Samuel L. Blumenfeld documents the unprecedented decline in academic quality of education that has precipitated an exodus of children from government schools. Blumenfeld examines public education from the early 1830's to 1986.
Thanks again to LibertyInOurTime for the upload





Pavlov's Dogs and American Education
Written by Samuel L. Blumenfeld
 Visit the original site

For the past century, behavioral psychology and revolutionary socialism have combined to wreak educational and social havoc.
You might ask, what have Pavlov's dogs got to do with educating American children? More than you think.

Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, the Russian experimental psychologist, was born in 1849 in the town of Rayazan. His father was a priest, and he was raised in the Russian Orthodox tradition. He was attracted to the study of science, and in 1870 entered St. Petersburg University. In 1875, he got his degree in Natural Sciences. He then went on to study medicine, after which he entered the Veterinary Institute where he stayed for 10 years doing research on digestion.

After a visit to Germany, where he studied at the laboratories of Rudolf Heidenhain in Breslau and Karl Ludwig in Leipzig, he returned to Russia and decided to focus his attention on the study of glandular secretions — saliva and gastric juices. He selected the dog as his experimental animal and devised surgical techniques which made it possible to establish "permanent fistulas (tubes)" in connection with the principal organs of digestion (salivary glands, stomach, liver, pancreas, parts of the intestine).

His experiments were difficult to carry out while keeping the dogs not only alive but healthy. It took the sacrifice of 30 dogs before he could get the surgical procedure right. How did Pavlov get his dogs? He relates: "At that time dogs were collected with the help of street thieves, who used to steal those with collars as well as those without. No doubt we shared the onus of the sin with the thieves."

In 1895, Pavlov was appointed to a chair in physiology at the Military Medical Academy in St. Petersburg, and in 1904 was awarded the Nobel Prize. Pavlov had discovered that in every case, glandular secretion was determined by one or more reflex actions.

Actually, Pavlov recognized that there are two types of reflexes: unconditioned and conditioned. An unconditioned reflex is an innate response to stimuli that occurs naturally, without any learning involved. For example, when you are driving a car and enter a dark tunnel in daylight, your eyes automatically adjust to the change in light. However, a conditioned reflex is a learned response, as when you see a red light, you automatically put your foot on the brake. You have acquired an automatic response to stimuli — a conditioned or learned reflex, a habit.

Rejecting his religious upbringing in favor of the materialist worldview, Pavlov came to believe that science had to free itself from religious dogma concerning the soul. The soul had no place in science, he concluded, and the mind was simply the monitor and transmitter of signal-stimuli from the external world on the one hand, and the organism's responses on the other. Pavlov disliked any talk of "freedom of choice." To him such talk was an offense against scientific rigor.

Although the communists took control of Russia in 1917, Pavlov was able to continue his work unhindered in what became the State Institute of Experimental Psychology supported by government funding. Since Pavlov was both a Darwinist and a behaviorist, there was no ideological conflict between him and the new Marxist-Leninist government, which denied God and viewed man as nothing more than an animal whose behavior could be shaped by the State.

In 1920, Pavlov and his colleagues embarked on a long-term experimental investigation. The aim of the experiments was to learn how to artificially create human disorganization for the purpose of controlling and reorienting human behavior. In The Nature of Human Conflicts (1932), influential Soviet psychologist Dr. A.L. Luria gives us a full account of the experiments and what they revealed. "The chief problems of the author," Luria wrote in his Preface, "were an objective and materialistic description of the mechanisms lying at the basis of the disorganization of human behavior and an experimental approach to the laws of its regulation."

Why would these Soviet psychologists spend so much time and effort trying to find out how to deliberately drive people crazy? The answer is simple. The Soviet Union believed itself to be the leader in a world revolution to convert everyone to communism, which required the conquest of all its capitalist enemies. And this was to be done not by military invasion but by psychological warfare under the guise of objective science. Pavlov wrote in 1935:

Pavlov to Power

Luria described quite explicitly the key to creating behavioral disorganization. "Pavlov" he noted, "obtained very definite affective 'breaks,' an acute disorganization of behavior, each time that the conditioned reflexes collided, when the animal was unable to react to two mutually exclusive tendencies, or was incapable of adequately responding to any imperative problem."

In short, the methodology Luria describes is exactly the way our schools teach children to read. The child is taught to look at printed text as a string of little pictures, whole configurations, memorized in sight-vocabulary exercises. As a result he develops a whole-word conditioned reflex. At the same time he is taught something about the letters standing for sounds, a phonetic way of looking at words, which is very difficult to do if you are looking at the words as little pictures. For many children it is simply impossible; they cannot react to two "mutually exclusive tendencies," and thus become reading disabled, or dyslexic. On the other hand, if the child is taught exclusively by the look-say method, he is unlikely to be able to master reading our alphabetic writing system and is very likely to become functionally illiterate.

To understand why this is so, we must have an appreciation for the unique advantages of the alphabetic system of reading and writing. This is how I summarized it for The New American in 1997:
Pavlov's laboratory was used by the Soviet State to devise scientific methods of waging psychological warfare in a manner that would enlist behavioral scientists worldwide. Of course, if you were a dedicated Marxist, you considered this scientific activity to be to the ultimate benefit of mankind.

They also experimented on creating another form of behavioral disorganization, which today we recognize as Attention Deficit Disorder. Luria writes:

Dysfunctional by Design

In other words, when a child is prevented from using his intellect where it is needed without distraction, he reverts to a more primitive behavior, which is a symptom of ADD.

Apparently, there were many behavioral psychologists at that time working on the same problems. In his book, Luria draws special attention to the work of Kurt Lewin in Germany. "K. Lewin, in our opinion, has been one of the most prominent psychologists to elucidate this question of the artificial production of affect and of the experimental disorganisation of behavior," Luria writes. "Here the fundamental conception of Lewin is very close to ours."

