It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Big Brother’s Founding Fathers

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:45 AM
In all of the contents of human history from barbarism and slaughter to war and pestilence man has persevered through it all. When it is dark and the winds are raging the will of human kind can be seen almost magically rebelling against the natural order as that candle whose light cannot be stomped out by large gusts, torrential rain, or the boot of tyrants. This light, sparked uniquely in the human spirit, allows us to see light when the blackness of night surrounds us like an iron cage.

Yet sometimes this spark is tested, its ability to stand against the wind is tried with great ferocity, for the forces of our enemies are so dastardly that their goal is to crush that light, put out that spark, and drag us into their horror in which there is no escape, no joy, no hope, no love, and no mercy. When these challenges arrive it is not through peace and good will, for if that were to be they would not be challenges or enemies, instead they come at us without compassion.

At times of great trial, when error is not acceptable and peace is not available, man must cling to the sturdiest roots. These are the times that try men’s souls and these are the times we face today. For there lies within our civilization a fifth column, without parallel in all of history; their desire is conquest, their way is deception, and their religion is destruction.

It was the Roman statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero who rightly stated… “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.”[1] We here today stand toe-to-toe with the traitors, many who do not even know what they are, as they march all of us to the slaughter house.

With this I shall begin my explanation of who the enemies inside the gate are, where they came from, why they began, and what their plans were.

The Frankfurt School

“Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left.”
- Herbert Marcuse

Videos with information

(Please read this video before continuing)

History: Why did the Frankfurt School come into being?

Frankfurt School was housed in the Institute for Social Research which is an organization founded in Frankfurt am Main, Germany in 1923 by Carl Grunberg. The reason for its creation was that Marxists had always relied upon Karl Marx’s predictions of the future stages of capitalism and the inevitably proletariat revolution. First he predicted that a bust (recession) would be its demise; however capitalism instead came back stronger than before.

When Marxists realized that the prediction had failed they did not give up instead the next prediction was sure to be realized. Yet that failed as well because when the Great War (WWI) began it would have been the perfect time for the proletariat revolution, these poor men who had to sell their labor and never owned land surely did not have any attachments to their native lands. Instead what occurred was the proletariat fought and died for their country, an unexpected occurrence in what should have been a revolutionary time.

A revolution did occur though in Russia, but this also did not fit the sequence of events. The first proletariats to revolt would have been from the most advanced capitalist states (Northwest Europe, North America). So many Marxists began to wonder why the Marxist predictions were not going as they should as the proletariat became represented in the market place with their economic positions improving and the middle class not disappearing.

So the Frankfurt School set out to understand why the predictions were failing, there was something irrational in the minds of the workers. The most important change between ‘classical Marxists’ and the Frankfurt School was that the old Marxists believed simply in materialism, that ideas did not impact people because such a silly notion was bourgeois nonsense. This led to the conclusion that there is something mentally wrong with workers that they would not rise up and cause a proletariat revolution.

Action: What did needs to be done?

They looked to Sigmund Freud to understand what was wrong with workers because Freud emphasized the impact of idealism on man, that ideas alone were strong impacts upon humans. With this they concluded that in order to set man back on the right track to proletariat revolution it would require the control of the masses through the institutions which most impact human thoughts.

What now had to be accomplished was cultural reconstruction. They viewed the patriarchal family as the cause for this idealism; it instilled in the children who would then become workers the ‘authoritarian personality’ whereby they naturally accept the dictates of authority figures against their own interests and without rationalizing as to why. This personality also was the reason why they believed in religion, a love of their nation, and all of the other ideas that Karl Marx through his materialism believed we irrational.

As a result of this conclusion the only way then to revolutionize the workers was to deconstruct the family because it was this unit which instilled in them idealism and non-rebellion. With this the target of Marxism had to shift from outright proletariat revolution to destroying the family order which they believed destroyed Marx’s predictions. It would become their new agenda to radicalize the children into rebellion against patriarchal authority and through this it would create the revolutionary proletariat who would revolt against the capitalist system.

In order to accomplish this youth rebellion they would need to target the cause of idealism which was the Middle Class morality which respected authority figures whether it was the parents, teachers, police, church, government, or what have you. By these means it would turn the youth against the patriarchal family, turn them against what they believed to be oppressive religion, with the intention of creating a form of radicalized individualism within society that despised authority, conformity, tradition, and patriotism.

Result: How their thoughts became action

A good example of their work would be the anti-war protests during the Vietnam War and even during the Iraq and Afghanistan war. While not even I personally agree with any of those wars the way their opposition was conducted in fact gave aid and comfort to the enemy. We can observe this phenomenon with their conviction to defend the enemy in ways which years before would call for imprisonment. They at times can even defend the people with which we fight wars over their own nation and its soldiers, whether this is done directly or indirectly without even them knowing fully what their actions are doing.

