Poll: One In Three College Students Believe Violence Is Justified To Stop “Hate Speech”

Online survey of 800 full-time undergraduates conducted by McLaughlin & Associates and sponsored by Yale University’s William F. Buckley, Jr. Program found that a startling number of colleges students believe that violence is justified to silence what they consider to be hate speech.  Today we discussed an FSU student arrested for battery in a confrontation with conservative students.  I will be having a debate at Rice University over calls for schools and government to outlaw hate speech.  As with many in the free speech community, I have been opposed to such criminalizing of speech.

Also worrisome is that 53% report that they  feel “intimidated” to share their views — a problem that both students and faculty have shared with me though the years.
Again, as I said in the earlier posting, there have been a number of faculty who have reinforced this view. At the University of California at Santa Barbara, feminist studies professor Mireille Miller Young led her students in attacking pro-life advocates, stealing their display, and then committing battery on a young woman. Despite pleading no contest to criminal assault, Miller Young not only was retained but widely supported by faculty and students, including those who viewed the pro-life advocates as “terrorists” who should be kept off campus. This month, the University of Oregon gender studies department is featuring her as a speaker.

In the case of Miller Young, various faculty members publicly supported Miller-Young. Some publicly denounced the media and the victims in this case. History professor Paul Spikard wrote to object to the court that Miller-Young is the victim of “an energetic smear campaign . . . fomenting racial hatred and rallying right-wing political sentiment.” He insisted that the media was intent on displaying another example of “an Angry Black Woman.” What is striking is that Spikard opposed even a mandatory anger management class in the case. Faculty made every excuse for a professor assaulting people with opposing views on campus.  One letter from the court came from Eileen Boris, a professor in the Department of Feminist Studies, Bwho tried to deal with the fact that Miller-Young is smiling during the assault and both she and her students appear to be proud of their actions in the video. Professor Boris dismisses the video record as misleading and inaccurate. She explained to the court that “[i]f she appears smiling on camera, she is ‘wearing the mask,’ that is, she is hiding her actual state through a strategy of self-presentation that is a cultural legacy of slavery.” I was equally disturbed by  the response by Michael D. Young, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs which seems to treat the pro-life demonstrators as the problem while encouraging faculty and students not to attack such “outsiders.”

With responses like the one at the University of California (Santa Barbara), it is little surprise to see that students believe that violence is sometimes the answer. Both students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with whom they disagree and even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech.  The CUNY Law Dean, Mary Lu Bilekeven argued that shutting down free speech is free speech. 

That is not the only influence.  I have also discussed how Antifa and other college protesters are increasingly denouncing free speech and the foundations for liberal democracies. Some protesters reject classic liberalism and the belief in free speech as part of the oppression on campus.  The movement threatens both academic freedom and free speech — a threat that is growing due to the failure of administrators and faculty to remain true to core academic principles.  Dartmouth Professor Mark Bray, the author of a book entitled “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook” is one of the chief enablers of these protesters. Bray speaks positively of the effort to supplant traditional views of free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase… that says I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He defines anti-fascists as “illiberal” who reject the notion that far right views deserve to “coexist” with opposing views.

Bray says that the protesters do not “see fascism or white supremacy as a view with which they disagree as a difference of opinion.” Their goal is not co-existence but “to end their politics.” Bray and other academics are liberating students from the confines of what they deem the false “allegiance to liberal democracy.” Once freed of the values of free speech and democratic values, violence becomes merely politics by other means.


179 thoughts on “Poll: One In Three College Students Believe Violence Is Justified To Stop “Hate Speech””

  1. The whole problem originates in the idea of who gets to define “hate speech”.

    The correct answer (in my opinion) is NO ONE!

    Speech should never be classified as hate. Unfortunately, I think this started when the United States came up with the idea of “hate crime” laws, which allowed the State to inflict more severe punishment based upon the idea that a person committed a crime because of hatred toward the victim, however loosely defined they could frame the law around the specifics of an individual criminal case.

    But I ask: Can anyone think of a case of first-degree murder that didn’t involve some level of hate between the perpetrator and the victim?

    The First Amendment to the Constitution was written to protect so-called hate speech, because ideas expressed that almost everyone agrees with don’t need special legal protection for the person speaking them.

    In my opinion, we need to invalidate all hate crimes laws. Yesterday if not sooner.

  2. Considering the militant left shows no attachment to principles of fair play, but rather elevates identity and mind-reading based on superficial perceptions (“guilty as accused”), I would recommend the FBI get busy infiltrating any group that seriously considering violence to suppress hate speech.

