Tuesday, 22 April 2014

One Use of the Word “Islamist”

I use the word “Islamist” is a very simple way.

Islamists are those who are directly involved with - often democratic - political institutions and processes, such as the government itself or in government-friendly agencies. Islamist groups like this include: CAIR, Hamas (before it gained power), the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK), the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Respect (the political party), Muslim councillors, some Muslim MPs, members of the law, police, journalists, etc. (CAIR, the MCB, the MAB and Hamas are all Muslim Brotherhood.)

Salafists, Deobandis, (some) Wahhabis, etc. don’t believe - from an Islamic perspective - in getting involved in any such (kuffar) political processes.

So it’s not a case of the following:

Islamists = those who get involved in terrorism, violent political activism, etc.
Muslims = those who don’t get involved in terrorism, violent political activism, etc.

"Islamist" is really just a specific technical term. For example, the UK’s MCB and MAB are made up of Islamists; whereas Anjem Choudary isn’t an Islamist in these senses.

In other words, an Islamist isn't just someone who wants an Islamic state and full sharia law (as Anjem Choudary does): he’s someone who may well become a councilor, MP or a member of CAIR/MCB in order to bring about sharia law (which Choudary and the Salafists would never do).

Because of all that, it's safe to say that Islamists are far more dangerous than Salafists like the street clown Anjem Choudary.

Having said all that, I may well be using the word “Islamist” in a way other people don’t use it.

David Cameron Fishes for Christian Votes

David Cameron, Prime Minister, has recently said that Britain is a Christian country and even that Christians should become more “evangelical”.

But let's forget the inevitable backlash from the Leftist whores-of-Islam who've criticised Cameron for saying things Muslims allowed to say every day of the week about their own religion, Islam (whether in council offices, interfaith meetings, on the BBC, in the Guardian, etc).

This is, I think, the first time that Cameron has been so explicit. Most of the times he's telling us how great Islam is and how literally millions of Muslims “distort' or “misinterpret” their own religion: when their words and deeds don't concur with the bullshit that's spewed out on the interfaith circuit by taqiyya Muslims. 

Cameron should know all about Islam: a senior Muslim adviser told him all about it for about half an hour or so a few years back.

So it's my bet that David Cameron is simply being David Cameron. That is, he's fishing for as many votes as possible. And in order to do that, he knows that he'll have to tailor his message to his many different audiences. So when talking to Muslims, he’ll say X. When he's talking to Christians, he'll say not-X. And, who knows, perhaps when he talks to an audience of both Muslims and Christians he'll say both X and not-X and thus disregard the law of excluded middle.

In other words, Cameron's saying different things to different audiences in order to insure the maximum amount of votes. Pure politics.

It's like Yasar Arafat who said X to his Muslim audiences (in Arabic) and literally not-X to the kuffar.

Cameron is unutterably shallow (politically speaking). He really doesn't have any strong views other than about his own power and career. (Hence his PR background.) He's even far more shallow than Blair, politically; though roughly Ed Miliband's equal.

Nowadays you can only survive in politics if you went to the same public schools, then the same Oxbridge colleges, wear the same suites and even fake a bit of Mockney (or Estuary English). (Though, as yet, Cameron hasn't done the Mockney stuff yet.)

Salma Yaqoob: the “witch-hunt” against Birmingham's terrorists & Islamists

Guess what, Salma Yaqoob and the Leftist whores-of-Islam (including the Guardian) are talking about a "witch hunt" and using the word "allegedly" all the time about the latest Islamist plot to take over schools in the Birmingham area and beyond.

Salma Yaqoob said exactly the same thing when Birmingham was classed as a "terror hot-spot" by the security services and police (circa 2010). It was a terrorist hotspot! Many Muslims have been convicted.

It seems that every time the police, politicians, etc. finally get around to doing something about Islamic terrorists, radicals, the groomers of young girls and, now, Islamist take-overs, Salma Yaqoob and the Leftist whores-of-Islam start screaming out and talking about "witch-hunts" and "Islamophobia".
Chief Constable Chris Sims: Supreme Dhimmi of Birmingham.

So what can you conclude from this? That Salma Yaqoob and her Left believe the following:

That nothing should be done about any of these things.

Now why would Yaqoob and her Leftist buddies want nothing to be done about Islamic terrorists, Muslim grooming gangs and the Islamists taking over some of our schools? I think I know the answer to that. Do you?