Such a plaudit from one of Soviet communism's most important theorists of psychological warfare for a top American educator should be worthy of note, if not alarm.

Who is Kurt Lewin? He is the same Kurt Lewin who came to the United States in 1933, founded the Research Center for Group Dynamics at M.I.T., and invented "sensitivity training." He is frequently recognized in the professional literature as the "father of social psychology."

Shortly before his death in 1947, Lewin founded the National Training Laboratory at Bethel, Maine, under the sponsorship of the National Education Association. There teachers were, and still are, instructed in the techniques of sensitivity training and how to become effective agents of change.

Lewin's emphasis on collectivist group behavior to replace individualistic behavior was very much in harmony with what socialist John Dewey, the "father of progressive education," had advocated for his new curriculum. Dewey's work at his Laboratory School at the University of Chicago was known by Lenin's wife, who got the communist government to reform Russian schools according to the Dewey model.

Dewey was greeted with enthusiasm by Soviet officialdom when he visited Stalin's Russia in 1928; and he, in turn, was smitten by the Bolshevik experiment and became one of its most prominent promoters. In his 1929 book, Impressions of Soviet Russia, he rhapsodically refers to the communist system as "nobly heroic, evincing a faith in human nature which is democratic beyond the ambitions of the democracies of the past."

"The Russian educational situation," Dewey averred, "is enough to convert one to the idea that only in a society based upon the cooperative principle can the ideals of educational reformers be adequately carried into operation." Dewey acknowledged that Soviet propaganda was omnipresent and heavy-handed, but that was okay, since "in Russia the propaganda is in behalf of a burning public faith." He was particularly appreciative of "the role of the schools in building up forces and factors whose natural effect is to undermine the importance and uniqueness of family life" in Soviet Russia.

The communists returned Dewey's fulsome praise, The Great Soviet Encyclopedia describing him as "an outstanding American philosopher, psychologist, sociologist, and pedagogue." Much of his pedagogical system was adopted by Stalin's regime.

However, the Dewey-Soviet experiment came to an abrupt halt in August 1932 when the Central Committee of the Communist Party abandoned the laboratory method and ordered a return to a structured curriculum. The communist leaders wanted the Soviet schools to produce competent engineers, not semi-literate basket weavers.

Dewey's Dismal System

But in America, where capitalism and individualism still reigned, the Progressive educational leadership had no intention of going back to the structured pro-capitalistic- individualistic curriculum. And anyone who visits an American elementary school today will see the continued implementation of the Dewey-Lewin concept of education. And with that concept have come all of the problems we now associate with the public schools.

Countless articles have appeared in the major media over the last three decades critical of American education. The litany of problems is always spelled out: poor academic performance, high dropout rates, student violence, low teacher morale, etc. And the solutions offered are always the same: more tax money for education, smaller class size, higher teacher pay, new buildings, new curricula, and more computers and high-tech paraphernalia. Nobody has bothered to read Luria's book.

But because most of the reporters are young and have no idea how education was conducted back in the days before the Progressives took over — when children actually learned to read and there were no school massacres — they are incapable of asking the right questions. But those of us who went to school in those halcyon days and are still around to talk about them are generally ignored.

Those of us who were witnesses to the past and have spent our lives monitoring the decline of American education know what happened. It all started at the turn of the last century when the Progressives took control of the education system and gradually imposed their new collectivist philosophy on the curriculum.

The most destructive thing they did was reform the teaching of reading by throwing out the true and tried phonics method and imposing a whole-word method that would teach children to read our alphabetic English as if it were a pictographic language like Chinese, which would ultimately lead to the general decline of literacy in our country.

Why were these crucial changes made? They were made so that the Progressives could shape future generations of American children to become collectivists instead of individualists. The Progressives were socialists. They were members of the Protestant academic elite who no longer believed in the religion of their fathers. Their new religion was science, which explained the material world; evolution, which explained the origin of living matter; and psychology, which explained human behavior and offered scientific ways to control it. They believed that evil was caused by ignorance, poverty, and social injustice, and that a collectivist society could eliminate all of that.

The guiding light and chief philosopher behind the Progressive Education movement was John Dewey, whose seminal essay, "The Primary-Education Fetich," published in 1898, provided the blueprint for the new educational agenda. In that article he advocated shifting primary education away from concentrating on individual literacy to placing the emphasis on socialization through group activities. "The plea for the predominance of learning to read in early school life because of the great importance attaching to literature seems to me a perversion," he wrote.

And because his view would be considered so radical by parents and teachers, he wrote:
In other words, deceiving parents would become an important and implicit part of the plan for radical reform. And psychologists, of whom Dewey was one, would play an important role in creating this elaborate deception. "There are already in existence a considerable number of educational 'experiment stations,' which represent the outposts of educational progress," Dewey wrote. "If these schools can be adequately supported for a number of years they will perform a great vicarious service."

Unfortunately for American education, the experimental schools to which Dewey referred were "adequately supported" by generous grants from the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. Indeed, Dewey himself conducted such an experimental school at the University of Chicago, and the book he wrote about that experiment, The School and Society, became the bible of Progressive Education and the basis of 20th-century school reform.

And so, the major work of reform would not be done by educators, but by psychologists, who found in education a lucrative source of support for their profession. The new behavioral psychology was born in the laboratories of Professor Wilhelm Wundt at the University of Leipzig. His two American students, G. Stanley Hall (1844-1924) and James McKeen Cattell (1860-1944), came back to America anxious to apply scientific psychology to American education. Hall became a professor of psychology at Johns Hopkins University, where he taught the new psychology to John Dewey. He later founded Clark University. Cattell introduced mental testing in education as part of the new scientific racism called Eugenics.