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:45 AM
We can look around us today in film, media, and when talking to other people the idea of politically correct is everywhere. They invented this tool as a means of shutting down debate on issues which do not align with their ideas. Immediately the tag of “bigot”, “racist”, “Nazi”, or “reactionary” are all terms used to slander the opposition into silence. Politically correct is designed to mean the issues which the Left believes in, by going against the Left agenda is to think/act/say in a way which will be politically incorrect. And by most standards the majorities of Americans do not believe in their cultural points of view but are instead silenced for not agreeing.

In order for their agenda to fully encompass all of the mass minds it was necessary to enter into government and the courts; media institutions and schools alone cannot fully change the masses. By using their power in government and courts they can effectively unleash large amounts of lawsuits based on racial, sexual discrimination, affirmative action, etc… which then plague corporations with handling the lawsuits with the intention of overburdening the economy that results in slower economic growth and a reduction in the quality of life. Economic competition then declines because of the cost burdens that could effectively be called “death by a thousand cuts” to capitalism.

The Literary Works

Dialectic of Enlightenment

In this work Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno explain the ambivalence concerning the ultimate source of social domination. They became ambivalent of the source of social domination because in their era they observed the rise of new forms of social domination; National Socialism, state capitalism, and mass culture, none of which could be explained in the original Critical Theory they adhered to.

Because the state intervention into the economy had eliminated the tension between “relations of production” and “material productive forces of society” this ruined their traditional Critical Theory which believed this tension was the main contradiction within the capitalist system. With the rise of the state into the capitalist economy it eliminated the ‘invisible hand of the market’ and much of private property which it replaced with central planning.

But this once again proved Marx’s predictions were a failure because he claimed once this event occurred then we would enter an era of social revolution, instead we stepped into totalitarianism, nationalism, and fascism. With all of that occurring the Critical Theory was left without any evidence to support itself, all of its predictions and expectations had failed. So Adorno and Horkheimer had to account for why after the contradiction in capitalism which they believed had caused the domination had been resolved that domination was still occurring. [2]

Eros and Civilization

Eros and Civilization was written by Herbert Marcules, the man often referred to as “Father of the New Left”. In it he envisioned a non-repressive society based upon Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. It is also claimed to have anticipated the 1960s counterculture, or perhaps even helped to create it. The book focuses on the social meaning of biology and rather than see history as a class struggle, like the material Marxists, he viewed it as people fighting against repression of the natural human instincts.

In Marcules opinion the modern capitalist system prevents us from reaching any sort of non-repressive society built upon a different experience of being and a new relationship between nature and man. The main argument is that man is in a fight between following his natural instincts, much like the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the repression which one self-inflicts and/or society inflicts upon them which try to enforce norms and traditions. He claims that sex produces energy and sex is repressed so the energy can be turned into the progress of society/civilization against human instincts which results in guilt.

A major part of the argument is that 'the irreconcilable conflict is not between work (reality principle - life without leisure) and Eros (pleasure principle - leisure and pleasure), but between alienated labour (performance principle - economic stratification) and Eros.' [3] So his take is that sex is not permitted for the worker unless it is does not interfere with their performance but capitalists can indulge themselves whenever they would like. In a socialist society there would be no repression of sexual desires; all ‘alienated labor’ would then be replaced with ‘non-alienated libidinal work’. Virtual fantasy lands for those with overactive sex drives but who feel shame because of morality. [4]

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:46 AM
One-Dimensional Man

Another book by Herbert Marcuse, this one explaining how the industrial societies created ‘false needs’ that integrated individuals into the existing system of production and consumption, i.e. capitalist system, through the media, advertising, etc… As a result he argues it creates a ‘one-dimensional’ universe of thought, philosophy, morality, and behavior, which shun critical thought. As he analyzes the results of the proletariat being assimilated into the capitalist system he develops a new idea of how to combat authority.

He believed that we need to bring in and foster large numbers of non-integrated/assimilated minorities, outsiders, and radical intelligentsia, in order to create a massive hostile opposition to the native authority structure through promoting radical political thoughts. Through the use of these non-integrated immigrants we could create multicultural societies designed to sack the power structure within a country ranging from government to morals, and then implement the socially engineered politically correct arguments to protect these radical oppositions from assault from the ones who he believed obeyed authority.

