Great find, HK.  But I'm not sure if I believe Anesi's conclusion:  "T. W. Adorno returned to the University of Frankfurt, where he amused himself as a principal figure in the Frankfurt school of "critical theory", producing a Freudian-Marxist melange of pseudo-scientific speculative foolishness that is now, thank God, thoroughly discredited." (my emphases)  While I agree that it is "pseudo-scientific speculative foolishness", there is a huge circle of people in which it is not only NOT discredited, but embraced.  We all know who that might be and their numbers are huge.  See here, for example:

...Additional intellectual firepower was required: a theory to pathologize what was to be destroyed. In 1950, the Frankfurt School augmented Cultural Marxism with Theodor Adorno's idea of the ‘authoritarian personality.'  This concept is premised on the notion that Christianity, capitalism, and the traditional family create a character prone to racism and fascism.  Thus, anyone who upholds America's traditional moral values and institutions is both racist and fascist.  Children raised by traditional values parents, we are told to believe, will almost certainly become racists and fascists.  By extension, if fascism and racism are endemic to America's traditional culture, then everyone raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism, gun ownership, or free markets is in need of psychological help.  The pernicious influence of Adorno's ‘authoritarian personality' idea can be clearly seen in some of the research that gets public money.

"In Aug., 2003, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced the results of their $1.2 million tax-payer funded study.  It stated, essentially, that traditionalists are mentally disturbed.  Scholars from the Universities of Maryland, California at Berkeley, and Stanford had determined that social conservatives... suffer from ‘mental rigidity,' dogmatism,' and ‘uncertainty avoidance,' together with associated indicators for mental illness." http://www.edwatch.org/  ‘Social and Emotional Learning" Jan. 26, 2005) ...

And, from the second link there:

The commission advocates examining parents and homes for anything that might point to a “physical or mental condition [with] a high probability of resulting in a [child’s] developmental delay” ­ something way beyond the present capabilities of the mental health profession ­ beginning with a mandatory Nurse-Family Partnership component.

Why the extraordinary emphasis on parents? The Commission and, indeed, most of the mental health community believe that mental “disorders” of parents occurring before children reach the age of six “can interfere with critical emotional, cognitive, and physical development, and portend a lifetime of problems in school, at home, and in the community.” Therefore, “treating the parents’ mental health problems also benefits the child.”

“Treating parents” means psychotherapy and drugs, and the initiative calls for a mandate to provide “social and emotional check-ups” in all primary healthcare facilities. This means parents are supposed to be surreptitiously assessed for mental “illness” every time they walk into their physician’s office...

Doesn't sound to me like it's been thoroughly discredited, expecially by our friendly psychologists.  I.E. your global warming example, which was also discussed here.  Noel Sheppard was talking about the left's ability to make the right look like the bad guys here:

"And now, the Party likely with the most blood on its hands is actually getting away with blaming the potentially more innocent one. In particular, pointing fingers at McCain is absurd. 

Likely the worst aspect of liberal media bias is how Democrats can always blame everything on Republicans, and press members will echo their talking points regardless of how absurd the accusations. With our media, it's always "Blame Republicans First, Ask Questions Later...or maybe not!""  (I would also urge people to read the IBD editorial that Noel mentioned in the actual blog portion of that last reference)

After reading about the strategy and tactics they are employing to achieve their long term goals, and hearing Rush and others discuss it using other terminology, I am convinced that the whole thing is an effort to (to paraphrase Gramsci) Pathologize the Right.  In their long term strategy, circa late '20's - early 30's, the "right", i.e. conservatives- constitutional originalists and especially Christians- were identified as "pathogens" to be destroyed (as a system of thinking and governing). 

Until the advent of the repeal of the fairness doctrine and the appearance of shows like Rush, they pretty well had us boxed in, institutionally (other than a few escapees like Hillsdale, Grove City, William F. Buckley, Regnery Publishing, and of course, the great Ronaldus Magnus).  But with the appearance of the internet (thanks Algore), sites like NewsBusters and numerous others, have made the escape from their little social experimentation laboratory almost complete.  (I can't say enough about the service that NewsBusters is performing in getting out the message that there is another side to all this MSM indoctrination.  It allows a league of writers to publish free-thinking, thought provoking articles as well as a large contingent of commentarians, some of whom are accomplished enough to feed ideas and information back to the staff of NewsBusters.  And of course, ultimate thanks to Brent Bozell/MRC, the parent of NewsBusters.)

Almost, because we conservatives need to somehow overcome and then reverse this perception in the MSM/academic indoctrinated public, that consevatives are racist, homophobic, mysoginistic, authoritarian nazi fascists by default.  I get the sense that it is just now coming into realization that the left has managed to almost pull off a huge coup without the intended victims (us conservatives) ever being aware of what was going on until too late!  With the publication of the book "Liberal Fascism" to connect a lot of the dots from many other books and articles, my eyes were finally opened, especially to the amazing transfiguration of conservatives into nazis!  HELLOOOOO, nazi=national socialism=socialists including all of socialisms relatives like liberalsm and progressivism.  The apple truly doesn't fall far from the tree.

I know I've been on a rant about this "Pathologizing the Right" stuff for a while now.  I just find it amazing how they seem to get away with it still.  I wish I had the writing skills and (as importantly) the time to research and write about this specific topic, like Noel does on global warming.  Someone will eventually take it up, I guess, in the meantime I'll just rant on in the occasional comment when time allows :-).

Be well, HK.   

"The future is not set.  There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."

michaelyon-online.com

I am "disciplined, but tolerant. A true American".

Eh, I already knew that. ;>)

"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008