Since Mr. Kocher has given me permission to reproduce his remarkably insightful works here on Solo I have decided to do so. This is just Part One. Prepare, Mr. Kocher, to be called "wordy" once more. As far as I'm concerned, that's the very least of our worries given that the West has been infected and stricken by Marxists. But don't forget, Rand said it first - and tirelessly applied herself to the philosophical antidote! (Though I think she'd have had kittens if she could have seen how much worse it would all get since her death in 1982.)

The Analytic Papers
C.12/1/2010

It is a matter of common impression that the age of communism/socialism began with Russian
revolution. But, the period going back 40 or more years before that had been one of political rumination and varying degrees of commitment and seriousness of determination. I have seen it written somewhere, with a bit of humor, to the effect that even in America there was hardly a man who fancied himself an
intellectual or intelligent at the turn of the 20th century who didn't have the design for a new socialist society in his vest pocket. Interest, intent, and willingness were present, but they were fragmented and without unity, direction, or force. For many people,socialism/communism was a social affectation providing public demonstration of intellectual activity. One thing was certain, Marxism was floating around and making its presence felt. Teddy Roosevelt read socialist Herbert Crowley's book "The Promise of America" while on safari, then adopted him as an advisor as president. As a practical matter the Russian revolution could not have occurred without years of a full head of steam in terms of numbers, of organizing, and previous strategizing.

Marxist theory had projected that in the event of a major European war, the working class of Europe would rise up in mass and demand communism. But when war came in 1914, that did not happen. When
revolution occurred in Russia in 1917, workers in other European countries once again failed expectations. What was the problem with them?

The following paragraph is from a piece by William S. Lind:

"Independently, two Marxist theorists, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, came to the same answer: Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to
its true Marxist class interest that Communism was impossible in the West until both could be destroyed. In 1919, Lukacs asked, "Who will save us from Western civilization?" That same year, when he became
Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun government in Hungary, one of Lukacs's first acts was to introduce sex education into Hungary's public schools. He knew that if he could destroy the West's traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying the hated Western culture itself."

Lukacs had hoped to set up and intensify a basic psychological conflict point between the culture/religion and inherent temptations of human nature. He could do this by using government to feed in a constant licensing and attractively packaged theme to appeal to the weakness of those temptations and systematically eventually defeat the culture. He believed he had found an ideal tool to do it.

Lukacs had a pretty good idea of his intentions, tactics, and strategy. Lukacs and others quickly realized the chaos and destruction that could ultimately and easily be obtained by prompting Americans and
people elsewhere into a willingness to sacrifice other areas of importance to focus upon their tantalizing weaknesses. Licensing a path toward self indulgence was the key. Liberating people from long term considerations which make up the foundation of morality would eventually liberate people from their wits. Americans, for their part, have been out-thought and out strategized for years aided by their own softness and obsessive self indulgence. They have willingly sacrificed their intelligence. This is not a religious issue. It is a strategy issue. More will be said about this later.

Lukacs is considered by many Marxists and paraMarxists to be second only to Marx himself in brilliance of mentality. He was far superior to Marx as far as inventiveness in strategy and tactics. It may be a case of the tail wagging the dog with Lukacs taking over world Marxist intellectual leadership and authority in direction of a movement that remained in its originator's name. German Marxists organized and established themselves at Frankfurt University in Germany as the Institute for Social Research in 1923 to expand the theories of Lukacs. Among Institute members were Georg Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, and others. The formulations they developed became known as the Frankfurt School and were reverently referred to as that in the '60s when I was an American graduate student. The effort which took
place at Frankfurt was looked upon as an unchallengeable school of thought, by the same name, brought about as if it were the result of visitation by direct divine intervention and commandment. Agreement with
the school of thought was required for graduation. The details of the background and declared intentions of the school were hidden from students. There is a superficial contradiction here which will be resolved later in this analysis.

The term paraMarxist is used here. A paraMarxist is a person who endorses all, or most of, the basic tenets of Marxism, but denies formal membership in communist or socialist organizations. This rejection of formal membership might be the result of conjectured minor technicality or by reason of training or background. ParaMarxists may arbitrarily choose to avoid the honesty of such association. In other cases they may not know they are Marxists as their Marxist training avoided use of the label. Perception and accusation of their basic underlying Marxist reality is apt to produce laughter and ridicule from such people.

With Hitler's ascendancy in Germany, the institute members, who were Jewish, and additionally were communists competing for the same positions of power as the Nazis, scattered in fear and ran to the United
States where they reestablished themselves in various parts of the country and were well-received by American educational institutions. There, they shifted their direction from attacking Western culture in
Germany and Europe, and from positions in Germany and Europe, to destroying it in the United States, cheered on with some pride as supposed evidence of diversity of ideas on the part of the American
universities in which they had found comfortable supportive nests. (It's long since gone beyond the point where vindictive malpractice and antagonism have been accepted as proof of freedom of ideas and
accordingly been accumulated at universities to the point of displacing education, including the basics necessary to evaluate that accumulation. Freedom of ideas is often a code-phrase for deliberate
isolation from, and substitution of twisted up theatrics and shocking radical sensationalism, for basics. The resulting purposely induced desperate struggle with confusion and doubt in students attempting
helplessly to dig their way out of mess being inflicted upon them within their engineered condition of ignorance is misinterpreted as an atmosphere of intellectual passion developed at the institutions that
bolsters institutional prestige. The persistence of, and intellectual pride in, the prestige of that disordered intellectual state has gone on to infect the greater society detrimentally.)

