The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Joyce Archive
Review: Agitprop in America
🔊 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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“Agitprop has been the method for destroying America’s culture and rebuilding it as Cultural Marxism.”
John Harmon McElroy, Agitprop in America

Agitprop in America
John Harmon McElroy

Arktos, 2020

“You can live with the loss of certainty, but not of belief.” So begins John Harmon McElroy’s recently-published Agitprop in America, an almost 400-page book on America’s increasing distance from former beliefs, wholesale adoption of new ones, and the methods by which this transformation was brought about. A cultural historian, McElroy is a professor emeritus of the University of Arizona and was a Fulbright scholar at universities in Spain and Brazil. I suspect Agitprop in America is an exercise in catharsis for the author. During the course of the volume McElroy is clearly, to borrow Melville’s famous words, “driving off the spleen,” by which I mean that he is dispensing with many years of excess feelings of irritation, built up over a career in decaying academia. In Agitprop in America, McElroy takes aim at a succession of modern academia’s sacred cows, with chapters covering Marxist history and propaganda techniques, “social justice” activism, mandatory diversity, political correctness, free speech, snowflake culture, government spending, and the dominance of Cultural Marxism in the American education system. One of the book’s more unique features is a 107-page lexicon of 234 terms (from Ableism to Xenophobia) explaining the invention and employment of language as a method of cultural transformation via agitprop. The book is written in a terse, urgent style reminiscent of Hillaire Belloc, and McElroy comes across confident, bullish, and confrontational, all of which contributes character to what is one of the more original and interesting books I’ve read thus far in 2020.

My first impression of Agitprop in America was that it was a kind of throwback to older anti-Communist texts. I mean this in neither a strictly positive nor strictly negative sense, but an understanding and appreciation of the overall intellectual trajectory of the book will demand that this is acknowledged. In the absence of biographical details, I would estimate McElroy to be in his 80s. He comes across as a thoroughly committed Christian and capitalist, and the book itself is dedicated to “Cuba’s Escambray guerrillas who died fighting Fidel Castro’s Marxist tyranny in the 1960s.” As such, the psychology of the book is underpinned by tensions and memories that are either unknown or significantly faded among younger generations, such as McCarthyism, the Bay of Pigs incident, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. That being said, the book is still incredibly contemporary and relevant. This is in large part due to McElroy’s keen ear for contemporary society and politics, as well as the evolving lexicon of Cultural Marxism, which enables him to discuss “woke” culture with the same accuracy and vigor as “class struggle.” I also think that, in an age where it’s becoming commonplace among Rightist millennials to dismiss “Boomers” and throw themselves headlong into a “NazBol” Third Positionism that in some respects rehabilitates or repurposes aspects of Marxism and even the Frankfurt School, it’s beneficial to listen to those with decades of experience in the culture wars. Although I don’t agree with everything McElroy has to say, he is one such individual and he has produced a very useful text.

The book opens with the contention that “since the 1960s Marxists and their sympathizers in America have been using agitprop (an integration of intense agitation and propaganda invented by Lenin) to destroy America’s culture and build Cultural Marxism. To do this, agitprop has changed American speech and manipulated cultural values and beliefs.” American history has been rewritten “to make it into a Marxian tale of unmitigated oppression.” American contemporary society has been reinterpreted as the story of “one biologically defined ruling class (straight White males) “victimizing” all other biologically defined classes.” These Marxist dogmas “are causing the destruction of America’s exceptional culture.”

Part I of the book consists of a brief sketch of the historical context of agitprop in America. McElroy does a very capable job of following political correctness from its Soviet and Maoist origins, through the campus agitations of the 1960s, to the “woke” culture warriors of today. Early in the chapter he indulges in some of the “antifa are the real fascists” fluff that one unfortunately expects from older anti-Communists, and he makes one positive reference to the tainted writings of the Jewish neoconservative academic Richard Pipes. But these are brief divergences from an otherwise steady and interesting invective against the corruption of language and the introduction of politically correct culture in the United States. McElroy is at his best when he focuses on the methodology of Culture Marxism, writing:

Instead of overturning the U.S government by force and taking comprehensive control of the United States all at once, the Counter Culture/Political Correctness Movement has been engaged for the last fifty years in gradually but relentlessly transforming the United States from within little by little, by co-opting its institutions and destroying existing cultural beliefs slowly and methodically, and replacing them with the dogmas of Marxism. (8)

In our current age of declining optimism and rising nihilism, I found McElroy’s persistent belief in American exceptionalism to be somewhat heartening. Although the America of today has thickened and bubbled into a globalist empire, it was indeed founded, as McElroy reminds us “on belief in man’s unalienable birthright to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and government by consent of the governed.” The author is both saddened and angered to see the promise of the “American Dream” come under sustained attack from both internal and external enemies, and while we can make the argument for a more critical or nuanced interrogation of such concepts as the “American Dream” (Tom Sunic’s excellent Homo Americanus is probably unsurpassed in this area), it’s difficult to argue that something special and precious hasn’t been lost in America since the 1950s. Where Sunic and McElroy might agree, with radically different implications, is in their assessment of the nature of American culture through history. Both assert the European origins of American culture, and both assert that it later became essentially non-European. For McElroy, this transition (c. 1800–1950) represents a triumph, with America defining itself against “the aristocratic cultures of Europe based on belief in ruling classes constituted by “noble” and “royal” blood.” For Sunic, the drift away from European culture resulted in hostility to European traditions, and an obsession with “rights” and individualistic consumerism, that has dogged America for over a century and has contributed heavily to its current cultural malaise. Both scholars would find agreement again in the fact America post-1950 has been in the throes of a cultural catastrophe in which Marxism has been pivotal.

The latter section of the first chapter concerns Marxist dogma from Soviet times to the present. McElroy is quite right to point out that historically Marxists argued that deviation from their worldview could represent a “symptom of mental derangement requiring treatment in a psychiatric clinic,” and he places this alongside commentary on how today’s dissidents are presented as “enemies of humanity.” In each case, agitprop develops an environment in which dissent is viewed and portrayed as “a kind of irrational, anti-science behavior.” The key to the success of Cultural Marxist agitprop is its “intrinsic deceptiveness.” McElroy writes,

Political correctness represents itself as a champion of fundamental American values. That brazen pretense, that Marxism is identical to American liberalism and progressivism, is why the Counter Culture/Political Correctness movement has had so much success in the United States. (22)

Drawing on Saul Alinsky’s infamous Rules for Radicals, McElroy explains how Cultural Marxists provoke their opponents into reacting (e.g. threatening to take down historical monuments, ordering “gay cakes”) and then denounce them as irrational “reactionaries.” Another tactic is to create problems, or interpret problems, in such a manner that permits the proposal of Marxist “solutions.” I thought that an analysis of Alinsky’s works might provoke a deeper reading from McElroy, who writes that Alinsky was “an atheist.” In fact, Alinsky was an agnostic who, when asked specifically about religion, would always reply that he was Jewish. This error is indicative of a broader blind spot in the text — the ethnic component of anti-American activism. This blind spot manifests more subtly throughout the lexicon of Cultural Marxist terms that comprises the middle of the book. Quite frankly, when one actually looks at the individuals who have coined or popularized many of these genuinely novel agitprop terms (e.g. ‘homophobia’ by George Weinberg, ‘deconstructionism’ by Jacques Derrida, ‘racism’ by Magnus Hirschfeld and Leon Trotsky, ‘transgender’ by Magnus Hirschfeld and later Harry Benjamin, ‘sex work” and ‘sex worker’ by Carol Leigh, ‘cultural pluralism’ by Horace Kallen), they emerge almost exclusively as Jews. It’s a simple and unavoidable fact that Jews have been at the forefront of changing “ways of seeing” by first changing “ways of describing.” I agree with McElroy that we shouldn’t call anti-American agitators “liberals,” and that “Leftists” also leaves a lot unsaid. McElroy, however, proposes “PC Marxists,” which I feel doesn’t get any closer to the mark.

The question presenting itself is: Does this blind spot hinder the usefulness of the text? I don’t think so. Agitprop in America can be read by the well-informed, such as readers of this website, who can fill in certain blanks (as I have above) from their own extensive reading and derive a great deal of knowledge and pleasure from the book. McElroy opines that the two greatest identifying attitudinal markers of “PC Marxism” are hypocrisy and paranoia. He writes that they vigorously enforce “separation of church and state,” and fully embrace “crony capitalism.” Rather than being genuine Americans, they merely “go about in the guise” of the everyday man, while looking down on those who dissent from their thinking in the belief they’re “stupid.” They “relentlessly insist on social justice.” Who does this sound like? And, so you see, specifics of nomenclature aside, the book lends itself to an open and usable reading.

The second chapter of the book contains some interesting autobiographical material on McElroy’s early academic career. In 1966, the same year our own Kevin MacDonald graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, McElroy, a newly minted PhD, arrived at the college. McElroy writes, “Without knowing it, I was going to one of the two epicenters of the Counter Culture movement in the Midwest, the other being the University of Michigan.” McElroy became especially fascinated with the chants of student protestors, seeing in their uniformity certain indications of “planning for a nationwide campaign of agitation and propaganda against U.S. military involvement in Vietnam and against America’s cultural beliefs.” The chapter proceeds with a discussion of the mindset and tactics of this early agitprop campaign, with McElroy commenting:

Normal minds of course find it difficult to believe in a “culture war” that has gone on for half a century and that aims to transform the world’s oldest, most successful republic into a center for Cultural Marxism. Because the project is so audacious, it has taken many middle-class Americans a long time to believe such a movement exists; and many middle-class Americans apparently still refuse to believe a systematic assault is underway on American culture and has been going on in America for fifty years. But whether you believe it or not, a culture war is in progress in America, as evidenced by the fact that many Americans now prefer the dogmas of Marxism to the beliefs of American culture.

