Forward by David Risselada: America, we all know there is something drastically wrong with our nation today. The collective mindset has infiltrated and  overcome the ideals of individual liberty and responsibility that made this nation great. With each passing day we watch in horror as more and more of our freedoms disappear and truth becomes lost in the abyss of political correctness. I believe this is being done on purpose by people driving forward with a very purposeful and diabolical agenda. The article below describes where the agenda originates from. Please, take it to heart becaus it is the best explanation as to what is occurring in our beloved nation.

The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy

to Corrupt

Timothy Matthews – Catholic Insight March 2009

Western civilization at the present day is passing through a crisis which

is essentially different from anything that has been previously experienced.

Other societies in the past have changed their social institutions or their

religious beliefs under the influence of external forces or the slow

development of internal growth. But none, like our own, has ever

consciously faced the prospect of a fundamental alteration of the beliefs

and institutions on which the whole fabric of social life rests ... Civilization

is being uprooted from its foundations in nature and tradition and is being

reconstituted in a new organisation which is as artificial and mechanical

as a modern factory. Christopher Dawson. Enquiries into Religion and

Culture, p. 259.

Most of Satan’s work in the world he takes care to keep hidden. But two

small shafts of light have been thrown onto his work for me just recently.

The first, a short article in the Association of Catholic Women’s ACW

Review; the second, a remark (which at first surprised me) from a priest

in Russia who claimed that we now, in the West, live in a Communist

society. These shafts of light help, especially, to explain the onslaught of

officialdom which in many countries worldwide has so successfully been

removing the rights of parents to be the primary educators and protectors

of their children.

The ACW Review examined the corrosive work of the ‘Frankfurt School’

- a group of German-American scholars who developed highly provocative

and original perspectives on contemporary society and culture, drawing

on Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Weber. Not that their idea of a

‘cultural revolution’ was particularly new. ‘Until now’, wrote Joseph,

Comte de Maistre (1753-1821) who for fifteen years was a Freemason,

‘nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion: But here an important

question arises; can a nation not die on its own soil, without resettlement

( Page 3 )

or invasion, by allowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very

core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is.'

What was the Frankfurt School? Well, in the days following the Bolshevik

Revolution in Russia, it was believed that workers’ revolution would

sweep into Europe and, eventually, into the United States. But it did not

do so. Towards the end of 1922 the Communist International (Comintern)

began to consider what were the reasons. On Lenin’s initiative a meeting

was organised at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow.

The aim of the meeting was to clarify the concept of, and give concrete

effect to, a Marxist cultural revolution. Amongst those present were Georg

Lukacs (a Hungarian aristocrat, son of a banker, who had become a

Communist during World War I ; a good Marxist theoretician he

developed the idea of ‘Revolution and Eros’ - sexual instinct used as an

instrument of destruction) and Willi Munzenberg (whose proposed

solution was to ‘organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western

civilisation stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and

made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat’)

‘It was’, said Ralph de Toledano (1916-2007) the conservative author and

co-founder of the ‘National Review’, a meeting ‘perhaps more harmful

to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.'

Lenin died in 1924. By this time, however, Stalin was beginning to look

on Munzenberg, Lukacs and like-thinkers as ‘revisionists’. In June 1940,

Münzenberg fled to the south of France where, on Stalin’s orders, a NKVD

assassination squad caught up with him and hanged him from a tree.

In the summer of 1924, after being attacked for his writings by the 5th

Comintern Congress, Lukacs moved to Germany, where he chaired the

first meeting of a group of Communist-oriented sociologists, a gathering

that was to lead to the foundation of the Frankfurt School.

This ‘School’ (designed to put flesh on their revolutionary programme)

was started at the University of Frankfurt in the Institut für

Sozialforschung. To begin with school and institute were

indistinguishable. In 1923 the Institute was officially established, and

( Page 4 )

funded by Felix Weil (1898-1975). Weil was born in Argentina and at the

age of nine was sent to attend school in Germany. He attended the

universities in Tübingen and Frankfurt, where he graduated with a doctoral

degree in political science. While at these universities he became

increasingly interested in socialism and Marxism. According to the

intellectual historian Martin Jay, the topic of his dissertation was ‘the

practical problems of implementing socialism.'

Carl Grünberg, the Institute’s director from 1923-1929, was an avowed

Marxist, although the Institute did not have any official party affiliations.

But in 1930 Max Horkheimer assumed control and he believed that Marx’s

theory should be the basis of the Institute’s research. When Hitler came

to power, the Institut was closed and its members, by various routes, fled

to the United States and migrated to major US universities—Columbia,

Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley.