Sunday, 20 April 2014

Fiyaz Mughal's Website Defends Pakistan's Persecution of Christians

It seems that Fiyaz Mughal's Tell Mama has overstepped its jurisdiction of “measuring and monitoring anti-Muslim attacks in the UK” to defend the Muslim hellhole that is Pakistan and the Islamic theocracy that is Iran. 


This latest article from Tell Mama ('Yet More Tabloid Islamophobia, the Peter Hill Article'), written by Steven Rose, is itself a response to an article written by Peter Hill for the Daily Express: 'Why does Britain feel so obliged to accommodate for minorities?' (published on the 7th of April).

Steven Rose questions Peter Hill's following assertion:

I wonder if Muslim countries go out of their way to cater for other faiths. Actually, I don’t wonder.... [Muslims countries.. think that] 'unbelievers' don’t even belong to the human race.

According to Steven Rose, that assertion “is not true”.

Mr Rose believes that Peter Hill indulged in a “glib assertion” about the Islamic view that “unbelievers do not even belong to the human race”. Peter Hill, in any case, never said that every Muslim believes that statement. He said that “Muslim countries think that...”; which is an acceptable grammatical ellipsis.

Nonetheless, Steven Rose is equally glib because he too couldn't bring himself to cite a single example of what's happening to Christians (on a very large scale) in the Muslim world (form Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, the Sudan, Nigeria, Syria to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states). Instead he tells us about the two Christians in Iran's parliament and the fact that Pakistan's National Assembly “reserves ten seats for [its five million or more] non-Muslims”.

It seems strange that in response to Peter Hill's purported view that Muslims are “monolithic”, Steven Rose comes out with an equally generalised statement: no Muslim, and no Muslim/Islamic state, believes that unbelievers “don't even belong to the human race”. Really? Not only are there countless statements in the Koran and hadith which say precisely that: numerous Muslim leaders, from Muhammad himself to clerics/leaders in various Muslim states today, have also said precisely that. 

For example, Christians, Jews, “idolaters”, “polytheists”, etc. are referred to - in the Koran and hadith - as “cattle”, “apes”, “swine”, “pigs” and so on. Even the New Statesman's Mehdi Hasan famously referred to all non-Muslims as “cattle”. And if a well-known Muslim member of our media-establishment can use such language in 2009, then surely Steve Rose's words can’t ring very true, can they?

Disturbing Sharia

Steven Rose then says that the following quote from Peter Hill is 'disturbing':

Those who don’t like the set-up should either make their own arrangements – there are plenty of Muslim banks and financial institutions here – or move to somewhere they feel more comfortable.

Now what's disturbing about any of that?

Most Brits don't want sharia law in the UK. Many Muslims do. Indeed it is incumbent that every (good) Muslim agitates and fights for sharia laws because without it, there is no Islam. Thus without sharia law a Muslim cannot be a (good) Muslim because there is no Islam without sharia law.

The problem is that many - or most - sharia laws clash violently with both British law and with British values. Many Muslims know this. Many non-Muslim British people know this. And indeed Steven Rose must also know this. Therefore surely it's reasonable for the Daily Express's Peter Hill to suggest that unhappy Muslimsmove to somewhere they feel more comfortable”. This is equivalent to advising those who feel uncomfortable with the loud music in a nightclub to leave instead of standing around complaining and making everyone else feel miserable. That is common sense. That is unless Muslims don't want to leave because they want full sharia law to be implemented in the UK too ... if only eventually. Indeed the spreading of sharia law to non-Muslim countries - such as the UK - is a very important goal for many Muslims.

Despite this Islamic requirement for full sharia law, Steven Rose then adds that some Muslims “feel [...] proud to be British”. But since we are discussing sharia law, we can ask this question:

What, exactly, are Muslims proud of when they say - if many ever (genuinely) do - that they are “proud to be British”?

What I mean by this is that partial - let alone full - sharia law will completely and utterly transform the landscape of Britain. (This parallels Ralph Miliband's purported and reported patriotism some months back; and all that despite the fact that he too - in his own words - wanted to utterly transform every aspect of Britain: from its politics to its values and social traditions.) And after all that, what distinctly British things would these Muslims (as well as Ralph Miliband in the past) be proud of, exactly? What would be left of Britain as we know it - and as we have known it - after full sharia law (or full state communism) had been implemented?