But it was John B. Watson, the most arrogant behaviorist of them all, who revealed the true contempt that he and his fellow behaviorists had toward their fellow human beings. In his book, Behaviorism, published in 1924, he wrote:
In other words, behavioral psychology was not for the timid. "The interest of the behaviorist in man's doings," wrote Watson, "is more than the interest of the spectator — he wants to control man's reactions, as physical scientists want to control and manipulate other natural phenomena. It is the business of behavioristic psychology to be able to predict and control human activity."

And so one can see that what Pavlov and his assistants were doing in Moscow was not too different from what Watson and his ilk were teaching their students.

But even as Dewey had cautioned that change must come slowly, it didn't take long before an increasing number of discerning Americans began to realize what was happening. In fact, by 1955 the reading problem had become so bad that Rudolf Flesch was compelled to write his famous book, Why Johnny Can't Read. "The teaching of reading — all over the United States, in all the schools, in all the textbooks — is totally wrong," wrote Flesch, "and flies in the face of all logic and common sense."

As for how the educators were able to perpetuate such "error" without effective reaction from conservative teachers, he explained:
And if you think the situation has improved significantly since 1955, try getting a good intensive phonics program into your local school. As an author of a very effective intensive phonics reading program used successfully by thousands of home-schooling parents, I have tried to get the program adopted by local schools, only to be told, thanks but no thanks.

ABCs of Psycho-control

There is indeed a Ministry of Education in America, and it is called the National Society for the Study of Education. It was founded in 1901 by John Dewey and colleagues who were interested in psycho-education and the application of science to educational issues. The society publishes an annual two-volume Yearbook filled with discussions of educational interests.

The NSSE describes itself as "an organization of education scholars, professional educators, and policy makers dedicated to the improvement of education research, policy and practice." On its board of directors is a former president of the NEA, Mary Hatwood Futrell. The membership list in the 1969 Yearbook is 94 pages long, and you've probably never heard of the organization. The subject for their 2008 Yearbook is "Why Do We Educate?" It's a question the educators seem to be totally confused about.

But some of them are not confused at all. One of them is Anthony G. Oettinger of Harvard University, Professor of Information Resources Policy and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He said the following at a conference of communications executives in 1982:
For Oettinger and his fellow elitists, the ideal society is one in which the vast majority of people are minimally educated to a sub-literate comic-book level; a collectivized social order of unthinking docile workers who are dependent on an intellectual clerisy (Oettinger and company) for informational sustenance.

I doubt that there are any parents in America who send their children to school to learn to read comic books. If anything, they want their children to be taught to read and write in the traditional manner. They don't consider learning to read as a burden imposed on the individual. Rather, if taught properly, learning to read can be a joyful experience for children eager to explore the wonderful world of the written word.

And what's the solution for parents? If they want to get their children out of Professor Oettinger's clutches, they'll have to home-school them or enroll them in private or parochial schools where literacy is not a burden, but a liberating force for good.

As for the NSSE's question, "Why do we educate?" the answer is quite simple. We educate to pass on to the future generation the knowledge, wisdom, and values of the previous generation. It's a concept we find in Deuteronomy 6. But we can expect that the NSSE will come up with something enormously complicated that will guarantee the perpetuation of the present problems.

Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of more than a dozen books, including Alpha-Phonics and Is Public Education Necessary?

This is a good day here at Kitman TV. The Drugs and Disinfo series, that has grown considerably over the years, has now found a welcomed addition, in a symposium over at Frontpage Magazine, devoted specifically to this issue. It has some great contributions from both Joseph Douglass,who initially sparked my interest in this topic and Jeff Nyquist from the Strategic Crisis Center. I would like to thank Jamie Glazov for letting me participate, it was a pleeasure to be able to contribute to the exchange.

In this special edition of Frontpage symposium, we have gather a distinguished panel to discuss how drugs have been used as a weapon of psycho-chemical warfare by our enemies. What have been the historical ramifications of the flooding of the free world with acid, heroin, and hashish from enemy territory, especially since the late 60s?

Remarkably little research has been done on Cold War drug-supply, even though the communists clearly stated their intent on poisoning Western youth with drugs.

Joining us today are some of the people who have looked into this subject more closely. Towards the end of the talk, we hope to be able to draw some parallels with the current threat of Islamic Jihad:

Our guests are:

Frank Kitman, a blogger and independent researcher who specializes in how America’s enemies have used drugs as a weapon against us.

J. R. Nyquist, the president of the Strategic Crisis Center, Inc. (StrategicCrisis.com). He writes a column on global strategic issues for Financial Sense Online.

and

Dr. Joseph Douglass, among the first defense analysts to identify the Soviet intelligence operation to move narcotic drugs into the “enemy’s camp” to undermine the youth and culture. His first articles appeared in 1987 and 1988 and his book, Red Cocaine, in 1991. He was also the first to write about the development and covert use of psycho-active drugs by their intelligence services in covert operations to influence thinking and behavior in the Medical Sentinel journal. He has also written several books on Soviet nuclear strategy, decision making, on the Soviet practice of arms control violations, and on the missing American POW/MIAs from WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam War, and Cold War.

FP: Frank Kitman, J. R. Nyquist and Dr. Joseph Douglass, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Dr. Douglass, let’s begin with you. What is the best way for us to begin this discussion?

Perhaps you can enlighten us on some of the evidence that has linked communist activity with the massive increase in drug-supply in the United States — especially following U.S. entrance into the Vietnam war?

Douglass: Thank you Jamie.

