July 10, 2007
By Patrick Grimm
Australian historian Keith Windschuttle warns us that “When history is killed, then only myths remain.” This is a warning we should heed, a sign post beseeching us to turn back from the road we are following and return to orthodoxy and common sense when pursuing historical inquiry, rather than propping up the fallacies of “post-modernism”, “post-structuralism” and the bludgeoning club of “deconstructionist” anti-reason and anti-logic.
Michael Roe of the underrated rock band the Seventy Sevens http://77s.com/ sings plaintively in the song “Do It For Love”, “Turn back from the way you’re going, it’s a rocky road for sure.” Perhaps all of us should heed such wise counsel, whether in our personal lives or in our research and exegetical heavy-lifting. But so many scholars, writers, thinkers and political pundits have carried on, bright-eyed and idealistic, or perhaps lyingly and deceptively, believing that good intentions trump sound thinking, solid logic and impeccable scholarship.
Some anti-Zionists understand the disintegrating effects of the sick Jewish pseudo-scholarship of the Frankfurt School and the rantings of their Marxist ideological “smear-and-run” mental thuggery that has “brought it all down, man.” There is much truth in the fact that the neo-Marxian Jews of the Frankfurters did operate under a guise of legitimacy that was undeserved and that did not gel with the facts of their true agenda, but this is only a snippet of the whole sordid tale. It is also where we will begin our discussion.
Yes, Marcuse, Horkheimer and the rest were Judeo-infiltrators and “Judeo-conspirators” to borrow a term employed by other internet writers on this little topic. They were traitors to the ideals, at least the ideals once vaunted and venerated in American academia before the 1960s, because the things they espoused were based more on atavistic hatred of Gentile white culture than any honest clamoring after the truth.
The fact that the Frankfurt School is still treated with an almost worshipful and fawning degree of respectability in today’s “institutes of lower living”, what I would dub “brainwashing centers”, places like Columbia, Harvard and NYU is truly frightening and sinister. Young and impressionable college students are introduced to these wildly left-of-center Communist-socialist Jewish mantras, and these rubbish Jewish ideas are pounded into their tabula rasas like they are holy writ. Can this trend be reversed? I don’t know and don’t propose to speculate, but surmises are not the basis for the groundwork of what I am laying out.
What are the ideas of the Frankfurt School, where do they come from and what are their potential and concrete dangers to a free and majority white Gentile country (at least for a few more years until our government is completely run from Israel and Mexico) like the United States of America? Into this morass, this quagmire we shall delve happily (or perhaps tepidly) and perhaps walk away with a little more enlightenment and maybe a tad bit of horror as well.
For a simple description of the Frankfurt School let us turn to our favorite Zionist disseminator of skewed information, the Wikipedia library. Wikipedia, in this rare case, is surprisingly frank about its subject matter. They state:
“The Frankfurt School is a school of neo-Marxist social theory, social research, and philosophy. The grouping emerged at the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung) of the University of Frankfurt am Main in Germany when Max Horkheimer became the Institute’s director in 1930. The term ‘Frankfurt School’ is an informal term used to designate the thinkers affiliated with the Institute for Social Research or influenced by them. It is not the title of any institution, and the main thinkers of the Frankfurt School did not use the term to describe themselves.
The Frankfurt School gathered together dissident Marxists, severe critics of capitalism who believed that some of Marx’s followers had come to parrot a narrow selection of Marx’s ideas, usually in defense of orthodox Communist or Social-Democratic parties. Influenced especially by the failure of working-class revolutions in Western Europe after World War I and by the rise of Nazism in an economically, technologically, and culturally advanced nation (Germany), they took up the task of choosing what parts of Marx’s thought might serve to clarify social conditions which Marx himself had never seen. They drew on other schools of thought to fill in Marx’s perceived omissions.” 
All of the above is spot-on and concurs with my own research on the Frankfurt School, though Wikipedia does conveniently leave out the reality that every one of the “dissident Marxists” working for this leftist Fifth Column were Jewish, many of them having fled Nazi Germany after having rightly been seen as Trojan Horse traitors in that nation.
The difference between the Frankfurt School and the Old Left of politics is that these particular Jewish “scholars” (and scholars is too generous a name for them) and their Jewish adjuncts were fed up with the cautious socialism and orthodox reading of Karl Marx by leftist thinkers of the past that simply stressed an economic reading of the father of Communism’s influential works.
No, Marx had to be wed to other more all-encompassing thinkers so that his theories could be applied, or perhaps inflicted, in a more general and more “liberal” way upon an unsuspecting and benighted culture, thus morphing a “traditionalist” zeitgeist, which they believed was ripe for change and transformation, into something more akin to a fever swamp rife with numerous aggrieved, galvanized and empowered minorities which could fill the playbill as a sundry ragtag band of designated “proletariats.” To the Frankfurt School Jews, it wasn’t just the worker who was oppressed. It was almost everyone, save the white Gentile man, who took the role of the callous factory owner who had placed chains upon the poor, disenfranchised “proletariat” protagonist.
