Friday, December 7, 2012

Cultural Marxism

By Linda Kimball  

American Thinker - February 15, 2007

Linda Kimball

There are two misconceptions held by many Americans.  The first is that communism ceased to be a threat when the Soviet Union imploded.  The second is that the New Left of the Sixties collapsed and disappeared as well.  "The Sixties are dead," wrote columnist George Will ("Slamming the Doors," Newsweek, Mar. 25, 1991)

Because the New Left lacked cohesion it fell apart as a political movement.  However, its revolutionaries reorganized themselves into a multitude of single issue groups.  Thus we now have for example, radical feminists, black extremists, anti-war ‘peace' activists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, and ‘gay' rights groups.  All of these groups pursue their piece of the radical agenda through a complex network of organizations such as the Gay Straight Lesbian Educators Network (GSLEN), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), People for the American Way, United for Peace and Justice, Planned Parenthood, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), and Code Pink for Peace.

Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America. They favor code words: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity.  All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism.

Birth of Multiculturalism

In anticipation of the revolutionary storm that would baptize the world in an inferno of red terror, leading to its rebirth as the promised land of social justice and proletarian equality Frederich Engels wrote, "All the...large and small nationalities are destined to the revolutionary world storm... (A general war will) wipe out all...nations, down to their very names.  The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only reactionary classes...but...reactionary peoples."  ("The Magyar Struggle," Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Jan. 13, 1849)

By the end of WWI, socialists realized that something was amiss, for the world's proletariat had not heeded Marx's call to rise up in opposition to evil capitalism and to embrace communism instead.  They wondered what had gone wrong.

Separately, two Marxist theorists -- Antonio Gramsci of Italy and Georg Lukacs of Hungary -- concluded that the Christianized West was the obstacle standing in the way of a communist new world order.  The West would have to be conquered first.

Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the workers class. The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a "long march through the culture."  Additionally, a new proletariat must be created.  In his "Prison Notebooks," he suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities.

The new battleground, reasoned Gramsci, must become the culture, starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and history.  All of these things must be radically transformed and the social and cultural order gradually turned upside-down with the new proletariat placed in power at the top.

The Prototype

In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de-Christianize Hungary.  Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow. Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools. Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority.  All of this was accompanied by a reign of cultural terror perpetrated against parents, priests, and dissenters.  

Hungary's youth, having been fed a steady diet of values-neutral (atheism) and radical sex education while simultaneously encouraged to rebel against all authority, easily turned into delinquents ranging from bullies and petty thieves to sex predators, murderers, and sociopaths.

Gramsci's prescription and Lukacs' plans were the precursor to what Cultural Marxism in the guise of SIECUS, GSLEN, and the ACLU--acting as judicially-powered enforcers--later brought into American schools.

Building a base 

In 1923, the Frankfurt School -- a Marxist think-tank-was founded in Weimar Germany.  Among its founders were Georg Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodor Adorno. The school was a multidisciplinary effort which included sociologists, sexologists, and psychologists.

The primary goal of the Frankfurt School was to translate Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms. It would provide the ideas on which to base a new political theory of revolution based on culture, harnessing new oppressed groups for the faithless proletariat. Smashing religion, morals, It would also build a constituency among academics, who could build careers studying and writing about the new oppression. 

Toward this end, Marcuse-who favored polymorphous perversion-expanded the ranks of Gramsci's new proletariat by including homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals.  Into this was spliced Lukacs radical sex education and cultural terrorism tactics.  Gramsci's ‘long march' was added to the mix, and then all of this was wedded to Freudian psychoanalysis and psychological conditioning techniques. The end product was Cultural Marxism, now known in the West as multiculturalism.

Additional intellectual firepower was required: a theory to pathologize what was to be destroyed. In 1950, the Frankfurt School augmented Cultural Marxism with Theodor Adorno's idea of the ‘authoritarian personality.'  This concept is premised on the notion that Christianity, capitalism, and the traditional family create a character prone to racism and fascism. Thus, anyone who upholds America's traditional moral values and institutions is both racist and fascist.  Children raised by traditional values parents, we are told to believe, will almost certainly become racists and fascists.  By extension, if fascism and racism are endemic to America's traditional culture, then everyone raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism, gun ownership, or free markets is in need of psychological help.