With the movement of Frankfurt School members into American universities, the diffuse fragmented interest, intent, and willingness surrounding Marxism were gathered, intensified and transformed into an
aggressively and well-led applied science with unified coherence and strategy. That is what we see today.

Because of their background and ethnicity it was easy to conceive of the Frankfurt Schoolers, and easy for them to present themselves, as primarily driven by anti-Nazi sentiments. Simultaneously, this made it easy to misrepresent people who rejected their positions as being Fascists or Nazi sympathizers. From this they were able to construct a polarized artificial dichotomy far from the reality, but useful in
vilifying opposition. It developed into the frame of reference and assertion that the only form of being anti-Nazi or un-Nazi was communism/socialism and the only form of being un-communist was Naziism. The distorted conceptualization is still being pressed to this day.

The Frankfurt School political position and intentions were formulated long before Hitler came to power. America was the successful fountainhead and distillation of all the Frankfurters detested and were
sworn to destroy. Their designs were primarily anti-American. They applied themselves diligently to America's strategic collapse and destruction from their newly acquired advantageous positions deep within
the bowels of the enemy rather than having to pick at it from a distant outside obscurity. Now, they were able to vilify any perception of their basic intention by mislabeling perception of it as Fascist or
antisemitic or support for the Nazis rather than strategically destructively anti-American.

The Frankfurt Schoolers resolved to accomplish this destruction by a process called "Critical Theory." The process is to criticize and attack all basic aspects of Western society, including the family, comprehensively and incessantly in such a way as to undermine belief and sabotage productive or satisfying participation in them. The word which can be applied here is "countercultural," although it wasn't in wide usage at that time. Basically the formula was to attack anything and everything through psychological and intellectual channels. If it is done long enough and hard enough, even if it is completely irrational, it will have effect and stick, given human suggestibility. (Some of the mechanics of this were discussed in an earlier article in this series addressing attitude change and the Yale Studies.) The long term strategy was for a "long march through the culture" in which all aspects of
American culture and institutions would slowly and methodically be attacked resulting in weakening and collapse of its rational elements. The secondary effect of this, it turns out, is to make the society in
its rational debilitation and confusion less resistant to obvious intentional insult and eventually to more direct and even physical attack. People will only defend what they believe in. If that belief is
systematically weakened or destroyed through constant criticism, mental manipulation, and disinformation, that society will collapse internally and surrender to anything. A society that does not believe in its self will not defend its self.

Many religious figures also practice a variety of critical theory similar to the Frankfurt School. The Pope breezes through town issuing complaints about the existence of hunger in the world as if nations or systems which provide food for their own people are vaguely responsible for that hunger in their absence of social responsibility and are guilty of moral neglect in not sharing their blessings with the have nots. This inculcation of irrational guilt and self hatred is one of the elements keeping people groveling at the feet of clergy begging for forgiveness. Deploring the existence of hunger is an easy and safe position to take. But not once has he, or his type, been heard to do the serious work of tightening up their logic and taking responsibility for aiming loud criticism directly at the corruption and
deficient systems, including diseased or immature cultures, reliably resulting in hunger. Such criticism, it is declared, would be engaging in politics. When the criticism is directed toward those who are
"blessed"(by God)such criticisms are miraculously transformed into being nonpolitical.

The word blessing(s)and its concept or parallel forms, as it is typically used, is one of the most obscene and corrupt words in the English language. It should be stricken from the language and people
using it should be driven out from moral societies to the mercy of the fever swamps. Such language mystifies and negates the role of necessary disciplined thinking and sustained intelligent effort within a healthy and realistic cultural/economic political system. It thus robs intelligent productive people of their rightful respect and dignity. It also robs religious congregations and society in general of acute
awareness of the analytical tool of recognizing the critical importance of disciplined productive people in their role in creating and maintaining a livable society.

Many years ago I sat in an introductory psychology class of about 300 students. The professor announced he was psychic and was going to concentrate on a five digit long number while the class would act as receivers and would write down their received numbers to keep track of them. He put his head in his hands and began to think of the number. He theatrically gave five digits then asked for a show of hands of students of students who had received that sequence of digits. An incredible 30% of the students in a class of about 300 raised their hand! It was astounding demonstration of his psychic abilities! He then
also said "But 15% of you wrote down these five digits" and then rattled of a new number. Sure enough they had. Without going into further detail, this turned out to be a demonstration of something called free
response hierarchy. For some reason the general population tends to remember and recite one of a series of five large numbers on a statistically predictable basis.