    Our legal system is well-adjusted to a pluralistic society, and we can trust it above all to adhere to standards of fair play. Militant leftists believe in rigid conformity along ideological lines — they will denounce whoever they see as standing in their path to power. I don’t wish to aggrandize young militants as a threat. I see them as weak and defensive creatures.
    However, in any sub-population there will be a few who are extreme enough or mentally deranged enough to resort to violence. We should be prepared to trounce those individuals at first defiance of the law.

  3. There is a certain legit parallel with Trump and fascism. I will give you three axes (ahem, axes, axis, bundles of rods with axe, get it? lol) on which Trump phenom is fascist like

    a) Trump has balls. Like Mussolini. A strong man. I like that, I have no problem with that. Molto nemici, molto honore.

    b) there is attention to the interests of working class people. good! American duopoly political system has shafted the native born workers badly in favor of migrants and wall street financialization. democrats are total phonies when it comes to this, see how Wall street threw money at hillary, and how the Kroch brothers have bought off so many little republicans who are lesser men than Trump

    c) there is a “palingenic” call to action. “MAGA” is palingenic. Political historian and theorist Roger Griffin is a genuine expert on “fascism” and he says


    “the mythical horizons of the fascist mentality do not extend beyond this first stage. It promises to replace gerontocracy, mediocrity and national weakness with youth, heroism and national greatness, to banish anarchy and decadence and bring order and health, to inaugurate an exciting new world in place of the played-out one that existed before, to put government in the hands of outstanding personalities instead of non-entities.”





    The conservative movement in the United States has long been wary of higher education. This is understandable given the fact that survey after survey demonstrates a positive correlation between education and progressive values. Conservatives tend to attribute this phenomenon to mass brainwashing by elite liberal professors coupled with a conspiracy to blacklist anyone who tells what they consider to be the truth. Indeed, educated hucksters like David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes have made a tidy fortune from their gullible funders by hawking exactly this silly idea: smearing academics with McCarthyite tactics as they simultaneously complain about the communities of competence that struggle to maintain the integrity of their disciplines.

    Edited from “Who’s Behind The Right-Wing Assault On Public Universities

    Bill Moyers.com 9/8/16

      1. In my comment early this morning, a half-kiddingly wondered if Turley had pledged to devote a certain number of columns to the threat of academic liberals.

        Yet a Google search reveals numerous articles describing an organized conservative assault on public universities. And I was scarcely surprised to read that the Koch Brothers, of all people, are one of the groups behind this assault.

        Therefore it’s ironic that Professor Turley, whose day job is teaching, should want to aid this effort by running frequent columns on the danger liberals pose to higher education.

        1. Yet a Google search reveals numerous articles describing an organized conservative assault on public universities.

          Excuse me, but higher education is a scandal. Of course they’re organizing against it. Grow up, Peter.

        2. Paraphrase of above post: Because conservatives have done bad things, I approve of public Universities lying to students by teaching them the Constitution does not protect hate speech (the only kind of speech requiring legal protection), and conversely, teaching students to commit violent criminal battery to punish persons with whom students disagree (persons who have committed alleged “thought crimes.”)

      2. “Sandefer’s ideas by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a right-wing group ”

        NEVER HEARD OF THEM… prolly stale info from the moyers website

        I would tell you some of the professorial circles that have formed as resistance but then again that would only help the enemy to know the names. you keep working on that stale info for now

        One thing I can tell you about tenured professors. They work a lot on “Grant money.” that means they, like every other “professional,” is a working man, a hired hand, a mercenary, or as we lawyers sometimes have to admit to ourselves, that we are like so many whores some days, screwing people for money

        the difference is a lawyer knows it but a professor fools himself

        the similarity is that a lot of phony academics who take the soup today, will take different soup tomorrow if they are offered a better deal

        as the gansters in mexico say, “plata o plomo”


    1. Come again? Higher education is a ‘battlefront’ because the people running it have insisted, quite gratuitously, into using public money for sectarian projects. Do you know anything at all?

      1. Tabby, I learned long ago that ‘severe conservatives’ don’t like educated kids. That principle was a reoccurring theme throughout the Vietnam War. It was hard to miss for kids my age, entering our teenage years with Vietnam an all-consuming issue.

        1. Tabby, I learned long ago that ‘severe conservatives’ don’t like educated kids.

          No, Peter, you learned to manufacture caricatures and recite silly talking points.