The pernicious influence of Adorno's ‘authoritarian personality' idea can be clearly seen in some of the research that gets public money.

"In Aug., 2003, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced the results of their $1.2 million tax-payer funded study.  It stated, essentially, that traditionalists are mentally disturbed.  Scholars from the Universities of Maryland, California at Berkeley, and Stanford had determined that social conservatives...suffer from ‘mental rigidity,' ‘dogmatism,' and ‘uncertainty avoidance,' together with associated indicators for mental illness."  ‘Social and Emotional Learning" Jan. 26, 2005)  

The Orwellian cast of the pathologies named shows how far Gramsci's long march has led us.  

A corresponding and diabolically crafted idea is political correctness.  The strong suggestion here is that in order for one not to be thought of as racist or fascist, then one must not only be nonjudgmental but must also embrace the ‘new' moral absolutes: diversity, choice, sensitivity, sexual orientation, and tolerance.  Political correctness is a Machiavellian psychological ‘command and control' device.  Its purpose is the imposition of uniformity in thought, speech, and behavior.

Critical theory is yet another psychological ‘command and control' device.  As stated by Daniel J. Flynn, "Critical Theory, as its name implies, criticizes.  What deconstruction does to literature, Critical Theory does to societies."  (Intellectual Morons, p 15-16)

Critical Theory is an ongoing and brutal assault via vicious criticism relentlessly leveled against Christians, Christmas, the Boy Scouts, Ten Commandments, our military, and all other aspects of traditional American culture and society. 

Both political correctness and Critical Theory are in essence, psychological bullying.  They are the psycho-political battering rams by which Frankfurt School disciples such as the ACLU are forcing Americans to submit to and to obey the will and the way of the Left.  These devious devices are but psychological versions of Georg Lukacs and Laventi Beria's ‘cultural terrorism' tactics.  In the words of Beria,

"Obedience is the result of force...Force is the antithesis of humanizing actions.  It is so synonymous in the human mind with savageness, lawlessness, brutality, and barbarism, that it is only necessary to display an inhuman attitude toward people to be granted by those people the possessions of force." (The Russian Manual on Psychopolitics: Obedience, by Laventi Beria, head of Soviet Secret Police and Stalin's right-hand man)

Double-thinking ‘fence-sitters', otherwise known as moderates, centrists, and RINOs bear the imprint of these psychological ‘obedience' techniques.  These people-in some cases literally afraid of incurring the wrath of name-calling obedience trainers--- have opted to straddle the fence lest they be found guilty of possessing an opinion, one way or another.  At the merest hint of displeasure from the obedience-trainers, up goes the yellow flag of surrender upon which it is boldly written: 

"I believe in nothing and am tolerant of everything!"

Cultural Determinism

The linchpin of Cultural Marxism is cultural determinism, the parent of identity politics and group solidarity.  In its turn, cultural determinism was birthed by the Darwinian idea that man is but a soulless animal and therefore his identity is determined by for example, his skin color or his sexual and/or erotic preferences.  This proposition rejects the concepts of the human spirit, individuality, free will, and morally informed conscience (paired with personal accountability and responsibility) because it emphatically denies the existence of the God of the Bible.  

Consequently, and by extension, it also rejects the first principles of our liberty enumerated in the Declaration of Independence.  These are our "unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."     Cultural Marxism must reject these because these principles of liberty "are endowed by our Creator," who made man in His image.

Cultural determinism, states David Horowitz, is "identity politics-the politics of radical feminism, queer revolution, and Afro-centrism-which is the basis of academic multiculturalism...a form of intellectual fascism and, insofar as it has any politics, of political fascism as well."  (Mussolini and Neo-Fascist Tribalism: Up from Multiculturalism, by David Horowitz, Jan. 1998) 

It is said that courage is the first of the virtues because without it fear will paralyze man, thus keeping him from acting upon his moral convictions and speaking truth.  Thus bringing about a general state of paralyzing fear, apathy, and submission-the chains of tyranny-is the purpose behind psychopolitical cultural terrorism, for the communist Left's revolutionary agenda must, at all costs, be clothed in darkness.