Perhaps these Muslims are only proud of “British tolerance” (as interfaith Muslims and the the Leftist whores-of-Islam often deceitfully put it). Yes, Muslims are proud of that legendary and sometimes suicidal British tolerance – the tolerance of the intolerant - which may well effectively pave the way for full sharia if not (at first) in the whole of the UK, then in the many ghettos which Muslims have created for themselves all over England.


As stated, Steven Rose ignores the massive persecution and killing of non-Muslims that goes on in Muslim countries. He chooses, instead, to pick some egregious choice-specimens of Islamic love, peace and tolerance. And even here Rose's few positive examples aren't quite what they seem.
How gays are treated in Iran.

For example, Steven Rose tells us that in Iran “Christians hold two seats in parliament while other religious minorities (Zoroastrians, Jews and Assyrians) have one representative in parliament”. For a start, that is an extremely small number. In the UK in 2012, there were 8 Muslim MPs and 12 Muslim peers in both Houses of the British Parliament; as well as 200 Muslim councillors in 2005 (83 in London alone in 2002). And is it supposed to be a good things that all Iran's Zoroastrians, Jews and Assyrians share “one representative in parliament”? Perhaps Mr Rose should have also told us that the Jewish population of Iran has shrunk to 10, 200 in 2012 from the 100,000 in 1948. (Before the Islamic Revolution of 1979, there were 80,000 Jews in Iran. That's a shrinkage of 70,000 in just over 30 years of “Islamic revolution”.)The other minorities in Iran haven't fared much better either.

In addition to that, such parliamentary “representatives” are an example of Iran's tokenism: it's simple acknowledgment of the small role it has assigned to its various dhimmis. The other two assumptions here is that Iran's parliament is just like our own and that these two Christian “parliamentarians” actually have some real power.


Steven Rose then tackles Pakistan. He tells us that Pakistan's “National Assembly reserves ten seats for non-Muslims”. Come again? Yes, Pakistan “reserves ten seats for non-Muslims”. That could mean that non-Muslims don't actually hold - or have - ten seats in Pakistan's National Assembly. Now that's a bad thing because there were 2,800,000 Christians alone in Pakistan in 2005; as well as roughly the same number of Hindus. Again, in the UK there are 8 Muslim MPs, 12 Muslim peers and over 200 Muslim councilors and the Muslim population here is similar to that of the Christian and non-Muslim population of Pakistan.

So although Steven Rose cites some positives when it comes to the treatment of minorities in Muslim countries, he doesn't cite a single example of the numerous negatives. Despite that, he does have the decency to make some vague - and very Tell Mamaish - statements. He says that

much more needs to be done to ensure minority rights and organisations like Faith Matters are actively pushing for countries like Pakistan to ensure the minority rights of Christians, Shia and Ahmaddiya’s through projects such as the Connecting Communities project.”

Now that's the sort of statement you often hear - from Tell Mama and other groups - about the treatment of Muslims in the UK. Yet in Pakistan whole Christian villages are burned down, churches are blown up, Christians are accused of apostasy and then killed and so on. So it's not exactly a small problem, is it Mr Rose?

Now, amongst the many screenshots of Tweets and Facebook pages you might have seen on Tell Mama, I bet you've never seen anything like the following:

i) At least a dozen Christians have been given death sentences - and half a dozen murdered - after being accused of violating Pakistani blasphemy laws in recent years. In 2005 alone, 80 Christians were behind bars due to these laws.
ii) November, 2005: 3,000 militant Islamists attacked Christians in Sangla Hill in Pakistan and destroyed Roman Catholic, Salvation Army and United Presbyterian churches.
iii) August, 2007: a Christian missionary couple, Rev. Arif and Kathleen Khan, were gunned down by militant Islamists in Islamabad.
iv) August, 2009: six Christians, including four women and a child, were burnt alive by Muslim militants and a church set ablaze in Gojra.
v) November, 2010: a Christian woman from Punjab Province, Asia Noreen Bibi, was sentenced to death by hanging for violating Pakistan's blasphemy law. A cleric has offered $5,800 to anyone who kills her.
vi) March, 2011: the only Christian minister in the Pakistan government was shot dead. Shahbaz Bhatti, Minister for Minorities. He was targeted for opposing the anti-free speech 'blasphemy' law, which punishes insulting Islam or its Prophet.