To work our way into the Vietnam War, I would look first at the late 1940s following WWII. Because of constraints on shipping during the war and efforts of the US Narcotics Bureau before the war to bring the use of opium and heroin under control in the United States, the use of “illegal drugs” after WWII had dropped to its lowest level since the early 1900s. The stats on over dose of heroin in NYC had dropped to zero in 1948 as those on first use of heroin in San Francisco was close to that also. This all changed in 1949 when there was an abrupt rise in the use of illegal drugs. The same was true in Japan. US intelligence and Japanese intelligence independently determined that the rise in both countries was due to a new flow of drugs out of the new Communist China. This might be viewed as the opening of today’s psychochemical war using drugs.

The first book to report on this was The Traffic in Narcotics by the legendary Harry J. Anslinger. It was published in 1952 right on the heels of a USG report submitted to the United Nations on the increase in international narcotics trafficking. Two quite substantial books that added considerable detail to the new “Chinese communist drug offensive” were Psycho-Chemical Warfare by A.H. Stanton Candlin and The Peking Bomb by Gerd Hamburger in 1973 and 1975, respectively. Both described the new drug offensive with maps on poppy fields, organization and soforth. My information from a high communist source later confirmed this message and the deliberate use by the top Chinese leaders of narcotics as a weapon in a covert war against the United States and Japan.

The Chinese expanded this practice during the Korean War in 1951-1953. They targeted their trafficking specifically against the US military forces engaged in the Korean War, both those in Korea and those stationed in nearby bases, such as Japan and Okinawa. This was an especially important beginning of the use of psychochemical drugs as a weapon in war. This practice gained little attention in the West at the time, but it had a significant effect in damaging the readiness of US forces, especially in logistics units. Additionally, it proved the effectiveness of the tactic that would be greatly expanded in the Vietnam War... You can read the the whole symposium at Frontpage Magazine

or continue below.

Sex Drugs and Psychological Warfare




Decision-Making in Communist Countries: An Inside View (Foreign policy report)

We Will Bury You

“Political Correctness is Marxism, with all that implies: loss of freedom of expression, thought control, inversion of the traditional social order and, ultimately, a totalitarian state.”...

The authors of “Political Correctness” attempt to trace the PC movement back to its origins—Marxism and the Frankfurt school of thought. By so doing they claim to uncover the true and sinister purpose of political correctness—the complete eradication of traditional Western Culture. They also attempt to demonstrate how deeply political correctness has penetrated into every aspect of Western Culture, and how damning its presence is.
Shortly after the first practical attempts to implement Marxist economic socialism it became clear that the theories of Marx were limited. In order to achieve any notable revolution it was necessary that that revolution should focus not only on the economic order, but also, and firstly, on the cultural. This is the root of cultural Marxism. The Frankfurt school was its most eloquent proponent. According to the Free Congress Foundation, political correctness is one of the ideological offspring of this school.

Read the rest of the review here and visit the Free Congress Foundation

The 6 chapter volume is embedded below - for an introductory lecture by Wiliam S. Lind go here
The now legendary film on the History of Political Correctness is here

Introduction & Chapter 1Â - “Political Correctness:” A Short History of an Ideology Edited by William S. ...

Chapter II - The Historical Roots of “Political Correctness” by Raymond V. Raehn

Chapter III - Political Correctness in Higher Education by T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr.

Chapter IV - Political Correctness: Deconstruction and Literature by Jamie McDonald

Chapter V - Radical Feminism and Political Correctness by Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson

Chapter VI - Further Readings on the Frankfurt School by William S. Lind

In the heydays of soviet pharma-psychological warfare on the west, political manifestos like the above was flooding out of every other newly founded "liberation movement". Still, I always find it interesting to compare these political initiatives with the most basic objectives of soviet military psychology. This, in my opinion shows the only sound "method to the madness" of the hippie movement.


1. An immediate end to the War in Vietnam. . . . 
Soviet Military objective:Justifying treason - Soviet victory in east asia.

2. Immediate freedom for Huey Newton of the Black Panthers and all other black people. Adoption of the community control concept in our ghetto areas. . . .
Soviet military objective: Freeing militant Soviet allies within the US

3. The legalization of marihuana and all other psychedelic drugs. . . .
Soviet Military objective: General demoralisation - Removing obstacles for the ongoing drug-offensive against Western youths

4. A prison system based on the concept of rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Soviet military objective: Unleashing criminals into society, causing break-down of law and order

5. . . . abolition of all laws related to crimes without victims. That is, retention only of laws relating to crimes in which there is an unwilling injured party, i.e. murder, rape, assault.
Soviet military objective: Removal of property rights, eruption of anarchy

6. The total disarmament of all the people beginning with the police. This includes not only guns, but such brutal devices as tear gas, MACE, electric prods, blackjacks, billy clubs, and the like.
Soviet military objective: Disarming the general public, neccesary to a communist take-over

7. The Abolition of Money. The abolition of pay housing, pay media, pay transportation, pay food, pay education, pay clothing, pay medical help, and pay toilets.
Soviet military objective: Economic distabilisation - capitalist sabotage

8. A society which works toward and actively promotes the concept of "full unemployment." A society in which people are free from the drudgery of work. Adoption of the concept "Let the Machines do it.
Soviet military objective: Demoralisation - Destruction of general work-ethics


9. . . . elimination of pollution from our air and water.
Soviet military objective:  Lowering industrial productivity

10. . . . incentives for the decentralization of our crowded cities . . . encourage rural living.
Soviet military objective: Psychological Regression -  Demodernisation and lowering of industrial productivity

11. . . . free birth control information . . . abortions when desired.
Soviet military objective: Decimation of future enemy combatants - Dechristianization - Increasing promiscuity, damaging morality of engaged and married soldiers abroad

12. A restructured educational system which provides the student power to determine his course of study and allows for student participation in over-all policy planning. . . .
Soviet military objective: Sabotage of knowledge flow, preparation for the socialist take-over of western education system

13. Open and free use of media . . . cable television as a method of increasing the selection of channels available to the viewer.
Soviet military objective: Removing legislative obstacles to soviet propaganda efforts in the west

14. An end to all censorship. We are sick of a society which has no hesitation about showing people committing violence and refuses to show a couple fucking.
Soviet military objective: General demoralisation - Dechristianization - Increasing promiscuity, damaging morality of engaged and married soldiers abroad


15. We believe that people should fuck all the time, anytime, whomever they wish. This is not a program to demand but a simple recognition of the reality around us.
Soviet military objective: Dechristianization - Replacement of  the sense of duty and obligation with sexual indulgence and perversity.

