PDA

View Full Version : The Birth Of Cultural Marxism: How The "Frankfurt School" Changed America



Ares
13th August 2016, 08:03 AM
The 1950s were a simple, romantic, and golden time in America.

California beaches, suburbia, and style. Atlas Shrugged was published, NASA was formed, and Elvis rocked the nation. Every year from 1950–1959 saw over 4 million babies born. The nation stood atop the world in every field.

It was an era of great economic prosperity in The Land of the Free.

http://ggc-gg-images.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/newsletters/Image_1_20160812_TPP.jpg

So, what happened to the American traits of confidence, pride, and accountability?

The roots of Western cultural decay are very deep, having first sprouted a century ago. It began with a loose clan of ideologues inside Europe’s communist movement. Today, it is known as the Frankfurt School, and its ideals have perverted American society.
When Outcomes Fail, Just Change the Theory

Before WWI, Marxist theory held that if war broke out in Europe, the working classes would rise up against the bourgeoisie and create a communist revolution.

Well, as is the case with much of Marxist theory, things didn’t go too well. When war broke out in 1914, instead of starting a revolution, the proletariat put on their uniforms and went off to war.

After the war ended, Marxist theorists were left to ask, “What went wrong?”

Two very prominent Marxists thinkers of the day were Antonio Gramsci and Georg Lukács. Each man, on his own, concluded that the working class of Europe had been blinded by the success of Western democracy and capitalism. They reasoned that until both had been destroyed, a communist revolution was not possible.

Gramsci and Lukács were both active in the Communist party, but their lives took very different paths.

Gramsci was jailed by Mussolini in Italy where he died in 1937 due to poor health.

In 1918, Lukács became minister of culture in Bolshevik Hungary. During this time, Lukács realized that if the family unit and sexual morals were eroded, society could be broken down.

Lukács implemented a policy he titled “cultural terrorism,” which focused on these two objectives. A major part of the policy was to target children’s minds through lectures that encouraged them to deride and reject Christian ethics.

In these lectures, graphic sexual matter was presented to children, and they were taught about loose sexual conduct.

Here again, a Marxist theory had failed to take hold in the real world. The people were outraged at Lukács’ program, and he fled Hungary when Romania invaded in 1919.
The Birth of Cultural Marxism

All was quiet on the Marxist front until 1923 when the cultural terrorist turned up for a “Marxist study week” in Frankfurt, Germany. There, Lukács met a young, wealthy Marxist named Felix Weil.

Until Lukács showed up, classical Marxist theory was based solely on the economic changes needed to overthrow class conflict. Weil was enthused by Lukács’ cultural angle on Marxism.

Weil’s interest led him to fund a new Marxist think tank—the Institute for Social Research. It would later come to be known as simply The Frankfurt School.

In 1930, the school changed course under new director Max Horkheimer. The team began mixing the ideas of Sigmund Freud with those of Marx, and cultural Marxism was born.

In classical Marxism, the workers of the world were oppressed by the ruling classes. The new theory was that everyone in society was psychologically oppressed by the institutions of Western culture. The school concluded that this new focus would need new vanguards to spur the change. The workers were not able to rise up on their own.

As fate would have it, the National Socialists came to power in Germany in 1933. It was a bad time and place to be a Jewish Marxist, as most of the school’s faculty was. So, the school moved to New York City, the bastion of Western culture at the time.
Coming to America

In 1934, the school was reborn at Columbia University. Its members began to exert their ideas on American culture.

It was at Columbia University that the school honed the tool it would use to destroy Western culture: the printed word.

The school published a lot of popular material. The first of these was Critical Theory.

Critical Theory is a play on semantics. The theory was simple: criticize every pillar of Western culture—family, democracy, common law, freedom of speech, and others. The hope was that these pillars would crumble under the pressure.

Next was a book Theodor Adorno co-authored, The Authoritarian Personality. It redefined traditional American views on gender roles and sexual mores as “prejudice.” Adorno compared them to the traditions that led to the rise of fascism in Europe.

Is it just a coincidence that the go-to slur for the politically correct today is “fascist”?

The school pushed its shift away from economics and toward Freud by publishing works on psychological repression.

Their works split society into two main groups: the oppressors and the victims. They argued that history and reality were shaped by those groups who controlled traditional institutions. At the time, that was code for males of European descent.

From there, they argued that the social roles of men and women were due to gender differences defined by the “oppressors.” In other words, gender did not exist in reality but was merely a “social construct.”
A Coalition of Victims

Adorno and Horkheimer returned to Germany when WWII ended. Herbert Marcuse, another member of the school, stayed in America. In 1955, he published Eros and Civilization.

