Speaker 1: I want to welcome everyone back to the Pignana Show.
Returning to the show today, Joe Atwill, How are you doing, Joe, I'm.
Speaker 2: Just playing Pete. How are you? Thank you for having me?
Speaker 1: Oh, no problem at all. I've wanted to talk about
this book on the show for a while and share
some passages. And I noticed when when you and Tim
Kelly on our Interesting Times the Powers and Principalities episodes,
when you guys do those episodes, you refer to the
book The Authoritarian Personality by Adorno and his crew often.
So when did this book first come on your radar?
Speaker 2: I think I started being aware of it in probably
two thousand. I read an article by Jeffrey Steinberg, one
of the La Rouche scholars. It was called from Cybernetics
to Lyttleton, I believe techniques in mind control, and he,
you know, shows the overall context of the group that
produced it and how it relates to other elements within culture.
And so that was kind of how I first became
aware of it and started studying it was just through
Steinberg's articles and descriptions of it.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm going to let's just start getting into this book.
Those books from nineteen fifty. I'll just share the title
page here. It's called Studies and Prejudice the Authoritarian Person
either by Adorno, Frankel, Bruce Brunswick, Levinson Sanford, Dynamics of Prejudice,
Anti Semitism and Economic Old Disorder Rehearsal for Destruction, Profits
of Deceit. And it's sponsored by the American Jewish Committee
Social Studies Series Publication number three. And it immediately in
the forward just starts talking about the fact that this
is being written in nineteen fifty. The world history of
anti Semitism is not manifesting itself with the full and
violent destructiveness of which we know to be capable of,
you know. And then he says people, you know, people
aren't even remembering what just happened a few short years ago.
Speaker 2: Yeah, hardly believable. But that's the context that they want,
you know, the the article be read within right.
Speaker 1: So this book was basically written for there were studies done.
There were people who were male, white, mostly white males,
and they asked them a series of questions. They gave
them scenarios, and the basically how they responded to it
was supposed to tell you their potential for becoming fascists.
Is that what you understand?
Speaker 2: Yes, that's correct. They set up what they claimed were
empirically driven scales, so wherein the subject would give responses,
and depending on the score of the scale, they could
you know, attribute the potential to become what they defined
as as a fascist. Oddly enough, the term fascist is
not really well defined within the document. I mean, they
have several attempts at it, but it's a broad concept.
So the document on the second page sort of has
a better description of the methodology. I mean, personally, I
think the scales are ludicrous and because of the methodology
that is developed to create them, and they explain that
I think on page two, I think you had it
up on the screen.
Speaker 1: It's up on the screen right now.
Speaker 2: The key sentence is their statement that the authors, in
common with most social scientists, hold the view that anti
Semitism is based more largely upon factors in the subject
and in this total situation than upon actual characteristics of Jews,
and that one place to look for determinants of anti
Semitic opinion attitudems in the persons who express them. So
the language is like a little up toes, but basically
it's just saying that Jews are never responsible for individuals
who have negative opinions of them. And with this methodology,
which is this is the reason why they put this here,
so you understand that they are to give an explanation
as to why there are no categories of reality of
negative opinions of Jews that are appropriate. This as a
category of reality is not contained inside their methodology. It
doesn't exist. So the problem therefore is that since that's
a real thing, and there are many times I'm sure
even you know, the most philo Semitic individual would admit
that Jews are behaving inappropriately or undemocratically, or their ethnicity
is being maneuvered to an advantageous position, you know, different
things that one could reasonably state would be it would
be appropriate to resist or be opposed to. But that
can never be measured or be a phenomenon with the
methodology that they're presenting to us here. It just is
not possible because they're only measured measuring the determinants are
the attitudes and opinions within the person who expressed them,
and not in actual characteristics of Jews. So the you wonder,
you know, therefore, why would they even bod with this
since they start out with something that is clearly a fantasy, right,
It's it's just and incidentally, because of this, you have
this statement concerning you know, they just accept as a
premise that that Jews are not responsible for any kind
of negative reaction to them, and then you go on
in the asymmetric situation, having like seven hundred pages of
of kind of ways of figuring out where Christians are
Gentiles are neurotic because they have negative reactions to Jews
in certain circumstances. So it is just on its face,
and from the very beginning it seems it seems really
more sophist than it is, you know, an attempt at
developing some you know, train of thoughts and reasons. So
I would say, then the question is, well, why would
you do this? I mean, it's it's not even you know,
on its face, an attempt at really finding anything that's
real in terms of ether anti Semitism or or philo Semitism.
So what is the purpose of it? Well, you know,
we'll we'll go through it, I'm sure, but at the
end they actually explain, you know, what they have in
mind for for this approach to you know, understanding personalities, right,
because that's really what this is this and really what
you're dealing with here is propaganda at the end. I mean,
you know, if you don't mind, how just jump to
the conclusion. We we'll sure you can go through the
process as well. But I just at the end of
the thing they talk about, well, you know, we are
totally justified because of the potential for an individual to
become more fascistic, you know, without direct kind of intervention,
to come up with a you know, basically an approach
what they which they call democratic propaganda, and again not
well defined, but clearly what they're talking about is overcoming
resistance to the understanding that to the Christian or the
gentle understanding that all negative responses to Jews are neurotic.
I mean that I would say is an honest and
reasonable characterization of what they're trying to, you know, to
get across here. And they're completely justified in this. In fact,
they're kind of very smug and happy about being able
to do it, and they talk about organizing all of
the psychological sciences and kind of an effort to achieve this.
Now here is where it kind of you know, to
now you could go through the authoritory and personality and
just say, well, this is following, you know, the Holocaust.