There is a parallel phenomenon in language and strings of association during thought processes and analysis. We can look at the association hierarchy as being the result of earlier, even primary,
socialization along with familiarity. We learn to think by acquiring that familiarity. In promoting repetitive constant magical and vague use of language, resocialization and grammatical correctness and precision can even be substituted for content. If the substitution sounds good people will adapt to it and we can be programmed to acquire prevalent patterns of non-thought. The human mind can be resocialized, or desocialized into acceptance of reorganization of its free response hierarchy to include irrational or irrelevant primary associations. The reflexive analytical free response verbal hierarchy can be reranked.
Familiarity with reality can be displaced by familiarity with nonsense or reordered to point of burial and cluttered interception to access of basic reality. This results in inhibition and difficulty in reaching
valid original thought. Access to communication with others becomes almost like trying to access a
distant foreign language.

(Sitting here writing this I am struck by the terrifying realization that our critical early and intermediate levels of imprinting socialization in recent generations have been displaced by cartoons and other warped trash on TV rather than by interaction with the real physical and social world. Familiarity with reality has become displaced by familiarity with TV. It's no wonder the country has become incompetent and sick. Pathology has become subjectively normalized, glamorized, and internalized by TV and media fantasy. While important, a full technical discussion of the area is beyond the scope of this article.

Unfortunately, people with deficient adult levels of imprinting/socialization elect and tolerate officials, including at the presidential level, consonant with those levels of deficiency. And so it
was that George W. Bush hopped out of a two-place jet fighter plane on a carrier flight deck dressed in full military flight regalia with a insensate grin in front of a giant prepared sign that said "MISSION
ACCOMPLISHED." What mission? We are still fighting in the Middle East years later and thousands of men are getting killed or maimed. Was that the mission? His elaborately choreographed presentation was nothing but
a little kid's lame-brained movie script. And so it also was that Obama gave his acceptance speech to the Democratic convention, and to the world, standing outside in front of a full-scale plaster mock-up of an
ancient Greek temple costing a rumored $3,000,000. He presented himself as a Greek god in yet another movie script. It was the act of a pretentious self-impressed buffoon strutting before a group of millions
of people with inadequate or corrupt socialization or imprinting who were enthralled by it. It was a clear danger signal both from Obama and from the people so mentally deformed and debilitated as to tolerate it
as to the sickness gripping this nation. In their kindergarten levels of deficient development, people unconsciously accept such inane theatrics as reality. (For many adults that's as much reality as they've been surrounded with for much of their life.)

Verbal or thought inhibitions are of three types 1) emotionally based inhibitions acquired through punishment of various sorts 2) Inhibitions acquired through conflict with erroneous early learning (the
earth is flat type of thing). 3) subconscious inhibitions resulting from conflict with, and revision of free response hierarchy by a distorted present environment. Repetitious modeling in the media can induce that type of inhibition. This inhibition or distortion is one of the foundations and purposes of Critical Theory.

Disciplined mature thinking, sustained intelligent effort within a healthy and realistic cultural/economic/political system; if any one, or several, of those necessary elements is absent the result is economic primitivity, and often hunger as a subset. The first step in sincere serious, repeat, in sincere serious, corrective efforts is to examine to see which of these elements is insufficiently present and to identify it loudly and confrontation-ally --even at the expense of being called insensitive, mean spirited, and ill mannered. (But, the truth is not a popularity contest. It is a reality and integrity contest. More often than not, the truth will bring a hailstorm of resentment and anger when it brings rain on someone's self-indulgent and self-delusional parade. As someone once said, those who would tell the truth would do well to have a fast horse saddled outside.) Without such corrective effort, nothing really changes except expansion of the problem area with attendant increasingly arrogant and self-righteous demands from people self-afflicted with problems as they find themselves supported in those demands by the license conferred by an atmosphere of too-polite silence, over-toleration, and mystification of the problem's cause. Let's make it clear that a licensing atmosphere of inappropriate too-polite silence and over-toleration is the basis of unconditional multiculturalism. The resulting economic incompetence, including hunger, kills --unless more rational and disciplined cultures can be enslaved and their productivity seized and redistributed to compensate for, and perpetuate, that incompetence under a self-righteous protecting and rationalizing umbrella of human rights. Let's also make it clear that absence of necessary corrective criticism is enablement, support, and bears a significantly causal relationship to the actions needing and deserving correction. Reluctance to take responsibility for making concrete corrective examination is one of the major reasons the conditions being complained about continue to exist. The clear implication is that the people of the United States or other successful countries are to compensate for the failure of religious, social, and political/ideological figures too exclusively concerned with their own benefit to exercise realistic corrective effort and integrity.

