Oct. 26, 2023 - The Truth Central - Dr. Jerome Corsi
44:59
Herbert Marcuse: The Father of the New Left - Where Woke Came From and Where It's Going Pt 5
Dr. Jerome Corsi takes a closer look at Herbert Marcuse, known as the "Father of the New Left," his leading Leftism into a new era and his influence on the modern woke agenda.Dr Corsi delves into what shaped Marcuse's mindset from before his earliest scholarly pursuits to his association with the Frankfurt School, his writings and his laying the foundation for the New Left movement. Today's The Truth Central features commentary from Dr. Corsi's new book: The Truth About Neo-Marxism, Cultural Maoism and Anarchy. Pick up your copy today on Amazon: https://www.thetruthcentral.com/the-truth-about-neo-marxism-cultural-maoism-and-anarchy-exposing-woke-insanity-in-the-age-of-disinformation/Get your FREE copy of Dr. Corsi's new book with Swiss America CEO Dean Heskin, How the Coming Global Crash Will Create a Historic Gold Rush by calling: 800-519-6268Follow Dr. Jerome Corsi on Twitter: @corsijerome1Our website: https://www.thetruthcentral.comOur link to where to get the Marco Polo 650-Page Book on the Hunter Biden laptop & Biden family crimes free online: https://www.thetruthcentral.com/marco-polo-publishes-650-page-book-on-hunter-biden-laptop-biden-family-crimes-available-free-online/Our Sponsors:MyVital https://www.thetruthcentral.com/myvitalc-ess60-in-organic-olive-oil/ Swiss America: https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/CorsiRMP.php The MacMillan Agency: https://www.thetruthcentral.com/the-macmillan-agency/ Pro Rapid Review: https://prorrt.com/thetruthcentralmembers/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-truth-central-with-dr-jerome-corsi--5810661/support.
And we're going to continue this series of deep dives into my new book, which is just out.
I'm very pleased with it.
This is Dr. Jerome Corse and today is Thursday, it's October 26th, 2023.
And we're going to continue this series of deep dives into my new book, which is just
out.
I'm very pleased with it.
It's called The Truth About Neo-Marxism, Cultural Maoism, and Anarchy.
And it's exposing woke insanity in an age of disinformation, which is what we're in.
We're going to focus today on Herbert Marcuse, who is really called the father of the New Left and the 1980s, late 1980s especially, there was a new left, which meant the old left, which was liberals of Nathan Glazer, people I could name some names but probably wouldn't mean much to the current audience.
These were people who disliked inequality, they wanted fairness, their hearts bled for those less fortunate.
They were really not communists, they were socialist-oriented.
But they were not pure, outright communists.
When the assassination of Jack Kennedy, which I think was a defining act for the generation who was coming of age at that—for all America, really, at that time—it was the end of innocence, the end of an age where we believed America could do no wrong.
The assassination has been a A troubling incident.
I'll have a book out on the assassination of Jack Kennedy next month, in December, almost next month, the end of October today, but in a few weeks.
And it will be, I think, a book that will shock the nation.
The end of that era, with the beginning of Lyndon Johnson going into the Vietnam War, produced an anti-war reaction among youth that was heavily influenced with the Marxist element.
And the New Left became radicalized into revolution.
Even in that era, the Beatles were into revolution.
The music was very much sex, drugs, and rock and roll was the theme, and Marcuse has a lot to do with that.
Now, Marcuse was born in Berlin in 1898.
Upper-class Jewish family that prospered in business was integrated into German society.
He was drafted into the German Army in 1916 for World War I, but he didn't fight in the war.
The failure of Germany in World War I and the subsequent German November Revolution of 1918 and the Spartacus Uprising in 1919, these were two uprisings in Germany.
Between World War I and World War II, when the Weimar Republic was getting formed but also beginning to fail, the economics in Germany in the interwar period were horrible because of the reparations imposed on Germany, the payments to the allies that were determined at the Versailles Treaty that ended World War I. Now, Marcuse actually studied with Heidegger and he became very much into when he got his PhD, he became
very interested in Heidegger, Heidegger was a German philosopher who supported Hitler.
And it's interesting that Marcuse comes out of that tradition.
Marcuse completed his dissertation, he returned to Berlin, and in 1927 he began reading Heidegger's
newly published Being in Time, which is his major work.