In the book, Marcuse argued that Western culture was inherently repressive because it gave up happiness for social progress.

The book called for “polymorphous perversity,” a concept crafted by Freud. It posed the idea of sexual pleasure outside the traditional norms. Eros and Civilization would become very influential in shaping the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

Marcuse would be the one to answer Horkheimer’s question from the 1930s: Who would replace the working class as the new vanguards of the Marxist revolution?

Marcuse believed that it would be a victim coalition of minorities—blacks, women, and homosexuals.

The social movements of the 1960s—black power, feminism, gay rights, sexual liberation—gave Marcuse a unique vehicle to release cultural Marxist ideas into the mainstream. Railing against all things “establishment,” The Frankfurt School’s ideals caught on like wildfire across American universities.

Marcuse then published Repressive Tolerance in 1965 as the various social movements in America were in full swing. In it, he argued that tolerance of all values and ideas meant the repression of “correct” ideas.

It was here that Marcuse coined the term “liberating tolerance.” It called for tolerance of any ideas coming from the left but intolerance of those from the right. One of the overarching themes of the Frankfurt School was total intolerance for any viewpoint but its own. That is also a basic trait of today’s political-correctness believers.

To quote Max Horkheimer, “Logic is not independent of content.”
Recalling the Words of Winston (Not That One)

The Frankfurt School’s work has had a deep impact on American culture. It has recast the homogenous America of the 1950s into today’s divided, animosity-filled nation.

In turn, this has contributed to the undeniable breakdown of the family unit, as well as identity politics, radical feminism, and racial polarization in America.

It’s hard to decide if today’s culture is more like Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley’s Brave New World.

Never one to buck a populist trend, the political establishment in America has fully embraced the ideas of the Frankfurt School and has pushed them on American society through public miseducation.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the beacons of progressivism, are both disciples of Saul Alinsky, a devoted cultural Marxist.

And so we now live in a hyper-sensitive society in which social memes and feelings have overtaken biological and objective reality as the main determinants of right and wrong.

Political correctness is a war on logic and reason.

To quote Winston, the protagonist in Orwell’s dystopia, “Freedom is the freedom to say that 2+2=4.”

Today, America is not free.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-12/birth-cultural-marxism-how-frankfurt-school-changed-america

crimethink
13th August 2016, 05:32 PM
It should be no surprise that the most influential of Culturo-Economic Bolshevist "thought" materialized in the banking capital of Germany: Frankfurt am Main.

Frankfurt has been a nest of bankster demons from before Mayer Amschel Rothschild, and it remains so, today, with the "European" (sic) Central Bank there.

Santa
13th August 2016, 09:21 PM
Ironic, isn't it...that the penultimate capitalists turn out to be the penultimate communists. The Rube Goldberg machine of economics. Perpetual revolution.


It should be no surprise that the most influential of Culturo-Economic Bolshevist "thought" materialized in the banking capital of Germany: Frankfurt am Main.

Frankfurt has been a nest of bankster demons from before Mayer Amschel Rothschild, and it remains so, today, with the "European" (sic) Central Bank there.

crimethink
13th August 2016, 10:58 PM
Ironic, isn't it...that the penultimate capitalists turn out to be the penultimate communists. The Rube Goldberg machine of economics. Perpetual revolution.

Thesis (Capitalism) vs. Antithesis (Marxism) = Synthesis (Satanic Globalist Total Government)

Jewboo
6th October 2018, 09:16 PM
https://media.8ch.net/file_store/28f7f1f65a8bbaf17d51b458d7e3bc13390a77caf6ef6fd473 3985b861dbd8c3.jpeg

End Times
28th December 2018, 10:40 PM
10058

Neuro
28th December 2018, 11:05 PM
Ironic, isn't it...that the penultimate capitalists turn out to be the penultimate communists. The Rube Goldberg machine of economics. Perpetual revolution.

Without the support of those that got their riches from stealing from the working poor, communism wouldn’t have gone anywhere. But synthesis= Satanic globalist totalitarian government with the aid of cultural Marxism, as an opiate for the people, becomes clearer by the day!

keehah
13th January 2022, 09:13 AM
Marcuse would be the one to answer Horkheimer’s question from the 1930s: Who would replace the working class as the new vanguards of the Marxist revolution?

Marcuse believed that it would be a victim coalition...