    2. i have had some cases of professors defamed, fired and pressured out for being conservatives. but i cant talk about them because we had NDAs when we got the settlements.

      so yeah it’s a battleground but you’re a fool if you think conservatives always lose

  5. The headline alone is an absurdity, “Poll: One In Three College Students Believe Violence Is Justified To Stop “Hate Speech.”” It’s in the same logical spirit as the the old “guidance,” “The beating will continue until morale improves.”

    1. the good news is that as the violent leftists of BLM and whatever group of thugs is on the march breaking the law today, as they introduce violent group tactics to this generation of Americans, Americans will once again wake to the the reality that a lot of the nonsense about the free marketplace of ideas and all that, is a lot of hokum, garbage, lies. Organized force always was and always will be decisive. Individuals are weak, groups are strong. Ideas matter mostly in as much as they can organize groups to gain and grow and secure resources, not as they service phony ideals or other vague moralistic nonsense.

      So, once the left has normalized violence again, then, it will be easier to turn violence on the left. low intensity conflict grows. you can see some of the results in these crazies the past few weeks.

      wise and honest liberals like turley want to stop it. PH stupidly thinks he is “throwing read meat” etc etc. No, PH, you don’t get it, or, maybe you do but you are playing dumb. Turley is a sincere and honest liberal. Here, I am fishing for minds that see beyond the tropes of liberal society and other enlightenment fantasies, for the Colonel Kurzes of the future.

      i personally find antifa and college leftist illegal tactics disgusting, but, well, how can I say this? immoral and sad for the victims, but, a necessary development, a sharpening of the debate, so to speak. let the pot boil, and the frog will jump. boil pot boil

  6. a lot of people don’t realize that the nazis as a phenomenon of right wing violence, arose in part as reaction to the “Revolutionary violence” of the left in Germany which included a lot of sabotage and murder by communists that undermined the war effort and paralyzed the government at home, unable to capitalize on military victories and a stalemate that left Germans in a strategic entrenched position in france, the government collapsed ….. so….. one can understand how some veterans blamed the communists for the loss and humiliating terms imposed by the Treaty of Versailles


    Kurt Eisner
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Kurt Eisner (14 May 1867 – 21 February 1919)[1] was a journalist and theatre critic. As a socialist journalist, he organised the Socialist Revolution that overthrew the Wittelsbach monarchy in Bavaria in November 1918.[1] He is used as an example of charismatic authority by Max Weber.[2] He proclaimed the Free State of Bavaria. He was assassinated in Munich by a German nationalist on 21 February 1919.

    Kurt Eisner was born in Berlin on 14 May 1867, to Emanuel Eisner and Hedwig Levenstein, both Jewish. From 1892 to 1917 he was married to painter Elisabeth Hendrich, …
    Eisner studied philosophy, but then became a journalist in Marburg……He was chief editor of the Fränkische Tagespost in Nuremberg from 1907 to 1910, and afterward became a freelance journalist in Munich.
    Eisner joined the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany in 1917, at the height of World War I, and was convicted of treason in 1918 for his role in inciting a strike of munitions workers. He spent nine months in Cell 70 of Stadelheim Prison, but was released during the General Amnesty in October of that year.[7]
    After his release from prison, Eisner organized the revolution that overthrew the monarchy in Bavaria (see German Revolution)…..

    another topic


    it’s easy to pretend that ‘hate” just comes from “evil”
    but oftentimes “evil” is just a matter of perspective.
    were the hebrews that slaughtered the people of jerhico, every “man woman child and beast of the field, with the edge of the sword” as it says in the book of kings, were they evil? or were the people of jerhico evil as the victors tell us?
    I don’t know I wasnt there….

    victim status is usually just a matter of perspective. one man’s hate is another man’s justice.

    America has done a good job of mitigating these kinds of ideological and tribal conflicts, by our system of free speech and elections. we will see how long that lasts.

    1. Thank, you Kurtz, I’ve been trying to explain this for more than a week.

      The government of Imperial Germany sponsored Lenin’s return to Russia in 1917. Imperial Germany was expecting to win World War I. So it wasn’t afraid that revolution would boomerang back to Germany. But after Germany ‘lost’ the war, there was, indeed, a blowback effect! Communist agitators were very, very active in 1920’s Germany.

      Therefore Hitler, a fringe politician in the early 1920’s, was taken more seriously as Germany struggled for stability amid a volatile political climate. During this same decade Joseph Stalin solidified his control of the Soviet Union. Stalin’s rise, coupled with communist agitation in Germany, made Germans more receptive to a strongman of their own. A strongman from the right who could serve as a counterweight to Stalin.

