Tuesday, August 1, 2017

The Enemy of My Enemy

Repressive Tolerance, by Herbert Marcuse….prompted by an email request from Stephen W. Carson which has finally moved me to action on this aspect of our current state.

Herbert Marcuse (German: [maʀˈkuːzə]; July 19, 1898 – July 29, 1979) was a German-American philosopher, sociologist, and political theorist, associated with the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. Born in Berlin, Marcuse studied at the universities of Berlin and then at Freiburg, where he received his Ph.D. …In his written works, he criticized capitalism, modern technology, historical materialism and entertainment culture, arguing that they represent new forms of social control.

Between 1943 and 1950, Marcuse worked in U.S. Government service for the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency)….His Marxist scholarship inspired many radical intellectuals and political activists in the 1960s and 1970s, both in the United States and internationally.

What is the Frankfurt School?

The Frankfurt School (German: Frankfurter Schule) is a school of social theory and philosophy associated in part with the Institute for Social Research at the Goethe University Frankfurt. Founded during the interwar period, the School consisted of dissidents who felt at home in none of the existent capitalist, fascist, or communist systems of the time.

Although sometimes only loosely affiliated, Frankfurt School theorists spoke with a common paradigm in mind; they shared the Marxist Hegelian premises and were preoccupied with similar questions….Following Marx, they were concerned with the conditions that allow for social change and the establishment of rational institutions. (Emphasis added)

The culmination of the Enlightenment.

What is meant by “Critical Theory”?

Critical theory (or "social critical theory") is a school of thought that stresses the reflective assessment and critique of society and culture by applying knowledge from the social sciences and the humanities. (Emphasis added)

The culmination of the Enlightenment.

In sociology and political philosophy, the term critical theory describes the neo-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s. Frankfurt theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Critical theory maintains that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.

Critical Theory teaches one to be critical of every prevailing norm, attitude, and cultural attribute in society.  Herbert Marcuse being one of the important founders of the Frankfurt School, Antonio Gramsci being one of the important influences.

With this background out of the way, I turn to the aforementioned essay written by Marcuse.  What does he mean by “Repressive Tolerance”?  His opening paragraph packs it all in; I will dissect it, one sentence at a time:

THIS essay examines the idea of tolerance in our advanced industrial society. The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed.

Prevailing tolerance is repressive; it is tolerance within limited bounds.  This is not tolerant; it is repressive and controlling.  In order to generate true and complete tolerance, intolerance must be practiced against prevailing culture and those who support it; those being repressed must repress in order to gain and hold tolerance.

In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period--a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice.

By intolerantly breaking the prevailing culture, true tolerance will be achieved – subversive against the prevailing order.

Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today, is in many of its most effective manifestations serving the cause of oppression.

Because as tolerance is practiced today (he wrote the original essay in 1965, according to the link), it only serves to allow tolerance within acceptable bounds.  This oppresses those who do not live within these bounds.

It is a long essay.  I will take some time and write one or more further posts to cover it in some detail.  I only here intend to introduce the subject and offer a few initial thoughts.

I begin with a paragraph that I wrote the other day:

Many years ago, well before bionic was even a twinkle in my eye and well before I was able to maturely consider anything associated with this idea of libertarians and culture, I tried explaining libertarian theory to my father.  He asked, very directly: “What are you?  A communist?”  I thought he was crazy, but I have come to learn that he understood this stuff far better than I did.

I first began to understand what he meant only recently…a hint of it came when reading about the Spanish Civil War: what were communists and anarchists doing fighting on the same side?  Yet, each knew that if they were victorious, they would next have to fight each other.

But the light really began to shine brightly when I first began to dig into what is commonly known as left-libertarian.  The interconnectedness of the founders of what is understood today as “left” and what is understood today as “libertarian” runs pretty deep.  As I recall, both Murray Rothbard and Kevin Carson (perhaps as “left” a left-libertarian as I have found) point to some of the same earlier thinkers, yet…obviously…ended up with drastically different conclusions regarding the term “libertarian.”

It really jumped out at me especially when seeing Antonio Gramsci and his method cited positively as an influence by Carson.  Even at my age, the older I get the smarter my dad becomes.

When I read this essay by Marcuse, I find myself nodding in agreement with many of his complaints and criticisms regarding the current order; hence, the enemy of my enemy.  Yet, I cringe while reading his prescription.

He is, in some ways, the enemy of my enemy; yet, in no way, shape or form is he my friend.  The solution he describes – which, in many ways, we are seeing unfold around us – will lead to and is leading to a physical hell on earth for many people – ultimately, even for those he pretends to want to save. 