The antidote is courage and the light of truth.  If we are to win this cultural war and reclaim and rebuild America so our children and their children's children can live in a ‘Shining City on the Hill' where liberty, families, opportunity, free markets, and decency flourish, we must muster the courage to fearlessly expose the communist Left's revolutionary agenda to the Light of Truth.    Truth and the courage to speak it will set us free.

Additional References

Slouching Toward Gomorrah, by Robert H. Bork

Intellectual Morons, by Daniel J. Flynn

Related Articles

Trotsky's ‘Permanent Revolution' in America

Exposing America's Enemies, Part 2: Communist Progressive Democrats

Exposing America's Enemies: the ‘Social Justice Seeking' Communist Left

Linda Kimball writes on culture, politics, and worldview. 

Page Printed from: at September 12, 2011 - 05:59:04 PM CDT


  1. The frog has been on the boil for a long time and is nearly cooked now.

  2. SO here's something that I find very amusing about this article. She derides the notion of "uniformity of thought," but in the same breath criticises the notion of multiculturalism.


    Here's the thing about multiculturalism. It's not actually about being non-judgmental of other cultures--it's about understanding them first and recognizing that so long as no one is getting hurt in the process, there really isn't any basis for saying one cutlure is better than another.

    In certain African cultures, it's not taboo for completely heterosexual men to hold hands. A friend of mine, originally from Mauritania, was telling me about this. Of course I cringed, because I'd never hold another grown man's hand, but that's because I've been conditioned to believe that such a show of friendly affection between two men is "effeminate" and a sign of homosexuality.

    Now, because I think dudes holding hands is gross, does that mean I get to haul off and say that my culture is better than his? No. I can say it's weird, but I have to realize that it's only weird to me and other cultures conditioned similarly. To him, and to his culture, it's natural.

    No one who is worth their salt in anything will ever say that we need to be completely non-judgmental of cultures that brutalize its people. There are some people who will say that, but I can assure you that they are laughed at by the academic community. Just because their voices are loudest does not mean they speak for everyone.

    Do a little comparative analysis of the Mayans and the Spanish during the time of the Conquistadors. It might change your notion of what "culture" and "civilization" really mean.

    The whole point of multiculturalism is to put an end to nationalism. I don't care if immigrants maintain their culture when they come to live here so long as they aren't hurting anyone or impeding our cultural norms.

  3. "The whole point of multiculturalism is to put an end to nationalism. I don't care if immigrants maintain their culture when they come to live here so long as they aren't hurting anyone or impeding our cultural norms."

    In that statement you belie you own argument, Jack, because an immigrant's failure to assimilate defines the essence of "impeding OUR cultural norms."

    Destroying nationalism is NOT a desirable goal.

    At any rate, you've missed the main point of the article which was to give us an excellent brief summary of precisely HOW and WHY our culture has been SUBVERTED and replaced with the tumultuous, chaotic, nihilistic mess we are saddled with today.

    You, yourself, are one of the many millions of innocent victims of the process. Proof of the enormous success of the Cultural Marxist incursion is your apparent inability to recognize anything "wrong." You've been "processed," my friend and you don't realize it.

    This is not to cast aspersions at you, Jack. I sense an earnest desire to see good will prevail in most of your writing. I'm sure the same thing would have happened to me, if I'd gone to Princeton or Yale, as my family wished me to, or been born at a much later date, as you were.

    There's nothing terribly wrong with your statement, itself, but your interpretation of Ms. Kimball's article shows remarkable blindness to the importance of what she has exposed.

  4. Intellectual Morons was an excellent book

  5. YUP! and this is an excellent article. It should be read and thoroughly digested by all, because it lays the blame exactly where it belongs.

  6. What did George "Bow Tie Daddy" know about the 60's?

    I'm amazed qt how even conservative women like AOW are in a rush to get back to the white patriarchy, which is all the current fringe right wing combination of Calvinism and social Darwinism is about.