It's a dense work, it's very difficult to read actually, but it's dense, and we're not going to explain Being and Time.
The ascendancy of Hitler to power, with that, Marcuse wanted to work at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt.
These were Marxists.
And the head of it, Max Horkheimer, hired Marcuse, and Horkheimer began planning to leave Germany.
Marcuse never really worked for the Institute in Frankfurt, since Horkheimer, who had already moved the Institute's Endowment to Holland assigned Marcuse to work in the Institute's branch in Geneva, Switzerland.
The Jews in the early 1930s, by 1933-1934, were the last to escape Nazi Germany.
After that, it became increasingly difficult to leave Germany as a Jew.
In July 1934, Marcuse and his wife fled to New York, where they worked for the Institute of Social Research's branch at Columbia University.
This is the beginning of what they call—this is the middle of what they call the Frankfurt School.
The Frankfurt School is a group of Jewish intellectuals, Marxists, who had fought against the Communists.
Against the socialists, really.
These were communists.
They fought against the socialists.
The German Nazis were national socialists.
They're both on the left.
But Hitler wanted a small oligarchy to control society with interlocking directorates among multinational corporations.
So the multinational corporations and small oligarchy would rule the world.
Hitler at the top, and the vast majority of people would get free vacations, government paid, they get some benefits, medical benefits, not very much, and they would be the middle class, very distant from the oligarchs ruling the country.
The socialists at that time Like, Marcuse was opposed to the National Socialists, so he basically was truly communist, wanted to abolish private property, wanted to abolish capitalism.
The Nazis were not opposed to capitalism, they just wanted to control it with a one world government, being the Nazis at the top, and their corporations and their machines.
Now, When Marcuse fled Germany, he joined the other group of Jewish communists who had now, from the Frankfurt School, gone to Columbia University, which had a tie to this Frankfurt School, the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt.
Marcuse actually worked in Washington as an intelligence officer for the OSS.
Which was the predecessor to the CIA.
Now, he would do that to fight Hitler and to, you know, stop Hitler's persecution of the Jews, but it was unusual for a Marxist like Marcuse to actually work for an intelligence agency of the U.S.
government.
He taught at Columbia and Harvard before he landed a full-time faculty appointment as a professor of philosophy and politics at Brandeis University just outside Boston.
And he wrote a book called One Dimensional Man at Brandeis, and Angela Davis and Abbie Hoffman were her students.
Angela Davis later became a black radical, and Abbie Hoffman was head of the hippies, or the yippies, who were actually, you know, youth at that time, opposed to society as a whole, and really both with strong Marxist leanings.
Now, Marcuse left Brandeis in a fight over free speech on the campus, and the incident was one that involved an address by anthropologist Kathleen Averly during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
She closed the speech to students with the word, Viva Fidel Kennedy to Hell.
And the Brandeis president reprimanded Aberle for her reckless and irresponsible remarks.
And during his final year at Brandeis, Marcuse became a vociferous critic of the American policy in Vietnam.
After the bombing of North Vietnam began in 1965 in February, Marcuse gave a speech that sealed his departure.
He said, when I came to this country in the 30s, there was a spirit of hope in the air.
He told a student assembly.
Now, I detect a militarism and a repression that calls to mind the terror of Nazi Germany.
Now, he ended up in California, in La Jolla, in a very fashionable house, and he's actually living quite well.
There's a whole group in Hollywood and all through California of the Frankfurt schools where they ultimately settled.
Now, Marcuse did not become famous until later in his life.
And actually, he was 81 when he died of a stroke on a trip to Germany.
But in 1968, he capitalized on the widespread civil unrest that was in the United States, Western Europe, and especially in France.
In France, it almost looked like it could be a revolution.
This Rudi Deutschke was one of the leading revolutionaries in Europe.
1968 students and young radicals all over the world discussed the three M's, Marx, Mao, and Marcuse.
This book, One Dimensional Man, is a criticism of capitalism.
In that it says that capitalism keeps people working, they lead dull, materialistic lives.
Marcuse was a very interesting writer.
He was careful to craft paragraphs that were catchy.
He rode the wave of popularity of the youth counterculture.
