Questions I Had Planned to Ask Prof. Kevin MacDonald - 12/20/09
The obvious question is this: How did you first come to be interested in the Frankfurt School? And did you have any biases towards their work before your investigation?
You quote extensively from Wiggerhaus. He sometimes seems to be enamored by Adorno, Marcuse and Horkheimer. May I suspect that he also has Marxist leanings?
Did the Frankfurt School exist, as I believe it did, solely as an instrument to advance the Marxist agenda in the West, with many so-called liberal academics still cling to it’s teachings today?
Was it Dewey alone who brought the Frankfurt School to Columbia? I see that Benjamin Spock got his doctorate there in 1929. Does he have any connection to these people? I perceive that his work sort of goes hand-in-hand with the other facets of 60’s radicalism. Looking at your work, he certainly seems to me to have been influenced by Adorno.
Is it possible to find out who financed the Frankfurt School?
In the introduction to chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique you relate that in Germany sociology was “referred to as a jewish science”. Is there a non-jewish sociology? I am a traditional Christian who sees no need for such a science in a properly homogenous society. I am NOT a catholic or a judaeo-Christian, but I am something of a student of classical and biblical literature who is suspicious of much of what sprung out of the Enlightenment, and especially out of the French Revolution. I see you have also rightfully criticized the work of Boas, the jewish anthropologist (i call him the “noble savage” idiot, but I also know that his sympathies are typical of jews).
While I am by no means a Catholic, I see the Enlightenment, and especially the French Revolution which it helped to produce, as the beginning of the jewish attempt to triumph over Christendom. From my own viewpoint, I perceive that the jews have poisoned Psychology and related fields to the point where they also often appear to be jewish perversions. Banking families such as the de Medicis, while they were perceived as pious and just, actually assisted in the decline of catholicism and were the patrons of many early Enlightenment figures. What other fields of study have been affected by jews? Or what others of the so-called “sciences” have actually been frauds perpetrated by jews?
Does Horkheimer’s Studies in Prejudice seek to purposely deflect any thought that the actual behavior of jews in society might possibly be the actual cause for outbreaks of anti-semitism over the past two millennia? Reading Chapter 5 of your book, that is the perception I get, and I believe it was a predetermined purpose of his life’s work.
Adorno’s work The Authoritarian Personality must have had pre-conceived conclusions. It seems to be pseudo-science developed as a weapon. Do you think it was purposely designed to undermine family values in the first place? I think that the jews deliberately took advantage of our open society to usurp it, and now that it is usurped, the jews want to close it up with hate crime laws!
Personally, I do not believe there was a holocaust at all. You quote statements from both Adorno and Horkheimer in which these men infer that they were profoundly affected by events supposedly having occurred at Auschwitz. How could that be so, if when those events took place, these men were sitting comfortably in their university offices here in America? It seems to me that the entire holocaust industry exists as an attempt to ensure that there can be no criticism of jews regardless of what they do, and that Adorno’s work goes hand-in-hand to achieve that same effect.
You make a statement pointing out a goal of the Frankfurt School, which was that all societies were “to be transformed into utopias of cultural pluralism”. The destruction of national boundaries is also a desire expressed by the Communist Manifesto. Certainly you would agree that the Frankfurt School pseudo-science was purposely created long in advance to destroy German culture from within, and when Hitler stood in the way of that, they had much greater success here?
The critical theory of the Frankfurt School seems to me to be a modern device of the jew developed to destroy their old foe, Christianity, and – as I believe – the White race in general, from the inside out. Yet you have done very well to recognize and label their methods as “unscientific” but how does a voice in the wilderness confront so many decades of effective propaganda?
It seems to me that the purpose of the jew in our culture is to totally distort reality, and to destroy our culture with his substitute reality. Hollywood is an excellent vehicle for that. Was the Horkheimer group hostile to empirical science in sociology because they already knew that many Christians were hostile to jews due to their actual experiences with jews?
Did the Frankfurt School really develop divisions due to philosophical differences? Or could it be that they did so in pretense, so that they could more easily enlarge their audiences and gain even more proselytes? Once they split up, they weren’t able to infect more Universities than if they had all remained at Columbia? If they show a divergence in philosophies and write about each other, wouldn’t they gather attention that they may not have gotten otherwise? Could that have been a ploy?
You make the statement that “We shall see that psychoanalysis as a nonempirically based hermeneutic (relative to interpretation) structure (which nevertheless masqueraded as a science) turned out to be an infinitely plastic tool in the hands of those constructing a theory aimed at achieving purely political objectives. ” That, I believe, is an excellent evaluation. But was the Horkheimer group naturally hostile to empirical science in sociology because they already knew that Christians were hostile to jews because of their experiences with jews?
You show that Horkheimer’s and Adorno’s theories of anti-Semitism were entirely non-empirical. Not being a psychologist, it may be difficult for me to quantify this, so I will try to put it simply. If my abhorrent behavior is normal to me, and repulsive to you, would it not be natural for me to blame you for rejecting me? Would I ever really understand why my behavior is abhorrent?