    Myself, culturally I loved the 60's. I wish that scene could return and give all the stale crap we have floating around a good kick.
    The free market(LMAO)™ has worked enough of its damage in the arts.

  7. "apparent inability to recognize anything 'wrong.'"

    At what point did I even come close to giving off that impression? In fact, I said:

    "No one who is worth their salt in anything will ever say that we need to be completely non-judgmental of cultures that brutalize its people. There are some people who will say that, but I can assure you that they are laughed at by the academic community. Just because their voices are loudest does not mean they speak for everyone."

    Hopefully that belies the notion that I do have a sense of right and wrong, even when it comes to culture. Here's the thing: even your notion of a "good" or "right" culture has facets of itself that are really horrible. Take our culture, for example. A staple of American culture is excess. Whether or not you buy into that or are a part of it is irrelevant. It's a fact. As "good" as American culture is, it's notorious around the planet for being a culture of excess and many times a culture of decadence and waste. That's not a good thing. In fact, I think it's outright wrong that we're so wasteful. But does that mean I condemn American culture as a whole? No.

    It's the same with Arab culture. There are facets of Arab culture that are really awful such as how they treat women, how they get all fanatical over their religion, the violence etc.. But does that mean all of Arab culture is to be condemned as wrong? No, because there are facets of Arab culture that are far superior to American culture. They generally tend to be less wasteful and show a greater sense of community and hospitality.

    Multiculturalism does not seek to destroy the notion of assimilation, but I'm not entirely sure what YOUR definition of assimilation means. In my mind, assimilating to ANY country means that in public you follow the social conventions of every day discourse and commerce. Speak the language, or at least enough to where you can effectively communicate and conduct your daily business. Observe the norms about physical contact and personal space. Wait your turn in line. That's all it should be.

    Any idiot who tries to say that immigrants don't have to do any of that is just that: an idiot. It's the polite thing to do, but assimilation has absolutely NOTHING to do with surrendering your cultural heritage.

    And I'm quite frankly appalled that you would say destroying nationalism is a BAD thing. Nationalism is a poison that has rotted out the human soul for a couple hundred years now. It bore two horrifying world wars, and it continues to be the main source of human misery today.

    Can you imagine what the world would be like if everyone stopped fooling themselves into believing that their own country is somehow superior and more deserving of happiness than everyone else's country?

    Nationalists are the worst sort. They go against everything that has to do with the freedom of thought and enlightened thinking. Here's something for you: Nationalism is WRONG.

    I'll say this one last time: just because the morons are the ones with the loudest voices doesn't mean they speak for everyone. They only speak for themselves, while the rest of us are content to just watch them troll people like yourself. It's sad, but ultimately it's all hopeless anyway (hopelessness does not necessarily belie nihilism, FYI).

  8. The free market(LMAO)™ has worked enough of its damage in the arts.

    Yep, it has given even the poorest man the title of "art patron".

    For only the "best" men should be able to "direct" societies "surpluses"... eh duckman? And to waste it upon "personal luxuries" is simply unconscionable to a radical utilitarian like Marx.

    On the whole, a society always produces more than is necessary for its survival; it has a surplus at its disposal. It is precisely the use it makes of this surplus that determines it: The Surplus is the cause of the agitation, of the structural changes and of the entire history of society. But this surplus has more than one outlet, the most common of which is growth. And growth itself has many forms, each one of which eventually comes up against some limit. Thwarted demographic growth becomes military; it is forced to engage in conquest. Once the military limits is reached, the surplus has the sumptuary forms of religion as an outlet, along with games and spectacles that derive therefrom, or personal luxury.

    Best spend it like the Mayan's did, warfare... and on the "sacrifice" of their "accursed share" captives to the god of the Sun.

  9. btw, duckman - Go see the Life of Pi and then tell me which story YOU liked best.

  10. It's a "spectacle" worth of a free market capitalism.

  11. Duck,
    even conservative women like AOW are in a rush to get back to the white patriarchy, which is all the current fringe right wing combination of Calvinism and social Darwinism is about.


    I have never upheld either the white patriarchy or Calvinism.

