The Red Evolution IV: The Subversive Left, the Destabilising Left, the Antecedents of Generation Snowflake and the Ultimate Surrender of Rationality (Part Three)

The piece below is the third part of the latest in an occasional series of essays by our expatriate English correspondent Peter on the history of the Socialist Left in Britain. (Previously: Part 1, Part 2.)

The Red Evolution IV: The Subversive Left, the Destabilising Left, the Antecedents of Generation Snowflake and the Ultimate Surrender of Rationality

by Peter


By the mid-1970s, students had returned to those classes that would have them. Some had progressed to become lecturers while some lecturers had become professors, having produced books, theses, papers and other unintelligible documents of which only they could make sense, and about which only other academics cared. Others went into the professions and trades, earned a living and paid their taxes, but that was by no means the end of it. In the UK, particularly during the 1980s, we had the rise of political correctness in tandem with that of the Looney Left, except nobody used the term “political correctness” in those days — although “Looney Left,” was on the lips of many people, particularly those of the mainstream media since Political Correctness, or whatever it was they were calling it back then, had first manifested itself in Labour-controlled local authorities. In those days, these were seen as fair game for journalists of every political persuasion, especially those who sought to deflect public attention from the excesses of Margaret Thatcher.

For about twenty-five years, a scenario then unfolded which I would never have believed possible, had I not lived through it myself as the doctrine of the Frankfurt School insinuated itself into our daily working lives, though nobody could put a handle on it. We didn’t even have a name for it. Some places called it “equal opportunities,” but as Orwell himself put it, some people were more equal than others.

From just before 1980 until just after the end of the Millennium, the entire Western world was enslaved by this leftist creed, and many people still did not know what to call it. It was only after the publication of Allan Bloom’s book The Closing of the American Mind in 1987 that many of us first heard the phrase “Political Correctness”, by which time we were not so much submersed by it as being held under by some dark satanic hand and drowned in it. It was only during the first ten years of the Millennium that I was finally able to identify what had been going on, when I came upon an article on the Catholic Insight website entitled “The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to Corrupt” by Timothy Matthews. I downloaded the article and re-read it over and over again. It is still online and well worth a read. That article led me to “The New Dark Age — The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness” by Michael Minnicino and from there to a piece co-authored by William S. Lind and Paul Weyrich about Cultural Marxism as a conspiracy against traditional Judeo-Christian values.

At about this time, everyone seemed to have learned about the Frankfurt School and its activities, and the cat was well and truly out of the bag. Even a Guardian reporter sarcastically stated as an aside to an unconnected article that he had never even heard of the Frankfurt School, with that familiar swagger adopted by Guardian reporters and their far-left ilk.

I’d first come across the term Cultural Marxism in Melanie Phillips’ book Londonistan in 2006. When I checked out the various references, I used Wikipedia as a starting, point even though it is described as left-leaning, and therefore should be taken with a pillar of salt, the type I usually save for The Guardian. Initially, Wikipedia reflected faithfully the contents of Matthews’ article and I did not pursue the matter, at least not then. Some months later I double-checked the Wikipedia page and was shocked to find that it had been re-written. The part of the narrative that corresponded to Timothy Matthews’ article was now relegated to the status of a conspiracy theory rather than the full-blown conspiracy I believed it to be. Wikipedia stated that the primary purpose of the Frankfurt School was the development of Critical Theory, without attempting to explain what Critical Theory actually was — the arrogance of the Left never changes.

Suddenly the Left had started to bite back, as it always does, with lies, misrepresentation, abuse, superciliousness and the now-familiar supremacist attitude. Finally, they would resort to the three “Ss,”: Sneer, Smear and Slander. Firstly, they sneer at any opinion that contradicts the leftist narrative, often with an acidic air of condescension, as if they should not be expected to acknowledge the existence of a low-caste dissenter, never mind engage with him. Having attempted to undermine the conflicting message, they then turn on the messenger, whom they subject to a smear campaign which morphs into slander as time progresses. We have all seen something similar happen to conservative commentators over the last few years. The leftist internet response is rather like a mass leafleting campaign.