This is perhaps just a feel good moment for the
American Jewish Committee. They hired a bunch of guys and
it's kind of crackpot. But you know, if they want
to feel that way, so what you know, let them,
you know, go forward. What's what's the problem? Well, the
problem then is that during the development of this, Horckenheimer
and Adorno we're consulting with what's called the Cybernetics Conference
that was held within the Macy conferences. It was one
of the subconferences of the Macy and this is really
where elmen k Ultra comes from. And so you you
end up with them stating that they're going to use
instead of kind of this fascistic propaganda, they're going to
use the propaganda of arrows. So now this then becomes
one of the justific cations of you know what is
k ultra. And this of course then leads directly into
the counterculture. So you start having broad social change that
seems to be in the stream of the analytic process
that the authoritory personality is part of. And so here's
where it really becomes dangerous because now you have the
sex drugs and rock and roll, the erro's propaganda that
you know they are using basically, you know, just to digress,
what what the authoritory personality really negates is monogamy, family,
and ethnic pride in Gentiles. And these are i would say,
honest characterizations of you know, of what they would would
call as you know, as neurotic. They're they're saying that
it's that these things are uh you know, can lead
to fascism. And and you gave me before you started recording.
You gave an example of of just how extreme these
kinds of uh you know, like methods that they are
able to discern which can lead so called to fascism,
you know, how how kind of bizarre they are. But
in in in you know, in the case of the
broad cultural thing they have, they are attacking basically family,
monogamy and and even sort of delayed gratification. Now, these
things are all part of cultural power. Without these things,
without family, without delayed gratification, and without sexual restraint, you're
not going to have really very much of a culture,
are you. It won't really go forward very far. So
then the question arises when you when you look at
this stuff in the authoritary and personality, and then how
it how it goes forward in time into into the
counter culture. The question has to come up is like,
is this basically a kind of ethnic attack? I mean,
are these scales and are are the attitudes that are
that are being developed really deliberately being done so for
the purpose of shattering Christian and European culture. You know,
it's it's a it's a brutal question, but it is
one that just comes right out of out of the
information that's you know, available in the authoritory personality. Now,
you know, as you go forward from the authoritarian personality,
you can see you know, the macy mk ulture of
the counterculture. But you also have to have it in
the context going backwards because well, again to digress, the
real manifestation of the authoritarian personality would be aeros and
civilization by Herbert MARKUSA, who was a Frankfort School member
and was an associate of all of these individuals. A
lot of the people who developed the authoritarian personality were
brought to the US by the American Jewish Committee who
had been Frankfurt School members, particularly Horkenheimer and Adorno. Marcusa
did not participate in the authoring of the authority and personality,
but he he picks up on the you know, on
the conclusions and then produces the his book Aeros and Civilization,
which which will give away my age, but I read
in g was like in the late sixties, right at
the height of the counterculture, and it was sort of
the intellectual mainspring of a lot of counterculture ideas. It
has in the in the aeroson Civilization, it talks about
unbridled sexuality. In other words, you know, there's no real
reason for monogamy that you know. He he basically blends
together Freud and and Marx and with the idea that
they would be less neuro if if the you know,
instead of having sexual restraint you had not just you know,
you had polysexualism and every magical kind of sexuality. Even
like he even negates hygiene as being neurotic. So you know,
think about the commune and the youth culture you know,
in the late sixties and early seventies. So he really
was you know, justification for it. And you know, okay,
so this is this is what we got with the
throw turned personality was not just some you know, kind
of library book that people could look at if they,
you know, couldn't fall asleep and were looking something to
help them, because it's massively boring, incidentally, but it becomes
really animated, it gets into you know, the culture of Europeans,
and that's why you you know, you really have to
look at this in context, you know, And I whenever
I talk about the thord Terned personality, I point out
that the Frankfurt School was really, you know, generated by
primarily through Gregor Lucas, and he was the one who
who organized it intellectually, and it reflects his ideas. And
it's just critical then to look at, you know, what
his ideas were and how they were manifested in the
real world, because he ran the the cultural and educational
department of the Hungary Hungarian Soviet in the nineteen nineteen revolution,
and there he basically set up a kind of the
conclusion of the authoritary and personality as overall pedagogy of
the Hungarian public school system. So what would happen is
the kids would come in in the morning and they
would have, you know, the first three or four hours
would be kind of a degenerate sex education, the sort
of sex education that public schools are now providing in
the afternoon, they would read them fairy tales in which
you know, they would have a non human actors taking
you know, kind of taking part in these stories. And
there's an actual exchange between these individuals where they talk
about how wonderful it is that the children who go
to these fairy tales, you know, stories are disassociating from
the kind of bourgeois idea of humanness, how they're they're
they are so you know, they call it communist that
they don't even have that as one of their problems,
the idea of like some sort of specialness because of
their being humans. And now now Lucas was a murderous
individual is recorded as killing a number of people just
because they wouldn't obey orders. And then basically the Hungarian
pop relation where you overthrow the Soviet Hungar and Soviet
and then that's when Luchas you know, high tailed it
to Germany re set up to Frankfurt school. But again,
you know the context, you go forward and you look
at things like the Mouseketeers or the Playboy bunnies, the
idea of you know, an animal basically avatar, which becomes
a part of your personality. You can see that the
ideas are I don't know how else to describe it,
but are very long standing. And and then bear in
mind that in the authoritary and personality, you know, you
can sort of excuse we get to the final thing,
you'll see how imperial. You know, the attitude is of
the people who are writing it. You know, it's very
much they have the moral right to be able to
arrange the minds of all of the people that they
feel are inferior or neurotic. But you know they had
the justification, or at least they they would they would
say they did. Dorno mentioned this of the Holocaust. However,
if you look at this context, you can see that
Lucas had the exact same approach to dealing with European culture.