      Hitler was already on the rise when the Great Depression hit Europe in the early 1930’s. Said depression became a tipping for Germany. The Nazis appeared increasingly acceptable to bring order to chaos.

      1. Hitler was already on the rise when the Great Depression hit Europe in the early 1930’s.

        He wasn’t. His electoral list lost support between 1924 and 1928.

        1. Tabby, 1924-1928 is ‘not’ the early 30’s.

          It’s ridiculous that this history is considered ‘controversial’ in the Trump era. And it goes to show how Trumpers feel a peculiar obsession to support right-wing talking points unique to this period.

          1. Peter, I see chronology is not your strong suit either. The economic implosion in the occidental world began in late 1929. The improvement in the Nazis electoral fortunes post-dated that. The Communists also had an improvement in their fortunes, but on a much smaller scale. The liberal parties were all but destroyed.

              1. there was the Deutsche Demokratische Partei, DDP. they say it was a moderately left liberal party that Jews voted for. there was a moderate right party too, but they were both weak

                of note, Hjalmar Schacht was a member of that party and presumpably a liberal and although he never joined the nsdap, some sources say that he began to support Hitler as early as 1926. Schacht was the genius banker that opposed and eventually solved the reparations trap. He became finance minister in the 1933 government and was instrumental in the economic recovery.

      2. overall, i think there is some merit in Peter’s obnoxious characterization, especially if you credit that Germans knew about the horrible famine imposed by communist henchmen of Stalin like Lazar Kaganovich in Ukraine that lead to maybe a million or so deaths, not sure of the numbers

        it’s worth observing as nobel prize winning author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn did, that a lot of the early communist cadre um, how do I say this? Jewish ancestry was over represented among them. this leant an ethnic aspect to communism that was not lost on Germans that voted for the nazis


        facts can be scary things. and if it comes to war you want a strong hand on your side. only fools want a weakling for a leader

        nonetheless, the outcome of the war was a disaster for Germany even more than World War I. Why, is complicated.

        oh, btw. a fact about hitler little known or appreciated. the Germany army assigned Corporal Hitler to infiltrate the NSDAP in the first place

        1. During his first 10 years in power, 1933-1943, Hitler might have seemed like a winner for Germany. The country went from instability to superpower of Europe. But after Stalingrad, it was all downhill for Hitler.

  7. In addition, the protestors seeking to end fascism rather than coexist, do not understand the meaning of fascism. Instead, they label anyone they disagree with, namely, Republicans, as “fascist” and then declare that they fight to end their politics. Merely having a Southern license plate was enough for Antifa to label an elderly driver as KKK and chase him down the street. They were lucky he didn’t panic and drive through the crowd, killing someone.

    1. Excellent. Who is this “Antifa” character? Where did this “Southern license plate” folly occurr? I don’t monitor brietbart, stormfront or alex jones, si I seem to miss all the quackery that riles your ilk up.

      to “surely there’s no republican fascists” karen

  8. If 53% of students polled feel intimidated to express their views, that likely translates to roughly 100% of non Liberal students, unless I misread the statement.

  9. From the great William Lind, on the left’s “long march through the institutions”

    “To understand anything, we have to know its history. To understand who stole our culture, we need to take a look at the history of “political correctness.”

    Early Marxist theory

    Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their governments and create a new Communist Europe. But when war broke out in the summer of 1914, that didn’t happen. Instead, the workers in every European country lined up by the millions to fight their country’s enemies. Finally, in 1917, a Communist revolution did occur, in Russia. But attempts to spread that revolution to other countries failed because the workers did not support it.

    After World War I ended in 1918, Marxist theorists had to ask themselves the question: What went wrong? As good Marxists, they could not admit Marxist theory had been incorrect. Instead, two leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary (Lukacs was considered the most brilliant Marxist thinker since Marx himself) independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a Communist revolution was impossible in the West, until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism’s goal right at the beginning, has never changed.

    A new strategy

    Gramsci famously laid out a strategy for destroying Christianity and Western culture, one that has proven all too successful. Instead of calling for a Communist revolution up front, as in Russia, he said Marxists in the West should take political power last, after a “long march through the institutions” – the schools, the media, even the churches, every institution that could influence the culture. That “long march through the institutions” is what America has experienced, especially since the 1960s. Fortunately, Mussolini recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him. His influence remained small until the 1960s, when his works, especially the “Prison Notebooks,” were rediscovered.