The first article I read which supported the conspiracy theory notion was entitled “Cultural Marxism’: a uniting theory for rightwingers who love to play the victim”, written by one Jason Wilson in the Australia News section of The Guardian online. The Australian-born Wilson, now domiciled in Portland, Oregon, goes straight for the jugular.

He begins (and remember,he is Australian writing for an Australian audience):

What do the Australian’s columnist Nick Cater, video game hate group # Gamergate, Norwegian mass shooter Anders Breivik and random blokes on YouTube have in common? Apart from anything else, they have all invoked the spectre of “cultural Marxism” to account for things they disapprove of — things like Islamic immigrant communities, feminism and, er, opposition leader Bill Shorten.

What are they talking about? The tale varies in the telling, but the theory of cultural Marxism is integral to the fantasy life of the contemporary right. It depends on a crazy-mirror history, which glancingly reflects things that really happened, only to distort them in the most bizarre ways.

That briefly encapsulates the leftist counter-narrative, which issues a brief denial and smears and ridicules anyone who thinks differently. Look how quickly Wilson resorts to the Breivik slur to establish some sort of guilt-by-association.

They believe in Cultural Marxism; therefore the Right are all mass-murdering criminals like Breivik — right? Wrong, but try telling them that. Having set out his stall, Wilson then races through the early story of the Frankfurt School and their American escapades, ridiculing at every stage our accepted narrative in a snide and snarky manner — but we are used to that aren’t we? Then he plays his race card, “The theory of cultural Marxism is also blatantly anti-Semitic.” Actually it isn’t.

Indirectly referring to people as racist is another little piece of nastiness utilized by the Left, but on this occasion it is easily refuted by the facts. While certain members of the Frankfurt School had been born into the Jewish faith, they were all committed communists by the time they met up in Frankfurt. If they were to be described as anything, it should be as Jewish apostates and, as such, atheists. Wilson also throws in a reference to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion just to muddy the waters, while smearing William S. Lind. According to Wilson, “The whole story is transparently barmy.” I agree, but I refer to his version of events rather than ours. Wilson’s piece is still online. Check it out if you fancy a laugh.

I then went back to the internet and it didn’t take me long to find this gem on a site rejoicing in the name of Rational Wiki:

Cultural Marxism generally refers to one of two things:

1.   First — extremely rarely — “Cultural Marxism” refers to an obscure critique of popular culture by the Frankfurt School, framing culture as being imposed by a capitalist culture industry and consumed passively by the masses.
2.   Second — in common usage in the wild — “Cultural Marxism” is a snarl word used to paint anyone with progressive tendencies as a secret Communist. The term alludes to a conspiracy theory in which sinister left-wingers have infiltrated media, academia, and science and are engaged in a decades-long plot to undermine Western culture. Some variants of the conspiracy alleges [sic] that basically all of modern social liberalism is, in fact, a Communist front group.

We have more on the conspiracy theory fiction, and it is amazing how many variations of this post there are in existence, especially with the use of the term “snarl word” — Isn’t that two words? Then, of course, we get the inevitable introduction of Breivik and a continuation of the guilt by association slander, which in this case is directed at Pat Buchanan, dressed up as follows:

Oh, sure, once upon a time “cultural Marxism” was indeed a school of Marxist thought dealing with, you guessed it, culture. But in recent years the term has become a popular buzzword amongst neo-Nazis and other proud bigots on the far right, who use it to suggest a vast Jewish conspiracy against Western Civilization and the white race … without having to use the J-word, which tends to give their anti-Semitic game away.

In current wingnut usage, the term is a favourite of Pat Buchanan and, to the most dangerous extent, Anders Behring Breivik. It is a Cold Warrior’s way of decrying “political correctness” or “multiculturalism.”

So, there we have it, not only are we all dangerous Breivik clones, we are all anti-Semitic neo-Nazis and bigots as well. This criticism, like that of Wilson previously, is full of nasty rhetoric containing little of substance — typical leftist fare, in fact, which must have been written by one of those wingnuts we keep hearing about — a nasty individual whoever he, she or it, might be.