  12. FJ,
    Is The Life of Pi a good film? It's been a while, but I loved the book!

  13. The best I've seen in years, AoW. I really loved it. So many (SPOILER ALERT @ link) Richard Parkers... so many "Thirsty" men.

  14. ...but then of course, I've always been fascinated with Garrett Hardin's "Lifeboat problem."

    Most Mariners are.

  15. FJ,
    Maybe I'll venture out to the cinema to see that film. I may have some time for r&r once my Christmas break starts.

  16. Ducky's solution to the lifeboat problem is simple... "throw the rich overboard!" Of course, 1 seat out of the 50 places in the boat isn't going to make a big difference... unless of course he was the only occupant that knew how to fish or capture fresh water. ;)

  17. The problem with multiculturalism is it is not multicultural. It embraces and celebrates the alien culture within the host, and more often than not denigrates the host.

    It leads primarily to factionalization, and from a political perspective, factions are easier to control.

    I've lived in Europe and I've lived in Asia, and I'd be the last person to denigrate someone else's culture. BUT... often lost upon multiculturalists is the fact that the host culture is also worthy of preservation.

    There are aspects of alien culture that are compatible with the host culture that may and more often than not, are shared. There are aspects of alien culture that are semi-compatible with the host, best practiced separately, and there are aspects of alien culture that are totally incompatible with the host and need to be abandoned.

    The other thing that multiculturalists fail to understand is that it is the host culture that ought to get to decide these things.

    If I may, what Jack seems to be advocating is interculturalism, which in a sense is the old concept of the American melting pot, in which cultures come together, adapt to one another, and produce in the long term a richer culture.

    Multiculturalism, in the mosaic or salad bowl sense, shunning assimilation may in the short term be beneficial to the immigrant, in the long term it is damaging to both groups.

    A look at the history of our country illustrates how multiple cultures came together and in the long run produced a culturally richer nation. Germans, Italians, Irish, Polish, Scandinavian... these groups have merged into the greater whole, enriching it in the process. (Assimilation is a bad term, because it implies a one-sided process that never really occurred).

    Multi-culturalism is a bad approach, detrimental to all participants. The question remains, why factionalize? The answer has to do with power, identity politics, and manipulation.

    What is required is neither multi-culturalism nor assimilation, but a balanced approach.

    Just my humble two cents.


  18. I appreciate your statement, Finntann. I only wish I could have said it half so well, myself.

    I'm not sure i agree with you about assimilation, but the rest is rock solid.

    Words take on pejorative connotations largely because of the kind of manipulative tactics of the cultural insurgents outlined in the article.

    May be AMALGAMATION would be a better term, if assimilation is now held in disrepute?

    As a native New Yorker I was brought up to appreciate the richness and variety of a COSMOPOLITAN culture. I still think that was a happy, healthy thing. Unfortunately, because of the political machinations chronicled in this article DIVERSITY, which has been much touted as a desirable thing, is really a code word for DIVISIVENESS, which is completely undesirable.

    Multiculturalism is a deliberately divisive tactic in my view.

    The left can really drive you nuts with their warped "reinterpretations" of perfectly good old terms.

    Thanks for stopping by.

    ` FT

  19. Freethinker, have you ever read Lukacs?

    Try The Theory of the Novel. His discussion of the need for individuals to search for meaning that modernism has discarded is something you seem to be in sympathy with.

    Your overall grasp of Lukacs is weak and I think you'd find him stimulating.

  20. @AOW --- I have never upheld either the white patriarchy or Calvinism.

    No, not explicitly but support of the current right wing is in fact just that no matter how the disguise it.

  21. @Finntann --- BUT... often lost upon multiculturalists is the fact that the host culture is also worthy of preservation.


    That is exactly what we are arguing about.

    The culture wars? That's a fight amongst ourselves and multicultural ideas are only a small part of it.

  22. @The culture wars? That's a fight amongst ourselves and multicultural ideas are only a small part of it.