Marcuse then published Repressive Tolerance in 1965 as the various social movements in America were in full swing. In it, he argued that tolerance of all values and ideas meant the repression of “correct” ideas.

It was here that Marcuse coined the term “liberating tolerance.” It called for tolerance of any ideas coming from the left but intolerance of those from the right. One of the overarching themes of the Frankfurt School was total intolerance for any viewpoint but its own. That is also a basic trait of today’s political-correctness believers.

nationalreview.com: The Left and ‘Discriminating Tolerance’ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/06/herbert-marcuse-and-new-intolerance/)

June 22, 2015
Marcuse argued that, because of the radical repressiveness of Western society, a tolerance for all viewpoints actually contributed to social oppression. A pervasive network of assumptions and biases implicitly privileges the viewpoint of the powerful, so that seemingly “equal” presentations of opposite opinions actually end up benefiting the viewpoint of the powerful. He offered the example of a magazine running a piece criticizing the FBI along with one praising the FBI. Fair and balanced? Not so fast, Marcuse said: “the chances are that the positive [story] wins because the image of [the FBI] is deeply engraved in the mind of the people.” Because of social programming, the inhabitants of a given society automatically favor certain values. The ideological playing field’s lack of levelness means that seemingly equal presentations of ideas are not really equal.

In the light of this situation, Marcuse made a rather cunning inversion (one that has been aped countless times since by cultural organs across the United States): The fact that society is so radically unequal means that we should be intolerant and repressive in the name of tolerance and liberty. He rejected what he termed “indiscriminate tolerance” — a tolerance that accepts all viewpoints — in favor of “liberating tolerance” or “discriminating tolerance.” Unlike many of his disciples, Marcuse was frank about what this intolerance would mean: “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”

Have you seen recent Democrat, NPR, TYT, CNN, MSNBC, etc. corporate news narrative around January 6 and the election?

Framing all attempts to make make elections safe from vote rigging is vote rigging, the January 6th riot was like the attacks on Pearl Harbor and 9-11. Ironically there is much truth to this as much of the Capital riot was the result of corrupt and crimminal federal public servant gay-ops lihop and false-flagging its own terrorism. Much of their corporate news on the request for election accounting turned into a some window's smashed riot is claiming pretty much the existence of ANY Republicanism now being framed as terrorism and the end of democracy. No exaggeration, I've seen clips of TYT, CNN and MSNBC doing this, they are producing a new level of devil insanity.

This corporate news tactic aligns with utilitarian immorality of a predatory controlled left's go-to tool of inverted herd 'virtue signaling' (aka mass formation psychosis, the inverted r in r/K theory) their election steal onto their political opponents. Many of these 'journalists' are already catipulting the propaganda that any future election failure of Democrats will be the result of 'continued' Republican cheating, the 'evidence' for this being Republicans concerned about cheating. No matter this same corporate news and Democrats did similar after the 2016 election for three years. Such is the current Federal deep-state controlled public service and corporate fake news hypocritic and immoral logic of satanic predatory herd control and signaling (a.k.a. critical theory and Marxism).

nytimes.com: Every Day Is Jan. 6 Now (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/01/opinion/january-6-attack-committee.html)

THE EDITORIAL BOARD Jan. 1, 2022
Thus the Capitol riot continues in statehouses across the country, in a bloodless, legalized form that no police officer can arrest and that no prosecutor can try in court...

A healthy, functioning political party faces its electoral losses by assessing what went wrong and redoubling its efforts to appeal to more voters the next time. The Republican Party, like authoritarian movements the world over, has shown itself recently to be incapable of doing this. Party leaders’ rhetoric suggests they see it as the only legitimate governing power and thus portrays anyone else’s victory as the result of fraud — hence the foundational falsehood that spurred the Jan. 6 attack, that Joe Biden didn’t win the election.

“The thing that’s most concerning is that it has endured in the face of all evidence,” said Representative Adam Kinzinger, one of the vanishingly few Republicans in Congress who remain committed to empirical reality and representative democracy. “And I’ve gotten to wonder if there is actually any evidence that would ever change certain people’s minds.”

The answer, for now, appears to be no...