And this was, you know, thirty years before the World
War two broke out. So you're looking it seems to
me at just a kind of a long standing relationship
between this group of Jewish intellectuals and an European culture.
Speaker 1: That part of the ending there is very important to
know that people can make the excuses, oh never again,
never again. But they were talking about this long before
World War two ever happened. Long before anyone knew the
name of Adolf Hitler.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's right, and just to not to put a
plug in. But I would mention that I have another
understanding of of the development of the Nazi Party. I
have a paper out called The Freemason Invention of the
Nazi Party. It's not hidden behind a paywall. If you
just type in that and uh, I think actually you
might have typed in post Flaviana, which is the website
of that. But anyway, post Leviana in my name, and
it should pop right up. Doesn't cost any money, and
it's just I think it's it's an article that helps
kind of understand a lot of the assertions about the
origin of the Nazi Party, particularly that it was something
that came organically out of the German people, are absolutely false.
You know, you get into the you know, this this
terrible world of of Holocaust denial, which is not something
I'm trying to enter into. But I I do think
that I can inform that, you know, historical event, at
least I'm not informing it. But there are there are
these thoughts. I mean, if you read the article, you'll
see that none of the the assertions I made are
are things which are you know, conjectural. I mean everything
is is kind of you know, it's all been recorded,
it just hasn't been assembled so that people can actually
see how the Nazi Party came about. And so you know,
when you get to the authoritary and personality they they
can claim. I mean, if you if you had a
Dorno in Horckenheimer here, Pete, I'm sure they you could
discuss with them, you know, aren't you guys kind of
beyond anything that the fascists ever did with this approach.
I mean, this isn't this just raw evil to be
so matter of fact about being morally permitted to go
into people's minds and to against their will, overcome their
their self, and to uh use propaganda to to control them.
You know, they would say, well, we have justification because
of the Holocaust. But I just think that's really far fetched,
and that would be something that would be a discussion
that we really need to be had in public. You know,
there's be something we should take care of in public
so everyone can participate in that particular discussion.
Speaker 1: So I just wanted to go over some of the
things in the body before we get to the conclusion.
Just some highlights things that they see as leading to
authoritarianism or someone becoming more fascistic. The first thing they
say talk about is conventionalism, which they define as rigid
adherence to conventional middle class values. Second one, yeah, oh man.
The second one is authoritarian submission, submissive, uncritical attitude towards
idealized moral authorities of the in group. Then there's authoritarian aggression,
which they describe as a tendency to be on the
lookout for and to condemn, reject, and punish people who
violate conventional values. This one is rather interesting. It's called
anti interception. It is an opposition to the subjective, the imaginative,
the tender minded. What does that mean, Joe.
Speaker 2: Well, it doesn't mean anything at all. I mean, you
have to remember that. I really don't think they took
this seriously. I mean, what you're really dealing with the
authoritary and personality is it is propaganda. So at its core,
the idea that it is presenting science is a carefully
crafted veneer that is meant to fool people. But when
you ask direct questions like that about the category of
reality that they're claiming to be analyzing, this stuff just
disappears I'll just you know, to explain it. I will
show that, you know, I'll give I'll give out that
what I think is the is the best kind of
the joke of the authoritary and personality. At the end,
but they talk about how they're justified in using propaganda
in order to right to you know, to to be
able to change the mind of the of the Christian. Well,
the first example of the propaganda pete is this horatory
personality itself. I mean, what it's doing is trying to
set up a kind of you know, it's sort of
a scientific veneer for intimidation. The average person couldn't spend
what like too minutes reading this stuff before they would
either fall asleep or you know, give up and trying
to understand it. But because it's this huge book and
you know, it has the veneer of science, I think
it creates, you know, certainly within the social sciences a
kind of power. And so this is really the purpose
of the authoritarian personality and all of these strange categories
that they have imagined into existence, is that in Toto
it's intimidating to some people. They would they would not
have the sense of it being ludicrous and therefore they
would take it seriously. Remember this is coming out post
World War two. The it's coming out in the in
the world in which German atrocities are being presented to
the American public almost daily, and so in that context,
it has it has power, has power of intimidation. But
you just are you know, you're you're going into a
place where there is just literally ether, because you know,
when you when you try to analyze these things, and
you know, like, well, you know, is there anything to
this category, or can it be expressed slightly differently, or
how would it be determined, you know, in terms of
empirical observation from other close like phenomenal. I mean, it's
all disappears, it's all just hocus focused. So it's it is.
It has the function of intimidation, it has the veneer
of science. Uh, and it has the declarations of frankly,
of fascism. I mean, that's really, in my opinion, how
I characterized it. That's how I characterized the ending of it.
They talk about we're entitled to use the propaganda of
arrows and this is a better kind of propaganda than
the propaganda of fascism. But I'm afraid that the moral
uh sort of perspective that you you are entitled two
uh to control the minds of people against their will
and to find ways to to uh, you know, destroy
their culture against their will without disclosing it to them
that you're doing this. Well, you know, just pick your term.
But but certainly evil would come to mind.
Speaker 1: So the next thing they talk about is superstition and stereotypy.
Basically there the belief in magical determinants of anything having
to do with God, if you believe in if you
believe in God. Next one is power and toughness. Preoccupation
with dominant submission, strong weak, leader, follower or dimensions, identifying
with powerful figures, over emphasis upon the conventionalized attributes of
the ego, exagger created assertion of strength and toughness. So basically,
you know, become you know, become docile and accept whatever
we're going to do to you. They have destructiveness and cynicism,
generalized hostility, uilification of the human projectivity, the disposition to
believe that wild and dangerous things go on in the world,
the projection outwards of unconscious emotional impulses. Do you think
that this is referring to like early take pre propper
take on conspiracy theories.