So when he was writing On One Dimensional Man, it became read, I remember seeing it in bookstores at Harvard, all over Cambridge, Massachusetts it was being read, and that Marcuse was saying essentially that One-dimensional man means that there's no depth to the person.
The person is, you know, he portrayed Americans as drinking beer and watching baseball and driving their cars and leading fairly vacuous lives.
It was not the European intellectual life that he felt that he was entitled to.
His most important book, and I think the one of two that really made the biggest impact, was called Eros and Civilization.
Of course, Eros means love and civilization.
The whole idea themes from Freud.
Freud had written a book called Civilization and its Discontents, and this is the idea that civilization requires sexual sublimation, repression, and that What will be liberating is sexual freedom.
In fact, he thinks that there was a trade-off here where the one-dimensional man of the capitalist state was, by religion, forced to sublimate sexual drives, which then allowed them to work as near-slaves in a capitalist system Producing material goods, all of which he had disdain for.
So, what Marcuse decided to do was import Eros, sex, the key to unlocking the riddle of how to create what he considered an authentic, capable, authentic human being, that was his whole idea, authentic human being, in a non-repressive civilization.
And Freud clearly maintained that the requirements of society, civilization, demanded inhibiting the human sex drive.
So, in Chapter 4 of Civilization is Discontents, Freud made it clear that sexual repression was essential and it began in childhood and could only be liberated through dream therapy.
So, Marcuse said that Freud's idea was, as old as civilizations, always produce the most effective rationalization for repression.
And he called it the pleasure principle versus the reality principle, which are antagonistic and fight with each other.
The pleasure principle being sex, the reality principle being work.
But he decided that the Psychology of advanced capitalist society reduces to a conflict between Eroslov and Thanatos, which is death, in which basically death has the upper hand.
So, capitalist culture was born at the cost of repressing sexual drives.
So, Marcuse turned into, then, attacking the Enlightenment, which was reason, and I want to read a paragraph or two of what he He argued that at the height of civilization's progressive achievements, quote, domination not only undermines its foundations, but also corrupts and liquidates the oppression against domination.
So, for instance, he would write things like this.
Okay, individuality is lost as humans or conceptualized as types, such as vamp, housewife, The water nymph in love with a man, but destined to die if the man is unfaithful.
He-man, career woman, struggling young couple, and so on.
Human existence is reduced to mere stuff, matter, material.
And the interactions between ego, superego, and the id congeal into automatic reactions.
He considered it to be like we were living as amatons, machines.
So he strongly argued for a sexual revolution.
And he argued that sex should be uninhibited.
He joined with Adorno and Horkheimer, who wrote a book called, essentially, Deconstructing the Enlightenment, in which they embraced Marquis de Sade as the ultimate high point of liberation with random sex, group sex, I mean, if you've ever read De Sade, it's fairly bizarre, but it's page after page after page of sex.
And that's what Marcuse embraced.
Then he wrote a couple of essays, which I think were very determinative, Of his ultimate position on tolerance, he wrote this book on repressive toleration, in which he argued that you could not allow those who were not enlightened to see the utopian human being realized after the destruction of this capitalist society.
A Critique of Pure Tolerance was a book that was published in which his essay was one of three.
And it was the one that was most popularly studied in the late 1960s.
In 1969, it was published.
And so, his whole idea was, we should not allow free speech, because it would allow, entering into the dialogue, ideas which were repressive.
So, with this ideology, he was embraced by the new left, he became the darling of the resistance revolution movement, he was celebrated in Europe, and he was talked about everywhere.
Marcuse was the central character defining what the sexual revolution was about, combined with anti-war protests.
And a revolutionary atmosphere that led to the Black Panthers, it led to the Weathermen, which Obama was peripherally involved with because of Bill Ayers, who was one of the key Weathermen figures that broke out from SDS, Students for a Democratic Society.
There were protests all occupying university halls.
It was a chaotic time.
And it was the first beginning of a breakdown of traditional morality and the traditional bonds that kept civilization intact with mass protests, race riots.
It was a chaotic period to live through.
I did a lot of writing on it, even in my 20s.
That's how I began to start first writing about the race riots that were occurring in Cleveland, Ohio, in the late 1960s.
And I had written three books as an undergraduate, and at that time was very deeply involved in civil violence research centers.
That's how I got involved with John Kerry.
I was working for one of the centers for civil violence research at Brandeis, actually.