The second part of the book consists of the above-mentioned 107-page lexicon of 234 terms explaining the invention and employment of language as a method of cultural transformation via agitprop. The lexicon itself is preceded by two brief explanatory chapters on “Politically Correct Language as a Means of Revolution,” and “Terms Related to and Used by the Counter Culture/Political Correctness Movement.” The first of these chapters is very heavily focused on McElroy’s belief that we should once more refer to Blacks as “Negroes” or “Negro Americans.” For McElroy, the term “African-American” is an “agitprop substitute” designed to make Whites and Blacks constantly aware “that most Negro Americans have remote ancestors brought to America from Africa in chains as slaves.” The author spends several pages thrashing out this issue, which left me quite unsure that this particular issue would be the metaphorical hill I’d personally choose to die on. McElroy comes from a generation in which the term “Negro” probably retained a semblance of tradition and even charm about it, whereas it’s now fallen so completely out of use that a resurrection of the term could only be perceived by all sides as something negative. Again, I actually do sympathize with the central thrust of McElroy’s meaning here. I’m just not convinced I’d base my war on agitprop so strongly in this particular issue.

My misgivings on this point carried through somewhat to the lexicon itself, which is overwhelmingly good but contains some dubious entries. McElroy must first be commended for compiling such an extension list of terms, which is, as far as I’m aware, the only ‘Rightist” lexicon of Cultural Marxist agitprop in existence. Each term comes with commentary, with some only a few sentences in length and others a few pages. A few examples should suffice in order to give a flavor of the style:

Ableism
A faux bias cooked up by PC agitprop, ableism is an alleged prejudice against a person with a disability as, for instance, refusing to hire someone with a stutter or substandard comprehension of spoken English as an office receptionist. Not hiring a person with a patently disqualifying deficiency constitutes the prejudice of “ableism,” according to PC Marxists. See entry on “Sizeism.”

Person of Size
Someone who is extremely obese is a “person of size” in PC talk. The euphemism was invented as part of agitprop’s insistence on the need for sensitive, inoffensive diction.

Relationship
The expression “having a relationship” means in PC parlance having sex with the same partner for a significant length of time without getting married. To a PC Marxist, “having a relationship” is preferable to having a marriage because it forestalls family formation.

Right-Wing Extremism
“Right-wing extremism” is one of the labels PC Marxists use to criticize their opponents, whom they regard as “extreme” because they put the interests of their nation above the revolutionary dogmas of global Marxism.

Sexual Orientation
This is the PC euphemism for homosexuality. The euphemism was coined to avoid the use of the words “homosexual” and “homosexuality.” The phrase “sexual orientation” allows persons who are politically correct to praise and promote homosexual behavior without having to use the terms “homosexual” or “homosexuality,” which are loaded with a historical burden of moral disapproval. The term “sexual orientation,” however, has a scientific ring to it implying that homosexuality is merely one of various “orientations” toward sexual activity, so that no one should object to it. Homosexual practices ought to be considered as any other erotic activity. This is the argument agitprop in America is making in its revolutionary assault.

With over 230 terms covered, many of them very current in contemporary internet culture, McElroy is to be applauded for his effort in both compiling the list and keeping his finger on the agitprop pulse. The few dubious entries emerge from McElroy’s apparently fundamentalist Christian beliefs, which lead him to a few scathing remarks on evolution, the Big Bang theory, etc. This is McElroy’s book, and it’s his right to wax lyrical on some matters that are clearly close to his heart. I’m certainly not disparaging his approach, but I do think that this might alienate readers who are of a more scientific and less spiritual mindset. That being said, he has produced a great piece of work in this lexicon.

The third section of the book is probably my favorite, and McElroy demonstrates the best of his reading and understanding here. The section consists of commentaries/chapters covering “seven related revolutionary concepts that PC agitprop has imposed on America.” These are “Biological Class Consciousness,” “Social Justice,” “Mandatory Diversity,” a politics of double standards, mass indoctrination on “sensitivity,” censorship and the policing of speech, and the promotion of a sterile and self-obsessed atheism. Of these, the first is one of the best, with McElroy remarking:

Now, after five decades of relentless Marxist agitation and propaganda promoting biological class consciousness in America, courses on U.S. history and Western civilization have dwindled and all but disappeared at American colleges and universities while courses on biological class consciousness have proliferated. Everywhere today in U.S. institutions of higher education, one finds courses and degree programs in Women’s Studies, African-American Studies, Mexican-American Studies, and LGBT studies. And as college and university faculties have become more uniform in their Political Correctness, the courses on U.S. history and Western civilization which remain in the curriculum are almost invariably taught from the point of view of Marxian class struggle, which is to say from the standpoint that straight “Euro-American” males (SEAMs) comprise a ruling class which has “victimized” women, negro Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, homosexuals, and other biologically defined classes. College students today are being taught to hate SEAMs as a class for the “victimisation” they have allegedly inflicted on all other biological classes in America.(180)

McElroy is equally on point when it comes to “social justice,” suggesting that the term really refers to “the idea of preferential treatment for members of allegedly oppressed classes. It is justice dispensed according to class history … “Social justice” is political justice. It expresses political favoritism that will advance the revolution.” The author is also good on the subject of “Mandatory Diversity,” pointing out just how incentivized this has become in our culture and economy:

A reputation for being “diverse” is something institutions throughout America today are eager to acquire. Being “diverse” has become a political, economic, and academic requirement, a much-coveted accolade, a shibboleth attesting to one’s Political Correctness. (220)

On “sensitivity” agitprop, McElroy observes that “the real purpose of the sensitivity game is intimidation.” Enforced “soft language” for protected groups creates an atmosphere in which deviation into normal speech can be chastized as hateful, unfair, and bigoted. The wider the sensitivity net (e.g. embracing the fat, the ugly, etc.) then the more successful will be the broader cultural strategy. It is an offensive built on “not offending.” The same themes are evident in censorship and the policing of speech.

The final section of the book consists of five short chapters on differing subjects. The first is a commentary on “The Failure of Marxism in the USSR and Successes of PC Marxism in America” which combines an interesting historical overview with a quite strident attack on the Obama years. The next chapter is a brief but lucid essay on how agitprop and PC Marxism has influenced U.S. government spending. The third, and shortest chapter in this section is an attempted rebuttal of the idea that America has become an imperialist nation. I tend to disagree with McElroy somewhat here, not because I believe America has an empire in the conventional sense, but because I believe it’s self-evident that elements of the U.S. government, most notably the neocons, have increasingly steered the country into a foreign interventionist position built around the idea of sustaining global finance capitalism and the state of Israel. Since McElroy’s musings on this topic are limited to a few pages, I was, however, spared any lasting distaste.

—The book then nears its end with a very good chapter on “PC Marxist Dominance in U.S. Public Schools,” before closing with a very pro-Trump chapter on “The Significance of the 2016 Presidential Election.” I was ambivalent about this last chapter because it lacks the nuanced and qualified approach to Trump’s 2016 win that is surely now, in light of a succession of policy failures and absences, much-deserved. Part of me wishes I could share McElroy’s optimism, and I laud any man of his advanced age for avoiding the temptation of observing it all with jaded distance. But I cannot, having considered all available evidence and precedence, share his persistent belief in the MAGA phenomenon.

Final Reflection on Agitprop in America

John Harmon McElroy’s work of catharsis is a worthy addition to the Arktos library, and offers an original and multifaceted new approach to the subject of America’s undeniable and ongoing decay. At almost 400 pages of commentaries on numerous subjects, including a large lexicon of Cultural Marxist terms, the book certainly represents value for money and will consume many hours of study. Of course, it doesn’t have “all the answers,” something it has in common with the vast majority of political texts on the market, but it does approach a normally pessimistic subject with intellectual vigor, aggression, confidence, and even optimism. It’s a book worthy of being “balanced out” by the later reading of another text like Sunic’s Homo Americanus, and I think readers can gain much from such an exercise. Readers could also benefit by conducting some of their own research into the origins of certain agitprop terms. McElroy includes several blank pages at the end of his book for “notes,” which could be put to use in this manner. As hinted at earlier in this review, I guarantee that readers will find some predictable but useful information in the process.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Cultural Marxism, Political Correctness 
Hide 58 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Svevlad says:

    The biggest con of all is the term cultural marxism itself

    Marxism seeks to make equal all peoples in an economic context. That makes sense and is fine. Therefore, cultural marxism would logically seeks to make all peoples equal in a cultural sense.

    However, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Cultural marxist appear to behave as their job is already complete – that all cultures etc are equal. But they are not. Heck, literal imperialists, nationalists and fascists are bigger cultural marxist than the cultural marxists, merely because encouraging assimilation (making people equal by giving them the same culture) and eugenics (eliminating the biological flaws that make cultures unequal) are the things that ACTUALLY give cultures the ability to be equal.

    But, as for nazbol gangist kids rehabilitating the frankfurt school, I doubt it, never seen that happen!

    • Replies: @Kim
  2. Kim says:

    One of the more scurrilous PC terminologies is the use of “anal sex” as a euphemism for sodomy or buggery.

    There is nothing about putting or accepting a penis into the rectum that is concerned with sex. It is mental illness and nothing else.