Speaker 2: Sure of course it is. Yeah, yeah, I mean they
they were aware of that there would be contestation, and
so they're going to try to push all of the
critics into you know, some category to keep that analysis
and going forward. I mean, you know, it's really these
are just if you look at the authority and person
analogies strictly as propaganda for control, then it makes it
just so much more sense. It's so much easier to read,
and you can really understand the you know, the the
point of the authors, the point of the authors is
not to you know, develop some kind of understanding of reality.
The point is that we are we are we are
describing a process of propaganda that we are justified in
executing upon you against your will, overcoming your resistance, and
we are in that process right now. Our categories are
not things in reality, or we don't have to show
them that they are. But by using them in this way,
you know, as as elements of something that's neurotic, you know,
like like you were talking about adherence to convention, this
is somehow you know, neurotic or leading tofescialism. They're just
setting up their future of control. You see what I mean.
It's just these are just little steps toward the kind
of control that you now see. I was reading last
week about this English politician, a woman. She was black,
I believe, and she made a statement like to the
effect that Jews shouldn't feel that, you know, they've been
discriminated in a worse way than like Irish people. She
had a few, you know, groups that she had in mind,
and she was just condemned and they tried to kick
her out of their political party, even though the statement
was you know, just seemingly objectively correct and certainly didn't
could come from a place in the heart other than
anti Semitism. It could just be an attempt to you know,
categorize with the individuals I was real, but the reaction
was incredibly vicious. And to get to that point where
just to bring up the idea that Jewish suffering is
not and has not been greater, and has no more
moral basis in and of itself than the suffering and
persecus and of other ethnicities. To get to the point
where you can have the response that they did in
the media, you've had to have gone through a very
long process, and this is the authoritary and personality is
part of that. It's just little by little it has
come to pass that, you know, to to to criticize
uh sort of Jewish misbehavior, undemocratic behavior is come from
a bad place in the heart. It is antisemitic, and
they've been they have just you know, very systematically gone
through the you know, the use of the media over time,
and have gotten to the point now where they can
actually have that. And there isn't a strong reaction against
the media, you know, you know, because I think if
that reaction had occurred, like in nineteen fifty, there would
have just been enormous response against the media that tried
to shut someone down who was talking about Irish suffering
as being having the moral equivalency of the suffering of Jews.
But today, you know, we are in a different kind
of social construct and so they can get away with it.
But it's it has you know, when we look at
the authority and personality, you're just looking at something that
was part of all of that.
Speaker 1: The last thing they mentioned is the person who maybe
have an exaggerated concern with sexual goings on. I assume
that's with other people. So if you come forward a
little bit next page talk about conventionalism. The modern church,
with its many rules and hypocrisies, does not appeal to
the deeply religious person. It appeals mainly to the childish,
the insecure, and the uncritical. That's basically what they're going upon.
One should avoid doing things in public which appear wrong
to others, even though one knows that these things are
really all right. There is too much emphasis in colleges
on intellectual and theoretical topics, not enough emphasis on practical
matters and on homely virtues of living. Apparently that's a problem.
That's an opinion, that's a problem. Although leisure is a
fine thing, it's good hard work that makes life interesting
in worldwide worthwhile what a man does is not so
important so long as he does it well. There's a
problem then if you come forward a little bit more
authoritarian submission. One of the main values of progressive education
is that it gives the child great freedom in expressing
those natural impulses and desires so often frowned upon by
conventional middle class society. They're clearly talking about how the
child needs to be if the parent has any kind
of conservative, conservative ideas, and it's bringing their child up
that way, progressive education should be pushed upon them. I mean,
there's no other way to interpret things like statements like.
Speaker 2: This, of course. I mean it's actually clarifying because it
points out that sexual restraint is, in their opinion, neurotic
and leads to fascism. Okay, so you know, if you
ask them to explain it, I'm sure they would have
some you know, some kind of train of thought they
could present. But if you said, well, what are the
what are the benefits of sexual restraints? I mean, because
they see so what you're looking at there is this
is critical theory. This you know, going back to the
statement that they make at the beginning about how there
are no negative sort of attributes and Jews. You know,
we're not studying that. That's not a category of reality.
We're just looking at this the the neurosis and gentiles
that makes them dislike or destruct Jews. That's so that's
the category. Well that enables them to go forward. And
you come to this point, and you don't need to
in any way, you know, put this into any kind
of perspective. You can just look at it and say,
we know that this can lead to fascism. We have
our little train of thought to share that it does,
and therefore we can categorize it as neurotic and put
it in our scales, and this would be something that
you could actually start adding them up and seeing if
the person was, you know, a potential fascist. Well, you
know that's that. Obviously it's sophistry, it's it's it's just
the opposite of science. But moreover, it is it is
it's the application of critical theory, where all they're doing
is just finding a way to criticize. And it doesn't
matter what is the positive aspect of it. That is
never going to be discussed, never going to be analyzed.
You're never going to put that into the process by
which you're determining if it is if the attribute is
beneficial or negative. I mean, that is a really good example.
I'm glad you brought that up because as people can
really see what the authoritarian personality is clearly with that,
you can see that obviously sexual restraint has an upside.
There is benefits to it, like for example, monogamy works
well with sexual restraint, but that is not on the
table for discussion. That's all part of the things which
you know are are irrelevant. We are just trying to
find a way of all of the different ways that
fascism can be produced and so it can fit into
this process that we have we have determined exists. Okay,
what can you say? It is? Uh, it's irrelevant in
that it has because you've you've you not weighing you know,
the all of the benefits of sexual restraint in your scale,
in your equation. But moreover, as they present it, it
goes back to the point I was making only that
what you're dealing with here is just propaganda. It isn't
it isn't really designed to function as science or be
stuff that other that tests can be done. I mean,
you know, with science's suposed to be able to replicate. That's
all these last attributes of it. That has nothing to
do with this. This is just this is just propaganda.