Many regarded the book as subversive, even in communist realms, because it treated with equal disdain the bureaucracy of Communism existing in the 1960s and the bureaucracy in Capitalism. However his work was not viewed as subversive by many in the New Left which adopted it as an expression of their opposition to the oppressive Soviet Union communism and United States capitalism.

Marcuse also went after consumerism as a form of social control where it encourages us to work harder and longer than we ordinarily would to fulfill our basic needs by ignoring the psychological, environmental consequences, and searching for our social connections within the material objects advertised to us. His proposal is anti-consumerism but even that is hard to establish because of the ability of advertising and commodification. [5]

Links and Resources


Additional information

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 5

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by Misoir

Man YOU are one of the best thread makers around.. I think your threads are the definition of quality and well thought out..

May I now say that later this weekend i will plow thru your presentation. But for now, the real name of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin are the first thoughts I have...

isn't it coincidental how this same small group of people keep popping up again over infinitelty..Oh, and my granny was a polish/german child of immigrants. so I guess, since Im part jewish I am not a nazi..oh!!!! and the other thing that never fits with me is the whole

ashkenazi jews and the whole term nazi... isn't it just a smidgeon odd??

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:38 AM
Maybe the West needed to be changed. Maybe the repression of women and non white races needed to be overthrown.

I see the thinking and actions of these Marxists as only tangential cause rather than proximate or ultimate cause of the social trends of US culture in the last 80 years. The influences of one philosophy on another are at the root of human development. This school influenced that school, this thinker, that thinker and all the thinkers down the line.

This is also a truth about history. Cultures and societies grow and develop in isolated groupings and as they expand and come into contact with other cultures and societies, they influence and are influenced by those others. This is natural I think.

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:50 AM
This a a good reason why complete BS can be used to convince others.

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:00 PM
reply to post by TerryMcGuire

They did not intend to remove racism/discrimination just to help these oppressed minority groups, this movements was already occurring within liberal thought. For example, the death of slavery in the West occurred long before they had any organization, women got the right to vote before they developed, and there are many instances of relaxed attitudes towards these social issues before they stuck their nose in it.

The reason they decided to intervene was not to help these people, they saw that the proletariat revolution would never occur among the workers anymore so they had to create it among the other groups; gays, women, racial/ethnic/religious minorities, and those whose ideas were suppressed by the majority because, well, they were borderline treason. Critical Theory, which they developed, believed that in order to bring down the authority that it would be necessary to be overly critical of all western history, ideals, practices, and beliefs; this would be a relentless onslaught against our entire way of life.

Then politically correct was developed by them with the intention of, as the quote says, to be tolerant only of movements from the left but intolerant towards those from the right. It was with the critical theory which is the foundation of black studies, Hispanic studies, gay studies, etc… mixed with politically correct which was intended to divide their new proletariat then stop any criticism of their actions with attack words such as “racist”, “bigot”, “nazi”, fascist”, etc… so that they could not be openly criticized.

With their ideas they would develop ‘diverse’ or ‘multicultural’ societies, a technical balkanization of the nations which the proletariat failed to revolutionize, so that the new minorities could then create the revolution. It was a genius plan, I give them that, but it is truly sinister.

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 01:08 PM

S & F

I'm familiar with the topic but never seen the videos...

This is a

Watching them now

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 05:06 PM
reply to post by Misoir

Just off the top of my head, and noting that I'm saving this thread for tomorrow morning's coffee, I did scan though quickly and caught the aim of disrupting the family. To me, there has never been enough investigation of Kent State and what led up to it as a banner milestone in bringing the Vietnam war protests about. However, I'll return tomorrow.

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Misoir
We can look around us today in film, media, and when talking to other people the idea of politically correct is everywhere. They invented this tool as a means of shutting down debate on issues which do not align with their ideas. Immediately the tag of “bigot”, “racist”, “Nazi”, or “reactionary” are all terms used to slander the opposition into silence.

Don't forget "anti-semite." the word so overused that it no longer has any meaning. Don't forget "communist," "marxist," don't forget "hippie" or "druggie," don't forget "illegal" or "leftist," or especially the horrible, terrible "liberal."

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 11:36 PM
reply to post by Misoir

They did not intend to remove racism/discrimination just to help these oppressed minority groups, this movements was already occurring within liberal thought. For example, the death of slavery in the West occurred long before they had any organization, women got the right to vote before they developed, and there are many instances of relaxed attitudes towards these social issues before they stuck their nose in it.

I would add that the true and possibly the foremost intent was profit.

Many of the groups behind the scenes made million of dollars.

The PC instillments were perfect for creating money funnels.

Nothing works better than having past, present, and future victims do the hard work !!

great thread

top topics


log in