Most of the above are references to targeted assassinations related to Islamic blasphemy law in Pakistan. Yet that's the very same thing that Fiyaz Mughal is attempting to bring about in the UK on the back of “hate crime” and race relations laws. In other words, Fiyaz Mughal is attempting to replicate, in the UK, what's happening in Pakistan. That's right, Fiyaz Mughal is trying to turn Britain into another Pakistan.
The scene outside All Saints' Church, Peshawar.

But we must add two more things to that list of Islamic persecution and killing in Pakistan: Islamic terrorism against Christians (such as Peshawar last year) and Muslim communal violence against Christians.

For example, Pastor Nadeem Mukhtar, writing a year ago, had this to say about the situation in Lahore alone:

Hi all friends. I am Pastor Nadeem from Lahore Pakistan. More than 250 houses of Christians are burnt by Muslims in Lahore Pakistan, Please pray for that.”

And in response to the terrible persecution of Christians in Pakistan, Silas Jacob implored:

O lord, Help the Pakistani Christians to migrate and give them the resources to do so.”

In consequence of all that, I suggest that Fiyaz Mughal pack up his bags and move to Pakistan where he can fight real religious persecution and oppression instead of spending all his time trawling Facebook pages and websites looking for aggressive, though largely harmless, statements to screen-shoot.


Some newspaper titles (about Pakistan) from 2010:

5 killed in grenade attack on church in Islamabad'

'6 dead in Pakistan Christian school attack'
'3 killed in Christmas attack on church'
'16 Killed in Attack on Church in Pakistan'
'Pakistani Worshippers Attacked on Easter Sunday'
'Pakistani Christian-Falsely Accused, Tortured and Murdered Protestors Take His Dead Body To The Streets In Protest'
'Pakistani Priest Gunned Down'
'Pakistani Christian dies of torture at hands of Islamists'

'Second Pakistani Christian tortured to death by police in four months'

'55 year Christian mother Hanifan Bibi abducted, stripped and tortured in front of husband and sons by Muslim gangsters'
'Pastor and Driver Murdered in Pakistan and mutilated for Evangelizing Muslims in Pakistan'
'2500 Strong Muslim Mob set alight 3 Churches, Christian School, Houses of Christian families and Priests'
'Hindu temple in Lahore demolished'
'Pak Army To Raze Hindu Houses, Temple In Peshawar'
'242 Hindu Temples Destroyed/Damaged in Pakistan'
'Muslim Terrorists killed Christian Missionary, Raped their daughters in front of parents and brutally killed their Sons'
'Drunken Muslim Mob Vandalizes Church'
'2 Christians get 15 years for burning Holy Quran'
'Pakistan Bomb That Killed 53 Aimed to Destroy Hotel'

'One Woman Dead in Attack on Christians, Would-be rapist instigates attack in response to charges leveled against him'
'Taliban Tells Pakistani Christians: Convert or Die'
'Muslims Ransack Historic Church'
'Taliban-Inspired Attacks Hit Christians, Jizye Tax Imposed'
'Muslim Mob Beats Christian Family with Sticks for Marrying Muslim Girl'
'Christian Brutally Clubbed to Death for Drinking Tea at 'Muslim-Only' Establishment'
'Muslim Forces 12-year-old Girl to Convert & Marry Him, Police ridicule Christian mother for kidnapping complaint'
'Church institutions threatened with bomb attack, Unless Christians Convert'
'11-year-old boy shot in the head while attending church'
'Parcel Bomb Critically Injures At least 10 Christians in Pakistan'
'Christian Cemetery Bulldozed & Church Building Confiscated by Pakistani Authorities'

'Police Torture & Brake Backbone of Christian Because His Father Preached Christ, Denied Medical Treatment'
'Battagram Hindus Told to Embrace Islam or Pay Tax'
'Muslim Mob of Thousands Gather. Acid thrown on Christian Women & Children'
'Hundred Christian Churches & Homes Burned Down'
'16-Year-Old Christian Boy Tortured to Death by Pakistani Police'
'Christian Tortured and Beaten for Alleged 'Blasphemy' & Prison Besieged by Thousands of Furious Muslims, Calling For His Death'
'Police Brutalize Christian Men & Women After Robbing Their Homes'
'Muslims Loot & Burn 75 Christian Homes and 2 Churches, Over Alleged 'Blasphemy''
'Eight Christians (including 4 Women & Child Aged 7) burned alive in Punjab, 20 Others Wounded'