    True, but multiculturalism is what I chose to address, I didn't say it was the only aspect. It is also an aspect I have been on the other side of. You ought to try living in Asia, it's quite a unique experience, far more so than European, Latin American, or Carribean which are far more westernized. I was back in the states for a year and would still catch myself handing people things with two hands, money in particular, and occasionally bowing.


  23. Duck,
    support of the current right wing is in fact just that no matter how the disguise it

    No, my position on the above isn't support.

    I certainly am not left wing, but I'm not hardcore Right, either. In fact, what I tend to do most is be devil's advocate.

    BTW, I broke with my own family over the issue of white supremacy and broke with the church that I grew up in over dominionism and predestination.

    You know what, Duck? You don't know me. You just THINK that you do. "Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Matthew 7:1)

  24. AOW: you are a brave woman! :)

  25. The duck wouldn't recognize the "hard core Right" if it bit him. Racism isn't a value with "value" in the classical liberalism of the "hard core Right".

  26. The preservation of white male dominance is an impulse I'd associate with the right. Don't read too much into that: I've come to realise that the left-right axes in our two countries are not parallel. In my country, the right wing is the authoritarian wing.

  27. Ducky,

    Lukacs may have been defended by the great Thomas Mann at one time, but his thinking is one-hundred-percent Marxian. I wouldn't sully my intellect with writings of that kind.

    IF anyone actually read the article, he would notice that the term "cultural" when applied to Marxism indicates a demonically clever methodology for making Central Command and Control of every aspect of existence appear more palatable to the Bourgeoisie,who didn't buy the pure, undiluted doctrines that resulted in the Russian Revolution.

    Poison, whether straight from the bottle or presented in pretty pink sugar-coated pills, is still poison.

    Besides, I learned a very long time ago to read books and enjoy plays, movies, concerts and opera, etc. on my own without any "help" from critics -- a parasitic breed of hemi-demi-semi-intellectual I tend to despise.

    Albert Schweitzer, a remarkable figure by any lights, said, "Critics are those who have failed in Music and Art."

    By the way, I have never tried to say that the leading lights of the Marxist-Collectivist-Communist-Socialist-Liberal-Progressive-Fascist-Statist movement are unintelligent.

    Intelligence is not the point. IQ is like fire, water, gunpowder and a thousand other things. All that matters about it is the USES to which it may be put.

    I don't care what "scholars" have to say, in essence there are no appreciable differences between Marxism, Fascism, and Theocracy. ALL are TOTALITARIAN in nature.

    We've had arguments here before about differences between the authoritarian and totalitarian models. Since all of subjugates the rights, needs and desires of the individual to the collective, I don't see anything to be gained by debating whatever fine points there may be.

    Either we LIVE our lives in creative, productive endeavor, or we sit on the sidelines and DITHER, DEBATE, and DEMUR. Carping, caviling, whining and accusing do not a good life make.

    ~ FreeThinke

  28. Jez, I know AOW. You're right; she is a very brave person in ways you might not suspect. I assure you, however she is more than capable of taking care of herself in any debate arena.

    ~ FT

  29. If white male dominance means "classical" liberalism, then you're right. But since it doesn't, as usual, you're full of sh*t.

  30. There is a famous quote by the author of "Peter Pan" which yields an incredible insight into human nature.

    "Never ascribe to an opponent motives meaner than your own." - James M. Barrie

    It's an insight that every Left-leaning Marxist ought heed. For the "will to power" drives every "organic" creature, not just "white supremicists." It's what "life" IS.... else we would all be DEAD.

  31. Perhaps you have read Shakespeare's tragedy of Titus Andronicus... or, perhaps a better alternate title would be, "the personal consequences of rejecting power."

  32. If by "will to power" you mean constant competition in a ruthless drive to gain ascendancy over "others," you are undoubtedly right, but it's not what most people really want for themselves.

    Most people are more like Bilbo Baggins at heart, and would rather stay home in the placid domestic comfort of The Shire than to venture forth in search of Ultimate Power.

    All the great mythologies including those invented by Tolkien seem to cast Power-Seeking as The Villain -- the cause of much tribulation. Adventure too, of course, but who needs "adventure" when you have a satisfying home life?