This is just an example, as is Marcus's book Arosi Civilization,
of the of the application of the pseudoscience to to
give of veneer of science to propaganda. So that's that's
what you got here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, just mentioned a couple of the last ones they
mentioned here. Obedience and respect for authority are the most
important virtues children should learn. That's a problem. I know,
some people personally believe that what this country needs is
fewer laws and agencies and more courageous, tireless, devoted leaders
whom the people can put faith put their faith in.
That's a problem. No sane, normal, decent person could ever
think of hurting a close friend or relative. That's a
you know, that's a problem. Being tribalistic, which is great
coming from this crowd, But the authoritarian aggression. Before we
move on to the last chapter and start looking at
some points in there, the one that is the one
that really stuck out to me when I was reading
through this was point number seventy five. Here it says,
if you believe that sex crimes such as rape and
attacks on children deserve more than mere imprisonment, that such
criminals ought to be publicly whipped. That's a problem.
Speaker 2: Joe, Yeah, terrible, isn't it. Just imagine that as a
you know, as like an element in an algorithm that
was you know, trying to like determine you know, personality.
I mean, this is just preposterous how they would be
able to like link these commune the idea of even
coming up with such a concept and then trying to
come to methodology to be able to test it to
see if that links into fascism? What are you even
doing here? So it's I think, don't you think it's
useful to look at these things as basically they're taking
what are really kind of cultural guidelines and they are
then defining them as neuros neurotic and thereby they are
just tearing apart a culture, right. I mean, imagine if
you took this these scales and then took it to
Israel today and then tried to see how if there
was an anti Palestinian bias, and all of the categories
were related to the relationship between the Israelis and the Palestinians,
and all negative aspects of determining, you know, like will
the Palestinians are are are to you know, to to
if you define fascism as having some kind of negative
incarceration aspect towards the Palestinian if that was how the
scales were all being designed, they again you would you
would have like it would work absolutely perfectly and you
would see that, well, the Israelis have a negative aspect
or perspective of the Palestinians, And what would you what
would you have demonstrated I mean it's just there is
no you know, there's no process, and I just wanted
to digress. I mean, the the reason why these things
are are evil is because they take away from the
one thing that we really need to promote, which is
the socratic method. I mean, we have to work out
our differences, ethnic differences, sexual differences. We need to work
them out using facts and reasoning, and we need to
work them out publicly. We can't create, you know, secret
agendas like the one that the authoritarian personality describes. So
when you have something like the authoritarian personality scale, all
it's doing is finding a way to prevent the process
that really needs to happen to have the best possible world,
which is that the individuals would not see like a
psychological perspective, you know, as being necessarily neurotic are beneficial.
They would simply say, Okay, we're different. There's different issues,
you know, different perspectives we've got to like try to
work out using facts and reasoning. And when you lead
away from that, when you get into the idea of neurosis, right,
and and they talk about overcoming resistance right using propaganda, well,
and this is evil. I mean, the only path that
humans can walk, that can lead anywhere to either that's
real or good. Is the one that uses facts and
reasoning as a way of communicating with one another. And
if you if you move to to justify propaganda for
the purpose of control and overcoming the resistance on the
individuals who are being you know, subjected to the propaganda,
and you're doing this in secret and without telling them, well,
I mean, this is just nihilism, you know, It's just
it's a It has to be resisted, it has to
be it has to be overcome, and it has to
be exposed. Which is why I'm glad we're having our
discussion here, because the authoritory and personality is actually not
a bad place to start, you know, the process of
trying to engage with you know, uh, you know kind
of kind of people who are using terms like anti semitism,
holocaust denier, conspiracy theorists, you know, all of the the
restraints for communication and the socratic method that we have
in place today. And so when you expose this, when
you expose the authoritary and personality is really just ludicrous,
thinly veiled propaganda and using science as one of its
you know, bamboozlements and this is all clear cut. Where
does this leave us? You know, well, hopefully it will
lead us into an exchange with the people who've been
using these intimidating approaches to reconnect, so that we can
start talking to another, you know, in a real way
about legitimate self interests or however you want to characterize it,
but just that we'd have a process that would that
would actually be something that would be involved with our
natural human intelligence and the connection to reality of facts
and reasoning.
Speaker 1: Well, I jumped ahead. I have this separated. It's the
conclusions is chapter twenty three? Where did you want to start?
You had mentioned not having to read the whole thing, but.
Speaker 2: I always just go to the end of it, you know,
because I think that's that's kind of the last couple
of pages it talks about.
Speaker 1: Let's see, let me let me start with this, because
go ahead, he gets He starts getting into ethnoicentrism here,
and he says, confronted with the rigidity of the adult ethnocentrist,
one turns naturally to the question of whether the prospects
for healthy personality structure would not be greater if the
proper influences were brought to bear earlier in the individual's life.
And since the earlier the influence, the more profound it
will be attention becomes focused upon child training. It would
not and this section right here is highlighted, it would
not be difficult on the basis of the clinical and
genetic studies reported in this volume to propose a program which,
even in the present cultural pattern, could produce non ethnocentric personalities.