16. . . . a national referendum system conducted via television or a telephone voting system . . . a decentralization of power and authority with many varied tribal groups. Groups in which people exist in a state of basic trust and are free to choose their tribe.
Soviet military objective: Creating pockets resistance outside US law

17. A program that encourages and promotes the arts. However, we feel that if the Free Society we envision were to be fought for and achieved, all of us would actualize the creativity within us. In a very real sense we would have a society in which every man would be an artist.
Soviet military objective: Replacement of interest in sciences relevant to military efforts (engineering, physics math etc.) with useless self-realization


Thanks to Millar for the tip!
And to the yippie museum for the above images

Consider viewing a similar analysis of Herbert Marcuses New Left propaganda here
Or the complete KGB Drugs and Dis-info series here
Or Joseph Douglass important book "Red Cocaine"

(Note: This is a repost - Luckily youtube decided to enable an older youtube channel of mine for long-form uploads. I will therefore be moving a lot of material found on lesser known platforms onto that channel. You can follow the uploads by subscribing to this second channel here - The main Youtube channel is still to be found here)

Horrifying lectures by Joseph Douglass on the strategic thinking about biological/chemical and Pharmaceutical warfare behind the iron curtain.Doctors for Disaster Preparedness 22nd Annual Meeting June 25-27, 2004 San Diego, CA.







If from a United States defense standpoint, when concerned about chemical and biological warfare - Which is more important: Our iew of what these agents can do, or the russian view? I would submit to you, that what we think is rather irrelevant. And what is important is what the russians think. - Unfortunately this is not the case. The view of the United States when it comes to chemical and biological warfare is very rarely shaped by considerations of the threat. More often than not it is the result of mere imaging and the application of what I would like to call self-centered arrogance








Joseph Douglass second lecture on the weaponization of psychoactive drugs by the soviet bloc. It focusses on the key question, which is hardly ever asked, namely: what kind of knowledge and applications were actually developed through the extensive military testing of various psycho-active substances.
Dr. Douglass, a defense analyst, is the author of The Soviet Theater Nuclear Offensive and other books.

This video is an excerpt of one of most obvious examples of just how deep the rabbit hole goes when it comes to the communist attack on the psychological make-up of the unsuspecting youth of the free world in the 60s and 70s. (The complete lecture is pasted below the jump thanks to marcuse.org)

Herbert Marcuse "the father of the New Left" and marxist revolutionary lecturing on "The Liberation from the Affluent Society" - just sit back and contemplate for a minute...  Why would a Marxist, otherwise obsessed with bettering the conditions for the working class by theft, suddenly be advocating a liberation from "affluence"?
  ... curious indeed.

The first 2/3s of the lecture consists of the average mesmerizing dialectics and sensualization of philosophical terms, so characteristic of "soft" marxist and post-modernist sophistry. This tend to bring people into a state of fascination and intellectual servitude. Hard-pressed to follow all the non-sequiturs they lose critical capacity and let themselves go. The below quote gives a typical example of this kind of retoric, and can also be observed in the facial expressions of the audience in the above video.

I believe that these factors are internally interrelated, that they constitute the syndrome of late capitalism: namely, the apparently inseparable unity - inseparable for the system - of productivity and destruction, of satisfaction of needs and repression, of liberty within a system of servitude - that is to say, the subjugation of man to the apparatus, and the inseparable unity of rational and irrational. We can say that the rationality of the society lies in its very insanity, and that the insanity of the society is rational to the degree to which it is efficient, to the degree to which it delivers the goods...

...yadda yadda yadda.

Now as the speech proceeds we find Marcuse being a bit more specific about what he really wants to happen: (my emphasis)

Here we are faced with the question: is liberation from the affluent society identical with the transition from capitalism to socialism? The answer I suggest is: It is not identical, if socialism is defined merely as the planned development of the productive forces, and the rationalization of resources (although this remains a precondition for all liberation). It is identical with the transition from capitalism to socialism, if socialism is defined in its most Utopian terms: namely, among others, the abolition of labour, the termination of the struggle for existence - that is to say, life as an end in itself and no longer as a means to an end - and the liberation of human sensibility and sensitivity, not as a private factor, but as a force for transformation of human existence and of its environment. To give sensitivity and sensibility their own right is, I think, one of the basic goals of integral socialism. These are the qualitatively different features of a free society. They presuppose, as you may already have seen, a total trans-valuation of values, a new anthropology. They presuppose a type of man who rejects the performance principles governing the established societies; a type of man who has rid himself of the aggressiveness and brutality that are inherent in the organization of established society, and in their hypocritical, puritan morality; a type of man who is biologically incapable of fighting wars and creating suffering; a type of man who has a good conscience of joy and pleasure, and who works, collectively and individually, for a social and natural environment in which such an existence becomes possible.

Let´s sum up the attributes of this great "New Man" capable of a "qualitative change" in the affluent capitalist society

1. He does not work
2. He is over-sensitized, devoting all his time to his own little joys and pleasures, with a good conscience.
3. Rejecting the "the performance principle", he is unwilling to better himself through training
4. He has no agressiveness, incapable of brutality
5. He is "biologically" incapable of fighting a war.