'Angry Muslims Kill Three More over Alleged Qur'an Blasphemy'
'Muslim Mob Attacks Home of 60-Year-Old Woman in Another Islamic Supremacist “Blasphemy” Charge'
'Pregnant Christian Miscarries, After being Beaten & Dragged Naked Through a Police Station'

'Eight Christians kidnapped in Pakistan, Jizya May be Behind Abductions'

'Six Christians Shot Dead by Muslims After Threats to “Convert to Islam or Die”'

'5,000 Hindus Abandon Homes to Flee Forced Conversions, Kidnappings & Rape'

'Church Burned to the Ground by Muslim Mob'

Saturday, 19 April 2014

Herbert Marcuse on the Soviet Union & Marxism

Marcuse on the Soviet Union

On one hand, how could a self-described “believer in freedom” like Marcuse not offer up a critique of the Soviet Union after the invasions of Poland and Hungary in 1956, the Gulag, the purges, the class “liquidations”, the secret police, etc? On the other hand, how could someone fairly loyal to Marx (as Marcuse was), fail to see many good things in the Soviet system (as the Guardian's Seumas Milne still does to this very day)?

Although Herbert Marcuse rejected much about the Soviet Union and, to a lesser extent, about Marxism, he didn't by any means way reject Marxism/communism completely. In fact he had a similar same position on the Soviet Union (though not on Marxism) as Trotskyists do in his day and in our own. And, of course, Trotsky's criticisms of the Soviet Union and Stalin predated Marcuse's main critique by some 30 years.

In his book, Soviet Marxism (1958), Marcuse explicitly argues that Marxism didn't of necessity lead to Soviet totalitarianism. Indeed it was partly because he didn't break with Marxism complete that he was allowed to break, to some extent, with the Soviet Union. If he had broken with the Soviet Union as well as with Marxism, he simply wouldn't have been listened to by his fellow Leftists/Marxists. As it was, he was one of the first Marxist/Leftist intellectuals, in the US at least, who spoke out against the USSR. Yet that was still some five years after the death of Stalin. (Or, at the very least, his book, Soviet Marxism, was written five years after Stalin's death.) 

Yet the very fact that this book is called Soviet Marxism shows us that Marcuse still believed that the Soviet system was a form of Marxism; not a “deviation” (as Marxists put it) from Marxism.

It was partly because Marcuse believed that the Soviet Union still contained, as it were, some good or true Marxism that he thought it was still capable of reforming itself. Marcuse believed that this true or good Marxism could or would win through in the end and get rid of the bad Marxism (i.e., Stalinism). 

To put this another way: Marcuse believed, as many Marxists still do, that there is a large disconnection between (correct/sacred) Marxist theory and the Soviet implementation of Marxism. 

As a consequence of this, it was bound to be the case that Marcuse would disagree with those who believed that the Soviet regime was a bureaucratic system which was incapable of reform. However, such people shouldn’t have believed that the Soviet system was necessarily incapable of reform. What is misguided was Marcuse's view that it could reform because there was a kernel of pure - or proper - Marxism within it. In other words, although on the one hand there is never any political and structural necessity (i.e., endless stability and sustainability) when it comes to totalitarian regimes (as the neo-cons also believed about such states), Marcuse's own belief that proper - or true - Marxism would eventually save the Soviet Union was also a bad (Marxist) idea.

Michele Foucault, for one, was skeptical about this Marxist theory-Soviet practice dichotomy. In Madness and Civilisation he wrote:

In the Gulag one sees not the consequences of any unhappy mistake, but the effects of the ‘truest’ of theories [i.e., Marxism] in the political order.”

To repeat: Marcuse believed that Marxism had been somewhat perverted by the Soviet system. Clearly he didn't believe that Marxism itself is, as it were, perverted. And, as a consequence of that, Marcuse argued (in the late 1950s) that the Soviet Union could reform itself and yet still remain loyal to Marxism/communism. In other words, he didn't believe that the secret police, censorship, centralised leadership, Gulag, purges, class “liquidations”, anti-liberalism, etc. were essential to Marxism/communism and also required to sustain it.