There are thousands of similar articles on the internet, many, including a website by one Devdutt Pattanaik in Mumbai, seeking to caricature those who believe in the genuine existence of cultural Marxism as uneducated… right wing, White Supremacist, trailer-trash… who presumably fear their superior, left wing, non-white rivals — I had trouble typing this as I was laughing so much, but Devdutt Pattanaik actually believes this stuff, as presumably do his various camp followers. According to his website, he is well-read and much published which does not surprise me. I spent much of the 1990s in India and found a lot of pseudo-intellectuals like Pattanaik, who come over the same way — over-educated, anti-Western and a long way up themselves — check him out.

While I was in England in December, 2017, I purchased a paperback entitled Grand Hotel Abyss — The Lives of the Frankfurt School by one Stuart Jeffries, of whom I knew nothing. I thought that this might dispel the aura of untruths, deceit and fiction dispensed by the Left, but I was wrong.

On page 6 of the introduction, the author suddenly deviates from his chronicle and states: “There is though, a rival history of the Frankfurt School… It’s a conspiracy theory that alleges a small group of German Marxist philosophers called the Frankfurt School developed something called Cultural Marxism….” and here we go again, straight into Breivik. At this juncture, I did something I should have done before I started reading: I checked the credentials of the author. Stuart Jeffries is a journalist, which is hardly surprising, as he writes very well, but in 1990 he joined the newspaper at which he finally worked his way up to be feature writer and columnist — The bloody Guardian! I rest my case.

The left dominates radio, television, newspapers and other organs of mass communication, and anyone who utters the words “Cultural Marxism” is automatically branded by leftists as an ignorant, unintelligent, knuckle-dragging fascist, probably with a shaven head and tattoos as well.

Those who indulge in this destructive form of disinformation invariably occupy positions of influence — opinion-shapers — and they abuse their situation obscenely. Their patronizing rhetoric is very tempting to the less knowledgeable, uncommitted and easily-influenced consumer, and I can understand why people fall for it. After all, if the other side of the argument is constantly being rubbished, trivialized and held up to ridicule by known and trusted columnists, the uninformed reader is easily misled. However, there are other papers like The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail which do promote the Frankfurt School conspiracy as accurate, but they, too, and their readership are dismissed by the Left as morons.

However, if the Frankfurt School was only devoted to Critical Theory, why is it that freedom of speech is constantly under attack?

Why are people in the West being imprisoned for “hate speech,” which, as far as I can see is merely making a statement that is at variance with the received wisdom of the establishment?

Why is our language itself being constantly monitored to protect the sensibilities of often unidentified third parties?

Why are homosexuality and LGTB being promoted as normal behavior?

Why is racism regarded as such a heinous offence, more so than violence against the person, rape or grievous bodily harm?

Why do we have a two-tier legal system biased against the victim?

Why are Western governments biased against Christianity?

Why is mass immigration being encouraged by governments when they know it undermines national identity?

Why are governments encouraging dependence on welfare and state benefits?

What do we gain from dumbed-down or controlled media?

I cannot see our getting a sensible answer to any of these questions from the leftist establishment any time soon, except for the predictable denial that any of those scenarios exist. But we all know differently.

In the meantime, I will leave you with the introductory paragraph to Timothy Matthews’ article. The article in the ACW Review to which Matthews refers is identical to the one he submitted as his own. Regardless, I encourage everyone to read it:

Most of Satan’s work in the world he takes care to keep hidden. But two small shafts of light have been thrown onto his work for me just recently. The first, a short article in the Association of Catholic Women’s ACW Review; the second, a remark (which at first surprised me) from a priest in Russia who claimed that we now, in the West, live in a Communist society. These shafts of light help, especially, to explain the onslaught of officialdom which in many countries worldwide has so successfully been removing the rights of parents to be the primary educators and protectors of their children…