Above all, we should stop underestimating the threat facing the country. Countless times over the past six years, up to and including the events of Jan. 6, Mr. Trump and his allies openly projected their intent to do something outrageous or illegal or destructive. Every time, the common response was that they weren’t serious or that they would never succeed. How many times will we have to be proved wrong before we take it seriously? The sooner we do, the sooner we might hope to salvage a democracy that is in grave danger.

newdiscourses.com: Free OnlySubs: Why Every Day Is January 6 Now (https://newdiscourses.com/2022/01/free-onlysubs-why-every-day-is-january-6-now/)

JANUARY 12, 2022
On January 1 of this year, the New York Times told us that “Every Day is January 6 Now.” That’s obviously absurd, hyperreal, pseudo-real, but it’s also an echo from the past. While many have rightly made the comparison between that farce and the Reichstag Fire perpetrated by the National Socialists in order to grab power, I was immediately put in mind of a paragraph from Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay “Repressive Tolerance” when I saw that headline. “The whole post-fascist period is one of clear and present danger. Consequently, true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs,” Marcuse wrote. Every day is January 6 now, and our entire society is in such an emergency situation, one of clear and present danger.

In this episode (https://youtu.be/N-FOM3FEGV4) [29min]... I walk you through the crucial paragraphs of Marcuse’s essay in light of this ridiculous and ridiculously dangerous pronouncement. Join me to learn even more about how we find ourselves living in Marcuse’s nightmarish neo-Marxist philosophy.

keehah
9th June 2022, 10:29 AM
Good article (the OP).


Thesis (Capitalism) vs. Antithesis (Marxism) = Synthesis (Satanic Globalist Total Government)

Yep. And 'funny' how the Marxists and NeoMarxists did not take the time to define or explain the synthesis their dialectics work towards. Their utopia is now being explained by the WEF and such.

No longer theory and hypothesis but rather obvious in 2022 that Frankfort school degeneracy and predation tactics are what now plague the west.

So the Frankfurt School Marxists realized capitalism was too good to workers and so the workers would not revolt. So manufacturing was moved out of the west and the internationalist predators invented NeoMarxism. Herbert Marcuse is considered the founder of NeoMarxism and its Critical Theories and was recruited to work and write for the OSS (forerunner to the CIA).

Instead of Marxism cancelling private property and independence it was now to be NeoMarxism cancelling 'white' people and western society.

No longer would these communists focus on recruiting productive workers or the proletariat, but rather the "ghetto populations" (Marcuse's own words).

"This new consciousness and the instinctual rebellion isolate such opposition from the masses and from the majority of organized labor, the integrated majority, and make for the concentration of radical politics in active minorities, mainly among the young middle-class intelligentsia, and among the ghetto populations. Here, prior to all political strategy and organization, liberation becomes a vital, “biological” need."

The recent era left and the institutions that support them are not playing morally or fairly and in fact work to enslave people and nations. Alinsky tactics yes but the why and how is clearly explained by Marcuse himself.

"The long march includes the concerted effort to build up counterinstitutions. They have long been an aim of the movement, but the lack of funds was greatly responsible for their weakness and their inferior quality. They must be made competitive. This is especially important for the development of radical, "free" media. The fact that the radical Left has no equal access to the great chains of information and indoctrination is largely responsible for its isolation.”

These communists have successfully marched through these institutions and many large corporations as well.

"Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”

Utilizing sex for the promotion of satanism and degeneracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudo-Marxism
Eros and Civilization is one of Marcuse's best known early works. Written in 1955, it is an attempted dialectical synthesis of Marx and Freud whose title alludes to Freud's Civilization and its Discontents. Marcuse's vision of a non-repressive society (which runs rather counter to Freud's conception of society as naturally and necessarily repressive), based on Marx and Freud, anticipated the values of 1960s countercultural social movements.

“Whether ritualized or not, art contains the rationality of negation. In its advanced positions, it is the Great Refusal—the protest against that which is.”

"The critical theory of society possesses no concepts which could bridge the gap between the present and its future; holding no promise and showing no success, it remains negative. Thus it wants to remain loyal to those who, without hope, have given and give their life to the Great Refusal."

Marxism and NeoMarxism are the Protocols of Zion for Dummies.

Dummies in this case being more specifically 'useful idiots'

Peoples trying to navigate and survive this degeneracy formerly known as western civilization would be better served by learning more about Marcuse and his NeoMarxist contemporaries and the real reason behind the satanism coming from today's left. Too much supposed opposition journalism is 'this week in stupid' ridicule of the NeoMarxist's useful idiot victims that effectively supports communism via yet more promotion of division between citizens and victim ('leftist') ridiculing a blaming rather than exposure of the left's predators and their tactics.