And was a law enforcement assistance administration contract that I bird dog carry in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
So Marcuse became the grandfather of the new left.
And he had an FBI file, he was all over television, his books were being read, and he achieved fame in his 70s.
And Made a definite mark.
I think today he's not nearly as well recognized or read as he was then because we've moved past it, but he was a formative figure in getting us to the woke culture we're experiencing today.
Chris, would you like to comment?
It's interesting you point out that a lot of these early socialists were not necessarily all communist or Marxists.
these philosophies kind of melded into something a little more.
And you do explain this in the book, and you have explained this in this entire
series, that they've kind of evolved or, well, let's say melded into something
called the Neo-Marxist or Neo-Marxist philosophy, which now we see in the
wokeism of today, that still took another 30, 40 years to develop,
which was rather interesting.
So you take some of the earlier philosophies.
You wonder if these same people like Marcuse, who, again, as I said, they did
kind of get the ball rolling on this, but you'd want to know what they think of
the movement today, the woke movement, the anti-free speech movement, which
you said he might love.
On the other hand, society is a lot more repressive in a lot of ways than it used to be as well.
Well, I think if Marcuse was alive today and functioning, not in his 90s or 100 years old, he would be very much in favor of the destruction of capitalism and where things were going.
Now, the Marcuse impact, and I quote from this book that Stephen Coughlin and Richard Higgins wrote, they were two Military trained counterintelligence agents they wrote a very brilliant book called re-remembering the misremembered left 2019.
I dedicated the book to Coughlin and Higgins.
I think they did the groundbreaking work in exposing the this mindset of the left which has a fundamentally different perception of reality than the conservative right or most human beings raised in
America through at least the 1960s.
And the values that we hold, which are Judeo-Christian values, are completely rejected
by these Frankfurt School thinkers, including Marcuse, who is, again, that's a very good book,
The Left Strategy and Tactics for Transforming America.
You can find it on the internet.
In fact, there's, I think, a free copy of it still available on their website, which is the Unconstrained Analytics.
And my book drew a lot of inspiration from their work.
But my training as a political scientist, when I got my PhD at Harvard in political science in 1972, my specialty was political philosophy, political theory.
And my dissertation was a First Amendment topic on political theory.
I think that's where you can find it.
If you search the website, you'll see a lot of videos on the website, a lot of good analysis on the website.
And I recommend that you take a look at this unconstrainedanalytics.com.
Now, there's a quotation from Scotland and Higgins that, as Marcuse recognized, Mao executed Marx's strategy.
Marx failed.
Marx said that there was going to be a capitalist revolution against capitalism by the workers, the proletariat, who were being oppressed by the bourgeoisie, which were the capitalists, the landowners, the owners of business.
And it never happened.
We did not get a Workers of the World Unite.
In fact, the labor union was created and much of the energy of oppressive capitalism began to be shared with workers in the form of benefits for labor, labor benefits, labor union derived benefits.
But Mao, with the Cultural Revolution, We did implement Marx's strategy of destroying capitalism because Marcuse realized the value of Gramsci's, the Italian communist's, argument that you have to destroy the culture.
You've got to start with destroying God.
Take God out of the equation, then you take families out of the equation, and now human beings are left without the fundamental structures they need to function.
Without family, without God, human beings turn into fairly vicious and dangerous animals, as we see today.
And with a society that does not believe in God, our Founding Fathers were correct, the Constitution is not meant for such a people.
What's meant for such a people is to walk into their own slavery under totalitarianism.
To tie this to how the left evolved into wokeism involves understanding that this was combined, this whole idea of we need to forget about God, we don't believe in sky fairies, and we want to perfect life and we have to perfect life.
John Rawls wrote a book when I was at Harvard.
He was a professor of philosophy, and he wrote a book called Justice is Fairness.
And I used to argue that if justice is fairness, you didn't need two words.
Because justice is not equivalent to meaning in fairness.
Fairness means equal outcomes.
Justice means appropriate outcomes.
And they aren't necessarily equal.
A criminal is not treated equally to someone who's the victim of crime.
But the woke fundamental analysis is to see that everyone is a victim.
So the criminal is a victim, and in a sense, is the victim against the victim of crime, who's probably an oppressor.
And so therefore, you turn everything on its head.