All that is really essential is that the children be
genuinely loved and treated as individual humans.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and subjected to, you know, basically a kind of
mind control that would take them away from you know,
you know, not just the sense of ethnicity, as it
is a negative thing, but to think of think of
all of the positive aspects that it has, right And remember,
you know, you're also going to have to be wearing
away against family because you know, they talk about in
the thirditary person on how family can also be an
issue and problem and so so you have you know,
this is you're back to Gregor Lucas's you know, Hungarian
Soviet at that point, you know, where they've got the kids,
they're not going to let them have any sense of
ethnic pride. Now, now, just bear in mind that he's
not talking about Jewish ethnic pride, because remember going back
to page two, the what is negative is not something
that is, as is defined, possible to occur inside Jewish people.
Just read read read the sentence which describes their methodology.
They just it's not there. So they're not talking about
the problem of ethnicity or that that ethnicity is a
problem for Jews. This is simply a problem for Christians
and Europeans, and and so then they would like to
have access to the kids to get rid of their ethnicities,
because nowhere in this document can there be, as they
set up their methodology, any criticism of Jewish behavior, Jewish
ethnic power, inappropriate Jewish ethnic power. You know, it's just
the problem or all residing as they see it inside
of European and Christians. And therefore, when you give your
children over to this group, you know, yeah, I could,
I can easily. In fact, when you know, Pete, when
you think about like the woke consciousness that that we
have in the United States, now, I mean, isn't that
really what they're talking about? Yeah, isn't that really Wasn't
that really the goal of this this this uh, you know,
the philosophy that's being presented here.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so there it is.
Speaker 2: You know. So so this is this is where part
of what what you know it comes from. And then
you know, they they talk about, uh, you know that
that they say that it is safe to assume, ever
that fascism is imposed on the people. Well, I don't know,
you know why it is safe to assume that with
the definitions being so bizarre that they set up in
any case, that it actually goes against their basic interests
according to their definitions. And so you know, they they
say that, I'm trying to think how they right, and
so they go that resistance to self insight and resistance
to social fact are contrived most essentially of the same stuff.
It is here that psychology may play its most important rule.
Techniques for overcoming resistance, developed mainly in the field of
individual psychotherapy, can be improved and adapted for use with
groups and even for use on a mass scale. Now, Pete,
I just want to read that again because I think,
I mean, this may seem like it is absolutely crazy,
but what you're seeing here is really the you know,
the revelation of of the world that we are experiencing. Now,
I mean, this is this is like kind of the
mechanical and you know principle that that we're all being
subject to. It says resistance to self insight. They define that,
of course, in resistance to social fact are contrived most
essentially of the same stuff. It is here that psychology
may play its most important role. Techniques for overcoming resistance,
developed mainly in the field of individual psychotherapy, can be
improved and adapted for use with groups and even for
use on a mass scale. Now remember Adorno and Herckenheimer,
who are really the intellectual heads of these group. As
I can as I can best I can tell they
are contributing into the cybernetics conference that were part of
the Macy's. Right, this was where the ideas of how
to control humans through different psychological and sociological techniques were
being worked out. Norbert Weener, you know who is, you know,
he was talking about the human mind as a computer.
We can program it, we can code it. Now the
MACY conference then blur because really the two kind of
kind of organizations don't really have an ending or beginning.
But the MACYS starts funding what becomes the mk Ultra
experiments for just absolute, you know, kind of mechanical control
over human beings, many of the many of the experiments.
You know, you can kind of make sense out of them.
They don't have really good descriptions, but you can kind
of make sense in any case that they're clearly trying
to just find a way to mechanically control human beings.
So the the idea that they are altruistic is negated
completely by you know, by by what Horkenheimer and are
doing with the you know, with the Macy conference and
then into MK Ultra. You know, this is a small
group who has no power, no power given to them
by democracy. They are doing it for their narrow and
ethnic purposes, whatever they are. Because they are a secret society,
we if this, you know, their motivations are not on
the table. We don't get to analyze them, we don't
get to to interrogate them. You know, they talk about
overcoming resistance. Right. That all has to do with the
idea that none of this could be disclosed because if
if they are, if you are with propaganda, if you
know it's propaganda, it loses its power, right, So this
is all design. What they're talking about is the secret
manipulation through techniques that they will develop. Basically, m K
ultra that stuff that they will use to control the
minds of the people inside the society they want to affect.
So that's that's really what you've got there. That's one
of the reasons why, you know, like when I when
I discuss kind of uh, you know, social problems with
Tim Kelly and on little podcasts we do, we we
use like the authoritarian personality almost like an adjective, you
know what I mean. I mean, we just we just
you know, feel people should know about what it is
and and how it's it's designed to bring about the
woke consciousness right of of no ethnicity, no sexual restraint,
no hygiene. I mean, that's maybe, but all all of
these things are negative. They're all neurotic as they define them.
And so you get to this point where we are
now the people who are the victims of these things
because they've been implemented with cleverness and with and are
incrementally implemented. People don't even know, you know, they they
think that, gee, I'm you know, I am a liberal,
I am modern. I have thrown off the yoke of
ethnicity and sexual restraint, and I've I'm considering, you know,
changing my sexuality I'm free, I'm liberty. Well, I mean
this individual is just profoundly diluted and profoundly uh, basically
controlled that what they think is freedom, they don't understand
is is actually very very powerful control that has been
created by individuals, some of whom were in the development
of the authoritary and personality. And then you know, others
have you know, obviously been in this project for well
for hundreds of years. But you you when you you
get to the point where you think, well, I have
now overcome biology and I can change my sex sex sexuality,
I don't the idea of family is is you know, passe,
how were we going to character? But you know, you
they don't. One, they don't recognize that they're actually as
controlled as you know, basically a robot. And two they
don't understand that they have gone to such a destructive
cul de sad that they're literally living inside a culture
that cannot have more than one generation. Right, these groups,
the woke consciousness, the transsexual you know, I mean, they
don't have any power approcreation. I mean, you know, you
might have like one in ten thousand or something, but
it is not so they are not even inside a
you know, a culture that has another generation. And so
that's why I try to tell people, I go, look,
you know, you think you're free, but you not only
are you not free, and are you and you are
being controlled, what you're being genocided? You see, this is
all just in fact, a very kind of clever birth control.
