or at least apologized for it. It wasn’t an intellectually honest movement, however, and at best was practicing philosophical pastiche.

  71. tbraton says:

    ” It wasn’t about merit, by any means.”

    Oh, but it was all about merit in certain cases if you happened to possess knowledge valued by the Soviets or us. My response about the German rocket scientists was in response to the closing sentences of your earlier email: “But you never knew which fate was yours. No one knew, for there was no order to the thing.” Before the war came to an end, policy makers in the U.S. (and the USSR as well) had their sights set on important Germans and the rocket scientists topped the list.

  72. The fascists roots are in the GOP illusory image of their self importance but it is they who will use the laws of the US Constitution to socialize the citizenry by any means necessary. Their fascist control will be maintained by the state, controlled by the state and the citizenry will be punished by the state if they do not follow the coming fascist socialist regime. They tell you they will pass less laws but the opposite is true and most of those laws seek to abridge, deny, deter and abrogate the choice and freedoms we take for granted. That is the Truth they want to hide from you but they were for it before they were against it and now they pass laws to dent it and they pretend it is the other person.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  73. @tbraton

    Isn’t Ronald Reagan National Airport on Jefferson Davis National Highway?

    Or is it the Allen and John Foster (CIA) Dulles Airport that is on Robert E. Lee Highway?

  74. MarkinLA says:
    @jack shindo

    The only thing the GOP wants so socialize is the losses the bankers incur when they play their BS games in the markets.

  75. Cultural Marxist totalitarianism is an unfortunate word combination. Show me a Marxist among American liberals. Show me a leftist for that matter. Eugene Debs was a lefty. Hugo Chavez was a lefty. The people and the phenomena that you refer to are real enough. But using them to stigmatize the left (the working class) is misleading to say the least. Try Cultural Liberal totalitarianism or even Cultural Democrat totalitarianism.

  76. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    According to my dictionary, a nation is a group of individuals sharing a common origin (race/ethnicity), language, religion, culture, history, customs, traditions, etc. This is why the old terminology of the “nation-state” became current after 1814. France, as a geographic territory controlled by a government in Paris, was a state. The French are a nation of Gallo-Roman descent who live in France. The French are a single example, unlike Germans. Until recently, most of the people living in Germany were German. But the German nation extended from Alsace to the Volga River and included part of Switzerland, Italy, and Czechoslovakia, as well as all of Austria. Germany and Austria are nation-states, the others are not. Germans in these states are national minorities. And a problem, as every ethnic minority is everywhere. The height of multi-nationalism ised to be the Austro-Hungarian Empire (the charnelhouse of nations), and especially the Balkans. One hundred years after the Empire was broken up, the races and peoples of the Balkans remain in a state of truce, between ethnic wars. fast-forward to the US today, say Los Angeles. Anybody think this is going to work? Hell, no. Never would, never will. Different races, tribes, nations do not co-exist in peace. This is why National Socialism was in accord with Human Nature (normal, and Right), while Leftism, starting with the French Revolution right down to Berkeley California today, is impossible.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Paul Gottfried Comments via RSS