    The ceaseless machinations of of the troublemaking left-- the endless litany of complaint, criticisms, condemnation and unruly demands for an END to the status quo -- are a primary case in point AGAINST the ambition to achieve DOMINANCE.

    Somebody should have wiped this element out as soon as it reared its ugly head, but "decency" compels us to "fight fair," and therein lies all our woe.

    ~ FT

  33. Jez, I haven't spent any time in Britain since 1981, so I don't really know what's going on. Reports, however, don't seem encouraging.

    I don't believe anymore that, "There will always be an England."

    Once you opened the floodgates to anomalous, markedly hostile dark foreign elements, you sowed the seeds of the ultimate destruction of Englishness.

    The plethora of electronic monitoring devices that, apparently, now dominate the scene indicate a fulfillment of E. M. Forster and Orwell's darkest prophetic visions.

    I think you may be deluding yourself by ascribing dictatorial intent primarily your country's right wing.

    At any rate, as I never tire of saying, left and right meet back to back on a circle. in essence they are one and the same.

    ~ FT

  34. but it's not what most people really want for themselves.

    Actually, it is, only some people realize the futility in applying THEIR surplus capacities towards achieving this goal, and cease their exertions after achieving a level of luxury well in excess of the physical and mental efforts needed simply for survival. And this, they "gift" to the rest of us as a part of our civilization's collective "accursed share".

    For they first render unto Plutus that which belongs to Plutus, and then they render unto their "gods" that which remains, in the "form" in which the gods gave them.

  35. ...and the Left believes that the debts owed Plutus aren't "legitimate"....


  36. The floating island upon which "Pi" and "Richard Parker" are stranded is NOT a paradise. Plutus MUST be paid.

  37. ...else one's "teeth" end up in the "plant" life.

  38. ...and if jez wishes to deny his inner "Richard Parker"... who am I to argue? A cup of orange juice?

  39. ...or perhaps from his perspective, mere;y a ravenous hyena.

  40. erratum - "meerly," above above.

  41. Actually you meant to write MERELY, I'm sure. Isn't that correct? ;-)

  42. As for "lifeboat problems" I thought we'd dealt with that pretty well, albeit satirically, in the preceding post -- The Parable of the Sinking Ship - Why Mankind is fallen Species.

    Or didn't we? (:-c

    ~ FT

  43. That depends whether we were speaking previously of meerkats or mere cats. Can a tiger be either? How about a repressed subconscious one?

    And sorry for keeping with the lifeboat meme.... I can't get pie off my mind... or any other irrational numbers. I suppose I'm just a Pythagorean at heart... ;)

  44. You would love the movie. Please go see it. Life of Pi. You won't regret it. I went so far as to see the 3D version.

  45. It examines the redemptive qualities of religion for a "fallen" species.

  46. The Life of Pi, as briefly described to me earlier today, reminded me of a magnificent short story by Honore de Balzac -- A Passion in the Desert.

    Are you familiar with it?

    Not really knowing anything about "Pi" other than its being a sort of revisitation of Robinson Crusoe marooned with a Tiger, instead of a good man Friday, I couldn't help but wonder if Balzac had been the inspiration for the more modern tale?

    Here is the link to the online text -- a beautiful translation from the original French that loses none of Balzac's genius for poetic imagery.

    If you are not already familiar with this strange and haunting tale, I am sure you would enjoy reading it -- especially in light of your interest in The Life of Pi.

    ~ FT

  47. "She derides the notion of "uniformity of thought," but in the same breath criticises the notion of multiculturalism." connection. Multiculturalism doesn't breed uniformity of thought, it breeds a country in precarious shape because there's no uniformity of allegiance.

  48. Perhaps some of the inspiration came from that tale...

    thankyou for sharing it!

  49. I guess I am really a free thinker. I despise any and all collectives telling me how I should think or how I should lead my life, or what philosophy or religion I should subscribe to. Political correctness is bullshit while multiculturalism actually has som merit, albeit limited. I would be by far more concerned with the creeping socon and neocon Facism that has found its way into our politics than I would be about all the other claptrap that serves only to mask the much more serious and real issues confronting America and her people.