  3. Kim says:
    @Svevlad

    Marxism seeks to make equal all peoples in an economic context. That makes sense and is fine.

    So much that is wrong with this.

    First, you have been taken in by the (((Marxist))) propaganda. Marxists certainly describe themselves as having certain superficially well-motivated or supposedly laudable goals. But they do not in fact subscribe to these goals at all. They are lying to you. They want only one thing: power. End of story.

    Second, it does not in fact “make sense” as you claim to want to make all peoples equal “in an economic context”. The first difficulty is to decide what would it even mean to do that. And how would one go about doing it? Would you take from the more productive or the more careful and give it to, say, the lazier and more profligate? Would you take it from the hardworking middle class or the farmer and give it out to felons and the those who make no plans, no efforts, and think nothing for the future? Would that be your idea of making “sense”?

    And (((who))) would be (self)delegated to make these decisions about what is fair and what is not? The person or people to whom that power was delegated would be immensely powerful. Would they also be incorruptible? Or would only the very worst scramble to occupy and exploit such positions of power?

    Isn’t this same idea of putting masters above ourselves to tell us what is unfair and what is not the precise source of the daily-ever-more-dystopic conditions of daily life in the crumbling West?

    What you are suggesting is neither fine nor makes any sense at all. In fact, it invites the construction of a nightmare society.

  4. Svevlad says:
    @Kim

    And yet you assume that that can only be accomplished by, well, taking from the hard-working. That’s even bigger marxist peopaganda. Unlike 90% of human beings, I have the ability to butcher any ideology into what I see fit for it, and I very muxh recommend that such a way of thinking be instituted worldwide

    As for how would I make everyone equal without crab in a buxket tier dragging the others down…

    Well, by changing people on a basal level, of course. I’d be the only regime where gene modification and any other enhancements are mandatory the instant they’re released

    • Replies: @Kim
  5. Kim says:
    @Svevlad

    As for how would I make everyone equal without crab in a buxket tier dragging the others down…

    Well, by changing people on a basal level, of course. I’d be the only regime where gene modification and any other enhancements are mandatory the instant they’re released

    Of course! Change people on the basal level! Why didn’t I think of that?

    (Oh good, here come the guys with the butterfly nets.)

  6. Exile says:

    I also think that, in an age where it’s becoming commonplace among Rightist millennials to dismiss “Boomers” and throw themselves headlong into a “NazBol” Third Positionism that in some respects rehabilitates or repurposes aspects of Marxism and even the Frankfurt School…

    I’m not sure where Dr. Joyce is getting the impression that there is some growing “NazBol” constituency that merits concern.

    With all due respect, the critiques of Capitalism 2020 that I’ve heard over the last few years in Third Position discussions are 95%+ free of pro-Marxist or Frankfurt School agitprop. Almost everyone reads Occidental Observer’s great JQ coverage (Unz Review as well) and they’re almost universally suspicious of Bolshevism based on its Jewish roots alone, much less its poor historic track record.

    There are also some guys who suggest we turn Frankfurt School tactics against their (((inventors))) but few if any would advocate using such tactics on their own people in ethno-states with politically legitimate elites.

    There’s a lot of justified rage at the economic oppression we suffer under Jewish-led global finance capital, but almost everyone recognizes that you can’t ultimately solve Jewish-created problems with Jewish solutions.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
  7. Vaterland says:

    Dear Lord, I am bathing in confirmation bias.

    I haven’t read something in ages which outlines so crystal clear that the USA has no right wing at all! American “conservatives” are just nice guy liberals with really gay ideals. What does the American “conservative” find objectionable about SJWs? That they are authoritarian and hierarchical, that they force his opinion, that they disturb his egocentric apathy which he was able to confuse for a life time with peace of the soul. If the American woke left offered their ideas as an option, new PRODUCT to consume, he would have nothing to reject them. A new Lexus, a new hair dress for the Misses and a new gender upgrade – now with 50% discount for gender reassignment surgery and a free dress for the first ten callers! – Except maybe an unclear defined “cultural Christianity”, but again, protestant, anti-clerical, anti-hierarchical and individualistic, protoliberal. He stands on quicksand.

    Which brings me directly to the gigantic cognitive dissonance of US “conservatives”, especially the anti-Semites: They reject authority, hierarchy, nobility by and purity of blood, inheritance and inequality. They embrace LIBERTY, freedom and indeed equality – just the more classical one against the European aristocracy. And they are upset when radical liberal Tikun Olam Jews advocate for…equality, liberation and the destruction of the old hierarchy. I had to laugh out several times when reading this review article, loudly. Needless to say they also share the anti-racist and anti-fascist consensus.

    As the protestant felt oppressed by the clergy, Pope, catholic church and dogmatic catechism, as the old American felt oppressed by the European aristocrat, the New American feels oppressed by his gender, fat and slut shaming, or hetero-normative value system and scientific objectivity. Why not take some courses in the den of vipers for your understanding improvement? I am a ‘clerical fascist’ and got quite friendly with a Swiss girl who majored in gender studies. A perk that one naturally acquires when moving in Western Buddhist circles. And there is at least one very prominent Anglo liberal who fulfills all the characteristics of “crypsis” that Jews are charged with: Ajahn Brahm.

    There is less cognitive dissonance in a Russian having a Tsar Nikolaus II. and Stalin tattoo on his back than an American conservative protesting SJWs and so called PC culture. And indeed even Stalinism was more ‘reactionary’ than classical Anglo/American liberalism; the USA was and is more progressive than the Soviet Union since and post Stalin. Which is exactly why both American progressives and US Jews hate it and equate Putin with Stalin. Thank Adorno (who converted to Protestantism) the American “conservative” has the Frankfurt School to blame the ills of American liberalism on! A liberalism he calls his conservatism. This way he can slumber into the grave dreaming of the 1950s, almost half a century post the establishment of the Federal Reserve and when the USA had a global manufacturing monopoly, because Europe was in ruins also thanks to US carpet bombing and ‘dehousing strategy’ (Spoiler: designed by Jews), in their alliance with Uncle Joe.

    This is quite sad…But it becomes ever more clear that the USA is a lost cause for the actual right. Not only will it become a minority white nation, already a reality among its newborn, but there will never be an actual right-wing in North America as long as the USA as a state and concept exists. And why, as Heidegger quite clearly understood, the influence of the USA over Europe is an absolute disaster. Obvious also in the technocratic term ‘Western civilization’: this oxymoron to describe a situation when a state, established in rejection of, opposition to and war against Europe, had risen to the rank of its hegemon. A plutocratic Freemason-Jewish project from the beginning just as the Rothschild funded French Revolution.

    And American “conservatives” can misdirect all they like: the objective and verifiable reality is that the foundations of what they call ‘cultural Marxism’ were designed in the USA. The beginnings at the turn of the last century, with Jewish and Freemason money mostly and directed by the US government. Herbert Marcuse, grandfather of PC, was an OSS agent for war propaganda for crying out loud! Then it really took off in those oh so praised 1950s with the Macy Conferences and the grand design to reeducate both Europe and the USA, which had already been largely successful in the USA over the last decades since the great depression.

    As hated and misunderstood as Richard Spencer was and is by American “conservatives”, because he exposes them for the frauds that they are, his ideas were for the most part rather consistent. Anglo-American liberalism and Tikun Olam Jews really are a match made in hell, just as European protestant progressives and the same class of Ashkenazi. Amerika ist unser Verhängnis.

  8. With all due respect, Dr. Joyce, I think I’ll be skipping this book. The general notion that Jewish ‘intellectuals’ pollute and distort language for their own, nefarious ends we’ve known since at least George Orwell, if not since (((Edward Bernays))).

    Moreover, the reason why we’re Third Positionists is not because we hate boomers, but because we realize that the Capitalism/Communism dichotomy they bought into is a completely false one. Those two ideological ‘poles’ are essentially controlled–indeed, in their modern forms, were invented–by the same Rothschild banking mafia, so no matter which side wins, (((they))) win–and we all lose.

    Although the America of today has thickened and bubbled into a globalist empire, it was indeed founded, as McElroy reminds us “on belief in man’s unalienable birthright to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and government by consent of the governed” … the drift away from European culture resulted in hostility to European traditions, and an obsession with “rights” and individualistic consumerism, that has dogged America for over a century and has contributed heavily to its current cultural malaise.

    I’m not saying that America in 1776 was as bad as it is now, but the more I investigate its founding, the more I realize that, at a high level, the fix was probably in from the start. Probably about half of the Founding Fathers were ardent Masons who just adored their little Jews. George Washington himself was a 33rd degree Mason, and when he hired fellow Masons to design the capital city which now bears his name, they festooned it with pentagrams and other symbols. So it turns out that the modern Pentagon has a certain heritage!

    http://freemasonrywatch.org/washington.html

    The few dubious entries emerge from McElroy’s apparently fundamentalist Christian beliefs, which lead him to a few scathing remarks on evolution, the Big Bang theory, etc.

    This would be another reason to be sceptical of McElroy’s book. The Christian fundamentalists themselves have to accept at least some of the blame for starting this deplorable trend toward prizing words (or ‘the Word’) above objective reality. Their disbelief in science–I mean real science, of course, not the fake ‘revolutionary science’ of the Hegelians and Bolsheviks–helped in a general sense pave the way for the French post-modernism of the 60s and 70s (“There is nothing but the text,” as Derridà would say), and for the general contempt in which true science is now held by the SJWs. Why else would post-modernist wackjobs like Stanley Fish spend so much time defending Christian (and sometimes even Moslem) fundies?