As Marcuse proceeds he sets out the already existing role-models for this "New Man", and finds them in the "provos" and the "diggers"

Before I conclude I would like to say my bit about the Hippies. It seems to me a serious phenomenon. If we are talking of the emergence of an instinctual revulsion against the values of the affluent society, I think here is a place where we should look for it. It seems to me that the Hippies, like any non-conformist movement on the left, are split. That there are two parts, or parties, or tendencies. Much of it is mere masquerade and clownery on the private level, and therefore indeed, as Gerassi suggested, completely harmless, very nice and charming in many cases, but that is all there is to it. But that is not the whole story. There is in the Hippies, and especially in such tendencies in the Hippies as the Diggers and the Provos, an inherent political element - perhaps even more so in the US than here. It is the appearance indeed of new instinctual needs and values. This experience is there. There is a new sensibility against efficient and insane reasonableness. There is the refusal to play the rules of a rigid game, a game which one knows is rigid from the beginning, and the revolt against the compulsive cleanliness of puritan morality and the aggression bred by this puritan morality as we see it today in Vietnam among other things.

At least this part of the Hippies, in which sexual, moral and political rebellion are somehow united, is indeed a nonaggressive form of life: a demonstration of an aggressive non-aggressiveness which achieves, at least potentially, the demonstration of qualitatively different values, a transvaluation of values.

 From this we can add a few more characteristics of the man who is to change the world.

6. He has a new sensibility against efficient reasonableness
7. He is rebellious refusing to play a rigid game
8. He revolts against puritan morality, promiscuios, unreliable
9. He is against the Vietnam war

Now, I know I am often viewed as a conspiracy theorist for asserting that the Evil Empire was somehow involved in this radical transformation of the young generation of the western world. Afterall, it could just be a stroke of luck that Herbert Marcuse´s ideas of the New Man came into being while the US was fighting the most brutal murderous enemy history has ever seen. But let us just for the sake of argument try and state the typical character traits the US army would be looking for in a good soldier


1. He works hard
2. He is rough with complete disregard of his own comfort
3. He is competitive, constantly bettering himself, a winner, who never gives in
4. He is aggressive and brutal when needed
5. He is biologically fit for fight
6. He applies efficient reasoning.
7. He obeys every order and plays by even the most rigid rules
8. His moral is high and pure
9. He wants to win the war in Vietnam

Wow, far out!... it´s almost like completely opposite dude!

(whole lecture below the jump)

A comprehensive view of the history, organisation, and recent operations of the KGB. Primary focus is on North America, but has applicability and interest to any geographical area. Leaves little doubt that the main objective of the Soviet Union was the calculated, continuing completely cynical extension of soviet power over the entire globe.This historical recording from the National Archives may contain variations in audio and video quality based on the limitations of the original source material.

Contains rare interviews with Ladislav Bittman, Yuri Bezmenov and other high profile defectors
Many thanks to Filmarchives for this wonderful upload. And be sure to visit filmarchive´s blog too

-From the youtube description box

Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It may include the distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or spreading malicious rumors and fabricated intelligence. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.

In espionage or military intelligence, disinformation is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead an enemy as to one's position or course of action. In politics, disinformation is the deliberate attempt to deflect voter support of an opponent, disseminating false statements of innuendo based on the candidates vulnerabilities as revealed by opposition research. In both cases, it also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless.

Disinformation techniques may also be found in commerce and government, used to try to undermine the position of a competitor. It is an act of deception and blatant false statements to convince someone of an untruth. Cooking-the-books might be considered a disinformation strategy that led to the Sarbanes--Oxley Act.

Unlike traditional propaganda and Big Lie techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions.

Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can effect such control. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and discrediting the opposition by association with a lot of easily-disproved false claims.

A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout).

The Cold War made disinformation a recognized military and political tactic. Military disinformation techniques were described by Vladimir Volkoff.

According to senior SVR officer Sergei Tretyakov, "The KGB was responsible for creating the entire nuclear winter story to stop the Pershing missiles." Tretyakov says that from 1979 the KGB wanted to prevent the United States from deploying the missiles in Western Europe and that, directed by Yuri Andropov, they distributed disinformation, based on a faked "doomsday report" by the Soviet Academy of Sciences about the effect of nuclear war on climate, to peace groups, the environmental movement and the journal Ambio. Ambio carried a key article on the topic in 1982.

The classic speech by joe McCarthy putting forward the evidence against Edward J Murrow and his co-conspirators. The dispute between the investigative commitee on communism and Murrow was recently the subject of the a filmproduction entitled Goodnight and Good Luck directed written and in part produced by none other than the Syriana conspiracy theorist George Clooney. The film was heavily advertised throughout the world, obviously siding with Murrow, whitewashing his motivations and completely disregarding the mounting evidence in favor of McCarthys measures to protect the public from carefully planned disinformation tactics and infiltration. Considering what we now know, and what was already known back then, about the horrors of socialism, keeping in mind the millions of innocent civilians who died in communist concentrationcamps, it remains as mystery, how a person can speak of this brave man as a "communist scaremonger" without a chill running down their neck.

Comparing the film Goodnight and Good Luck with Syriana there almost seem to be a method behind the madness:
1. In the case of a very real and unquestionable conspiratory attack on the free world, by communists. As was the case during the cold war- Play it down, make a personal drama out of it, about a communist standing up for his ideals.
2. In the case of very real and unquestionable defense of the free world as is the case in the current war on terror - make a wild conspiratory film about the evil motivations of the leaders free world, with wholly unsubstantiated allegations hidden in confusing storylines and "artistic" editing.

For people who are interested in the ecent research on this part of the cold war, and the resurrection of Joe mccarthy as an american hero, please watch stan evans lecture, based on the book Blacklisted by History on which he spend almost a decade researching.



Below you will find the major awards and nominations of "Goodnight and Good Luck"

The American Film Institute named Good Night, and Good Luck. as one of the Top Ten Movies of 2005.