  • How World War II Shaped Modern Russia — Mark Davis — Euronews.htm.
  • Korean War — Facts and Summary — Allan R. Millett war
  • The Korean War — An Overview — Michael Hickey
  • Catholic Insight: The Frankfurt School — Conspiracy to Corrupt — Timothy Matthews
  • The Schiller Institute: The New Dark Age — The Frankfurt School and Political Correctness — Michael Minnicino
  • The Illusionist — How Herbert Marcuse Convinced a Generation That Censorship is Tolerance and Other Politically Correct Tricks — Robin Phillips
  • Ascona-Astarte The Cult of Isis cultivated the Counter Consciousness culture-Satan’s Fake Apocalypse
  • Has America Been Influenced by — Andrew Miller — March 2015.
  • CIA MK Ultra Collection — The Black Vault
  • MK-Ultra — Facts and Summary —
  • 1960s Counter Culture-The New Left and the Politics of Protest — Michael Ungar
  • Bomb Culture — Jeff Nuttall
  • Do It — Jerry Rubin
  • Seize the Time — Bobby Seale
  • The Chicago Eight Conspiracy Trial — An Account — Famous Trials by Professor Douglas Linder
  • The Chicago Seven: 1960s Radicalism in the Federal Courts by Bruce A. Ragsdale, Director, Federal Judicial History Office, Federal Judicial Centre.
  • Who Were the Chicago Seven? — Wise GEEK
  • 1968 — A Timeline of Events
  • Cultural Marxism — A Uniting Theory for Rightwingers who love to play the victim — Jason Wilson-Australia News — Opinion-The Guardian
  • Cultural Marxism — Rational Wiki
  • What is Cultural Marxism? William S. Lind-Cultural Marxism.htm
  • Devdutt Pattanaik — The Myth of Cultural Marxism
  • Grand Hotel Abyss — The Lives of the Frankfurt School — Stuart Jeffries

Peter is an English expatriate who now lives in Thailand. For his previous essays, see Peter’s Archives.

32 thoughts on “The Red Evolution IV: The Subversive Left, the Destabilising Left, the Antecedents of Generation Snowflake and the Ultimate Surrender of Rationality (Part Three)

    • I’ we lived, and live, in Cultural Marxism, in Turin, NW Italy. And I have (former) friends who built academic careers in UK and USA, from beeing full acculturated by, and at, Cultural Marxist High School, from a provincial town. One of them, after having got his degrees in Communication Sciences, asked me what was the difference between Shia’h and Sunna Muslims… then he began writing for a national far left newspaper, following the ‘Arab Spring’ (very Soros) Riots. From Cairo. I stop here, I could write a book about Cultural Marxism in Italy…

  1. Sorry, I do not understand the topic of “cultural Marxism,” but it seems to me that everything is much simpler. “Cultural Marxism” is a screen that covers the robbery of the planet and all of us. To hide this, the beneficiaries put forward a new “scarecrow” – white men, accusing them of all the troubles.
    And they continue to (censored) the inhabitants of the planet into brains to continue their dirty deeds.

    • Sort of, but they don’t say ” white men ” as that would be blatantly racist and provocative, so it is the traditional western culture, which – you guessed it – is made up of Whiteman. The ideal presented is an egalitarian global state, the reality is a purposefully confused monoculture run by sociopathic thieving elites. The destruction of other nation as comparison or refuge is designed to make escape from the ideology impossible.

    • Cultural Marxism is the conviction that Western culture is evil and must be destroyed at all costs by any means necessary.

      It’s at its core a simple notion, which is why it can influence people of violent inclinations, but rather low intelligence, such as Maxine Waters or Keith Ellison. Its appeal is not limited to low-intelligence individuals, as can be seen in the actions of Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton.

      Many strange phenomena can be explained by the knowledge that the people involved are devoted to the cultural Marxist idea, rather than the cause which they supposedly represent. This includes feminists supporting Female Genital Mutilation, the importation of peoples habitually violent towards women, or gays supporting the importation of gay-killing Muslims.

      The “feminists” don’t care about women, and the “gay liberationists” don’t care about gays. Same for all trannies. The real objective is to break up traditional Western norms and mores.

      The Frankfort School itself is comprised of rootless, bitter intellectuals who are paid mainly through tax dollars. Naturally, they will be involved in numerous petty disputes about the details of their largely imaginary “field of study”. So, following the ambulations of the succeeding generations of Frankfort scholars can be complex, though, of course, not in the least rewarding.