It's a language perversion.
And fundamental to wokeism is a perversion of language.
I discuss that at length in the book, at the beginning of the book, as to how, in fact, language is perverted to get these ideas.
And the reality in which they live is one that's of subjective reality.
In other words, the movement we see today began in the 1700s.
And it began with Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, who said, we're perceiving the world and we perceive it through our senses.
Now, Kant believed there was an a priori, that you couldn't just make it up, that we perceived it either accurately or inaccurately, depending upon whether our perception matched the thing in itself, as it existed as an idea or a priority or platonic idea that was immutable.
Well, Marcuse and these others at Frankfurt School doubted that.
They felt that everything is what you perceive and that your value judgment is good, somebody else's value judgment, and that therefore you can't have clear definitions required for thinking between dualities.
So you have good-bad, you know, you have hot-cold.
There's all kinds.
Logic demands polar opposites.
But it's a problem because, again, what they were saying is that there's gradations.
So, sex, as in physical organs, are not gender, which is your concept of what your sexuality is.
So you can have male or female sex organs, but yet be attracted to the same sex organs in another person.
In other words, lesbian or homosexual or transsexual.
Trans has now become the commonality word for not men that love men as homosexuals, but men that act out being women.
And what their sexual attraction is can be fairly bizarre.
Or you could have your orientation being the sex of an animal, or the sex from another century, or another past life.
That's your gender.
Your sex can be changed, but they view your gender, which is your personal identity, that's what's yours to define, and you have the right to define it under this book, and everybody has to respect it.
If they don't, they're committing an aggression against you.
So when you come to this whole evolution where ideas become subjective, it's almost like schizophrenia.
It's almost like the lunatics begin running the asylum.
And they do this beginning by radicalizing race, which is one of the, I think, weak points in the American history because we did not end slavery with the formation of the Constitution.
Southern states would not go along.
So, the ultimate villain becomes white privilege.
What I write is that the concept of white privilege originated not today with critical race theory or Black Lives Matter, but it goes back to 1919 to Theodore Ted William Allen.
Allen became radicalized during the Great Depression.
He joined the Communist Party in the 1930s and he spent three years as a coal miner in West Virginia.
Until a back injury forced him to leave.
He got to New York in 1948, where he taught classes in a CP, Communist Party USA funded school, the Jefferson School of Social Science.
In 1958, when Alan left the CP USA, Communist Party of the United States, a revolution was no longer viable in the post-war prosperity.
And he spent his last 40 years researching the role of white supremacy in the United States, resulting in his two-volume publication called The Invention of the White Race.
Now, Ted Allen and Noel Ignatiev, I-G-N-A-T-I-E-V, were both members of the Radical Students of the Democratic Society, SDS, a movement in the 1960s.
Alan and Ignatiev were the prime movers of the radical youth movement that broke with the SDS in 1969, declaring itself the real SDS.
Following Alan and Ignatiev's love, the RYM, the Revolutionary Youth Movement, announced that the race issue, focusing on white privilege, was the key to producing the desired communist revolution.
They took this from the 1919s when the issue of race to polarize America was first introduced by Stalin and brought into the United States through various of the writers and intellectuals of the time.
So with political philosophers like Rawls advocating a radical Redefinition of the liberal social contract to insist justice is fairness and we must have outcomes that are fair among all races.
Of course, what's a race?
How do you decide these things?
These are all left to be arbitrary.
And to resolve that, a thinker called Habermas Devise what he called discourse ethics.
And in discourse ethics, a community is supposed to argue until they can come up with a consensus idea that does not offend anyone and is the principle on which the society is going to act.
And again, it's defined not by an objective standard, but by whatever the community decides.
To read another place, this dovetails with my book on climate.
So I say in 2018, the International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC and the United Nations, A policy statement requiring governments to limit or discontinue the use of hydrocarbon fuels to reduce the emission of carbon dioxide with the goal of limiting the impact on global warming to keep the planet from exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
That's what we're fighting right now.
The United Nations understands that this policy It's not agreed to by all scientists, but it is agreed to by those scientists who think correctly.
The IPCC assumes all who love us must think we have no choice but to abandon hydrocarbon fuels.
The global warming consensus is a statement resulting from discourse ethics that insists we can only achieve Climate sustainability if we shift to renewable energies.