The School included among its members the 1960's guru of the New Left

Herbert Marcuse (denounced by Pope Paul VI for his theory of liberation

which ‘opens the way for licence cloaked as liberty’), Max Horkheimer,

Theodor Adorno, the popular writer Erich Fromm, Leo Lowenthal, and

Jurgen Habermas - possibly the School’s most influential representative.

Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had

the belief - or even the hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could

solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach

the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary

to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as

possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they

called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every

sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring

down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they

hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western

Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.

To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution - but giving us

no ideas about their plans for the future - the School recommended (among

other things):

( Page 5 )

1. The creation of racism offences.

2. Continual change to create confusion

3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children

4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority

5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.

6. The promotion of excessive drinking

7. Emptying of churches

8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime

9. Dependency on the state or state benefits

10. Control and dumbing down of media

11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea

of ‘pansexualism’ - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the

differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships

between men and women. To further their aims they would:

● attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and

mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators

of their children.

● abolish differences in the education of boys and girls

● abolish all forms of male dominance - hence the presence of women

in the armed forces

● declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’

( Page 6 )

Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus:

‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.'

The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and

(b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. ‘Modern forms

of subjection are marked by mildness’. They saw it as a long-term project

and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex

and popular culture.

The Family

The School’s ‘Critical Theory’ preached that the ‘authoritarian

personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family - an idea directly linked

to Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, which

promoted matriarchy. Already Karl Marx had written, in the “Communist

Manifesto”, about the radical notion of a ‘community of women’ and in

The German Ideology of 1845, written disparagingly about the idea of the

family as the basic unit of society. This was one of the basic tenets of the

‘Critical Theory’ : the necessity of breaking down the contemporary

family. The Institute scholars preached that ‘Even a partial breakdown of

parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a

coming generation to accept social change.’

Following Karl Marx, the School stressed how the ‘authoritarian

personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family—it was Marx who wrote

so disparagingly about the idea of the family being the basic unit of

society. All this prepared the way for the warfare against the masculine

gender promoted by Marcuse under the guise of ‘women’s liberation’ and

by the New Left movement in the 1960’s.

They proposed transforming our culture into a female-dominated one. In

1933, Wilhelm Reich, one of their members, wrote in The Mass

Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type

of ‘natural society.’ Eric Fromm was also an active advocate of matriarchal

theory. Masculinity and femininity, he claimed, were not reflections of

‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought but were

derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part

( Page 7 )

socially determined.’ His dogma was the precedent for the radical feminist

pronouncements that, today, appear in nearly every major newspaper and

television programme. The revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted

to do and how to do it. They have succeeded.

Education

Lord Bertrand Russell joined with the Frankfurt School in their effort at

mass social engineering and spilled the beans in his 1951 book, The Impact

of Science on Society. He wrote: ‘Physiology and psychology afford fields

for scientific technique which still await development.' The importance

of mass psychology ‘has been enormously increased by the growth of

modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is

called ‘education. The social psychologists of the future will have a

number of classes of school children on whom they will try different

methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black.

Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home

is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination

begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly

intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must

be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for

future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how

much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and

how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray . When

the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge

of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely

without the need of armies or policemen.”

Writing in 1992 in Fidelio Magazine, [The Frankfurt School and Political

Correctness] Michael Minnicino observed how the heirs of Marcuse and

Adorno now completely dominate the universities, ‘teaching their own

students to replace reason with ‘Politically Correct’ ritual exercises. There

are very few theoretical books on arts, letters, or language published today

in the United States or Europe which do not openly acknowledge their

debt to the Frankfurt School. The witch hunt on today’s campuses is

merely the implementation of Marcuse’s concept of ‘repressive toleration’-

( Page 8 )

‘tolerance for movements from the left, but intolerance for movements

from the right’-enforced by the students of the Frankfurt School’.

Drugs

Dr. Timothy Leary gave us another glimpse into the mind of the Frankfurt

School in his account of the work of the Harvard University Psychedelic

Drug Project, ‘Flashback.' He quoted a conversation that he had with

Aldous Huxley: “These brain drugs, mass produced in the laboratories,

will bring about vast changes in society. This will happen with or without

you or me. All we can do is spread the word. The obstacle to this evolution,

Timothy, is the Bible’. Leary then went on: “We had run up against the

Judeo-Christian commitment to one God, one religion, one reality, that

has cursed Europe for centuries and America since our founding days.