    Mind you, I am not against religion per se; I just don’t think that sola-scriptura fundamentalism is the way forward. (And BTW, I suspect that McElroy’s general reluctance to engage with the Judenfrage is largely a function of his low-church Protestant fundamentalism. Historically, whatever cultural penetration the Jew-mafia couldn’t achieve through Masonism, they were often able to achieve through sola-scriptura fundamentalism. The infamous Scofield Reference Bible is a case in point.)

    • Agree: Exile, 3g4me
  9. @Kim

    One of the more scurrilous PC terminologies is the use of “anal sex” as a euphemism for sodomy or buggery.

    There is nothing about putting or accepting a penis into the rectum that is concerned with sex. It is mental illness and nothing else.

    LGBT(Q) is just code for mental illness.

  10. @Vaterland

    You may find brevity useful.

    The dilemma as highlighted above with people like McElroy is the blind spot. Thus, Joyce’s advice for readers is to ‘fill in certain blanks’.

    Similarly when most Europeans often complain about ‘American’ cultural imperialism they really mean organized Jewry e.g the swarms of ‘locusts’ (private equity funds and investment banks) that years back Franz Müntefering of the the Social Democratic Party claimed were ‘devouring’ German companies.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
  11. @Vaterland

    You may find brevity useful.

    The dilemma as highlighted above with people like McElroy is the blind spot. Thus, Joyce’s advice for readers of the book is to ‘fill in certain blanks’.

    Likewise U.S.Evangelicals bleat about the hostile anti-family media, abortion clinics, the ACLU etc but gloss over disproportionate Jewish involvement.

    Similarly most Europeans often complain about ‘American’ cultural imperialism when they really mean organized Jewry e.g the swarms of ‘locusts’ (private equity funds and investment banks) that years back Franz Müntefering of the the Social Democratic Party claimed were ‘devouring’ German companies.

    • Replies: @Parsnipitous
  12. anonymous[411] • Disclaimer says:

    a normally pessimistic subject with intellectual vigor, aggression, confidence, and even optimism

    What is there to be optimistic about?

  13. Although the America of today has thickened and bubbled into a globalist empire,

    Ha! Sounds like someone is familiar with this poem by the great Robinson Jeffers (I even made a permanent copy on the side of the building I lived in a couple or three blocks from the heart of the thickening center: K St, Washington, DC):

  14. Thankyou Andrew for an even-handed review.

    “Because the project is so audacious, it has taken many middle-class Americans a long time to believe such a movement exists; and many middle-class Americans apparently still refuse to believe a systematic assault is underway on American culture and has been going on in America for fifty years”

    It beggars belief that this Cultural Marxist takeover, articulately laid out in stages so long ago and the American people still cannot see what has been done to them – over a period of decades.

    Listen specifically for what Bezmenov says about demoralization:

    [quote]

    “But in reality, the main emphasis is … to change the perception of reality of every American to such extent that despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their communities and their country.”

    [Russian defector] Bezmenov on demoralization in America (5:08)

    Note 1: Recall that this interview took place during the Cold War.

    Note 2 : A much longer i/view with Bezmenov is available on YT.

  15. Miro23 says:

    Of course, it doesn’t have “all the answers,” something it has in common with the vast majority of political texts on the market, but it does approach a normally pessimistic subject with intellectual vigor, aggression, confidence, and even optimism.

    Talking about approaching the subject with vigor, aggression , confidence, and even optimism – that Austrian person faced the same issues (the first time round) in Jewish dominated Weimar Germany with its Bolshevik/Marxist agitprop and coups.

    Reflecting later on events, his conclusions were:

    “Since the beginning of my political activity, I have made it a rule not to curry favour with the bourgeoisie. The political attitude of that class is marked by the sign of cowardice. It concerns itself exclusively with order and tranquility, and we know in what sense to understand that. I aimed instead to awaken the enthusiasm of the working class world for my ideas. The first years of my struggle were therefore concentrated on the object: win over the worker to the National Socialist Party. Here is how I set about it:

    1. I followed the example of the Marxist parties by putting up posters in the most striking red.

    2. I used propaganda trucks that were literally carpeted with posters of a flaming red, equipped with equally red flags and occupied by thundering loud-speakers.

    3. I saw to it that all the initiates of the movement came to meetings without stiff collars and without ties, adopting the free-and-easy style so as to get the workers into their confidence.

    4. As for the bourgeois elements who, without being real fanatics, wanted to join the ranks of the National Socialist Party, I did everything to put them off – resorting to bawled out propaganda, dishevelled clothes etc. My object was to rid myself right from the beginning of the revolutionaries in rabbit’s pelts.

    5. I ordered our protective service to treat our opponents roughly and chuck them out of our meetings with so little mildness that the enemy press – which otherwise would have ignored our gatherings – used to make much of the blows, and wounds they gave rise to, and thus called attention to them.

    6. I sent a few of our own people to take a course in public speaking in the schools organized by the other parties. Thanks to this, we obtained a good insight into the arguments that would be used by those sent to heckle our meetings, and we were thus in a position to silence them the moment they opened their mouths. I dealt with the women from the Marxist camp who took part in the discussions by making them look ridiculous, by drawing attention either to the holes in their stockings or to the fact that their children were filthy. To convince women by reasoned argument is always impossible; to have them roughly handled by the ushers of the meeting would have aroused public indignation, so our best plan was to have recourse to ridicule, and this produced excellent results.

    7. At all our meetings, I always spoke extempore. I had however, a number of Party members in the audience, with orders to interrupt along lines carefully prepared to give the impression of a spontaneous expression of public opinion, and these interruptions greatly strengthened the force of my own arguments.

    8. If the police intervened, women of our Party were given the task of drawing their attention either to opponents or to completely unknown people who happened to find themselves near the entrance to the hall. In cases like this, the police invariably go about their job quite blindly, like a pack of hounds, and we found that this method was most efficacious, both for ridding ourselves of undesirable elements of the audience and for getting rid of the police themselves.

    9. I disorganized the meetings of other Parties by sending members of our Party in the guise of ushers to maintain order, but in reality with instructions to riot and break up the meeting.

    By the judicious use of the above methods, I succeeded in winning the support of such large numbers of the better elements of the working classes that, in the last elections that took place before our assumption of power, I was able to organize no fewer than a hundred and eighty thousand Party meetings.

    Julius Streicher rendered particularly valuable service in our struggle to gain the support of the working classes. And now it is he whom we must thank for the capture of Nuremburg, that one-time stronghold of Marxism.

    HTT Conversation Nº 185 8th April 1941

  16. RG says:

    Interesting review. Not enough to make me run out and buy a copy, and our dinky local library won’t put even a donated copy on the shelf: not enough Pollyanna. The local ‘university’ had a good collection, but then they ‘modernized’ it so that it is a ‘coffee-lounge.’

    As with most stuff written that has any historical (is that hysterical?) content, it does not appear to admit that AMERICANS are bellicose and greedy. The first settlers were a greedy murderous lot. We’ve built a patina of righteousness on murdering land grabbers (ask any native American). The only difference between now and our bowdlerized history is that we now have an empire that is doing to the rest of the world what we have and are doing to ourselves. Americans don’t give a tinkers dam about anything except making sure we don’t end up with less personally … .

    We aren’t, white, black, et al, concerned about anything but our own greedy little selves.

    Thanks for allowing the rant …

    RG

    • Troll: Richard B
    • Replies: @anon
  17. padre says:

    Marxism never was about equal, but about fair distribution of wealth!

  18. From what I can gather from this critique of “Agitprop in America” it has some very useful points within a general theory which is vitiated by a total distortion of history based (as the Joyce suggests) on the author’s own ideological obsessions.
    Political correctness, “wokeness”, SJW’ism, & progressivism are all squeezed into that ever “sexy”, ever sophisticated, ever horrifying epithet “Marxism”.
    Marxian ? On the basis of an assortment of (largely French & German … & Jewish) intellectuals in the 50’s & 60’s ?
    Marxian because “the courses on U.S. history and Western civilization which remain in the curriculum are almost invariably taught from the point of view of Marxian class struggle, which is to say from the standpoint that straight “Euro-American” males (SEAMs) comprise a ruling class which has “victimized” women, negro Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, homosexuals, and other biologically defined classes.” “Biological class”? Is he kidding ? If homosexuals are included why not “golfers” or the “left handed”? What about the bald — they’re victimized. The next time you come across a specimen of “white trailer trash” please remember you are dealing with the “ruling class”…. These categories of people are the opposite of “classes”. They are splinters of what’s left of a smashed (blue & white collared) “working class”.

    There is little to nothing Marxian about PC. In fact, the opposite: PC has become (& always has been) a fully co-opted cultural movement serving Elite ends.

    PC is, in the first instance, a pressure valve. With the advent of neoliberalism in the late 70’s the possibility of political/economic change became essentially zero. To divert attention from the ever rising tide of neoliberal mutation of politics & the economy Elites were basically happy to allow the children in universities & public service etc to culturally “progress”. While SJW’s etc are shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic, they’re not thinking about storming the bridge to take control of the ship.
    Has anyone noticed the the vast bulk of the “woke” are quite keen, indeed avid, to climb the hierarchy, to amass money & to accumulate houses, cars, stocks & bonds ? And as McElroy rightly points out — they love Power. Revolutionary, (in its truest sense) they are not.
    Does anyone really think billionaires really care whether they exploit women, blacks, homosexuals etc ? Does anyone think they really care that the individuals in some groups may “do well” — have good jobs, successful businesses etc ?
    Indeed, certain…shall we say, tribal elements among Elites pushed hard for “progressive” issues.
    Internal social splintering, is paralleled by international splintering. Neoconservationism is the handmaiden of neoliberalism. Smash up countries into smaller states (Yugoslavia),or non-functional states (Iraq, Libya, Ukraine etc) & your enemies & competitors are weakened … & your friends strengthened (Israel).