The scientific consensus is then operative on a normative level, not as a statement of facts.
That's the important point to realize, that these people are interested in formulating, imagining their future world and making it come to be.
And if you don't agree with them, you are repressive, microaggression, you're dangerous, you are not objecting to an election as being unfair, but you're trying to subvert the election of someone who is duly elected.
The trouble with all this is, if you look at the results, you get insanity.
So, in her seminal book, Judith Butler wrote a book called Gender Trouble, Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.
She said sex and gender were not equivalent terms.
Sex is a person's biological makeup, male or female sex organs, and internal sex organs.
She distinguished that gender was a cultural concept, identifying a person's sexual inclinations.
So gender then was not binary, male or female, but involved a spectrum of possible orientations.
She insisted her worldview was more post-structural than post-modern.
Okay, but that's a really technical distinction.
They're mostly synonymous terms.
These are linguistically formed concepts.
They believe that values were formed in language.
And language was how we perceive the world and how we choose to perceive the world.
So when you change the language, you change the perception of the world.
And this is done to define a blurriness of boundaries and to say that a person's gender can be self-determined.
Chris, comments on this?
Well, there's something that led to the hip gender terms of today, like gender fluid or pansexual or something like that, or Well, I guess all these other nine variants.
Or trisexual.
They'll try anything.
Bicycles.
Garbage cans.
Let's not go there.
Yeah.
All right.
I'm going to start over again.
No, that's okay.
I don't mind you going there.
I mean, no, we got the point.
It gets so bizarre.
Keep it in.
I think it's good.
But that's the idea.
I know.
You're right.
It's actually crazy.
Yeah.
So bizarre.
Right.
But it's become hip now.
It's become ingrained in culture.
It used to be something that was discussed on the fringes.
And again, I'm all for free speech and discussion and exchange of ideas.
But now we're at a point where if you don't agree with these ideas or what's the latest thing here, you're shunned in a mass society.
Not unlike the Puritans shunned somebody who dissented from the leadership, but it's done so on a mass scale via social media these days.
And also, if the Department of Justice decides that your ideas Uh, because you're white and, uh, likely a Catholic and like the Latin mass, or you, you know, belong to the MAGA faction supporting Donald Trump, you're dangerous because... Those red hats really hurt people.
Yes.
Yes.
And they, and they've imprisoned people, uh, increasingly for speech because they don't want to tolerate someone undermining, subverting their agenda.
Well, here, here you go.
Here's, here's an example.
There's a gentleman who, I forgot his name is some crazy, some, some, blog some meme creator he he got tossed in jail for seven months for putting for for posting a meme
Telling Democrats to vote by text, like an American Idol, for president in 2020.
Whereas a woman, some so-called comedian, I think her name was Christine Wong, said Republicans should be voting on Wednesday rather than Tuesday.
She didn't get in trouble, he gets put in jail for For seven months.
This is a distinct, this is exactly what you're saying.
If you don't go with, if you're not, if you are not speaking on behalf of the established narrative, the Department of Justice will come down on you with their jackboots and stamp on your back.
And getting back to the political philosophy, what I want to stress in this episode, this deep dive, is that With political philosophers like John Rawls advancing a radical redefinition of what was the liberal social contract.
The social contract was the agreement among people supposedly in the forest who agreed to form civil society.
It was a construct And basically Rawls redefined it to say the only legitimate social contract is a social contract that no matter which position you choose to come out in, you are not disadvantaged against others.
So you have to construct a social contract so there's no disadvantages.
There's John Rawls.
And he was Clearly a Marxist, a neo-Marxist who was redefining Marx in terms of outcomes and results, and he believed that capitalism was the structure that produced this unfairness.
And unfairness has always been the fundamental accusation of Marxists against capitalists.
But in fact, sorry to tell everybody, but life is not fair.
It's not fair who you were born to, or when you were born, or what advantages or disadvantages you have.
And no two people are born identically.
No two pieces of sand on a beach are identical.
And that's one of the remarkable aspects of creation.
But there is no real fundamental fairness in the way we experience this life.
So Rawls wanted to modernize Kant's categorical imperative.
Kant's categorical imperative was something that was so true that it became necessary as a moral law.
That you shouldn't lie, for instance, or things of that nature.