Drugs that open the mind to multiple realities inevitably lead to a

polytheistic view of the universe. We sensed that the time for a new

humanist religion based on intelligence, good-natured pluralism and

scientific paganism had arrived.”

One of the directors of the Authoritarian Personality project, R. Nevitt

Sanford, played a pivotal role in the usage of psychedelic drugs. In 1965,

he wrote in a book issued by the publishing arm of the UK’s Tavistock

Institute:‘The nation, seems to be fascinated by our 40,000 or so drug

addicts who are seen as alarmingly wayward people who must be curbed

at all costs by expensive police activity. Only an uneasy Puritanism could

support the practice of focusing on the drug addicts (rather than our 5

million alcoholics) and treating them as a police problem instead of a

medical one, while suppressing harmless drugs such as marijuana and

peyote along with the dangerous ones.” The leading propagandists of

today’s drug lobby base their argument for legalization on the same

scientific quackery spelled out all those years ago by Dr. Sanford.

Such propagandists include the multi-billionaire atheist George Soros who

chose, as one of his first domestic programs, to fund efforts to challenge

the efficacy of America’s $37-billion-a-year war on drugs. The Sorosbacked

Lindesmith Center serves as a leading voice for Americans who

want to decriminalize drug use. ‘Soros is the ‘Daddy Warbucks of drug

( Page 9 )

legalization,’ claimed Joseph Califano Jr. of Columbia University’s

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse’ (The Nation, Sep 2,

1999).

Music, Television and Popular Culture

Adorno was to become head of a ‘music studies’ unit, where in his Theory

of Modern Music he promoted the prospect of unleashing atonal and other

popular music as a weapon to destroy society, degenerate forms of music

to promote mental illness. He said the US could be brought to its knees

by the use of radio and television to promote a culture of pessimism and

despair - by the late 1930's he (together with Horkheimer) had migrated

to Hollywood.

The expansion of violent video-games also well supported the School’s

aims.

Sex

In his book The Closing of the American Mind, Alan Bloom observed

how Marcuse appealed to university students in the sixties with a

combination of Marx and Freud. In Eros and Civilization and One

Dimensional Man Marcuse promised that the overcoming of capitalism

and its false consciousness will result in a society where the greatest

satisfactions are sexual. Rock music touches the same chord in the young.

Free sexual expression, anarchism, mining of the irrational unconscious

and giving it free rein are what they have in common.'

The Media

The modern media - not least Arthur ‘Punch’ Sulzberger Jnr., who took

charge of the New York Times in 1992 - drew greatly on the Frankfurt

School’s study The Authoritarian Personality. (New York: Harper, 1950).

In his book Arrogance, (Warner Books, 1993) former CBS News reporter

Bernard Goldberg noted of Sulzberger that he ‘still believes in all those

old sixties notions about ‘liberation’ and ‘changing the world man’ . . . In

fact, the Punch years have been a steady march down PC Boulevard, with

( Page 10 )

a newsroom fiercely dedicated to every brand of diversity except the

intellectual kind.'

In 1953 the Institute moved back to the University of Frankfurt. Adorno

died in 1955 and Horkheimer in 1973. The Institute of Social Research

continued, but what was known as the Frankfurt School did not. The

‘cultural Marxism’ that has since taken hold of our schools and universities

- that ‘political correctness’, which has been destroying our family bonds,

our religious tradition and our entire culture -sprang from the Frankfurt

School.

It was these intellectual Marxists who, later, during the anti-Vietnam

demonstrations, coined the phrase, ‘make love, not war’; it was these

intellectuals who promoted the dialectic of ‘negative’ criticism; it was

these theoreticians who dreamed of a utopia where their rules governed.

It was their concept that led to the current fad for the rewriting of history,

and to the vogue for ‘deconstruction’. Their mantras: ‘sexual differences

are a contract; if it feels good, do it; do your own thing.'

In an address at the US Naval Academy in August 1999, Dr Gerald L.

Atkinson, CDR USN (Ret), gave a background briefing on the Frankfurt

School, reminding his audience that it was the ‘foot soldiers’ of the

Frankfurt School who introduced the ‘sensitivity training’ techniques used

in public schools over the past 30 years (and now employed by the US

military to educate the troops about ‘sexual harassment’). During

‘sensitivity’ training teachers were told not to teach but to ‘facilitate.’

Classrooms became centres of self-examination where children talked

about their own subjective feelings. This technique was designed to

convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives.