The so-called blessings of the United States are not mysteriously accidental or bestowed such that some sort of debt or obligation must be repaid for their having been received as a gift. They are a consequence of rationally applied effort and a disciplined productive ethos which should be strongly emphasized as part of the discipline of religion, but are not. The present fashion is to blur the importance of, and dependence upon, that reality. Clerical confidence men are in the business of inducing irrational guilt to keep people groveling before them begging for forgiveness. They criticize America in a spirit of demonstrating an almost orgasmic display of trendy fashionable pseudo-enlightenment and being up with the times. Their failure to recognize egregious deficiencies and oppressions in alternative systems is explained away by their claims to be apolitical. They are not apolitical at all. The complaints they voice under the collateral constraints or omissions with which they voice them leave sacrificial or masochistically oriented political change as the principle refuge from their unceasing accusations. The clear implication is that they would like to see unilateral political change on the part of the United States and others to address these supposedly immoral and sinful economic inequalities --which more appropriately represent differences in application of mental realism and discipline. A quasireligious political system which mandates social ownership and redistribution of the results of rational and realistic effort as a form of moral correction of such sin, while not directly advocated, would be welcomed. They present receipt, as in theoretical socialism, as an entitlement regardless of behavior, under a grandiosely Utopian expansive concept of equality of all kinds among all God's peoples and races. In doing this liberal religious figures do the Frankfurt School and its descendants a valuable service in providing a 1-2 punch with Frankfurt Schoolers on one side pounding away followed by sadistic clerical hypocrites delivering hits to the midsection.

Thus, degenerate religion and socialism hold much in common with each other with but a few superficial differences. Both inculcate an irrational guilt and then exploit the people in whom that guilt and self-hatred has been successfully inculcated. In this respect, they become natural allies.

It's come to the point of necessity and realism to point out that many people want, and need, the issue and exploitation of the issue of hunger and similar issues more than they want solutions or the threat of solutions. The continuance of problems offers opportunity to advocate necessity for dictatorial redistributive economic and political change by leftist ideologists seeking power. The continuance of problems is a an opportunity for clergy and others to trumpet and showboat affectation of superior sensitivity as well as create a population groveling in irrational guilt. Alleviation of problems without sacrifice and punishment on the part of the people to be burdened with responsibility for alleviation is frowned upon. Enduring punishment and sacrifice are evidence of spiritual sincerity and are instrumental to purification of the soul. Plus, infliction of punishment and sacrifice incidentally confers license to bring people under groveling control as well as express a modicum of sadism. Solution of the problems is the worst possible thing that could happen for clergy and others. It would deny them a role to play and put them out of business.

The best of all worlds for much of the world's general population including powerful elements in the United States domestic population, and certainly the world's demagogues, would be to see America reduced into becoming a land of submissive, masochistic, slaves whipped into, and held in, captivity by unreasonable guilt into supporting the self indulgence and pathology of the rest of the world. We are under siege from an endless number of arguments and people asserting that is what we should become.

We also are under siege from an endless number of temper tantrums at any reluctance to be coerced into such subservience or that such subservience isn't occurring fast enough even as we surrender. As
there is great popularity in the position, there is a hyper abundance of the equivalence of lawyers obtaining positions of power, privilege, glamour, and grandeur by presenting and defending it. No single
profession has a monopoly cashing in on the role. Advocates range in personage from United Nations delegates (of course), to foreign leaders (of course) looking for a trough for their countries to slop in, to U. S. Senators, to U. S. presidents, to members of the mainstream media, to clergy, even to mentally incompetent notable playactors and playactresses seeking to bring a splash of attention to themselves and
their sensitivity. These represent a powerful confluence of forces. Moreover, these represent a powerful confluence of forces that appeal to an awaiting pool of indolence and self indulgence.

Out of all of this, one pattern emerges and becomes clear. The only ones expected to change are those people in the United States to be forced into becoming bodies to feed on as sustenance for the self
indulgence, excesses, and pathology of others. Those receiving sustenance expropriated from the rationally disciplined for purposes of supporting continued self indulgence, excesses, and pathology are not
required to change. They haven't been pushed to do so in the last 50 years. As of the 2008 presidential election this is called "Change you can believe in."

We have come to the point where people or regions or nations who prosper by industry, and creativity are judged sinful by creation of resultant economic inequality with those who do not. To find a more effective way of doing things within a more rational system is to invite vehement accusation of supposed social injustice. In reality, pockets of superior economic inequality arrived at by result of sustained effort and applied creativity, when emulated instead of resented and persecuted, represent general economic progress for mankind --including reduction of hunger. But, among strongest weaknesses in human character among many people is a clustered core substrate of covetousness, resentment, and petty jealousies which oozes its way to the surface and becomes indirectly or directly expressed in various forms, including the calling out for noble sacrifice from religious pulpits. Vindictive expression of this substrate becomes more important to people or groups obsessed with it or benefiting from it, however unconsciously or subconsciously, than does progress. If a cloaking veneer of ersatz synthetic morality and convoluted verbiage can be devised and presented to mask that position, along with supporting collateral rationalizations, they can be used to obscure raw expression and perception of unacceptable motivations to the outside world and intercede enabling repression out of direct awareness and into the
subconscious. In short the individual constructs diversionary rationalizations to deceive others, and if those rationalizations sound good enough, eventually to hide from and deceive himself. As this
psychological defense is constructed the original motivations impulses become increasingly inaccessible to the conscious mind. The result is an enabled release of subconsciously held, but denied and protected
viciousness often applied with a frightening degree of unquestioned self righteousness. The communication and adoption of such argumentation becomes integrated into a continually developing group defense.