Other nominations and awards include:

2006 Academy Awards

* Nominated: Best Picture
* Nominated: Best Director, George Clooney
* Nominated: Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role, David Strathairn
* Nominated: Best Original Screenplay
* Nominated: Best Achievement in Art Direction
* Nominated: Best Achievement in Cinematography

2006 BAFTA

* Nominated: Best Film
* Nominated: Best Direction, George Clooney
* Nominated: Best Actor in a Leading Role, David Strathairn
* Nominated: Best Actor in a Supporting Role, George Clooney
* Nominated: Best Original Screenplay, George Clooney and Grant Heslov
* Nominated: Best Editing, Stephen Mirrione

2006 Golden Globe Awards nominations:

* Nominated: Best Motion Picture (Drama category)
* Nominated: Best Director (Motion Picture category), George Clooney
* Nominated: Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture (Drama category), David Strathairn
* Nominated: Best Screenplay (Motion Picture category), George Clooney and Grant Heslov

2006 Producers Guild of America Awards

* Won: Stanley Kramer Award

2005 Screen Actors Guild Awards

* Nominated: Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role (Motion Picture category), David Strathairn
* Nominated: Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture

Thanks to Kabud for finding a complete version of this important documentary, and of course a big thank you once again to Seahorse1776 for uploading
General Walker introduces this video which was to be used by the U.S. Government to show the brutality of the Communists, but was never shown. This black and white video shows Russian film footage on Pavlov experiments with animals and humans.

Sounds Ronald Reagan doing the voice-over.

A bit of Wiki on General Walker

Walker organized protests in September 1962 against the use of federal troops to enforce the enrollment of African-American James Meredith at the racially segregated University of Mississippi. His public statement on September 29:

This is Edwin A. Walker. I am in Mississippi beside Gov. Ross Barnett. I call for a national protest against the conspiracy from within. Rally to the cause of freedom in righteous indignation, violent vocal protest, and bitter silence under the flag of Mississippi at the use of Federal troops. This today is a disgrace to the nation in 'dire peril,' a disgrace beyond the capacity of anyone except its enemies. This is the conspiracy of the crucifixion by anti-Christ conspirators of the Supreme Court in their denial of prayer and their betrayal of a nation.

Around this time that Walker got Lee Harvey Oswald's attention. Oswald, a self-proclaimed Marxist considered Walker a "fascist" and the leader of a "fascist organization." A front page story on Walker in the October 7, 1962, issue of the Worker, a Communist Party newspaper to which Oswald subscribed, warned "the Kennedy administration and the American people of the need for action against [Walker] and his allies."

Oswald began to put Walker under surveillance, taking pictures of Walker's Dallas home on the weekend of March 9–10. He planned the assassination for April 10, ten days after he was fired from the photography firm where he worked... He left a note in Russian for his wife Marina with instructions should he be caught.Walker was sitting at a desk in his dining room when Oswald fired at him from less than a hundred feet (30 m) away. Walker survived only because the bullet struck the wooden frame of the window, which deflected its path.

To find out more about the american POWs of the Korean War, read Jan Sejnas testimony 
To learn more about Communist achievements within the field of Mind control, I recommend The Anti-Humans (scroll down) along with Joseph Douglass brilliant lecture  The use of psychoactive drugs in covert political operations

MR. ARENS: Does this mean that the principal objective is to convert the people of the
United States to communism? Is their objective conversion, or subversion and conquest?

MR. HUNTER: Since Hungary, the world should know that communism is not an ideology
except as a weapon for conquest. The Red objective against the United States is not the
conversion of the American people to communism any more than it was to make true
Communists out of the American prisoners of war in Korea. The Communist system is a
power system, just as was that of Genghis Khan. We now have the same invading armies,
given a new, pious political phraseology, making them hypocritical in a manner that the
original hordes never were. The objective of all Communist conquest is simply use for
power. They seek to conquer the United States in a manner so that it “voluntarily” falls into
the Red orbit. If we have to be conquered by destructive nuclear-age weapons, it will be
considered a setback by the Kremlin. Their objective is to make the same use of the
American people as they make of the Czechs in the uranium mines in Czechoslovakia, and
as they make of the Chinese in the mills of China. We are to become subjects of a “New
World Order” for the benefit of a mad little knot of despots in the Kremlin.

Read the whole thing...

Communist Psychological Warfare

A conversation about race -- a film by Craig Bodeker
By Warner Todd Huston

First time filmmaker Craig Bodeker has created an interesting and important new film, A Conversation About Race, filled with forceful questions and intriguing proof that there has been no conversation about race in America. In fact, he believes that racism has become a tool to attack white Americans.

In his opening monologue, Bodeker says that he can't think of an issue that is more important or timely than racism. He also says he "can't think of another issue that is more artificial, manufactured and manipulated than this whole construct called racism."

Pretty strong words to start a film with, certainly. Also the sort of words that would get someone branded a racist just trying to excuse his own hatred were he a white person (which Bodeker is). But is Craig Bodeker a racist? For his part, he basically says that we all are... yet we aren't. He feels this way because he believes the whole concept is ill defined and used to warp the actual, entirely human relations between Americans. But the biggest problem is that no one even seems to know what it is

Of course, the "largest racial group in America," whites of European origin, is the target of this "tool of intimidation" against whites as Bodeker sees it. Racism is used as a "hammer" to beat up whites.

Bodeker begins by interviewing common folks on the street asking them if they see racism. All included in the film say that they see it "every single day" in their daily lives. Blacks, whites, other ethnicities, all seem to see this racism "in every city" in America, as one fellow says.

Next Bodeker asks his interviewees to define racism. Yet, few seem to be able to articulate a definition, despite that they claim to see it everywhere.