Where you're inside now a culture that cannot replicate, it
can't even have another generation.
Speaker 1: One of the points that they make here try and
finish on this is psychology. You know, changing one child
at a time? Is it going to work? They say?
It seems obvious therefore, that the modification of the potentially
fascist structure cannot be achieved by psychological means alone. The
task is comparable to that of eliminating neurosis, or delinquency
or nationalism from the world. Those are products of the
total organization of society and are to be changed only
as that society has changed. It is not for the
psychologists to be to say how such changes are to
be brought about. The problem is one which requires the
effort of all social scientists. All that, all that we
would insist upon is that in the councils around say,
where the problem is considered an action's planned the psychologists
should have a voice. We believe that the scientific understanding
of society must be an understanding of what it does
to people, and that it is possible to have social reforms,
even broad and sweeping ones which, though desirable in their
own right, would not necessarily change the structure of the
prejudice personality. For the fascist potential to change, or even
to be held in check, there must be an increase
in people's capacity to see themselves and to be themselves.
This cannot be achieved by the manipulation of people, however
well grounded in modern psychology the devices of manipulation might be,
and it is a judgment which finds support in the
present study, that the man who was first to seize
power will be the last to give it up. It
is safe to assume, however, that fascism is imposed on
the people, that it actually goes against their basic interests,
and that when they can be made fully aware of
themselves in their situation, they are capable of behaving realistically.
That people too often cannot see the workings of society
or their own role within it only is due not
only to our social control that does not tell the truth,
but to a blindness that is rooted in their own psychology.
Although it cannot be claimed the psychological insight is any
guarantee of any of insight into society, there is ample
evidence that the people who have the greatest difficulty in
facing themselves are the least able to see the world
the way the world is made. Resistance to self insight
and resistance to social facts are contrived most essentially of
the same stuff. It is here that psychology may play
its most important part. Techniques for overcoming resistance develop mainly
in the field of individual psychotherapy, can be improved and
adapted for use with groups and even for use on
a mass scale. But let it be admitted that such
techniques could hardly be effective with the extreme ethno sense interests.
But it may be remembered that the majority of the
population are not extreme. But in our terminology middle it
is the fact that the potential fascist, the potentially fascist
pattern is to so large an extent imposed upon people
that carries with it some hope for the future. People
are continuously molded from above because they must be molded
if the overall economic pattern is to be maintained, and
the amount of energy that goes into this process bears
a direct relation to the amount of potential residing within
the people for moving in a different direction. It would
be foolish to underestimate the fascist potential with which this
volume has been mainly concerned, But it would be equally
unwise to overlook the fact that the majority of our
subjects do not exhibit the extreme ethnocentric pattern, and the
fact that there are various ways in which it may
be avoided altogether. Although there is reason to believe that
the prejudiced are the better rewarded in our societ as
far as external values are concerned, it is when they
take shortcuts to their rewards that they land in prison.
We need not suppose that the tolerant have to wait
and receive their rewards in heaven, as it were. Actually,
there is good reason to believe that the tolerant receive
more gratification of basic needs. They are likely to pay
for this satisfaction and conscious guilt feelings, since they frequently
have to go against prevailing social standards. But the evidence
is that they are basically happier than the prejudice. Thus,
we need not suppose that appeal to emotion belongs to
those who strive in the direction of fascism, while democratic
propaganda must limit itself to reason and restraint. If fear
and destructiveness are the major emotional sources of fascism, aeros
belongs mainly to democracy.
Speaker 2: Wow. Well, first of all, they're lying their heads off.
Back at the beginning, they were talking about, you know,
we just want a seat at the table, you know,
we just want to have a psychologist there, you know,
clear minded psychologist at the table. So pete, how many
clear minded like Christian critics were at the table during
the development of the authoritarian personality or or just say
like at mk Ultra or at the Macy conference. I mean,
the fact is is that that's the only people at
the table, right, I mean the people that they are,
you know, relating to the people that they're defending, the
people that are funding them. And so the whole, the
whole point about what they're proposing is that the people
have to be unaware of the psychological technique that is
being applied against them. The stuff doesn't work if people
know that you're trying to, you know, bamboozle their minds.
You see. So it is just it is a complete contradiction.
And in fact, I would call it just a lie
that all we want is like a place at the
table in the public discussion of these issues. You can't.
It delect directly contradicts the the power of propaganda. So
so that isn't that is not, you know, something that
they're interested in. They're they're just trying to deflect away
from from the idea that you know, you guys are
doing all this in secret. And so you know, the
the last sentence is important because you can see that really,
you know, there is the equivocation between fascism and arrows, right,
I mean, fascism is bad, but arrows is good. And
so it's not it isn't so much that propaganda is bad.
It's just who is at the wheel steering the thing
right now? Think about oh god, I mean, I mean,
you know, I mean the different elements of like like
the like, the the counterculture, which would be one of
the products of this process. You know, you know, where
is the negative effects of of the counterculture being you know,
considered in this you know, by jextapposing it as they
have you know, fascism, arrows, gee, I mean, which side
of the street are you gonna be on? Well? Have
for heaven's sakes, you know, Arrow's democracy, it's all this
just it's you know, it's the it's the world that
Herbert Marcuse fantasized about. But the problem is, of course,
we know exactly where it takes us, right, it takes
us into a deracinated which is no ethnic power to
resist oligarchic manipulation more or less, and into a world
with the family is is is no longer functioning. I mean,
there was plenty of you know, arrows when the Great
Society programs are being you know, pointed out right as
something that we could move toward. And then as you,
as you moved away from the family, according to this idea,
you would it would be beneficial all of these positive things,
that people would be happier, you would have you know,
more more democratic. Well, what happened as the family disintegrated
inside the black culture in America, every single negative demographic
marker went dramatically negative. I'm talking about violence, education, wealth,
creation out of wedlock, births, you name it. And these
these statistics had been on the uptick, on the uptick,
using the kinds of restraint that the authoritary personality is
railing against, developing and using the kinds of restraints. The
black communities in America had been on the uptick since
the end of the Civil War. They were in a
positive direction in every single way you could characterize them. Impete.