What was to be employed to accomplish such a dramatic social shift in an America now beginning to become awash in self-doubt about its own inherent and innate goodness? It was what these Marxists called “critical theory.” Before I delve into the intricacies of “critical theory” I will post a list of the names of the influential figures who chose to promote this “new way of seeing” and I will let the reader learn and understand what almost all of them have in common with each other. Below is the list and I encourage you to look up these individuals and engage in further research on them:
I see an interesting little coincidence in the above list, don’t you? Every surname, or almost every surname on this comprehensive list is Jewish in origin. In my opinion, there is nothing coincidental about it. If you are a frequent reader of Zionist Watch, you will already know a good bit about the crucial role that Jews played in the Bolshevik Revolution and the Communization of Russia.
What is critical theory? Here’s a lengthy explanation of this unusual departure from centuries of Enlightenment thinking, culminating in the disastrous train wreck of the countercultural “free love” 1960s era:
“Critical theory, in sociology and philosophy, is shorthand for critical theory of society or critical social theory, a label used by the Frankfurt School, i.e., members of the Institute for Social Research of the University of Frankfurt, their intellectual and social network, and those influenced by them intellectually, to describe their own work, oriented toward radical social change, in contradistinction to ‘traditional theory,’ i.e. theory in the positivistic, scientistic, or purely observational mode. In literature and literary criticism and cultural studies, by contrast, ‘critical theory‘ means something quite different, namely theory used in criticism.
The original critical social theorists were Marxists, and there is some evidence that in their choice of the phrase ‘critical theory of society’ they were in part influenced by its sounding less politically controversial than ‘Marxism’. Nevertheless there were other substantive reasons for this choice. First, they were explicitly linking up with the critical philosophy of Immanuel Kant, where the term critique meant philosophical reflection on the limits of claims made for certain kinds of knowledge and a direct connection between such critique and the emphasis on moral autonomy. In an intellectual context defined by dogmatic positivism and scientism on the one hand and dogmatic ’scientific socialism’ on the other, critical theory meant to rehabilitate through its philosophically critical approach an orientation toward revolutionary agency, or at least its possibility, at a time when it seemed in decline.” 
We can see crystal clear that “critical theory” was a camouflage for very extreme Marxist ideas that would not generally be accepted or swallowed by Middle America. To induce the populace, chiefly the young college populace to swallow the poison pill of Marxian indoctrination, these Jewish intellectuals gave the capsule a pseudo-sweet coating called “critical theory” to make it more palatable to their intended target audience. After all, Marxism or Marxism-Leninism is a pretty hard sell, especially after the arduous stand-off/détente/stand-off switchback of many decades of Cold War.
What else does this ideology entail? Critical theory signified a shift in the institutions, what social scientist William Norman Grigg describes when he states:
“In his study The Two Revolutions: Gramsci and the Dilemmas of Western Marxism, Marxist theoretician Carl Boggs emphasizes that ‘the transition to socialism must occur on two distinct but interwoven terrains — the state and the economy.’ Those seeking the triumph of socialist revolution will not prevail by simply overthrowing ‘the existing state machinery, or [destroying] the old institutions, or even [bringing] into power leaders calling themselves ‘communists.’ Beneath the level of insurrection and statecraft there must be a gradual conquest of social power, initiated by popular subversive forces emerging from within the very heart of capitalist society.’ Rudi Dutschke described this process as ‘the long march through the institutions’ — the Marxist conquest of universities, schools, the news media, entertainment, churches and other religious bodies, tax-exempt foundations, and other key institutions.’” 
The injection of critical theory and other Frankfurt ideas were the first baby steps in “the long march through the institutions” that Dutschke relished in his utopian wet dreams. The replacement of capitalism with socialism took place at a steady rate, much like the takeover of the universities, and it did arrive, mangy and foaming at the mouth, its arrival heralded and birthed by the anti-capitalist midwives of the Frankfurt School Communists. Grigg in his commentary conveniently manages to sidestep any mention of the thoroughly Jewish nature of all these ideas, pinning the blame on an amorphous Left instead, but that is hardly surprising considering the contemporary intellectual climate in America.
While hooking their wagon, at least in name, to the star of Immanuel Kant’s venerable philosophical legacy, these social engineers tried hard to give their pseudo-scholarship an air of legitimacy that, upon closer inspection, vanishes into thin air, leaving behind nothing but an anti-Gentilist, anti-white and anti-American residue of decay. These were not real social scientists, philosophers and thinkers, but revolutionaries of the Jewish stripe, intent on nothing less than total eradication of all Gentile culture. We will delve deeper into that momentarily, uncovering and bringing to the light of day the tools they chose to accomplish this sledge hammering of what economist John Kenneth Galbraith, in his reference to traditionalist or conservative precepts, snidely labeled as “conventional wisdom.”
The Long March has distinctly occured, and we see more and more evidence of its wholesale control of the institutions that in the past once made this country great, but now spend their free time collapsing our foundations. The colleges, the universities, many of the think tanks, Hollywood, the leftist media, some publishing companies, periodicals and journals have all succumbed to the wave of Frankfurt influence and the masterdom of their toxicants. Considering the preponderance of Jews in elite academia, this was almost inevitable.
To avoid making this essay and expose too long-winded, I will save the interpretation and explanation of other Frankfurt concepts, such as “the language of pathology” (my own nomenclature for certain Frankfurt ideas) and “repressive tolerance” for the second part of this work. I hope you have enjoyed part one.