      • New and progressive always comes to the place of the old and the obsolete. That’s OK. The desire for evolution is inherent in the very nature of man. But in this case we see regress, mass madness, degradation and manageability of processes. This is directed not only against progress, but also against the nature of humanity. It is a sacrifice.
        I do not like the leaders who led the right movement at all. They are more like provocateurs or fools.

        • “Proper” values do not come from politics, they are a long learned culture of societal respect, obtained in real life circumstance and by true example. The reactionary political movements of any spectrum are often a result of a discontent in a society where its reasonable approach has been lost or perverted, they do not set an example but are indicators of the problem. We cannot turn time back to another, so true conservative measure must be as they are labelled – to preserve the sanctity of the culture and surroundings of each individual, family and community within and without of nation. If you cannot trust society to arrange itself privately, within the most basic norms of justice, then you are basically telling it it doesn’t count, that it is trash. Migration in that circumstance will not be more than is wanted, there will be no false attractions or benefits or promises of easy nationality. If there were a problem of mass invasive migration, the borders would be closed to it.

          Most of all, people must feel they own where they are, that what they do is a contribution in perpetuity to that which they honour and love.

          If not, they lose their will, and resentment follows, followed by apathy and social decay, which then becomes ripe for a lost revolution that attempt to build on the ruins, an attempt that is frought from the start for lacking a practical foundation nor knowing realistic objective.

          • “true conservative measure must be as they are labelled – to preserve the sanctity of the culture and surroundings of each individual, family and community within and without of nation. If you cannot trust society to arrange itself privately, within the most basic norms of justice, then you are basically telling it, it doesn’t count, that it is trash.”

            I would say that our Western gov’ts as a whole have failed in this respect. Having spent 8 years being told I am racist, sexist, xenophobic and Islamophobic I got the real message that my gov’t does not value my culture, ethnicity or my desire to preserve the country in which I grew up free.
            That I am trash and, to quote AG Holder, a coward…
            There really is so much a population can take of this, granted I think US citizens have a much shorter snapping point than Europeans.
            I will also say that “conservatism” has a pretty poor track record of conserving anything.

  2. That stupid “I want full communism” girl. I’d like to see if she was still smiling after queuing 3 hours for a loaf of bread.

    • Recently, I thought about what I would bring in our time from 1987 from the USSR. NOTHING. For example, I had no problems with clothes just because my father had a slightly privileged position.
      But to be honest, there were some positive points. For example, even with a small salary it was possible not to be afraid, get sick, and after that to be on the street without a roof over your head, as in modern Russia or to starve to death. People were more cordial about each other.
      At large enterprises, a summer rest and health improvement system was organized for workers and their children. Free education and medicine (although its quality was mediocre).

      • These were indeed very positive sides of communism, and for most citizens in the countries of the former USSR and Central & Eastern Europe, unfortunately the situation turned worse after 1989-1991.
        They were lured into supporting a change which promised to be for the better, but turned out to be for the worst. The interesting part of this debate is, that these benefits for the citizens, like free education and health care, and free visits to health spas, were not uniquely “communist”, but could also have been realised in conservative patriotic or Christian societies. The real evil-doer that’s preventing this to be implemented for in our time for the benefit of every one, and not just for the few rich, is globalised corporate capitalism. However, what leftists in the contemporary West nowadays want is in no way similar to the once “real-existing communism” that once was. They want the total destruction of the Western World. Traditional communism, on the contrary, tried to learn from the West, take on its positive aspects, and improve upon it. It may nove have succeeded in this, but the genuine will and the effort were there. And traditional communism also valued patriotism and national traditions. Soviet citizens were taught to be proud of their culture and heritage, while modern lefties want us to be ashamed of ours. The most striking irony is, that communism managed to conserve traditional values in Central & Eastern-Europe and Eurasia, while capitalism in has allowed them to be eroded in Western-Europe and, to a lesser extent, also in North-America. This has led us into a situation, that the countries that we were once told posed a “threat” to “our”way of life, are the ones that may end up saving us from the real threat of left-winged political correctness, which is opening the doors to an even bigger threat, the so-called “relion of peace”.