Atkinson continued: ‘The Authoritarian personality,’ studied by the

Frankfurt School in the 1940’s and 1950’s in America, prepared the way

for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by

Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of

‘women’s liberation’ and the New Left movement in the 1960’s. The

evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is

intended to mean emasculation of the American male is provided by

( Page 11 )

Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a

promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, ‘... the next

step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and

femininity to general humanness.’

On April 17th, 1962, Maslow gave a lecture to a group of nuns at Sacred

Heart, a Catholic women’s college in Massachusetts. He noted in a diary

entry how the talk had been very ‘successful,’ but he found that very fact

troubling. ‘They shouldn’t applaud me,’ he wrote, ‘they should attack. If

they were fully aware of what I was doing, they would [attack]’ (Journals,

p. 157).

The Network

In her booklet Sex & Social Engineering (Family Education Trust 1994)

Valerie Riches observed how in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, there

were intensive parliamentary campaigns taking place emanating from a

number of organisations in the field of birth control (i.e., contraception,

abortion, sterilisation). ‘From an analysis of their annual reports, it became

apparent that a comparatively small number of people were involved to a

surprising degree in an array of pressure groups. This network was not

only linked by personnel, but by funds, ideology and sometimes addresses:

it was also backed by vested interests and supported by grants in some

cases by government departments. At the heart of the network was the

Family Planning Association (FPA) with its own collection of offshoots.

What we unearthed was a power structure with enormous influence.

‘Deeper investigation revealed that the network, in fact extended further

afield, into eugenics, population control, birth control, sexual and family

law reforms, sex and health education. Its tentacles reached out to

publishing houses, medical, educational and research establishments,

women’s organisations and marriage guidance—anywhere where

influence could be exerted. It appeared to have great influence over the

media, and over permanent officials in relevant government departments,

out of all proportion to the numbers involved.

( Page 12 )

‘During our investigations, a speaker at a Sex Education Symposium in

Liverpool outlined tactics of sex education saying: ‘if we do not get into

sex education, children will simply follow the mores of their parents’. The

fact that sex education was to be the vehicle for peddlers of secular

humanism soon became apparent.

‘However, at that time the power of the network and the full implications

of its activities were not fully understood. It was thought that the situation

was confined to Britain. The international implications had not been

grasped.

‘Soon after, a little book was published with the intriguing title The Men

Behind Hitler—A German Warning to the World. Its thesis was that the

eugenics movement, which had gained popularity early in the twentieth

century, had gone underground following the holocaust in Nazi Germany,

but was still active and functioning through organizations promoting

abortion, euthanasia, sterilization, mental health, etc. The author urged

the reader to look at his home country and neighbouring countries, for he

would surely find that members and committees of these organizations

would cross-check to a remarkable extent.

‘Other books and papers from independent sources later confirmed this

situation. . . . A remarkable book was also published in America which

documented the activities of the Sex Information and Education Council

of the United States (SIECUS). It was entitled The SIECUS Circle A

Humanist Revolution. SIECUS was set up in 1964 and lost no time in

engaging in a programme of social engineering by means of sex education

in the schools. Its first executive director was Mary Calderone, who was

also closely linked to Planned Parenthood, the American equivalent of the

British FPA. According to The SIECUS Circle, Calderone supported

sentiments and theories put forward by Rudolph Dreikus, a humanist, such

as:

● merging or reversing the sexes or sex roles;

● liberating children from their families;

( Page 13 )

● abolishing the family as we know it’

In their book Mind Siege, (Thomas Nelson, 2000) Tim LaHaye and David

A. Noebel confirmed Riches’s findings of an international network. ‘The

leading authorities of Secular Humanism may be pictured as the starting

lineup of a baseball team: pitching is John Dewey; catching is Isaac

Asimov; first base is Paul Kurtz; second base is Corliss Lamont; third base

is Bertrand Russell; shortstop is Julian Huxley; left fielder is Richard

Dawkins; center fielder is Margaret Sanger; right fielder is Carl Rogers;

manager is ‘Christianity is for losers’ Ted Turner; designated hitter is

Mary Calderone; utility players include the hundreds listed in the back of

Humanist Manifesto I and II, including Eugenia C. Scott, Alfred Kinsey,

Abraham Maslow, Erich Fromm, Rollo May, and Betty Friedan.

‘In the grandstands sit the sponsoring or sustaining organizations, such as

the––the Frankfurt School; the left wing of the Democratic Party; the

Democratic Socialists of America; Harvard University; Yale University;

University of Minnesota; University of California (Berkeley); and two

thousand other colleges and universities.’