Marcuse, like Gramsci before him, offers a prescription for destroying the social order different than the one offered by Marx.  But the means is really irrelevant; it is the same end.  Destroying the social order will not bring utopia; it will bring a hell for those who live to see it.  We have seen it – the twentieth century is full of the bodies of its victims.

I will examine the common enemies and I will examine the uncommon prescriptions for remedy.  Once complete, a sharp distinction will be drawn between those libertarians who see as foundational to liberty the building blocks of traditional family and culture and those libertarians who advocate that liberty demands escape from all prevailing norms of culture and hierarchy.

The enemy of my enemy is an even more deplorable enemy.  But I guess this just makes me one of those who must be repressed.


This is why Trump was elected.  He symbolizes a pushback against the revolution that has its roots in the Renaissance and has been carried on through the Enlightenment and, inevitably, the Progressive Era.  The fruits of this we now find in the destruction of the West – made manifest in all mainstream news, college campuses and prevailing thought.  Call them social justice warriors.

They aren’t after Trump because of Russia; they are using Russia as a stick, only because Trump represents the anti-progressive movement – the culmination of which we see in the manifestation of the ideas of Gramsci and Marcuse.

They are willing to risk war with Russia to get what they want – a continuation of their culture-destroying ideology.  Some people may finally have decided it is time to push back.  Note what they are fighting for: culture, family, tradition.  Note what they are not fighting for: the non-aggression principle.


  1. Wasn’t Engels one of the first libertarians, he predicted that once the socialist state was in power it will then wither away.

    Though I don’t think he gave many details on how or when this would occur.

    1. I can't say with authority regarding Engels; I have heard similar from left-libertarians.

      As mentioned, turns out my dad understood this stuff way better than I did.

  2. I'm going back to the Gulag Archipelago, as the realization of critical theory. No property, no family, no culture, profession, tradition, clan, tribe, country, only the state and socialist labor to replace them after all has been removed. Hell on earth.

    1. That is the puzzle; communism have proven not to work in Russia, and China, so they reformed their thinking and their leaderships. In the West, however, the communists became billionaires and the deep state, and they are out to destroy all the Western CHRISTIAN civilization, and unfortunately they have all the mega phones.

  3. I think this might be one of my favorite writings from you to date.

    The only observation that I can add to the discussion is how the Cultural Marxist push gave cause for dissimilar people to group together, making a new and bigger hurdle for them to jump over. It started with some guy saying they cling bitterly to guns and religion, and got cemented when they were called a basket of deplorables, getting grouped together with people that otherwise had little in common.

    Cultural Marxists gave them all common ground.

    1. If you liked this, it will only get better over the next one or two posts on this topic...at least I believe this is true at the moment. I am never really sure until I start writing.

  4. Alinski and his ilk are akin to people with you in a wooden boat in a vast and tumultuous sea. While you're there with your family, they are unattached. Alinski decides that he's unhappy with the order in the boat, so he begins poking holes in the boat below the waterline. He'll only stop if you give him his way. He thinks that because you have a family to protect you have more to lose, and though if he continues everyone dies, this will bother you more than him. Ironically, being mostly useless, he'll drown faster than the people he's holding hostage.

    1. Alinski, or Soros, or whatever globalist POS, we the people must expose them and terminate all their plans.

  5. "I think this might be one of my favorite writings from you to date."

    I agree with Black Flag, or I would if the implications weren't so dire. Are the only choices really between submitting to the culture destroying progressive movement and placing ever greater fools into positions of power?

    1. No. We raise healthy children; we support causes that offer intellectual ammunition for our view; we advocate in whatever manner we choose - I write; we pray.

      Then there is UC's chosen path - the scary part is... he might be right.

    2. I'm not sure taking the long view is going to be useful under present circumstances.

      "Then there is UC's chosen path - the scary part is... he might be right."

      I have never really doubted that UC is right. But then again, under present circumstances his path and ours may be similarly useless.

  6. One of my favorite passages from a book. Reading the whole chapter, is not long, but the excerpt below will give you a sense of the content.

    Gulliver's Travels
    by Jonathan Swift


    In these colleges the professors contrive new rules and methods of agriculture and building, and new instruments, and tools for all trades and manufactures; whereby, as they undertake, one man shall do the work of ten; a palace may be built in a week, of materials so durable as to last for ever without repairing. All the fruits of the earth shall come to maturity at whatever season we think fit to choose, and increase a hundred fold more than they do at present; with innumerable other happy proposals. The only inconvenience is, that none of these projects are yet brought to perfection; and in the mean time, the whole country lies miserably waste, the houses in ruins, and the people without food or clothes. By all which, instead of being discouraged, they are fifty times more violently bent upon prosecuting their schemes, driven equally on by hope and despair:

  7. For Rothbard the worst enemy of humanity was the State, the worst criminal, and the one that we must hate with all ourselves. But for you that is not true. I think that the deeper you go in your journey, the more is clear that you are going far away from libertarianism. Libertarianism is now at second place for you. I think you are a right libertarian as they are left libertarians.. The problem is not that you think we need the nap plus something more. Rothbard knows that anarcocapitalism doesen't cover everything, and don't answer every question and need. The problem is not that you think we need culture, tradition, religion, habits, language, etc.. The problem with you, as with left libertarians, is that you slowly gods away from the nap, and switch your goal from freedom from the State, the main nap violator, to something else, battle against opposing cultural position. And not against statist position, but against opposing ideas on other things as family, religions, tradition, gender, gay, cosmopolitanism, libertinism, etc.. It is the same thing that leftlibertarians do when they bush racism.. they want libertarianism without racism, being racism an idea that one can bring in a free market, this is a contraddicition. The same is for you. You are not a Carson, for sure, but you are slowly moving in that direction. Maybe your ideas have more sense that Carson's ideas, but that is not the point.

    Anonimo Lombardo

    1. "The problem is not that you think we need the nap plus something more. Rothbard knows that anarcocapitalism doesen't cover everything, and don't answer every question and need."

      We agree.

      "Maybe your ideas have more sense that Carson's ideas, but that is not the point."

      Then what is the point? I should embrace the "more than NAP" (as you note agreement with Rothbard) represented by ideas with *less* sense than those suggested by Carson?

      We need something more than the NAP; what ideas do you suggest we should embrace, the less efficacious ideas? The ones certain to increase the state?

      The state is the enemy. The ideas of left libertarians will ensure only a growing state. I point this out and you tell me that I now embrace the state.

      Your logic is illogical.

    2. @ Anonimo

      "And not against statist position, but against opposing ideas on other things as family, religions, tradition, gender, gay, cosmopolitanism, libertinism, etc."

      I think what you're seeing is a defense of traditional Christian values, but perceiving it as an attack on libertine behavior.

      In some ways, you might be correct, but I think it important to note that whenever Ron Paul has touched on drugs or prostitution, he often made the accessory comment that he doesn't personally "endorse" said things, but doesn't think the government should be throwing people in jail over them.

      The problem is, there seem to be many people that have viewed libertarianism as "libertine" and they are not clear on the distinction that was drawn at times by Ron Paul or others. We as libertarians probably don't make the distinction enough.

      In fact, there are libertine libertarians- but like progressives that want to "normalize" homosexuality by marching down a public street in S&M outfits while kissing, "Castro"/San Fran style, while you're walking down the street with your young kids in tow- in essence exposing them to something you may not want them exposed to, so there's a tendency to "force" said viewpoints on others by some people.

      I see these discussions about "culture" as reinforcing the need for libertarians to make very clear that "freedom of association" is major aspect of libertarianism and the NAP in general.

      As a result, the San Francisco's of the world can co-exist with the Anaheim's as long as they are respecting their "blood and land" so to speak.

      In other words, don't go "gay marching" in my city type deal...which is complicated by the fact that there are "public" streets right now and not private property by which cultural standards can be enforced within the realm of the NAP/libertarian ideals.

      I believe libertarians will go further by respecting the cultural norms of people(you don't have to "like" them, just leave them be) that live Christian or other lifestyles and pointing out that in a private property respecting society libertine viewpoints wouldn't be forced upon them, but in return, outside of their "HOA" type environment the same would be respected in return.

      Of course, a neighborhood of Jeffery Dahmer types could appear under such circumstances, but I highly doubt it and if everyone in such a neighborhood operated under that agreement, so be it as long as they didn't impose it on others.

      That being said, if someone from a sane neighborhood wandered in and was victimized/eaten, you better believe retaliation is going to occur.

      At that point all I can refer back to is a notion that BM wrote about some time ago re: Middle Age law:

      "What is the law in your law?" Meaning by which the law they culturally live by, in which case said community of sodomizers/man eaters should return any such unlikely wandering individual to their sane neighborhood unharmed but with a warning.

      If libertarians can't get to a place where the population at large understands how to philosophically respect culture(including Christianity!) at large and by extension property rights and freedom of association it will never become an ideology embraced by the masses. It will die on the vine, plain and simple.

      UC's desire for fascism to combat libertine/progressive attitudes will fail and destroy lives and property like it always has in the past if it comes to full fruition again.

      Libertarians have to push the notion of property rights & voluntaryism with a cultural understanding(which will vary by community) of the NAP as the solution. PERIOD.

    3. Once upon a time libertarianism was about individual liberty and it's enemy was the State.. Now? Individual liberty seems to be a thing of the left.. and the problem with the State seems to be that it is gay and black friendly..