    • I would love to see her, once it reported to the authorities, for not being Communist enough. I am sure she would love the torture and the gulag.

  3. In addition to the questions the author poses in the article’s conclusion, I ask, why is it the anti-semitusm is on the rise and coming primarily from the Leftist establishment?

    • Because the left is aligning itself with another totalitarian collectivist ideology: Islam. The Jews are no longer important, as they were just used by the left to stick antisemitism to anyone dared to criticize them.

    • Actually they have always been anti-Semitic at their heart. Within a decade of the October Revolution Jews had been largely purged from the Bolshevik Party and relegated to second class citizenship throughout the USSR. God and man-gods cannot coexist, even a “tradition” of a Chosen People must be expunged.
      It is significant that a large percentage of the F-School were ostensibly Jews and hard Left communists but none fled to Russia. What is often forgotten is that the original concentration camps were set up to hold communists not Jews, that came later. That was the reason for their flight. Never the less they knew where they would end up if they ran into Stalin’s arms. They fled to the U.S. and formulated the myth, among others, that communism could work because it had never been tried in its true form.

      I could speculate about why intellectual/humanist Jews embrace what, for them, is inevitable suicide but that would be lengthy. George Soros is pretty much a text book case. Look at his childhood and adolescence and ponder his seemingly visceral hatred for Israel, the U.S., and humanity in general.

  4. It seems like the Left is saying “Cultural Marxism doesn’t exist, but it’s a great idea!” Just as so many Muslims say, “The Holocaust never happened and the Jews had it coming to them.”

  5. It has always been that way. In Amsterdam, a notoriously leftwing city, antisemitism was rife before and during the second world war and still is today.
    During the Nazi occupation the civil servants and police of Amsterdam were more than obliging to help out the Nazi’s by meticulously mapping all the jews of Amsterdam and helping to round them up.

    Here you find a map made in 1941 by the City of Amsterdam, every dot represents 10 jews.
    Needless to say very few of those “dots” made it back after the war.

  6. Control of social media platforms represents the greatest victory leftists/cultural Marxists have ever achieved.

    Conservatives who refuse to intervene, citing free market concerns, are making the gravest possible error. These platforms must be dismantled, lest their managers come to completely control our politics.

    • You’re correct in the assertion that the cultural Marxists center around media communications. Many of the cultural Marxist bright lights achieved great success and wealth in the form of advertising and mass communications.

      I used to go to school with the brother of a guy who studied under Herbert Marcuse, cultural Marxist cum Stalinist extraordinaire. This brother is now a professor of design in technology, whatever that means.

      But, I strongly disagree with the idea of using government to regulate the content of techopolies such as FaceBook, Twitter, YouTube and PayPal. The reason is this: the truth can be found in the smaller websites such as Gates of Vienna, Jihad Watch, Vdare, and numerous others. The general process of government regulation is to impose heavy bureaucratic requirements on the regulatory subjects. The larger outfits can easily pay the lawyers and administrators, but the innovators operating on a shoestring are driven out of business. So, regulation instituted for what sounds like good reasons actually becomes an anti-competitive force.

      I believe there is a place for laws furthering the regulation of monopolistic behavior. Under US law, monopolies are legal, but subject to legal action if they use their position to manipulated the market. When a techopoly like PayPal suddenly cancels the account of a group they disagree with, causing the group to lose revenues and subscriber names, it seems to me quite possible to set up a legal liability for such actions without actually getting into the business of regulating the actual treatment of content.

      Once you give a commission the right to monitor the treatment of content, it will end badly, even if the original intent is to assure equal access. Regulatory commissions are well-known for being “captured” by the industries which they are supposed to regulate.

      I would suggest pursuing the expansion of legal liability and damages for techopolies acting to shape the market or to damage their patrons. The long contracts every user agrees to should be declared invalid where they contradict monopoly law.

      I am of the opinion that we may have to give up a bit of convenience in order to assure true freedom in the future. You may have to subscribe to Gates of Vienna, rather than getting all your anti-jihad news via Facebook. Facebook can do what they want with my information, of which I have given them precious little.