A practical example of how the tidal wave of Maslow-think is engulfing

English schools was revealed in an article in the British Nat assoc. of

Catholic Families’ (NACF) Catholic Family newspaper (August 2000),

where James Caffrey warned about the Citizenship (PSHE) programme

which was shortly to be drafted into the National Curriculum. ‘We need

to look carefully at the vocabulary used in this new subject’, he wrote,

‘and, more importantly, discover the philosophical basis on which it is

founded. The clues to this can be found in the word ‘choice’ which occurs

frequently in the Citizenship documentation and the great emphasis placed

on pupils’ discussing and ‘clarifying’ their own views, values and choices

about any given issue. This is nothing other than the concept known as

‘Values Clarification’ - a concept anathema to Catholicism, or indeed, to

Judaism and Islam.

‘This concept was pioneered in California in the 1960’s by psychologists

William Coulson, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow. It was based on

‘humanistic’ psychology, in which patients were regarded as the sole judge

( Page 14 )

of their actions and moral behaviour. Having pioneered the technique of

Values Clarification the psychologists introduced it into schools and other

institutions such as convents and seminaries - with disastrous results.

Convents emptied, religious lost their vocations and there was wholesale

loss of belief in God. Why? Because Catholic institutions are founded on

absolute beliefs in, for example, the Creed and the Ten Commandments.

Values Clarification supposes a moral relativism in which there is no

absolute right or wrong and no dependence on God.

‘This same system is to be introduced to the vulnerable minds of infants,

juniors and adolescents in the years 2000+. The underlying philosophy of

Values Clarification holds that for teachers to promote virtues such as

honesty, justice or chastity constitutes indoctrination of children and

‘violates’ their moral freedom. It is urged that children should be free to

choose their own values; the teacher must merely ‘facilitate’ and must

avoid all moralising or criticising. As a barrister commented recently on

worrying trends in Australian education, ‘The core theme of values

clarification is that there are no right or wrong values. Values education

does not seek to identify and transmit ‘right’ values, teaching of the

Church, especially the papal encyclical Evangelium Vitae.

‘In the absence of clear moral guidance, children naturally make choices

based on feelings. Powerful peer pressure, freed from the values which

stem from a divine source, ensure that ‘shared values’ sink to the lowest

common denominator. References to environmental sustainability lead to

a mindset where anti-life arguments for population control are present ed

as being both responsible and desirable. Similarly, ‘informed choices’

about health and lifestyles are euphemisms for attitudes antithetical to

Christian views on motherhood, fatherhood, the sacrament of marriage

and family life. Values Clarification is covert and dangerous. It underpins

the entire rationale of Citizenship (PSHE) and is to be introduced by statute

into the UK soon. It will give young people secular values and imbue them

with the attitude that they alone hold ultimate authority and judgement

about their lives. No Catholic school can include this new subject as

formulated in the Curriculum 2000 document within its current curriculum

provision. Dr. William Coulson recognised the psychological damage

( Page 15 )

Rogers’ technique inflicted on youngsters and rejected it, devoting his life

to exposing its dangers.

Should those in authority in Catholic education not do likewise, as

‘Citizenship’ makes its deadly approach’?

If we allow their subversion of values and interests to continue, we will,

in future generations, lose all that our ancestors suffered and died for. We

are forewarned, says Atkinson. A reading of history (it is all in mainstream

historical accounts) tells us that we are about to lose the most precious

thing we have—our individual freedoms.

‘What we are at present experiencing,' writes Philip Trower in a letter to

the author, ‘is a blend of two schools of thought; the Frankfurt School and

the liberal tradition going back to the 18th century Enlightenment. The

Frankfurt School has of course its remote origins in the 18th century

Enlightenment. But like Lenin’s Marxism it is a breakaway movement.

The immediate aims of both classical liberalism and the Frankfurt School

have been in the main the same (vide your eleven points above) but the

final end is different. For liberals they lead to ‘improving’ and ‘perfecting’

western culture, for the Frankfurt School they bring about its destruction.

‘Unlike hard-line Marxists, the Frankfurt School do not make any plans

for the future. (But) the Frankfurt School seems to be more far-sighted

that our classical liberals and secularists. At least they see the moral

deviations they promote will in the end make social life impossible or

intolerable. But this leaves a big question mark over what a future

conducted by them would be like.'

Meanwhile, the Quiet Revolution rolls forward.

Source:

http://www.catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml

Last updated 03/10/2010

( Page 16 )

THE NEW CHRISTIAN CRUSADE