'

keehah
18th June 2022, 09:05 AM
Some result of Neo-Marxist demoralization:

dailymail.co.uk: British public hugely overestimates the size of minority groups, including trans and gay people and vegans, study shows (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10885319/British-public-overestimates-minority-groups-like-trans-gay-people-vegans-YouGov-poll-shows.html)

4 June 2022
The British public hugely overestimates the size of minorities, sparking fears ‘woke’ identity politics are warping views of society.

When 1,800 people were asked by pollster YouGov how many people were transgender, for instance, they thought it was about five per cent of the population.

In reality, between 0.3 per cent and 0.7 per cent identify as a different gender from their biological sex – the gap between the estimate and the reality appearing to show how the transgender rights debate has skewed perceptions.

While most Britons are white and heterosexual, the poll found many believe the UK is made up of far more racial, religious and sexual minorities than it actually is. When the survey asked what proportion of adults was white, the median answer was 65 per cent – yet the true figure is 87 per cent.

And while official figures show that black Britons make up about three per cent of the population, those questioned estimated the proportion at 20 per cent. Britons believed about 15 per cent of the population is Muslim, against the true figure of about four per cent, and they estimated the Jewish community stood at 10 per cent when it is one-twentieth that size.

The public also hugely overestimates the number of vegans and vegetarians – suggesting about 20 per cent refuse to eat animal products, when it is just four per cent. Results of the survey, commissioned by the Common Sense Campaign, have been used to gauge the accuracy of minority representation in the media. Those surveyed were asked 16 questions to work out the overall perception of the make-up of the UK.

Tory MP Sir John Hayes said: ‘This distorted impression created by much of the broadcast and online media is so out of tune with the facts as to befuddle people about the true character of Britain. There are, of course, all sorts of minority groups that deserve our respect and regard.

‘The overwhelming majority of British people are drawn from a small number of groups. Media preoccupations with minorities are skewing the facts.’

The poll revealed that the public thinks 10 per cent of people are bisexual and 15 per cent are gay or lesbian. The true figures, official statistics say, are 1.3 per cent and 1.8 per cent respectively.

Survey participants were asked to estimate how many people earn more than £100,000. The median guess was 20 per cent. The real proportion is only three per cent.

The Common Sense Campaign said: ‘Diversity, particularly in the media, is evidently a positive and laudable aim. What these results show, however, is that they are playing into a misconception about Britain that under-represents some groups and over-represents others.

The country, it added, needs to be more accurately portrayed. ‘We risk going down the American route of seeing everything through the prism of identity,’ it said.

thefirsttv.com: Biden Asks Stunned Audience ‘When Was the Last Time You Saw Biracial Couples on TV?’ (https://www.thefirsttv.com/meltdown-biden-asks-stunned-audience-when-was-the-last-time-you-saw-biracial-couples-on-tv/)

Jun 9, 2022
President Biden baffled viewers on national television Wednesday night [6 8 2022 Jimmy Kimmel Live!] when he bizarrely asked the audience “when was the last time you saw biracial couples on TV?”

“I’m serious!! You turn on the TV, look at the ads, when’s the last time you saw biracial couples on TV? When’s the last time you saw.. I mean people are selling products.. they do ads and sell products and they say products when people they appeal to people”

woodman
18th June 2022, 01:16 PM
Some result of Neo-Marxist demoralization:

dailymail.co.uk: British public hugely overestimates the size of minority groups, including trans and gay people and vegans, study shows (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10885319/British-public-overestimates-minority-groups-like-trans-gay-people-vegans-YouGov-poll-shows.html)


thefirsttv.com: Biden Asks Stunned Audience ‘When Was the Last Time You Saw Biracial Couples on TV?’ (https://www.thefirsttv.com/meltdown-biden-asks-stunned-audience-when-was-the-last-time-you-saw-biracial-couples-on-tv/)
Perhaps the British public is right about the percentages of Muslims and Blacks. Could be the pollsters are skewing the results to try to breed complacency when it truly is a take over. Hard to believe it is 87% white when the colonization has been going on so long.

keehah
30th July 2022, 01:37 PM
A very good explanation of Marxism and NeoMarxism and one that I expect is useful to share with friends and family!

Marxist Mad Libs or How to use Marxist Conflict Theory to Divide and Destroy Anything!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqKR1JFa5NM&t=1206s
38:57

It's time to criticize and conquer!
Think of a way to divide people (the Dividing Factor):
Who are The Winners?
Who are The Losers?
What gives winners their status? (the Status Marker)
What is the Ideology that enables this? (hint: try adding "-ism" to the dividing factor or status marker)
What is the System that enables the ideology? (hint: try adding "systemic" before your ideology)
What do you call your Revolutionary Philosophy?