    “Agitprop in America” is incorrect in theory — but it has some very useful points to make — for instance: “On “sensitivity” agitprop, McElroy observes that “the real purpose of the sensitivity game is intimidation.” Enforced “soft language” for protected groups creates an atmosphere in which deviation into normal speech can be chastized as hateful, unfair, and bigoted.” That, is spot on.

    • Replies: @Parsnipitous
  19. Anonymous[339] • Disclaimer says:
    @Vaterland

    I haven’t read something in ages which outlines so crystal clear that the USA has no right wing at all! American “conservatives” are just nice guy liberals with really gay ideals.

    Pretty much, yes.

    That is about to change.

    The “American Conservatives” you have met are byproducts of the American cities. Those cities are increasingly unable to govern themselves and maintain their essential infrastructure. They serve no economic purpose and the unrest there is merely an expression of this, a rage against the dying of the light. One can hardly blame them- everything they depend upon for food and shelter is failing.

    Do not go gentle into that good night,
    Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
    (https://poets.org/poem/do-not-go-gentle-good-night)

    There are no-urban “American Conservatives” of the sort who fought the Indian Wars when the American Indian was a serious foe who routinely tortured prisoners until the prisoners died. They aren’t anything you would recognized as Conservatives, but that will be their function — conserving what’s left after the cities finish dying.

  20. Franz says:

    The book opens with the contention that “since the 1960s Marxists and their sympathizers in America have been using agitprop… to destroy America’s culture and build Cultural Marxism.

    Since when???

    The Red Thirties was the gateway, and they already had Hollywood and Broadway before that decade ended. They kept pretend-Americanism alive because they had a large chunk of Europe to cauterize and so they played the patriot game.

    But by the end of the 1940s nonetheless, novels and plays were dealing with homosexuality and various other offensive (under the old Code) issues without a murmur.

    Before the mid-fifties we had pornography in most of its flavors. The girlie magazines like Playboy were the tip of the iceberg; via mail order the harder stuff was available cheap. And the last year of the decade included in the top ten films of the year Suddenly Last Summer, which dealt with homosexuality, murder, and cannibalism… hard to beat that bundle in the Eisenhower years.

    By the 60s all you saw was the Red Thirties legacy. Commie students of 1935 were passing the stick to their epigonoi, the most docile and conformist commie students of the late 50s and early 60s. Between them they led a well-covered number of draft riots. They were well-covered because the same commies running the universities were running the media.

    By the 70s it was all in place. Consolidation is still in progress, but moving lots faster.

    • Agree: Old and Grumpy
    • Thanks: Parsnipitous
  21. onebornfree says: • Website

    Kill Marxism NOW! [ And all other idiotic collectivism/statism variants, e.g. : “socialism”, “fascism”, “communism” etc. etc.]

    Lock down the government NOW! [or, even better, flat out abolish it]

    “..the very idea of the State itself is poisonous, evil, and intrinsically destructive. But, like so many bad ideas, people have come to assume it’s part of the cosmic firmament, when it’s really just a monstrous scam.

    Even though the essence of the State is coercion, people have been taught to love and respect it. Most people think of the State in the quaint light of a grade school civics book. They think it has something to do with “We the People” electing a Jimmy Stewart character to represent them.

    That ideal has always been a pernicious fiction, because it idealizes, sanitizes, and legitimizes an intrinsically evil and destructive institution, which is based on force. As Mao once said, political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.” Doug Casey
    https://www.caseyresearch.com/daily-dispatch/doug-casey-the-deep-state-is-responsible-for-all-economic-turmoil/

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Replies: @onebornfree
  22. GeeBee says:

    While I read this review with great interest, I cannot help concluding that neither Mr McElroy nor Andrew Joyce appear to understand the fundamentals of what McElroy calls ‘PC Marxism’. By which I mean, what is the endgame? What are its key objectives? I know the answer to these questions, but am left doubting – at least from reading this piece – that either McElroy or Joyce does. When Joyce writes: ‘ “Social justice” is political justice. It expresses political favoritism that will advance the revolution” he very much seems to confirm my fears. Revolution forsooth! The agitprop/Left agenda has no such outcome in mind.

    Oh of course, its foot-soldiers among Antifa and BLM might well entertain such fond delusions. But the motive force behind this appalling process, that seeks the dismantling of Western culture and society – the brains and the money, to put it crudely – has a very different outcome in mind.

    In order to understand today’s world in general, and the subject of McElvoy’s thesis in particular, one must grasp the absolutely key point about today’s ‘Left’, which is to say that it has been not merely tamed by the vampire squid that is Neoliberal Globalism/Finance Capitalism, but has been successfully co-opted as its indispensable tool. Or to put it in the modern argot, the Left is today no more than the Globalists’ bitch.

    Insofar as the Globalist NWO wishes fundamentally to change the world, in order further to accommodate its endgame, then indeed, something ‘revolutionary’ is planned. But this is about as diametrically opposed to Marxist dreams of ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ – or of any other Leftist interpretation of what is meant by ‘revolution’ – as it’s possible to get. What is planned for the ‘proles’ is a nightmare version of Orwell’s dystopian satire Nineteen Eighty-Four . One in which the ‘Inner Party’ comprises the new breed of internationalist oligarchs (most of whom are bereft of a prepuce) who regard themselves as being above mere governments – excluding, of course, that tiny eastern Mediterranean state that used to be Palestine.

    • Agree: MrFoSquare
  23. Truth3 says:

    Agitprop?

    You mean Joopropaganda.

    Better known as JooP.

    More noxious than Poop.

    • Replies: @Maddaugh
  24. Maddaugh says:

    Yet another 400 page book of gobble thee gook from a Professor ?

    Some points to consider:

    1. The education system is broken and these guys are graduating fools
    2. These are the fellows who will accept a donkey into an Ivy League establishment for a bribe (I really meant a contribution) and grant a Phd to the poor beast
    3. Get into a conversation with them or just say nothing at all and the most alarming bunk spills out of their educated mouths

    Then. they write a 400 page book of sheer nonsense ! I think I will keep my $59.95 plus tax in my pocket and will excuse myself from getting this trash from the Library. For the time being I will stick with the funnies, they make more sense and are better for my psyche.

  25. Maddaugh says:
    @Truth3

    I will try to get a copy for 0.50c at the Salvation Army. In case of another shutdown it would make ideal toilet paper, 400 pages of ass wipe at that price is a great bargain.

  26. Dr E. Michael Jones, beginning page 1000 in “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its impact in world history observes:

    October 1976: The Jewish takeover of American Discourse

    In October 1976, Leo Pfeffer arrived in Philadelphia to give a talk entitled “Issues that Divide: the Triumph of Secular Humanism.” In that talk, Pfeffer declared Victory in the culture wars and announced the Jews had defeated the Catholics in their 40 years war over American culture. The terms of the Carthaginian peace imposed on the defeated American Catholics included abortion, pornography, the loss of Catholic academe, the redefinition of deviance, and the transformation of discourse. In a formal sense, i.e., in reference to literary criticism, that meant war on Logos. It also meant the end of the New Criticism as everyman’s democratic
    version of Sola Scriptura and its replacement with Talmudic exegesis. Catholics who began their literary careers learning the Protestant rule that every man had the right to interpret his own text, now had to be re-trained in rules of discourse according to which the Rabbi was always right.

    At around the same time that Woody Allen was being celebrated as the great American genius, Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish changed the rules of discourse in American academic circles. Literary criticism was no longer Protestant; it was Talmudic. Those who signed up for literature classes to learn how to read a poem,now learned that there was, as Fish put it, “no text.” No text meant any constitutional principle could be subverted by Talmudic reasoning by rabbis like Leo Pfeffer; and that any human right, such as the right to life, could be subverted similarly. No text meant there was no such thing as nature, as the campaign to legitimatize homosexuality showed. It also meant there was no substance or being, as Derrida’s attack on “onto-theology” showed.

    There was a deeper grammar to this discussion, which eventuated in the campus political correctness speech codes of the 1990s. The heart of that code wasn’t racial; it wasn’t feminist; it wasn’t homosexual; it was Jewish and expressing Jewish culture at its worst. Political correctness was the final expression of the Talmudic redefinition of American discourse
    which had begun in the ’70s under the direction of Jewish critical theorists like Fish and Derrida.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Who owns Hollywood and The American Media?

    It ain’t the mormons.

    It is The Jews and it is they who control all discourse, which is only fair considering the enormous percentage of Jews in the American population

    • Agree: Fuerchtegott, mark green
    • Replies: @Barr
  27. fnn says:

    There are some elements that are always present in these left-radical movements. This probably due to the large Jewish contributions to all the major crackpot movements of the 20th and 21st Centuries: Stalinism, Freudianism, Trotskyism/neoconservatism and PC expressive individualist biological Leninism. For example, the persistent tactic of Communists in Albania during WW2 was to attack other resistance groups as soon as they had local superiority and then complain to the Brits and Americans (probably most of whom were Communists or Jews or both) that the other group had attacked them first. No doubt they had orders from Moscow to do this:

    https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/80012034

  28. onebornfree says: • Website
    @onebornfree

    I said: “Kill Marxism NOW! [ And all other idiotic collectivism/statism variants, e.g. : “socialism”, “fascism”, “communism” etc. etc.] ”

    Oops! I left out both “globalism” and “zionism”. Sorry bout dat. [I probably left out a bunch more too 🙁 , oh well, that’ll have to do for now, I suppose].