In response to Khrushchev's moves, Marcuse wrote:

“With respect to internal Soviet developments, this means at present continuation of 'collective leadership', decline in power of the secret police, decentralization, legal reforms, relaxation of censorship, liberalization in cultural life.” (1958, p.174, Soviet Marxism)

Despite these words, it took around three decades after writing the above for glasnost and perestroika, under Gorbachev, to come to the Soviet Union. And, indeed, to the extent that collective leadership, decentralisation, legal reforms and the liberalization of cultural life increased, and the power of the secret police and Gulag declined, so Marxism/communism itself declined. Surely this should have shown Marcuse that there is indeed an essential connection, at least in the Soviet Union's case, between Marxism/communism and totalitarianism. Nonetheless, Marcuse still believed that Marxism/communism could run free of totalitarianism. It never never has.

Marcuse's Critique of Marxism

Although Marcuse embraced the Marxist view that the working class couldn't think for itself (unless, of course, liberated by middle-class Marxist theoreticians), he nonetheless did reject various sacred and classical Marxist catechisms:

i) He questioned the fact that the working class is automatically a “revolutionary class” (or would become revolutionary if Marxist prophesies finally came to pass).
ii) He questioned - though didn't necessarily reject or deny - the “inevitability” of a capitalist crisis which had been prophesised since the 1850s. (Though a distinction can be made here - and had to be made by Marxists - between a capitalist crisis, with the indefinite article, and the “final capitalist crisis”, as prophesised by Marx.)

Marcuse firstly rejected these things, at least in print, roundabout 1958. However, Marxists had rejected the necessary revolutionary nature of the working class, as well as the "inevitability of a capitalist crisis", as early as the 1890s; as was the case with theorists like Eduard Bernstein and others. So in these respects, Marcuse wasn't saying anything new or original.

Marcuse did indeed update the general Marxist package in the late 1950s and 1960s. That's not a surprise. That Marxist package had been updated by every generation since Marx himself. Indeed Marxists are still updating Marxism. 

One such update (or “deviation”), for example, was Gramsci's advice that Marxists/Leftists should “take over the institutions” and by doing so turn Marx's base-superstructure model on its head. A more recent updating is the completely non-critical attitude Marxists have suddenly adopted towards religion: or, more accurately, towards Islam (1).


1) To put that another way. Marxists have completely abandoned their traditionally virulent critique of religion in response to the rise of Muslim demographics in the West. In classical (Leftist) racist style, Marxists have become more “sophisticated” about religion quite simply because many religious people in the West now have brown, rather than white, skins.

Friday, 18 April 2014

Herbert Marcuse on False Consciousness & Anti-Capitalists

Herbert Marcuse, in the traditional Marxist manner, believed that capitalism (or capitalists) had “integrated” the working class into the “capitalist system”. Marcuse also saw the working class - again like Marxists - as being a potentially “revolutionary force”.

Marcuse's idea that the working class had been “integrated into capitalism” displayed some classical middle-class Marxist arrogance and smugness. The assumption is that workers integrated into the capitalist system without any (non-Marxist) member of that class actually knowing that this is indeed the case.

Here there is also a Marxist assumption of two things:

i) That all members of the working class don't think for themselves about political matters. Or if they do so in a manner which is at odds with Marxist views and theories, then they simply must have 'false consciousness'.
ii) That no member of the working class would willingly and knowingly embrace capitalism as a result of a rational decision on his part. Or, if he did, it would be because he suffered from false - or non-Marxist - consciousness.

Such false consciousness is an absolutely essential part of Marxism. It helps middle-class Marxists explain why members of the working class (almost all of them) - as well as all the members of other “oppressed” groups - fail to embrace Marxism. Alternatively, only false consciousness can explain - so Marxists think - how such people “work against their own best interests” (as defined, of course, by middle-class Marxists).

Marcuse too imbibed the Marxist notion of false consciousness. He particularly focused on the idea (as other Marxists, such as the Frankfurt School, had done before him) that “advanced industrial society” creates false needs, false desires and false beliefs in order to create legions of (non-Marxist) “passive subjects” and mindless consumers. And of course the very idea that all non-Marxists are the victims of false consciousness must mean that all these “subjects of capitalism” (or cogs in the machine) must – by Marxist definition - have false needs, false desires and, of course, false beliefs.