      I’m actually more afraid of Amazon, which has kept a low profile, than I am of Facebook, Twitter or YouTube. I have an extensive library of Islamic and anti-Islamic, Jewish, and anti-Semitic materials in my Amazon Kindle library, including Das Capital, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Mein Kampf, Reliance of the Traveler, and most of the books by Robert Spencer.

      Suppose Amazon suddenly decided to delete the books it thought of as “hateful” and refunded the purchase price. It has that capability. It has done it before. The damage to me would be far more extensive than any refund could make up for.

      I am more interested in making sure government protects me from having the implicit but very real contracts I assume suddenly and arbitrarily invalidated.

        • Even most libertarians, except for the anarchists, concede the role of government in assuring security and a framework of laws within which individuals can function with some justice and predictability.

          I happen to think the proper role of government is to adjust the legal framework rather than take direct control. For example, the laws that state a monopoly can legally exist, but must not use its predominance of the market to explicitly squeeze out competitors or to punish customers. This seems to me to be a reasonable role for government.

          PayPal has abruptly cancelled the accounts of conservative customers, in the process disrupting their flow of revenue and their customer contacts. This is obviously punishing behavior. I actually wouldn’t think it so bad if PayPal explicitly announced it would not accept conservative customers in the future or gave such customers 6 months notice. But, an abrupt cancellation is simply punishing behavior and it is valid, in my opinion, to treat this as an actionable violation of common contract law.

  7. Hi Peter,

    Homosexuality and LGTB are “normal behaviour” for those born with these conditions; recent research indicates that they are caused by too much, or too little, testosterone in utero. This is not to excuse the politicization around their causes, especially as applied to children.

    Regarding the dominance of the Left in the media, I’m not convinced it’s always a conspiracy. Don’t know whether you can receive (or would want to listen to) BBC Radio 4 in Thailand, but the veteran presenter of the early morning “Today” programme, John Humphreys, gave an interview to the BBC’s listings magazine “Radio Times” a few years ago; he said that any bias to the left was due to humanities graduates being attracted to such roles rather than any deliberate conspiracy. Which does not necessarily excuse the BBC, and other media, from exercising due diligence.

    • Hi Mark, Hope you are well.

      My objection is the promotion of Homosexuality and LGTB behaviour, obviously I was unclear in expressing this. I do not get BBC Radio but I do have BBC World Service on my TV which is on every waking hour – apart from football matches, which as you know, I cannot live without. So my entire day is played out to a backdrop of pro-leftist droning.

      I agree that there was no leftist conspiracy to recruit left-leaning candidates to the media initially, but, once there, they vehemently promote and defend leftist ideology, which is what we have today.

    • No one denies their inclinations are innate. What I dislike is the celebration of such to the exclusion and ridicule of heterosexuals. The never-ending cacophony wearies the soul.

      Even “feminists” need to come back from the edge of the cliff. They’re so far out there that the Dems no longer find them useful:

      The world is fissioning into ever-smaller splinter groups.

  8. In 1984, Yuri Bezmenov gave his interview with G Edward Griffith. I don’t recall if cultural Marxism was mentioned but it describes the purpose of ideological subversion and the role of the media. His testimony takes it out of the realm of conspiracy theory because it is what he was trained to do.

  9. Everyone should research the British charity ‘Common Purpose’.

    They behind all the looney behaviour in Britain in today

  10. Khruschev had it right when he claimed Americans would not swallow Communism whole, but could be spoon-fed small doses of it until it was complete. It seems that we may well be there. It is if History is repeating itself. In 1930″s, Totalitarian states were the rage , Italian Fascism, German National Socialism, and Soviet Communism were seen as future, and Democratic states in disfavor.
    It seems hard to believe that said states would be looked upon with sure favor, considering the fact that they belong to some of the most murderous regimes in history

    • Khruschev never claimed any such thing. When I first started to write this article, I intended to start with the alleged quote from Khruschev, only to find a sizeable number of people who claimed he didn’t say it at all. Faced with a sufficient number of people disputing this claim, I felt the wisest thing to do was not to purse it.

Comments are closed.