    Watch out for the sandman.

  50. I first read that story by Balzac when I was fourteen or fifteen. I've never forgotten it. Love, trust, doubt, hear, betrayal, remorse all touched upon in a dreamlike, surreal setting.

    The painter Rousseau must have been inspired by this tale too. I remember one of his eerily stylized pictures of a jungle cat and a man in a somewhat "compromising" juxtaposition.

    I wish I could remember the title of the work!


    Thanks all for your input and for visiting.

    ~ FT

  51. AHA! It wasn't a man; it was a woman. The painting is called The Dream., although I swear I remember a Bedouin in the desert with a jungle cat.

    You may see The Dream at this link:

    One of a series of "Jungle Paintings"all of which are striking and thought-provoking. Not "beautiful" but fascinating.

  52. All right, all right! I was partially wrong. The painting I had in mind is one of Henri Rousseau's DESERT paintings.

    It is called The Sleeping Gypsy and the "cat" involved is a huge LION.

    Here's a link to The Sleeping Gypsy:

    Funny! Balzac write of a LEOPARD, which for some odd reason the translator call a PANTHER.

    Rousseau painted a LION.

    The Life of Pi features a TIGER. (The trailer is terrific, by the way. I MUST find a way to see this film.)

    The similarities among these various works are hard to deny. Could it just be coincidence?

    The theme of intimate relationships between human beings and jungle cats seems very odd.

    Probably has its roots in some ancient tribal mythology, don't you think?

  53. I was thinking myself of that linkage earlier in the week, of the "totem" animals of northwest Indian tribes.

  54. ...also... Dionysus is also strongly associated with satyrs, centaurs, and sileni. He is often shown riding a leopard, wearing a leopard skin, or in a chariot drawn by panthers, and may also be recognized by the thyrsus he carries.

  55. There was a young lady of Niger
    Who smiled as she rode on a tiger;
    They returned from the ride
    With the lady inside,
    And the smile on the face of the tiger.

    Emerson, "Conduct of Life"

    One more text from the mythologists is to the same purpose, — Beauty rides on a lion. Beauty rests on necessities. The line of beauty is the result of perfect economy. The cell of the bee is built at that angle which gives the most strength with the least wax; the bone or the quill of the bird gives the most alar strength, with the least weight. "It is the purgation of superfluities," said Michel Angelo. There is not a particle to spare in natural structures. There is a compelling reason in the uses of the plant, for every novelty of color or form: and our art saves material, by more skilful arrangement, and reaches beauty by taking every superfluous ounce that can be spared from a wall, and keeping all its strength in the poetry of columns. In rhetoric, this art of omission is a chief secret of power, and, in general, it is proof of high culture, to say the greatest matters in the simplest way.

  56. I was delayed in getting back to this thread.

    Thank you, FT, for that vote of confidence.

    You know what? I believe that almost all of us in the blogosphere are more complicated that we may appear to others. I say "almost all" because certain trolls -- I'm not referring to Duck, whom I do not consider a troll -- are one-note sambas and likely simplistic. One of those trolls perseverates at my site and gets deleted every time. You know to whom I'm referring.

    If Shakespeare taught us anything, it is that we are all complicated -- and that nobody else really knows us. Hell, I'm not too sure that we know ourselves.

  57. Knowing oneself requires great introspection and the work this requires is, IMNHO, derived from a lifetime of observations, beyond what many are willing to exert. Simply stated it is easier to accept the loudest drumbeat. The oligarchs and the conditioning every one is exposed to has worked its purpose.

    It is what it is. Likely it will continue to be what it is.

    A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Somebody, I've forgotten who, once said that.

  58. AOW: my remark to you was intended as straight-forward admiration.

  59. Since we've written a good deal about the interaction of human beings with jungle cats, I've got to bring Ogden Nash into the mix:

    If you're questioned by a panther --
    Don't anther.

    Mr. Nash was a great genius in his own rite -- a true original. Always loved him ever since I received a copy of "Elderly Poems for Youngerly Readers" at Christmas the year I turned eleven.

  60. Any man who could love Balti more is all right in my book.



We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––


Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.