But all he ended up doing was empowering Habermas's discourse ethics Requiring us to accept as normal all personally defined identities regardless of how idiosyncratic, bizarre, and shifting those subjective realities might be.
The reality of identity politics is anarchy pure and simple.
It's just anarchy.
I think it's schizophrenia.
Identity politics is perhaps the most effective psycho-reality narrative designed to destroy the existing order.
Identity politics, however, cannot create the promised neo-Marxist utopia that the cultural Maoist utopia wants.
Living in identity politics utopia amounts to living in a reality in which the inmates have taken over the management of the asylum.
And so, therefore, if you're not agreeing with the inmates and don't accept all these crazy ideas, you are the enemy.
And have to be banned, or censored, or deplatformed, or, in other words, don't have a good enough social credit score, and so therefore you have to be outcast.
We're living in an age that has the potential to be totalitarian almost everywhere you look.
And the left would create it.
I think the woke left would be the first ones that the true Uh, globalists want would eliminate because the Bill Gates is the Klaus Schwab.
They want themselves to be the oligarchs in power.
They want all the Earth's resources and value to them.
And their machines, and they think that the vast majority of human beings are just useless eaters.
And do not want to care for them when they're old and can't cope for themselves.
Don't see any intrinsic value in human beings.
And don't see any moral purpose to life other than that which we imagine.
Like John Lennon imagined a world with no God.
Wouldn't that be great because then we wouldn't have religious wars?
Well, if we're human beings, we'd have wars over something else.
Because what this whole vision is predicated on is perfecting the human being.
And a Judeo-Christian perspective begins with the premise that human beings are a fallen species, original sin, Garden of Eden, and that we are not, we're prone to commit sins.
We are sinners by nature.
And it's hard to stay on a moral path.
So therefore, the different views here of a subjective reality which somehow you can't intrude upon, And it serves the purposes of those who want to destroy society, not to create a utopian future, which Klaus Schwab knows will never be created, but to create a very comfortable world for the globalists with all their wealth.
They can command the resources of the Earth at their fingertips and not have to work, because the machines will do the work.
These are very dangerous concepts.
And I think it bears reading the book because you're going to have to immerse yourself in understanding how this bizarre set of philosophies developed over almost over 250 years.
And they include some strong influence from German thinkers, like Kant and Hegel, and a lot of French thinkers who were existentialists or postmoderns, like Baudrillard, etc.
We talked about him in previous of these deep dives, and we'll do more.
This bizarre ideology can be defeated, but only, I think, with the intervention of God at this point.
Cause it's taken too much of a hold of our institutions, our press.
We're getting disinformation.
They don't feel they're obliged to tell the truth.
They're obliged to create the narrative of how they want the event to be perceived.
So whether or not the, you know, in the war, when we just saw in Israel, whether or not a Hamas hospital was attacked by Israel, not the New York Times is going to print the story.
Without fact-checking or without really caring that it might not be true.
And this disinformation creates an artificially constructed reality, which the globalists, the CIA, intelligence agencies know can be manipulated to cause human behavior to go in a certain direction.
COVID, lockdown, repression, and again, everyone taking a vaccine, this groupthink.
These are dangerous psychological traits of human beings which are being very carefully manipulated by skilled people whose goals are essentially to depopulate the world and put themselves in control.
This is Dr. Jerome Corsi, and thank you for joining us.
In the end, God always wins, and God will win here, too.
But join me in the spirit of 2 Chronicles 7.14.
We've got to get on our knees and ask God's forgiveness for letting this get to this point.
Taking God out of our schools, for killing babies in the womb in the millions.
And what the instruction of 2 Chronicles 7.14 is, God will hear our prayer and heal our land.
That's going to happen.
We will get a judgment of God, I think, at this point, given the magnitude of the people abandoning God and people turning into this, which I think is fundamentally dark, satanic vision of existence.
This is Dr. Jerome Corsi.
Today is Thursday.
It's October 26.
2023, and I've been profiling and previewing this week my new book, which is The Truth About Neo-Marxism, Cultural Maoism, and Anarchy, and I do hope you'll read it, grab yourself a copy.
I think you'll find it extremely informative to orient you to understand what's going on and understand how it's got to be defeated.
Thank you for joining us.
We're broadcasting on the truthcentral.com every weekday.