The cloaking veneer of high sounding ersatz synthetic morality masking the position and similar collateral rationalizations intercede to obscure raw expression and perception of hate and resentment-fueled motivations while enabling repression of them out of direct awareness and into the subconscious. Religion can be applied as a bludgeon in Marxism. It can be employed as an oppressive Marxist support group.

Marxism works to maintain psychological repression into a collective group subconscious. Corrupt liberal religion and Marxism go hand in hand to promulgate psychological repression.

Paths toward economic progress, no matter how proven to be effective, which result in reduction of hunger or economic deficiency, are to be overlooked or omitted with favor given to theorized paths
which impose supposedly saintly masochistic self-sacrifice, guilt, coupled with authoritarian control or power over the population. This satisfies power issues, punitive issues in resentful retaliation for
inequality or highly resented differences in talent and provides a grandstand to display affected social sensitivity. The rule is, wherever there is promotion of masochism and sacrifice, there is someone
motivated by sadism or incompetence making it.

People have long assumed that religion, particularly Christianity, and Marxism have an adversarial and mutually exclusive relationship. This is a hold-over from the days when Marxists decreed
religion to be, "the opiate of the masses." In fact this is not necessarily true. In recent years, as many churches have dispensed with the uncomfortable path of self-discipline in favor of the ease and
comfort of unconditional love, with clergy tripping over their own feet in pursuit of the latest fad and pseudo sophistication in attempts to prove they are fashionable with little evidence of maturity or serious examination, many mainline churches have become as culturally deconstructive as the radical left. Church leaders have become intrigued with pursuing and adopting the mindlessly fashionable to the point of inattentiveness to discipline, wisdom, and maturity. Criticism of liberal churches from the radical political left has been muted accordingly. In response many mainline churches no longer feel threatened by Marxism. Liberal churches and Marxists are both preaching the same mutually beneficial message from different pulpits.

Liberalized religion has become a complacency-bestowing respectability opiate to the extreme left.

Contemporary liberal churches accent the message of unconditional love of others and mankind. This theology and social sermon basically ultimately resolves itself down to the height of selfishness and
license. Psychoanalytically, it should be decoded as a self-affecting manipulation using self-serving reflected incorporation. The category of "others" referred to incidentally includes the sermonizers and adherents to the sermon. Application of exhortations to love one another means to accept and love THEM regardless of any self-centered corruption, exploitativeness, fraudulence, parasitism, self-indulgence at the expense of others, theft, sloth, and/or irresponsibility. Linguistically, to sermonize about love sounds good, but it's become a self-serving ploy to escape responsibility and accountability. In recent years it has become a pronounced theological and social sin to perceive and judge people guilty of any of the aforementioned characteristics. America, and the world, are worse for it.

It is declared that Jesus, or whoever, forgives unconditionally --or close to it. Not to do the same is dramatically declared to be placing one's self above or apart from Jesus. But Jesus doesn't need to live on earth burdened or preyed upon by other people with such characteristics. We on earth living in the real world and being fed upon do. Living with or tolerating such characteristics requires a serious
cost in emotional repression, cognitive distortion, and personal destruction.

It is also argued from the model of "Let he is without sin caste the first stone." One is tempted to strongly agree with the specific passage from the bible from which these words are extracted which may be taken as a lesson to guard against petty vindictive sadism. However, the lesson is being deliberately overextended into misapplication in all circumstances. The attempt is to immobilize perception, shunning,
or even defending one's self against the most obvious, psychopathic, injurious, and aggressive actions by declaring the rule that a person must be free of even trivial mistakes and imperfections as a
qualification to make major observations and act upon them. The most fundamentally accurate judgments, including those necessary for survival and realistic mental health, bring accusations of hypocrisy and
demands for certification of flawlessness and a scrutiny of one's life for imperfection which can be
exaggerated going back to time in kindergarten.

A contrived settlement with the conflict is to be exhorted to hate the sin, but love the sinner. Who has established that the sin and the sinner are not one and the same? When there is a persistent pattern
of repetition of serious "sin" with little discomfort or concern, they are one and the same. That means self-examination and prohibitive discomfort regarding the original actions, not mere complaint about
later unpleasant consequences. (The word "sin" is used here for reference to particular thought and verbal patterns. I do not use the word in my psychological, political, philosophical, or analytical
conceptions.)

As a whole liberal religion is too inconsistent and unreliable to serve as a model for any rational purpose. Additionally, many members of the clergy are some of the stupidest, most vindictive, most
self-serving, destructive people imaginable.