    Regards, onebornfree

  29. Ray P says:

    … it’s becoming commonplace among Rightist millennials to dismiss “Boomers” and throw themselves headlong into a “NazBol” Third Positionism that in some respects rehabilitates or repurposes aspects of Marxism and even the Frankfurt School

    One can thank Paul Gottfried for this. He announced the failure of the paleocons and conservatism inc. in 2007, and encouraged young protege’s such as Richard Spencer to take a different approach. A former pupil of Marcuse, Gottfried said he had learned from the enemy and adapted various parts of the Dialectic of Enlightenment and other Frankfurt works to his own project.

  30. TGD says:
    @Kim

    There is nothing about putting or accepting a penis into the rectum that is concerned with sex. It is mental illness and nothing else.

    “People often condemn that which they secretly desire,” John Jakes quoting from his novel, “North and South.”

    • Replies: @Neuday
  31. Neuday says:
    @TGD

    There is nothing about putting or accepting a penis into the rectum that is concerned with sex. It is mental illness and nothing else.

    “People often condemn that which they secretly desire,” John Jakes quoting from his novel, “North and South.”

    “Often” != “Always”. Disgust is disgust, not a secret desire. And quotes from a novelist doesn’t make it a truism anyway. Might was well quote a celebrity.

  32. @Kim

    One of the more scurrilous PC terminologies is the use of “anal sex” as a euphemism for sodomy or buggery.

    Buggery is anal sex. Sodomy encompasses all deviant sexual behaviours, including fellatio, cunnilingus, and bestiality, all of which were considered “unnatural acts”.
    Both sodomy and buggery are words transformed by homosexuals. The laws against “unnatural acts” were applicable to males and females, irrespective of “sexual orientation”.

    • Replies: @Da's Reich
  33. @Kim

    It maybe sodomy or buggery between men but a ton of women prefer it to straight intercourse … for them it’s anal-sex, plain and simple!

    • Replies: @anon
  34. The reevaluation of American history is another unintended consequence of WWII. The postwar GI Bill allowed ordinary men (and women) access to college education in large numbers for the first time. University history departments had long been the province of the elite, the idle scions of privilege, who wrote glowing accounts of the great deeds of their class. Now, for the first time, educated members of the working class were investigating their stories, critically analyzing them, sorting out fact from fiction. It fell to that generation to begin correcting the vast corpus of self-congratulatory bullshit they found in traditional historical studies. The work is still ongoing at the academic level and it is filtering more and more into general public awareness that there is very little in our past that commands respect in the present.

    • Replies: @3g4me
  35. @Kim

    Marx stated each according to his needs, each according to his ability.
    That does not necessarily equate to your version of economic equality. It doesn’t mean that the janitor gets paid the same as an electrical engineer. The most efficient economies are the ones in which people can participate on a more or less equal basis. That means the janitor doesn’t have to worry about which bill he won’t pay to put food on the table for his kids.
    That used to be the case in “the West” that there was a better income distrubution. Sure, business owners would make a lot of money, but their employees were paid enough to support their families. Why do you think auto workers were paid so well? The Big Three’s problems weren’t wages, it started with designing and producing crap. I can recall reading an article in the late 80s that stated the Chairman of Honda Corporation earned less than mediocre mid managers of US Corporations. It seems the Japanese had an unwritten social contract that the head of a company would make about 40 times as much as the lowest paid employee. While likely never that low a ratio, there was a similar notion in “the West”.
    Today, we have the Walmart model, where the owners make hundreds of millions every year while their employees apply for food stamps. The real Marxism is today’s finance capitalism. They are the commune, and the rest of us can rot in hell.

  36. @Curmudgeon

    We got a new minister for children in Ireland,

    He is a homosexual,

    Should that be a bit of a red flag?

    I could care less about the sexual orientation of anybody except pedos,

    However,

    Our new kiddie minister is a fanboy of Peter Thatchell an English gay rights activist who has stated that he knows of friends of his, both gay and straight, who have had sex with people in the age range of 9-13 without it being a problem,

    An actor from our ‘travelling community’ has called him out on this but the media ain’t running with the story just yet,

    You just couldn’t make this stuff up.

    • Replies: @Mello Chungus
    , @Curmudgeon
  37. I take Dr Joyce’s review as an accurate description of the book, as he is a perceptive critic. McElroy omits all mention of Jewish influence in promoting agitprop. But he also omits another very important factor. The role of the corporatists.

    https://www.penmorepress.com/project/john-harmon-mcelroy/

    McElroy must be well into his 80s. He married his Cuban-born wife as long ago as 1957 in Havana. His bio is that of an upright American Christian not untypical of the 1950s. If 1950s America was a capitalist country, it certainly isn’t now. The State and the Public Sector have grown considerably. Large areas of the Private Sector are controlled by oligopolies. These corporatists are not neutral actors, in fact the vast majority are very malign.

    The corporatists are objective allies of the left. Their objects are undermining the nation state and traditional values, beliefs and institutions that underpin it, as well as ever increasing non-white immigration. The aim, inter alia. is of course lower wages, and ever higher profits for these oligarchs.
    Some of these oligarchs, like Soros, provide direct support for BLM and Antifa. Mostly, it is through donations to politicians and NGOs which will support their Globo-homo Agenda.

    I suspect McElroy is of an age that he is not fully aware of/unwilling to deal with/ these unwelcome facts. It sounds a useful book to read, especially the glossary of agitprop. A complete history of the subject must deal with both heavy Jewish and corporatist involvement. This will be the work of a much younger person.

    • Agree: mark green
  38. anon[317] • Disclaimer says:
    @RG

    Interesting review. Not enough to make me run out and buy a copy, and our dinky local library won’t put even a donated copy on the shelf: not enough Pollyanna. The local ‘university’ had a good collection, but then they ‘modernized’ it so that it is a ‘coffee-lounge.’

    the last time i went to the local public library here (about 5 years ago), i found it had basically been turned into a day care center for illegal aliens

    • Replies: @Mello Chungus
  39. Tony Hall says:

    I took note of the near absence of any reference Native Americans in this book review by Andrew Joyce on McElroy’s conception of the US experience with “Cultural Marxism.” For two decades my focus as a prof here in Lethbridge Alberta Canada was as the history specialist in the “Department of Native American Studies.” Without a doubt this academic appointment was permeated with “identity politics.” But as I see it, my focus eschewed the “Cultural Marxists’”preoccupations with the treatment of groups as defined primarily by notions of “biology” and “race.”

    The main issues I tried to address concerned the injustices and inequities derived from the past in the most monumental theft of land and resources in all of human history. When the focus is on the role of the USA in taking over the European conquest of the Americas since 1492, the emphasis must be more on the continuity of the “civilizing mission.” This continuity extends from the Roman Catholic phase of imperial expansion to the Christianity-backed conception of US Manifest Destiny to more recent ideas about the role of US “exceptionalism” in global geopolitics.

    As I see the assertion of what we know in Canada as “Aboriginal and treaty rights” is in fact a profoundly conservative movement because the main points of reference lie in the effort to maintain some kind of continuity linking the experience of Indigenous peoples across expanses of time running from the past into the present and the future. For me biological conceptions of peoplehood are not important aspects of that conservative notion emphasizing the importance of balancing change with strong trajectories of continuity across intergenerational time frames.

    As I worked along a continuum of research, writing and pedagogy expanding the framework of Native American Studies into Globalization Studies, I became increasingly interested in the parallels and differences between the treatment of Indigenous peoples in the Western Hemisphere and the treatment of Indigenous peoples in the continuum of Ottoman, British, American and Israeli empire building in the Middle East. The hostile response of the Israel Lobby to this line of academic analysis suggests to me that it lies outside the somewhat facile conceptions of Joyce’s and McElroy’s conception of “Cultural Marxism.”

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @fnn
  40. 3g4me says:
    @Observator

    Observator: Certainly most of our founding myths were just that – myths – yet a people so ethnically and religiously fractured as Americans were from the beginning need something to claim as a communal heritage. The same with the image of the settler and his covered wagon – even though the vast majority of European immigrants settled in cities, everyone could admire and lay claim to helping ‘build’ part of the country. But as an empire with a rapidly shrinking 56% White population, those myths no longer serve to unite anyone accept boomer civnats . . . like Trump. I could see claiming some of the old heroes for a White ethnostate, but at present all the statues being toppled and dumped into harbors are remnants of a dead country. New statues can be raised and myths can be resurrected; a miscegenated/eradicated people are gone forever.

  41. DUDE!

    “CULTURAL MARXISM” IS VERY VERY VERY ANTI-MARXIST!

    PEOPLE WHO USE THIS PHRASE PUT A YELLOW STAR ON THEMSELVES.

    IS ANDREW AS BIG A FRAUD AS JAMES?

    WHO SAID THIS ANDREW?

    [MORE]

    Our opinion at the time was that National Socialism and the Communism of the Soviet Republic were sort of ‘siblings.’ And it may also be that this attitude was peculiar especially to an Austrian SS member. For his enemies at that time were not Social Democracy and Communism; these were combated by the Austrian aristocracy as much as he himself was;…

    WHO SAID THIS ANDREW?

    in the final analysis … it would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism.