    Georg Lukacs proved more influential. In 1918, he became deputy commissar for culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik regime in Hungary. There, asking, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” he instituted what he called “cultural terrorism.” One of its main components was introducing sex education into Hungarian schools. Lukacs realized that if he could destroy the country’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying its traditional culture and Christian faith.

    Far from rallying to Lukacs’ “cultural terrorism,” the Hungarian working class was so outraged by it that when Romania invaded Hungary, the workers would not fight for the Bela Kun government, and it fell. Lukacs disappeared, but not for long. In 1923, he turned up at a “Marxist Study Week” in Germany, a program sponsored by a young Marxist named Felix Weil who had inherited millions. Weil and the others who attended that study week were fascinated by Lukacs’ cultural perspective on Marxism.

    The Frankfurt School

    Weil responded by using some of his money to set up a new think tank at Frankfurt University in Frankfurt, Germany. Originally it was to be called the “Institute for Marxism.” But the cultural Marxists realized they could be far more effective if they concealed their real nature and objectives. They convinced Weil to give the new institute a neutral-sounding name, the “Institute for Social Research.” Soon known simply as the “Frankfurt School,” the Institute for Social Research would become the place where political correctness, as we now know it, was developed. The basic answer to the question “Who stole our culture?” is the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School.

    At first, the Institute worked mainly on conventional Marxist issues such as the labor movement. But in 1930, that changed dramatically. That year, the Institute was taken over by a new director, a brilliant young Marxist intellectual named Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer had been strongly influenced by Georg Lukacs. He immediately set to work to turn the Frankfurt School into the place where Lukacs’ pioneering work on cultural Marxism could be developed further into a full-blown ideology.

    To that end, he brought some new members into the Frankfurt School. Perhaps the most important was Theodor Adorno, who would become Horkheimer’s most creative collaborator. Other new members included two psychologists, Eric Fromm and Wilhelm Reich, who were noted promoters of feminism and matriarchy, and a young graduate student named Herbert Marcuse.

    Advances in cultural Marxism

    With the help of this new blood, Horkheimer made three major advances in the development of cultural Marxism. First, he broke with Marx’s view that culture was merely part of society’s “superstructure,” which was determined by economic factors. He said that on the contrary, culture was an independent and very important factor in shaping a society.

    Second, again contrary to Marx, he announced that in the future, the working class would not be the agent of revolution. He left open the question of who would play that role – a question Marcuse answered in the 1950s.

    Third, Horkheimer and the other Frankfurt School members decided that the key to destroying Western culture was to cross Marx with Freud. They argued that just as workers were oppressed under capitalism, so under Western culture, everyone lived in a constant state of psychological repression. “Liberating” everyone from that repression became one of cultural Marxism’s main goals. Even more important, they realized that psychology offered them a far more powerful tool than philosophy for destroying Western culture: psychological conditioning.

    Today, when Hollywood’s cultural Marxists want to “normalize” something like homosexuality (thus “liberating” us from “repression”), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught.

    The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.

    New developments

    Taking advantage of American hospitality, the Frankfurt School soon resumed its intellectual work to create cultural Marxism. To its earlier achievements in Germany, it added these new developments.

    Critical Theory

    To serve its purpose of “negating” Western culture, the Frankfurt School developed a powerful tool it called “Critical Theory.” What was the theory? The theory was to criticize. By subjecting every traditional institution, starting with family, to endless, unremitting criticism (the Frankfurt School was careful never to define what it was for, only what it was against), it hoped to bring them down. Critical Theory is the basis for the “studies” departments that now inhabit American colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, those departments are the home turf of academic political correctness.

    Studies in prejudice

    The Frankfurt School sought to define traditional attitudes on every issue as “prejudice” in a series of academic studies that culminated in Adorno’s immensely influential book, “The Authoritarian Personality,” published in 1950. They invented a bogus “F-scale” that purported to tie traditional beliefs on sexual morals, relations between men and women and questions touching on the family to support for fascism. Today, the favorite term the politically correct use for anyone who disagrees with them is “fascist.”


    The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or “dominance” over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled “oppressors,” while other groups were defined as “victims.” Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.