It is asserted that the Frankfurt School combined their Marxist attitude processing with Freudian techniques or theory, using psychological conditioning. Actually it was, and continues to be to this
day more like Dr. Goebbels than Freudian in concept although Goebbels came a little later. Both Goebbels and the Frankfurt School/left had intuitively hit on something which had little to do with Freud. Freud's
views on crowd dynamics were little more than passing spur of the moment comments and were not highly developed. The Frankfurt School and Goebbels developed attitude change mechanics on the basis of brilliantly shrewd observation before it was formally studied academically in the much later Yale series and similar programs/studies in the early '50s as described elsewhere in this series. Later formal academic studies put a little icing on a cake to certify or verify a recipe Goebbels and the Frankfurters already knew how to bake.

It is important at this point to differentiate between attitude manipulation process or procedure, versus attitude manipulation substantive content. Manipulative process is the methodology by which
attitudes within individuals or groups or societies are produced or controlled. Substantive content is
what they are programmed to think or feel or do. This distinction turns out to be important later. The
Frankfurt process was not Freudian. They were primarily non Freudian psychologists using their positions to grind their axes cleverly and with titular authority.

When Goebbels applied attitude change mechanics under the Nazis, the process was theatrically labeled by critics of the Nazis as imposition of cold blooded calculated manipulation and imprisonment of
the minds of a nation into mass hysteria. It was to be denounced with abhorrent indignation that anyone would be arrogant and contemptuous enough to plan manipulating a population. However, when the Frankfurt
School planned the same thing, it was magically elevated into liberation of minds from hypothesized cultural imprisonment. The difference between contemptuous manipulation of a population versus
liberation of the minds of a population from cultural imprisonment by a self-proclaimed intellectually gifted elite depends upon who is doing it, whether it suits their ultimate purpose, and what words they
arbitrarily apply to it. Here we get into interpretive semantics and Pavlovian paired association with emotionally charged vocabulary which turns out to be a powerful factor in manipulative attitude mechanics. It is a determinant factor in controlling unthinking simple minds.

Fundamentally, the procedure is equivalent to arranging several columns of adjectives or constructs according to varying degrees of positive or negative connotation. Depending upon whether there is
intention to develop positive or negative associations/reactions to an activity, words or phrases are chosen from columns containing positive or negative descriptions of that activity. Public confrontation with a process can be immobilized by choosing positive verbal constructs to describe it, or, on the other hand, criticism can be provoked and encouraged by using negative verbal constructs to describe it. The
propaganda from the Soviet Union practiced this technique in a very primitive form. "The reactionary, hooliganistic, imperialistic, adventurism, etc. etc. etc." and so on with simple strings of negative
word pairings being employed. The use of words in these presentations was generally so inept and predictable as to elicit immediate hilarity. Desired effect typically was lost in the comical crudeness and ineptitude.

Under the Frankfurt manipulations the process became/becomes more effective with more complex verbal constructs in refined and complicated academic language. It many cases the refined complexity of the jargon confers a veneer of impressiveness which is hard to refute even though it masks false ideas. Under an explosion of amateur psychiatry words like Islamophobia and homophobia or whatever phobias or isms are employed as if the solid assumption were made that they are true and represent an agreed upon unquestionable authoritative clinical diagnosis of mental illness. They sound as if they have
scientifically verified or experiential validity. In recent years supposed phobias, isms, and serious maladjustments of all kinds have been conjectured at rhetorical convenience under Critical Theory. The result of such efforts has been a multitude of self-referencing pseudosciences and pseudopsychiatries
diligently constructing their own bodies of pseudoscientific literature and vocabulary supporting each other to accomplish the methods and goals of Critical Theory and to smear opponents. In various instances this process has seized control over, or manufactured its own, university departments or schools.

Evaluation and refutation of the various Critical Theory assumptions requires considerable effort in reading of the Koran and Hadith, a detailed knowledge and recitation of history; or a knowledge of interpretation of MRI neurological scans, general physiology, systems of normal and abnormal personality as prerequisites (or an equivalent) depending upon the area of argument or attack--as well as organized
effort in presentation. There's an argumentative advantage in rhetorical complexity containing as many erroneous assumptions and presuppositions as possible. The incorporation of several erroneous complex critical assumptions and presuppositions in one sentence can produce a task which is not impossible to address, but is difficult and time consuming. Valid refutation tends to fall upon deaf ears of contemporary audiences with short attention spans for anything other than fast-paced amusement. Anything longer than a one minute long TV commercial is beyond the capacity of their patience or interest. A
paragraph of erroneous assumptions and presuppositions will break one's back trying in exasperation to keep up with them. In addition one must contend with the techniques of dishonest deception of argumentative advocacy and factors like denial --especially denial.