    ANDREW IS A SELF-HATING IRISHMAN WHO DESIRES ANGLO-SAXON ECONOMICS COCK.

    PATHETIC.

    HAVE YOU EVER EVEN READ MARX OR OR HIS GENTILE PATRON ENGELS?

    WHERE’S YOUR CYNICISM MEIN HERR?

  42. Alden says:
    @Tony Hall

    If you’re a teacher of Indian studies you should know there were only about 1 million Indians in the huge area between the present Canadian and Mexican border. That’s only about half a million men. Given the huge land area and the tiny population the American (USA) Indians built perfectly fine, functional civilizations of various kinds.

    For whatever reason, Mexico and other Latin Americans had the population mass to build large structures and roads such as the north south one across the a thousand miles of the Andes.

    California Indians were very primitive compared to Mexican Indians and more advanced USA Indians, especially the farming, town dwelling other S West USA Indians.

    I attribute it to a tiny population. It takes a certain number of people to land mass to create viable civilizations.

    There’s now 3 million Indians in the USA. Obviously we Whites didn’t genocide them. Legally, they’ve got a good deal. They can live on the Rez and live the Indian life style or go out into the world and just be Americans. Which at least half , maybe more of them do.

    As far as killing. Battles, etc, the Indians gave as good as they got, even against White Armies. As far as raids of isolated farms, scalping theft of livestock and kidnapping of children, girls and young women goes, those were Indian tactics, not White ones. And just a continuation of the way USA Indians behaved towards each other long before Europeans arrived.

    Let’s not forget slavery. Indians had slavery long before the Europeans arrived and kept it until the Emancipation proclamation. The communist town of Seattle should change its name because Chief Seattle as well as the the chief of the Nez Pierce were both slave owners, slave traders and slave owners.

    Go back to whatever part of Europe your family came from if you feel so strongly about the Indians.

    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
  43. Pft says:

    Not a big fan of the word Cultural Marxism. Basically its roots go back to Aleister Crowley and his “do as though wilt” philosophy.

    But whatever you call it it derives from the efforts of the Frankfurt School which moved to Columbia University when Hitler took over.

    They were perplexed as why Lenins faux Marxist Revolution did not spread globally. They decided it was because the working classes identified with the capitalists, as it was built into their culture based on democratic values which honored freedom . To get them to believe in their faux Marxism , which was a con job to get people to embrace Authoritarian control over their lives, they must alter the culture to oppose democracy, freedom and capitalism, and create divisions among gender, age, sex, race, religion, political lines .

    Getting control of the media and education was the first step. This was done via Operation Mockingbird in the 60’s and media consolidation through the 80’s and 90’s. Removing the Fairness Doctrine was a big step.

    Capitalism was altered with Chicago School neoliberalism in the 70’s which basically turned capitalism into industry led cartels which entered into public private partnerships, not unlike Mussolini’s corporatism. Instead of the party elite controlling the means of production in China and Soviet Union , means of production were controlled by a public private partnership.

    Governments role in the partnership was to fund the basic science and technology, and infrastructure and give it to industry (like the internet in the 80’s) and provide protection to industry from competition with regulation while ignoring antitrust laws against collusion (calling it conscious parallelism) . In return, industry cooperated with government on matters it deemed important with regard to control of domestic population and foreign markets.

    Overtime government and industry became so interlocked due to a revolving door between industry and government that our capitalism became not unlike China or the Soviet Union State Controlled Communism, except industry profits were privatized and corporate socialism was the norm , whereas socialism for the people was limited to tax based social security and medicare, and student loans that must be repaid (unlike corporations who can declare bankruptcy).

    China and the Soviet Union opted for our type of neoliberal capitalism because their elites wanted to be as rich as western elites. Equality (relatively speaking) is for the birds they said

    Once they had control of media, education and means of production through ppp, the attack on freedom and democracy began in earnest.

    Campaigns were financed by industry who supported those with the tight thinking in both parties. Media coverage was biased for those candidates. They could control who we could vote for , and it didn’t matter which of the 2 candidates we picked because both would pursue the same programs even if the rhetoric suggested other wise. If that wasn’t enough, electronic voting machines were a backup to election control. Not to mention chads.

    Getting people to give up their freedom proved to be the biggest challenge, for that they needed to rely on Terror. 9/11 , Anthrax and Kovid did wonders for them there. People will do anything to be safe. Of course, they couldn’t work unless the population was dumbed down and the education system and media propaganda did that (not to mention 60 vaccine doses before age 18 and fluoride) . Today of course you have social media and increasing censorship of those who challenge these myths.

    So over time, spanning 50 years, some people see this

    1. Nothing changes for the better no matter which party wins.
    Democracy is broken.

    2. The Economy is great. Stock market and government figures said so before Kovid. But I don’t have a job or my job pays so little I cant make ends meet without more debt. Capitalism is broken.

    3. Terrorists, viruses and antifa are scary. My neighbors are all different and scare me. Some wont wear masks!Freedom is too dangerous.

    For the young this is just normal. They never new anything different. They don’t know that what they call Democracy, Capitalism and Freedom is anything but. Its all Fake. They just know this is broken and they want something better. So they will go along with a change that will no doubt be far worse.

    We frankly should do a Reset and repeal all laws passed since 1964. Not going to happen though.

    I would nationalize all Philanthropic Foundations, break up Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Amazon, and so many others. End private donations for campaigns. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Ban dual national citizens from government, as advisers, or working for any private contractor for military, intelligence or any security related agency.

    Thats also not happening. L

  44. Saggy says: • Website

    ,

    it was indeed founded, as McElroy reminds us “on belief in man’s unalienable birthright to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and government by consent of the governed.”

    This is one of the many preposterous jokes we live with and believe today. Any inalienable rights of Americans vanished in 1860 when Lincoln and the US govt. drafted young men to fight in the Civil War. Since that war millions of young men have had their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness cancelled altogether by a govt. that proceeded to send them half way around the world to kill people that had absolutely no quarrel with the US. And yet the author can even today, even on Unz, repeat this mantra as if it actually meant something.

  45. fnn says:
    @Tony Hall

    I became increasingly interested in the parallels and differences between the treatment of Indigenous peoples in the Western Hemisphere and the treatment of Indigenous peoples in the continuum of Ottoman, British, American and Israeli empire building in the Middle East. The hostile response of the Israel Lobby to this line of academic analysis suggests to me that it lies outside the somewhat facile conceptions of Joyce’s and McElroy’s conception of “Cultural Marxism.”

    Jews are the core of the ruling class of the American Empire and have been at least 1970. Their elevated status means there exists an “unprincipled exception” (see the writings of the late racially Jewish Christian Lawrence Auster) that causes the MSM and academia to mostly overlook the negative behavior of the Israeli state. You also may have noticed that Antifa never engages in violent attacks against ADL or AIPAC events despite the support of the latter orgs for the racial state of Israel. Antifa may not seem important, but they have clearly been under the protection of DOJ/FBI for the last several years. This may or may not now be coming to an end.

    Mainstream sources:

  46. anon[379] • Disclaimer says:
    @Really No Shit

    I have read that male homosexuals have anal cancer rates some 17-times the straight rate. I imagine the women who develop a taste for anal-sex will also end up (I promise that pun was unintended) with rates of anal cancer at least 10 times the straight rates. It would be interesting to see how many porn stars who had careers in the 1980s and 1990s that did a lot of anal sex scenes develop anal cancers in their 50’s and 60’s.

    Roosh V, a guy who used to write about pick-up artistry, but is now a Christian writer (with God all things are truly possible, no?) had noted once on his pick-up blog years ago that there had been a severe uptick in head-and-neck cancers among men. He noted the number one thing these men had in common when asked about lifestyle choices upon diagnosis was the amount of sex partners they had over their lives. The more women they had sex with, the more likely they were to have head-and-neck cancers. These cancers are particularly awful because they don’t medically present symptoms for diagnosis until its late, and the ensuing surgery ends up disfiguring the patient (cutting it all out includes cutting out a lot of facial and neck tissue). In other words, by the time it hurts, you are in a lot of trouble medically. Roosh had pointed out that these men probably had quite a bit of oral sex with the numerous women they slept with and by extension had probably availed their mouths to many strains of Human Papilloma Virus. I think he may have had a point there. He was a pretty sharp guy.

    Im not disagreeing with you in any way I want you to know…….Its just an observation, like those who walk barefoot in swamps run a higher risk of snakebite, etc.

    • Replies: @Really No Shit
  47. Though I tend to steer clear of books such as this, preferring instead, bio’s and history. I think Agitprop In America is history from a novel viewpoint, and will fit nicely in my growing library.

  48. @Alden

    “For whatever reason, Mexico and other Latin Americans had the population mass to build large structures and roads such as the north south one across the a thousand miles of the Andes. ”

    They had the population mass because they could produce food year round and establish sedentary societies. When people don’t have to worry so much about freezing or starving to death other things can be accomplished. Most temperate zone North American Indians had to be nomadic in order to hunt and gather as cold winters and limited abilities to store food precluded sedentary highly organized agricultural activities.

  49. @Da's Reich

    Apparently the previous person in that job, Katherine Zappone, was also gay, a Seattle feminist lesbian, who married some Irish woman abroad. Interesting selection for that position.