      Anonimo Lombardo

    4. AL - start with private property and see how well your statement holds up when compared to many of the pleadings of left libertarians as well as your statement regarding "the problem with the state."

    5. We have now positive discrimination for gay, black, etc.. we had in the past laws against those kind of people. The State can be used to force both a progressive or a conservative order. Is not only the left, progressives, Marxist that are associated with statism and big government.. for example fascism didn't force on society Carson's view, but conservative ideas, it was about tradition, and family, and racial homogeneity, it was against homosexuality and libertinism and vices. So my problem with the State is not that it is progressive, black and gay friendly..

      As a libertarian I don't ask Carson to become Hoppe, I want the State out of the way so that both Carson and Hoppe can take their chances. But imho most of the people are not extremist, and libertarianism will become irrelevant, to quote Deist preoccupation, if it goes against the desire of the people to have personal liberty AND to live quite normal lifes, in quite normal families, with quite normal roles for gender, etc.. For the most of us is not a problem if someone is gay, if someone smoke a weed, if someone is a libertin, if someone has a different skin colour, if someone is an atheist, if someone dress in a strange way, if someone drink a bit to much.. we want to be left alone to confront those things without the State forcing us in any sense, to tolerate or not tolerate, to be less or more conservative or progressive.. it's the presence of the state that exacerbates conflicts.. it's true that nap need culture, but we don't have to set in advance everything.. we don't have to write on the stone how society must be.. we don't have to design and plan society, and we don't have to fear freedom as if it will bring "disorder", as socialist will do.

      Anonimo Lombardo

    6. Have I written "on the stone how society must be," or that I must "design and plan society"?

      I have written a simple message, and I have grown in my understanding of this message - something will provide governance. If culture, tradition, family, are destroyed, it will be the state that provides governance.

      Do you disagree with this point? Absent traditional voluntary (and reasonably voluntary) governance systems, do you have some other means to avoid the state taking ever more control?

      Do my ideas make more sense than Carson's ideas? You made this point and have ignored my reply. It is time that you deal with this.

    7. AL,

      A point of clarification and a question for you.

      Liberty is a negative ideal. Unbound from any specific reference point, I.e liberty for who? From what? To do what? It becomes a world revolutionary ideology no different than communism, whose supposed endpoint is ultimate liberty. My view of liberty is that my people are being held back and oppressed by a parasitic state. Freedom means living according to natural law. My needs and the needs of my people are not the same as the African. Our potential is not the same and our destinies are not the same. What you are doing is taking a debate internal to western civilization over the past couple hundred years and extending to the rest of the world without qualification. All the egalitarian social pathologies inflicted on our culture are now an ineluctable part of liberty, and should decide the future of all peoples? N*gga pleaze.

      You are aware that the removal of the welfare state in America would lead to race war, right? Not the creation of new libertarian African (in America) man.

      In the struggle between organic culture and the parasitic state these things you mention (blacks, homos, etc) are all tools. A healthy tribe cannot easily be made slaves. Race-mixing, homosexualism, and synthetic culture undermine the tribe and lead to slavery. It constitutes an "anticulture" and will never produce "liberty." The only liberty you will find here is what color dildo you want to buy.

      Which bring me me to my question. As briefly as possible, why do *you* hate the state? I hate the modern democratic state because it prevents us from living how we should live. It stifles and strangles our once high culture. It turns us into cattle for the benefit of a cosmopolitan elite. It should be destroyed not so that *my people* can be free to live as they should and once did.

      You call your worldview liberty but it is predicated on the destruction of my race. Why is that?

  8. NAP is not an all encompassing philosophy. In the West as long as those fighting progressives are fighting for traditional Western Culture then NAP has a chance. It does so because Western Culture is inherently Christian or at least Christ professing and thus can be dragged by the chains of baptism into a realization that NAP is a biblical method of dealing with others. Under progressives there is no hope.

  9. bm,

    I am pleased to see you covering the Frankfurt School. Any honest examination of culture and western civilization in the 20th century will end up following the matzo crumbs back to it.

    The Frankfurt School cannot be understood in a purely ideological or philosophical sense. It has to be understood in its proper context as the pathologization of gentile group allegiances. Which just so happens to be the title of Professor Macdonald's chapter on the Frankfurt School in Culture of Critique-


    Other material by Macdonald can be found here:


    Cultural Marxism is a Jewish strategy for the destruction of western civilization. You did not mention this here. You did not mention that Marcuse and the Frankfurt school are Juden. This is not a trivial detail. It cannot be understood any other way.

    I hope that in the pieces to come you do address this.

    1. "I hope that in the pieces to come you do address this."

      No promises. :-()

  10. >The culmination of the Enlightenment

    Should read

    >The culmination of Jewish involvement in the Enlightenment