Bodeker finds this a disconnect. Everyone sees it, yet no one seems to know what racism is. In fact, he finds that the word "racism" has become so elastic that it no longer has any meaning. The on-line source Wikipedia, for instance, defines racism this way:

Racism: The term usually denotes race-based prejudice, violence, discrimination, or oppression. The term can also have varying and hotly contested definitions.

As Bodeker says, there was a time when "definitions were by definition, definite." Yet we can no longer seem to define racism with out using disqualifying words like "usually" as Wikipedia did above. Is it racism as defined or only "usually" racism?

As an example of the disconnect that Bodeker sees with racism in America, he asks various people of various backgrounds if blacks are naturally better at basketball. All but one said yes. When he asked if whites can be better at anything by definition of being white, the answer was universally no.

Bodeker wonders why it is racist to say that whites can be better at, say, Human Relations in a corporation, than are blacks, but it isn't racist to say blacks are better at basketball than whites. It would seem that both positions are racist positions, yet only the anti-white position is approved of.

It all fits in with Bodeker's theory that racism is no longer a concept that keeps blacks or other minorities down, but one that is used to attack whites instead.

His logic is awfully hard to deny.

After all, the original definition of racism is that it is a concept based on the assumption that one race is better, superior, or intrinsically worth more than another. Yet, at every turn Bodeker cannot find any one that says that whites are better than blacks at anything — and it is assumed an evil thing to say — yet people have no problem saying that blacks are better at basketball or Asians are better at their schooling.

Bodeker does a fine job in A Conversation About Race exposing the confused assumptions, and disconnects that America has over racism. He shows that the conversation about race that Senator Barack Obama was so famous for fostering has not happened at all in this country.
This is certainly a conversation that America needs to have, but has yet to engage in and Bodeker's film is a good first step.

psst! available for download as searchable .pdf here

This is an interesting article detailing the desire of socialists to smear and discredit the catholic church.

I have been somewhat surprised that no one really cared to mention, that the latest scandal surrounding the Pope seems to be little more than simple recycling of an old, albeit extremely succesful disinfo campaign, waged by atheist socialists against the vatican.
The hypocrisy however, should be obvious to anyone.
Afterall, it was the socialists that did away with all obscenity laws, encouraged promiscuity and celebrated polymorphic libido. These things surely did more to bring out the thousands of creepy pedophiles pursuing new found desires than prayer and bible studies.
In fact the guru of the sexual revolution  Dr. - "Let´s Talk About Sex" - Kinsey advocated sex between parents and their children. He even paid predatory pedophiles for reporting on their "findings," thus encouraging further sexual assaults on children - some of which even claimed the life of the victim.


All this, of course in no way keeps socialist media from spinning one of their classic  "proof by counter-intuition"-theories. Namely:

A man, who decides to abstain from sex in order to dedicate himself to prayer and worship, will develop a tendency to rape little boys

Isn´t it just brilliant!

I will not go into the many scary details about the pedophilia scandal of the nineties, but will certainly recommend everyone to simply read the wiki-entry on this subject, and pay attention to some of the many oddities emerging from the statistical data on the subject. Below are listed a few interesting facts

-In spite of being a predatory pedophile´s "dream-job" catholic priests are about half as likely to commit pedophile acts as the general population.

-No evidence suggests that catholics are more engaged in pedophilia than priests of other christian denominations

- 66 percent  of the abusive priests in the initial  US scandal were born in ireland or transferred to the US through Ireland - and this at a time where the irish catholics were at war with protestants and heavily supported by the Soviet Union.
Curious, indeed - Think that might have made it easier for "someone" to locate all those victims?
Why was it only catholic victims who came forward, not victims of pedophiles from other christian denominations aswell? Inquiring minds want to know...



Mosscows Assault on the Vatican - Paceba





Update:

Guess pat condell forgot to mention this in his recent rant

I went through the trouble of assembling a searchable pdf from this  government report, prepared at the request of the United States House of Representatives. It deals extensively with what is known about the psychological war waged on the free world by the soviet union under the banner of "Active Measures", but concentrates on the "post cold war" era 1988-91.

It categorises the different kinds of operations into black white and grey, true and false, and conciliatory, derogatory and alarmist.
Alarmist disinfomation is a particularly interesting sub-genre, because the propagator cannot be dismissed by facts, atleast for quiete a few years. The global warming racket is without a doubt the best alarmist disinfo campign ever waged on the free world by the international left.

I believe many people underestimate the importance of these "active measures" and the overall destructive goals of the International Information Department, who conducted most of the operations. The reason for this is probably that the true scale of it is not appreciated, because people tend to forget that all the hard work of intelligence gathering had already been done by the KGB as such, and was then simply fed to the international department, where the informatioon was skillfully streamlined into slogans and "arguments" to gain strategic advantages. Imagine the boost any news outlet would gain, if it were fed all needed information directly from the CIA.
Surely, this meant an immense advantage, and enabled them to constantly provide new "stories" with sufficient evidence, to the anti-western leftist journalists, who then made headlines and refused to disclose their "sources".
This has been going on for so long now, that selfcriticism seem to have become the norm in most news media.

The Soviet Communist Party created what was, in all likelihood, the most formidable
political influence machine in the modern world. Although the Soviets had the
disadvantage of "selling" an enormously unpopular "product," they evolved a great deal
of manipulative and deceptive techniques to try to compensate for this disadvantage. A
close examination of how they sought to influence foreign publics and governments by
orchestrating and spreading carefully selected information, disinformation, and a variety
of crude, sophisticated, derogatory, conciliatory, and alarmist arguments and slogans
contains important lessons for the future in understanding how other totalitarian and
extremist regimes conduct active measures, and how some groups and states within the
Commonwealth of Independent States continue to try to achieve political influence using
these methods.

Soviet Active Measures in the "Post-Cold War" Era 1988-1991