In order to insure such false needs, false desires and false beliefs, the “capitalist elite” must control the media, advertising and so on; as well as, more importantly, control what it is that all non-Marxists think (though the former controls the latter).

However, when Marcuse - as well as contemporary Chomskyites – talked about the platonic Media and its total control of the minds of all non-Marcusians (or non-Chomskyites today), he didn't just mean the evil “right-wing press” or even the press in its entirety. He also meant - as did Theodor Adorno before him - Hollywood and television generally. That is, everything that was classed by the Frankfurt School as “the culture industry”

Thus it can be seen that all that is non-Marxist (or non- "revolutionary”) is automatically part of Das System and therefore deemed suspect by Marcuse and all other Leftists. (The Frankfurt School also castigated cinema, jazz, and light entertainment; just as Chomsky today has a strong hatred for soccer and soaps.)

Thus this massive Marxist conspiracy theory actually contains two smaller theories within it:

i) That all non-Marxists are monumentally stupid and devoid of free will (except those non-Marxists who are also “exploitative capitalists”).
ii) That all capitalists conspire - often together - to bring about exactly what the Marxists say they have brought about: a society made up entirely of “sheeple” (to use the smug contemporary word) whose only concern is to consume and obey. (Middle-class Leftists, of course, aren't sheeple.)

Fantastically, according to Marcuse (as well as Chomsky today), this massive system of hidden indoctrination has the result that no non-Marxist/Leftist has any negative views about capitalism or the government and never offers either a critique of - or opposition to – any current realities. Again, only Marxists/Leftists are capable of doing that job.

And if you think that Marcuse (as well as Chomsky today) didn't patronise the working class enough with all that, he also classed all non-Marxists/Leftists – you and I! - as being cases of his “one dimensional man”. That is, capitalist society is a one-dimensional society which creates one-dimensional men and women like you and I.

Clearly this level of Leftist condescension - or patronisation - is both staggering and nauseating. However, it would perhaps loose some of its power to repulse if it had already been assigned to the dustbin of Marxist history. Yet this is exactly what Chomsky - as well as thousands of Chomsky's automatons - believes today. Yes, if you aren't a Marcusian (or Chomskyite), you must automatically be a sheeple or a “one-dimensional man”. That is unless, of course, you’re an evil capitalist and then you'll have the privilege of controlling at least some of those sheeples or one-dimensional men.

My Enemy's Enemy is My Friend

Like contemporary Trotskyists/progressives, Marcuse embraced all the 'enemies' of capitalism no matter who or what they were. Or, in the well-known phrase: the enemies or Marcuses's enemies were automatically his friends. (National Socialists are of course the enemies of Western democratic capitalism; though I doubt that Marcuse would have embraced them – primarily because they were white. (1)) This means, for example, that Marcuse embraced movements, groups and individuals which in many respects mutually contradicted one another. However, they didn't mutually contradict each other in the respect that they were all against Western capitalism (which was not always true anyway). And that was all that mattered to Marcuse. (For example, he embraced the violent and ideologically fanatical Vietcong alongside pacifist and easy-going American hippies.)

What would have also united all these disparate “anti-capitalist” groups (besides their being anti-capitalist), was that they were all deemed, by Marcuse, to be minorities and “outsiders”. Any minority would have done the trick as long as they were minorities or outsiders.



1) There would have been exceptions to Marcuse's embracing of minorities and “outsiders”: white Nazis, white racists, etc. But what of black racists? Sure, he embraced them. What of violent and misogynist black groups? Sure, he embrace them too (just as Marxists today embrace racist, misogynist and violent Muslims). You see, as long as these minorities and outsiders are anti-capitalist (even when they aren't specifically or explicitly anti-capitalist), then Leftists will embrace them in some kind of broad church of anti-capitalists; which included, in Marcuse's case, hippies and psychotically violent Marxist and black groups. As I said, contemporary Leftists embrace Muslim Brotherhood groups, misogynists, terrorists, groomers, those who sanction rape, the killing of schoolchildren, etc. Hell, who cares? They're all “anti-capitalist” and anti-West. 

2) Like most Leftists/Marxists, Marcuse was a utopian. However, many Leftists, unlike Marcuse, believe that utopia can only be brought about by totalitarian means. Of course such Leftists neither use the word “utopian” nor the word “totalitarian' to describe what they want and how they intend to bring it about.