When more complex descriptive phrases such as "liberation of minds from whatever" are constructed and applied, they typically relieve people using them of any conscience in the eventual raw brutality of
their method or intent. The use of semantics can synthesize a scent of idealism to mask the odor of oppression, sadism, or death. Over years I have continued to be amazed at how adept the political left is at manufacturing semantic constructs which approach pure lyrical poetry and images to create an abstract facade of idealism as a vehicle for petty vindictiveness and hatred. It's become a major industry. I am
continuing to be amazed by how much it rules their life and intellect. They believe in, and are swept away by, the semantics they synthesize. And so it was that Barack Obama had but to stride upon a podium and
declare the "audacity of hope" and "Yes we can!" and "change we can believe in" whereupon millions of people were psychically transported glassy-eyed unto a poetic ecstasy and elected him president without
asking who or what he was or what these phrases really meant --or what kind of absolute power over other people's lives should be ceded to him without caution for their accomplishment.

Sometime during the '80s psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer wrote a column which echoed unto the farthest reaches of the universe. He essentially said, Thugs kill until they get what they want. Idealists kill until the world is perfect. I would go further than this and say that this principle applies to semantically synthesized false idealism. Further still, there is in many human beings a substrate of primitive jealousies, hostilities, and sadism which such beings become freely licensed to inflict upon people under a permission granted by claiming to be acting out a semantically based illusion of synthetic idealism. Such people can become highly self righteous. A fraudulent idealism synthesized around a core of sadism or subversion becomes more dangerous than a nuclear bomb, especially when ruled by it. Such semantic systems are believed and easily taken up by a class of people prone to become emotionally highly affected by superficial linguistic images but who are without capacity or inclination to analyze what lies beneath. These people are a major continuing destructive plague eating
away at the elements of rational mankind for which no cure has been found.

What has been said so far often leads to deliberate misrepresentation being employed to assert unconditional permission. The assertion is made that the failure to unconvince someone of something in an intellectual discussion represents a deficiency of intellect and invalidity of argument on the part of opposition. Therefore, whoever it is has license to do as they want as long as they claim to remain unconvinced or come up with continuing arguments.

What is commonly misrepresented as intellectual discussion is not necessarily intellectual discussion. It's intellectualized deliberate evasion. The process of intellectual discussion and examination requires intelligent maturity, integrity, sincerity, agreement on what constitutes basic reality, and acceptance of what constitutes reasonable proof by both parties. If such does not exist, mutual intellectual honest investigation does not occur or is impossible. Then the discussion becomes much like the reception resulting from trying to plead and have an intellectual conversation with serial murderers Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer or the administration at Auschwitz concentration camp. Reason, no matter how impeccable, wouldn't have influenced such people or changed their steadfastness of intent. Such people may present themselves as pretending to want, or to be engaging in, discussion of some sort. As a practical matter such claims are an immobilizing tactic to keep to keep victims involved in pretense of conversation, or illusion of hope, while such people continue to do what they want. Or it is a source of amusement or feeling of power to toy with people's minds under pretense of discussion. What they're really saying is what they are going to do regardless of any reasoning to the contrary. Their failure to be convinced by rational arguments is declared by them to be a deficiency of reasoning on the victim's part which entitles them to continue their self-appointed tasks. You're accused of being anti-intellectual in simply saying, "no." But, There are instances when "No" is the best and only reply.

Lying, deliberate deception, determined destructiveness are not intellectual issues. They can not be defeated intellectually because the people making them are not really engaged in intellectual discussion.
They are issuing declarations. It is not intended by their practitioners that they be resolved or corrected through reasonable discourse. Their arguments are products of perverse motivation that is immune to reason and intractable by ordinary means. (Parenthetically, it is easy to fall into the trap of believing that there must be some almost magical all-powerful set of words or reasoning that will induce such people to see the light. If you were somehow intelligent enough, you could state convincing enough arguments so that reason and integrity would prevail. It is also easy to berate yourself as being personally deficient for not having found such arguments. It's possible to waste your life in a desperate and futile search for the words and arguments, and beating up on yourself for not having found them. They don't exist.)

In brief summation, there are times when the most meticulously reasoned appeal won't get you anywhere but preyed upon, destroyed, enslaved, or dead. That is why wars need to be fought or gallows need to be built as the final, or even initial, refutation to unalterable intentions disguised as intellectual discourse by glib psychopaths and sadistic misanthropes. The alternative is your death, destruction, or
enslavement. It is then melodramatically claimed that physical violence, which is interpreted to be a form of censorship, is the last resort of people who are too intellectually deficient to reply with convincing
rebuttal. In some cases this is true. But it is also true that defensive violence is absolute necessity for dealing with vicious psychopaths who continue talking with indifference to anything but their own sadistic or destructive intention while mounting the claim that such talk confers entitlement or permission to commit destructive or lethal acts. They interpret self defense by others as a form of victimization of themselves.