    • Replies: @Da's Reich
  50. @Amerimutt Golems

    “Blind spots” is too euphemistic: it’s willful, power-oriented, careerist behavior.

    Joyce suggests: buy this book (it’s “useful”), fill in the gaps, decode and recode the unspeakable parts, make up for the author’s cowardice, etc. and you got yourself a masterpiece.

    This book sounds like a box of hamburger helper to someone looking to eat a solid meal.

  51. @anon

    At least in the US, if the local library doesn’t have a good selection, they usually offer inter-library loans. The selection available via those programs is usually enormous, as they generally include university libraries from across the state.

  52. @animalogic

    What’s Marxist about Cultural Marxism? It sounds like a perversion, given that it abandons working people and class analysis. Oh, but it does have the eternal oppressor/victim mechanism, which is politically useful.

    You mention another politically huge (but theoretically marginal) trait: the Marxist drive for power, which our woke dumbshits have fully absorbed. So when that stupid BLM wench (name escapes me) states that she’s a trained Marxist, she’s of course wrong – but also spot on in terms of manipulative techniques.

  53. @anon

    You’re probably right but those hos ain’t gonna listen to reason for they’re porn paradise…

  54. @Mello Chungus

    Absolutely,

    Today the new minister for children attacked those who consider that he has something to answer to with regard to his welcoming of Mr Thatchell at a gay pride march a few years back,

    All criticism he dismisses as homophobia,

    And, the online newspaper article had the comments section closed after 17 comments,

    It seems we won’t be allowed discuss this issue,

    Zappone was a proper weapon, in order to be able to claim specific travelling expenses she insisted on taking the long way round to get to parliament buildings, and of course she got away with this theft of public money,

    We have lost the plot here in Ireland and our new minister for children is to be tasked with the job of implementing the new radical sex education programme for our schools,

    You know the one, telling kids as young as 7 that they can change their gender etc,

    Plus a lot more dangerous nonsense,

    I’m hammering nails into my baseball bat,

    I’ll be fighting for my grandchildren without apology.

  55. @Da's Reich

    I suppose you could make it up, but these days, it would be seen as normal.

    • Replies: @Da's Reich
  56. meena says:

    You can live with the loss of certainty, but not of belief.” So begins John Harmon McElroy’s recently-published Agitprop in America, an almost 400-page book on America’s increasing distance from former beliefs,”

    The book starts off on wrong foot and stumbles all along.
    Certainty of health finances fidelity trust loyalty opportunities expectations relationships often get lost and people live with that .People cant live with loss of certainty in existing scientific creed .Society falls apart. Society falls apart when the certainty of the Government will do something gets shattered in situations like pandemic ,war or natural disasters.
    Faiths in religion, role of churches or pastor bibles or God or afterlife are also fluid and pose contradictions to anyone with brain and people reorganize belief with his or her needs experiences and contexts . Belief in nationalism manifest destiny y uniqueness or being in dispensable nations are vulgar and fragile .But these beliefs condition citizen to murder kill or deny rights to those who resist at home or abroad because of ideological reason or because of the impacts of those beliefs on the other .
    Fascism and Communism differ more than just being the country of the focus . Cold War was not a war by USA for survival against Soviet when the same cold war was also seen as war by Soviet against West for its own survival . Congo Iran Guatemala Vietnam Syria Iraq can satisfy the post WW2 equation where one side is represented by the US’s interests of military- corporate hegemony and other side is by the shades of independence ,socialism democracy and freedom . Marxist agitprop was paralleled by US’s own agitprop consisting of murder ,assassination, coup bribery propaganda and by color revolutions.

    Marxist economy did not have externalities. Capitalism has and had. Visit the countries of the third world and enjoy it . Now that third world has moved to the hinterland of USA just like Cocaine Opioid and Meth ,poverty and anti -science attitude from ghetto and city have moved to the suburbia .
    International uniformity shown by Soviet was much less acute much less pervasive much less culturally hideous and harmful compared to the uniformity imposed by US’s finances , school of economy, militarism, media ,Hollywood ,pornography and stranglehold
    on the patent on technology . Religion culture survived Communism. Hs it in USA? Will it in USA? America has created its own political correctness by using the words like freedom liberty and free market ,woman’s right and duty to protect and it has been doing it while standing as a fortress against Communism . Author can say taht these buzzwords are reflection of the communism on American culture . But then there is something profoundly wrong with a culture that takes the shadow as real unless it has always been malleable and plastic in the core . The idea of US “always being a hustler country “comes to mind .

    No not all human problems are not material in nature but those material problems if left unattended and not addressed , one gets nowhere . Life then circles around to workin ass off and listening shitloads of stupid things on Fox or CNN, watching Netflix and doing weed or meth or following the the stupid focus of the Bible thumper Yes environment does change human behavior and our duty is to watch understand and change or preserve the environment .
    Yes Soviet was not a nation So was neither British empire nor Spanish and is not the current US empire .
    UN ‘s creation was nothing but modus operandi for the divvying up of worlds’s resources .
    Party in Soviet controlled everything and it said so explicitly . American figured out a better way to engineer the same controls on life impacting economy job quota choices ,housing ,education, opinion ,justice leisure ,election starting from abroad and then moving inwards .

    Yes American revolution was different from French revolution .American always has managed to export its strife ,tension, imbalances ( religious cultural but mainly economic ) outside starting from the boundaries of the 13 colonies .France did not have that opportunity always . War eventually did not save king’s economic problem . America is standing on the same ground now. Other countries wont allow it to export America’s economic tension anymore . The tension is now gripping the
    country itself from within .

    Bark Obama’s election was not due to agitprop .It was Citi Bank and antiwar – amalgamation of power and deception presented by quintessential American way of doing things

    From 1600 new world ‘s successful promotion of free movement, upward social mobility, or creation of property was not unique and did not face any unique unseen challenge but witnessed predictable strifes ,recidivism and pushback from within and outside .
    American new belief that all men were equal left the definition of equality to the whims and controls of wealth race religion and ethnicity .
    American civil war did not settle the question of slavery It redefined it and solved the problem of the issue of the federal power vs state power ,issue of technology vs agriculture.
    In Soviet system conformity emanated seemingly from one fountain rendering it to be easily debunk -able
    , clearly contemptible and laughable .In USA the fountains are many but they are nothing but the echoing members. This is not a new phenomena of post 1990. It has always been

    ( This is the analysis of first 27 pages of the book )

    • Thanks: Franz
  57. Barr says:
    @Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque

    Has it ever occurred to you to ponder why Jewish influences didn’t go deeper into the fabrics of the faiths ,practices of the religions, and didn’t influence the expression of the popular cultures in Moorish Spain, Ottoman Turkey, Czarist Russia or Austria -Hapsburg ?
    How could they infiltrate Anglo -Zion?

    Is is because Judaism itself was hollowed out from within by the pressure of enlightenment ,scientific revolution ,and experiences of ghetto life in Europe? Emancipation threw the Jews to their own greeds and devious self aggrandizing capitalistic devices . They didn’t handle well. Now they survive from these cultural onslaught by having cloistered ghettos at home – Israel by having orthodox control certain practices and by having orthodox live in those ghetto ,and by creating ghetto in USA-UK.

    Women joining coed for education, sharing same work space, and entering same professions ,competing same positions, being bread winners and mother- wife same time have brought humanity back to hunter gatherer life style and pushed middle class to the bondage slavery type of existence of the lower strata of society where women are forced pitch in and are forced to work like men do. The effects on honor duty responsibility have altered the psychology of men and women . Abortion premarital or extramarital sex are the defining features of the external costs that come with re-engineering of the economic changes ,and alteration of the hierarchy. Scientific development has shattered faith into biblical texts and has turned sex fertilization pregnancy into more user friendly predictable versions of the earlier ones. Capitalism has turned family structure upside down.
    Big government control of individual and family have created spaces for confusion ,anger, impotence and helplessness . Government behaves like church without its soothing hand and help when one needs .
    By accepting the excuse of peoples rights to know everything about elected officials and the elected public officials have no right to privacy, we have handed over the mechanics of control of the politicians or the public office holders to those who can access the secrets and use it to their advantage . Those secrets are the very same ethics and morality based practices which we decry in education ,destroy and ignore in secular and religious teachings and daily lifestyle but we champion selectively and make citizen expect it from politicians and public office holders .

    War without consequences , interference without responsibility ,and destructive approaches to the world’s conflicts have left the citizen with a double edged sword of morality . It has inculcated a culture of entitlement with righteousness. By refusing to have the enemy any voice, we have allowed the domestic power to exert same control on the voices of the citizen. It has to be monolithic and fit the power to the tee. It also has replaced the capacity of thinking . We are passive participants .

    In that unfortunate reality ,contribution of the Jews are more like parasitic infiltration than being anything original.

  58. @Curmudgeon

    The new children’s minister eventually came out fighting,

    It’s considered by this person to be “homophobic abuse” to ask him about those with his sexual orientation, who he admires, and who articulate the view that sex with minors (aged 9-13) ain’t always bad and indeed has ‘friends’ who have engaged in such activity which allegedly brought “great joy” to the said youngsters,

    Now I read today on the news that our Health Service Executive have launched the Covid 19 tracing app and that 400k plus have downloaded it already,

    Gone are the ‘Fighting Irish’.

    22% of those polled in an online newspaper said they will not be downloading the app,

    Always seemed to me that about 2 in 10 people can be relied upon, for every and anything in life,

    If you are one of those 20%, you are going to be busy.

Current Commenter
says:

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 have been licensed to 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 Andrew Joyce Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.