    Though Marxists, the members of the Frankfurt School also drew from Nietzsche (someone else they admired for his defiance of traditional morals was the Marquis de Sade). They incorporated into their cultural Marxism what Nietzsche called the “transvaluation of all values.” What that means, in plain English, is that all the old sins become virtues, and all the old virtues become sins. Homosexuality is a fine and good thing, but anyone who thinks men and women should have different social roles is an evil “fascist.” That is what political correctness now teaches children in public schools all across America. (The Frankfurt School wrote about American public education. It said it did not matter if school children learned any skills or any facts. All that mattered was that they graduate from the schools with the right “attitudes” on certain questions.)

    Led by Adorno, the Frankfurt School initially opposed the culture industry, which they thought “commodified” culture. Then, they started to listen to Walter Benjamin, a close friend of Horkheimer and Adorno, who argued that cultural Marxism could make powerful use of tools like radio, film and later television to psychologically condition the public. Benjamin’s view prevailed, and Horkheimer and Adorno spent the World War II years in Hollywood. It is no accident that the entertainment industry is now cultural Marxism’s most powerful weapon.

    The growth of Marxism in the United States

    After World War II and the defeat of the Nazis, Horkheimer, Adorno and most of the other members of the Frankfurt School returned to Germany, where the Institute re-established itself in Frankfurt with the help of the American occupation authorities. Cultural Marxism in time became the unofficial but all-pervasive ideology of the Federal Republic of Germany.

    But hell had not forgotten the United States. Herbert Marcuse remained here, and he set about translating the very difficult academic writings of other members of the Frankfurt School into simpler terms Americans could easily grasp. His book “Eros and Civilization” used the Frankfurt School’s crossing of Marx with Freud to argue that if we would only “liberate non-procreative eros” through “polymorphous perversity,” we could create a new paradise where there would be only play and no work. “Eros and Civilization” became one of the main texts of the New Left in the 1960s.

    Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School’s intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred “victims groups” of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness’s favorite words, “tolerance,” and gave it a new meaning. He defined “liberating tolerance” as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for “tolerance,” they mean Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” (just as when they call for “diversity,” they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).

    The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous “guru,” he injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute’s beginning, Marcuse and the few other people “in the know” did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America’s traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America’s traditional culture lies in ruins.

    A counter-strategy

    Now you know who stole our culture. The question is, what are we, as Christians and as cultural conservatives, going to do about it?

    We can choose between two strategies. The first is to try to retake the existing institutions – the public schools, the universities, the media, the entertainment industry and most of the mainline churches – from the cultural Marxists. They expect us to try to do that, they are ready for it, and we would find ourselves, with but small voice and few resources compared to theirs, making a frontal assault against prepared defensive positions. Any soldier can tell you what that almost always leads to: defeat.

    Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41737/#d4kD73XkWGGHqMvU.99

    1. Um, I would sooner believe the Marxists’ Frankfurt School than the paleoconservatives’ Book of Genesis. Just sayin’

    2. They expect us to try to do that, they are ready for it, and we would find ourselves, with but small voice and few resources compared to theirs, making a frontal assault against prepared defensive positions. Any soldier can tell you what that almost always leads to: defeat.
      Bad military history. It’s doesn’t call for a frontal assault like ill-fated one at the stone wall at Fredericksburg. It’s a long term siege as in defund, delegitimize and de-emphasize. You starve an entrenched immobile army of zealots, you don’t charge it. Think Masada not Gettysburg. If they commit harikiri before you get in there, just start the victory orgy early!

      1. Well, the siege of Masada took only 1 year. I suspect your cultural seige may take a little longer given the fact that the Jews of Masada are now disproportionately represented in the media and Hollywood… Good luck with that!

        1. JS:

          “Well, the siege of Masada took only 1 year.”
          Worked for the Romans but they got a messy cleanup. The Hebrews were brave since they knew defeat would likely bring bondage or crucifixion. As for our radical Leftist brothers today, it won’t take a year. They crumble at any resistance to their crusade. Logic and rational debate is a white European migrant to them. It’s why they lose so damn always. They’ll fill the crying rooms soon enough clutching their stuffed animals and coloring books. They live at the public trough. It’s an old barnyard fable: Shut down the trough; shut down the pigs feeding there.

          1. the problem is that a lot of capitalist pigs like soros or the silicon valley digital monopolists, are huge donors and have a lot of pull with university trustees

        2. Jeffrey Silbermann – excellent engineers that they were, the Roman built a ramp up to the walls of Masada and pushed a siege engine up to the walls which speed up the demise of the defenders. Fascinating piece of engineering using an existing ridge back.

          1. I liked the Masada miniseries. You have to admire that production. It valorized the Jewish rebellion but it showed the virtues of Roman power as well.


Comments are closed.