Because I'm so old, I can give you firsthand primary
documentation of this. I was in south central LA and
Watts in the early sixties. My dad used to take
me there for lunch because as he had a business
there in Hawthorne, and so we would go over there
because he liked the restaurants. That culture was on the uptick.
Even though I was like eleven years old, I could
see that this was a culture on the uptick. You know.
In fact, I would just to my eleven year old mind,
if you'd just left them alone, they would be one
hundred percent into the middle class within two generations. That's
really how dramatic the move into the you know, polysexualism
that occurred. You know, when they bought about their great
society and now you can just see it. So it
destroyed them. It destroyed the black culture. Now you have
the expression the baby daddy, right, there's no such thing
as father. I mean, that would imply family. You just
have a baby day. We just it implies at least
the mother knew the identity of the person who impregnated
her right baby daddy. So this is how far it's come,
and this is what it was intended to do, because
now you have broken ethnicities with individuals who have no
you know who, I don't really have any kind of
political power. The more they can isolate, the more they
can the less each unit had less power e Chuni has.
So you know, it isn't just that it's evil, it's undemocratic,
it's mind control, it's secret society. All of those things
are obvious in the thirteen personality, but also it's genocidal.
I mean you can see where it's taken our culture.
And the third tim personality is just one of the
you know, you could you could, you could use a
dozen different kind of elements to plug into this overall process.
You don't need to use this one. You know, you
can use the Macy conference or It's Club of Rome.
I mean, there's a million things you could use. But
the fact is we know now where they take us.
It's genocide. It's just, you know, we just get shattered.
The ethnicity gets shattered, the family get shattered, the individual
you know, the males are pornographic, and the women are
told if they either have no children, get into the
workplace or if you have a kid, it's your your
single mom, get on the government check. This is our world.
So we we can, you know, by clarification, by understanding,
you know, the process that we've been subjected to, and
by looking at the sofas we're inside, the authoritory and personality,
the pseudoscience, how it's setting up intimidation, you know, how
how it is excluding Jews from any kind of negative characterization,
because to do so is neurotic. It's right in their methodology.
You know, maybe we can begin a process, you know,
to have a dialogue and talk about this a little bit,
get some facts and evidence on the table, and have
tables set up, not with just one psychologist from you know,
the Frankfurt School at the table, with every other individual's
being there, but actually have tables set up where there
are you know, individuals representing what remains of Christian and
European culture.
Speaker 1: I changed my mind. Let's finish on this, even after
everything we've talked about today, even after everything we've laid
out in this document, even after we examine our eyes
and we talked about how they we examined what we
see and not examine our eyes what we've experienced. And
even after they talk about how they have to go
after people who are conspiracy theorists, people will say, this
is just another document. It was something that Think Tank
put out in nineteen fifty. Other than the fact that
pretty much everything that they suggested in here came to fruition,
people will say, well, believing that this had any bearing
on what we're experiencing now is a complete conspiracy theory, Joe.
Speaker 2: It is, And in fact, that is another expression conspiracy
theory that is simply designed to shut down thought. You know,
I think you know, it's kind of hard to read.
I can't imagine anyone actually reading the Authoritary Personnelity because
it's it's enormous, and it's just incredibly boring, and it's
just sophist right if if if you're negative toward it
and you kind of sense what it is, then you
have no energy to go through it. I think no
sane person can actually read the thing. But I would
just recommend from Cybernetics to Lyttonton Jeffrey Steinberg's article is
Then it came out an Executive Intelligence Review in two
thousand and he outlines the process that that the the
authoritarian personnelity is within. He puts it in context. You know,
I tried to do it today, you know, going back
to Gregor Luchas and Hungarian Soviet and then going forward
into uh, you know, great society, m k ulture and
the counterculture. But Steinberg has you know, on think about
the Laruche guys, is they are impeccable in terms of
their citation. So you know, in a you know, when
we're just talking like this, it's are to be absolutely
precise and to give you know, all details that where
public can get the information. But if you want to
see the process that the authoritary and personality is part of,
I think Steinberg's article is a great place to start.
And then I would just say don't miss any of
your podcasts because you do a really good job of
you know, like you were deconstructing Mark Cusa, you know,
the idea of repressive tolerance in one of the shows
you did recently, and I thought that was really excellent.
You know, so independent media is alive and well and
we're getting the information out and we kind of know
the problem finally, and so you know, hopefully we can
we can start having some effect in social policy soon.
Speaker 1: Well, I appreciate that, Joe. The article you were talking about,
it's from cybernetics to Littleton Techniques of mind control.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll link that in the show notes and sending
that myself right now. I will also link your article
on the history of where the National Socialists came from.
And is there anything else that you want to plug
before we end this?
Speaker 2: No, I just want to plug your show again. It's
really you have a really terrific show. I mean, it's
one of the ones that I whenever there's a new podcast,
I always make time to listen to it. I hope
everyone does well.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that, Shoe, and thank you very much, and
we'll do this again real soon.
Speaker 2: Thanks all right, thank you sir,