It is common today to meet people complaining they are constant victims of persecution and rejection. (The nature of their complaint is often not so much one of remorse or lack of closeness and friendships in their lives as they have little taste for such things, but rather complaint about what such rejection produces in the way of inconvenience to the impulses and ambitions in their lives.) The reality is they are facing entirely legitimate reactions to their obliviously self-centered calloused or destructive behavior and demands which they inflict upon people everywhere they go. They are traveling wrecking crews leaving trails of human, social, and even economic rubble strewn along their path through life. The psychological defense of their interpreting themselves as victims instead of victimizers is hard to break through. There is more support for their argument than there is criticism because the pattern has become common and endorsed by the media. Popular glossy magazines have become advertising presentations that glamorize the pattern while whitewashing over serious problems. They have a strong labor union in terms of numbers and favorably slanted representation.

With the popularized availability of support for their arguments they can obtain subjective reinforcement of a group psychological defense which bolsters that they refer to almost unshakable security and confidence both in their actions and in their defense of claiming to be the victims in popular magazines. Thus they can become quite secure in their sadistic pathology. Their arguments develop and expand into becoming a constantly evolving group defense.

There is also the issue of a person's right to control their own life. There are people or elements who are highly aggressive and who will use words to force their way into control or ownership of other
people and their lives whenever possible. They must be told, "no." There will be no further discussion and it is not negotiable. This includes politicians seeking power. The simple word "no" without further
conversation or negotiation is a necessary and major step in maintaining control of your own life. As a practical matter, you can not let someone else's capacity or intention to carry on insincere, specious, arguments and denial control your life.

Taking control over your own life is freedom for you. This contradicts the philosophy of recent years defining freedom as the right to take control of others lives and take ownership of their earnings
and productivity so that controlling people are then financed free to do what they wish independent of consequences --or to charge other people with responsibility for paying for those consequences.

The rhetorical tactic in attempts to immobilize defense against psychopathic authoritarians is to argue though the logical fallacy of miss-equation and jump-shift into abstract blandness by asserting the
person under attack intends to kill or otherwise inflict violence upon anyone who merely disagrees with them. But, it is not the mere act of disagreement that is the issue. It is the more specific concrete nature and ultimate direction of that disagreement that is the issue. If, taking extreme example, one is faced with someone else who is making the argument that another person should be herded off into a concentration camp and intends to do so, the equation of mere bland disagreement does not hold. The content of that disagreement must be evaluated more concretely below the level of abstract blandness.

In the present context, the tactic of the political left and Critical Theory is to assert something is a matter of intellectual discussion or to assert it as having been proven when it has not. The talk and the criticism has been pushed long past the point where it should have been ended according to rational standards of reasonable proof and should be ended. But Critical Theory pseudo psychology, which
has been concocted to undermine and attack rational thinking, then postulates a hypothetical pathological need in its opponents to effect closure or a pathological need to think rigidly in response to people's
sane reluctance to exceed rational boundaries.

As an example, in recent days I have again heard assertions that global warming due to the effects of mankind, and particularly Western civilization, will melt ice on the planet and raise the level of the
oceans 200-300 feet. It's presented as a proven assumption. Two hundred feet? Has there been any serious consideration of how much ice and how much warming would be required to raise the vast ocean levels 200 feet on a planet whose surface area is dominated by an area three fifths ocean? No. There isn't that much ice on the planet. The degree of possible ocean rise is mathematically required to be proportionate to a
ratio of 1) surface areas of the planet having significant ice to: 2) the massive surface area of the oceans. This ratio is so great that the melting of polar ice would be the equivalent to throwing a couple of ice of ice cubes in a bathtub full of water. The claims being made are clearly impossible. Yet it is impossible to get realistic closure on the issue. In addition there have lately been tropical storms on Jupiter not seen before and rises in temperature of other bodies in the solar system. It is insane to argue these effects are the result of the spread of industrialized Western civilization on earth. Additionally, climate fluctuation seems to be related to cyclic sunspot activity. These realities are deliberately omitted. Global warming due to human civilization is one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of mankind. It's being played like a musical instrument for psychological leverage to achieve subsequent destructive political leverage. The hoax serves its purpose as an attack under Critical Theory and if implemented will achieve the desired result of deconstruction and decline of Western Civilization to accommodate it. To achieve this result global warming arguments are pounded home relentlessly and without shame for their lack of integrity. They aren't required to be true if employing them fulfills the ultimate mission. The mission is not truth, but the manipulation of public opinion and attitudes into ultimate destructive directions by any method whatsoever under Critical Theory. When useful lies can be devised and sold to produce that goal, they are applied. The result is entire systems of issues demanding economic or other decline based merely upon ideologically useful lies.

Obama has now taken up the hoax and integrated it into his economic plan for America.

It's essential to maintain a sense of proportion here. In the case of Al Gore, the most visible global warming advocate, it is not being asserted here that he is an extreme leftist radical and/or ideologically sophisticated and motivated. Gore has never been anything in his entire life. He has shown no sense of solid direction or commitment in his life other than a lame attempt at dull-witted affability. This, together with intellectual vacancy led to trial and error educational fiascoes in his college years. He has always been, and remained, a talentless little kid.