Could you imagine that certain abhorrent behavioral qualities may be innate? Is it fair to make the assessment that Aryans even without Christianity have been repulsed by certain qualities found to be prevalent among jews for many centuries, that they are alien to us and shall forever remain so?
Concerning your comments regarding the shift from sociology to psychology in the work of Horkheimer and Adorno, is it the definition of “human nature” in the mind of the jew that is the most fundamental problem here? Because how I feel about my own family seems to me to reflect my nature, and my experience is nothing like they have ever described. Yet I perceive that the jewish nature is absolutely and naturally contrary to my own! Is the jewish perception of human nature really that of animal nature, as some say Rousseau described the noble savage, although I think perhaps Boas tried to legitimize a different perception in the name of science?
REVIEW OF THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
Is this book, if I may summarize it, is a concocted study aiming at some sort of proof that, since jews do no wrong, any ill feeling towards the jews by any of their hosts is always the fault of the structure of the host society itself?
If I run enough studies and assess the results, it would be rather easy, I think, after a few trial runs, to formulate questions that get the answers I want. Is that what Adorno and Herkheimer did in their studies?
Why would The Authoritarian Personality even contain a chapter on Anti-Semitism? Aren’t there forms of authoritarianism in the synagogue and in the ghetto, and even in Jewish families? Did it contain similar chapters on Anti-Romanism or Anti-Hellenism? How could they justify such content without betraying their own bias?
What we have here, to me, is a pseudo-science constructed to undermine the Christian – or Aryan if you would rather have it – family unit, because certain jews have predetermined that the family structure in the west is naturally anti-Semitic. This seems to me to be a veiled but blatant assault on the wider European culture by the Marxists jews, which their co-religionists in the west fully embrace.
You have said that the philosophical theory of anti-Semitism set forth by Horkheimer and Adorno “was fundamentally an a priori philosophical theory and was not viewed by its authors as subject to either verification or falsification”. Is it a fault of academia, or of our culture in general, that such biased studies can have a seriously detrimental effect on society, long before subsequent academics can even get a chance to study and refute faulty research or convincingly point out the flaws in such theories? Have you noticed that the same people. all with marxist political views, who have a great amount of influence in both the media and certain academic disciplines, seem to have taken great advantage of the speed of the media as compared to the stodginess of academia to the detriment of our society? If someone such as Theodor Adorno publishes a study, and a few newspapers print articles about it, no matter how false the study is it is already well on the way to affecting public policy long before other academics can properly respond to it.
Isn’t there “peer review” in Sociology? Were there not any conservative sociologists contesting the work of Adorno?
Shouldn’t the subjective, or “soft”, sciences be required to demonstrate a predictable outcome before any changes which they recommend are enforced in society? And a method by which to wind back those changes should be a necessary part of the original plan. Regardless of what you may think of Christianity, a mostly homogenous Anglo-Saxon society founded upon Christian principles and strong patriarchal family units produced the most advanced culture the world has ever seen. Yet everything that the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the Frankfurt School has produced has had a destructive effect on that culture.
The Influence of the Frankfurt School
At the beginning of your review of The Authoritarian Personality you say: “The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson & Sanford 1950) is a true classic of research in social psychology. It has generated thousands of studies, and references continue to appear in textbooks, although in recent years there has been increasing criticism and rejection of the personality approach to intergroup prejudice and hostility.” But in your summary of its impact you say this: “Although it is difficult to assess the effect of works like The Authoritarian Personality on gentile culture, there can be little question that the thrust of the radical critique of gentile culture in this work, as well as other works inspired by psychoanalysis and its derivatives, was to pathologize high-investment parenting and upward social mobility, as well as pride in family, religion, and country, among gentiles.”
Are you familiar with the work of the conservative writer Ralph de Toledano, ? What do you think of the idea that the Institute for Social Research was conceived at a Moscow think tank as a weapon against the West?
De Toledano also seems to present a much stronger conclusion than you do concerning the effect of the Frankfurt School on society, and I must agree, for I believe that the fruits of the Frankfurt School are responsible for many of our problems today. It is easy for me to agree that the educators and other professionals which Columbia produced throughout the last 80 years both were and remain to be advancers of the Marxist agenda – whether they are conscious of that fact or not. They have all become destroyers of our culture, rather than transmitters of it.
Quoting Nathanael Blake’s review of de Toledano’s Cry havoc:
... de Toledano chronicles how the likes of Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Wilhelm Reich, Kurt Lewin, and Max Horkheimer used it to pervert America. The author overreaches at times—Dewey would have been a poisonous influence even if he had never heard of the Frankfurt School—by stretching to involve the Frankfurt School in almost every nefarious intellectual project. There was no shortage of intellectual decay and subversion in the 20th century, far more than any one group could be responsible for. Still, the Frankfurt School was a major player in the corruption of the intellectuals, and de Toledano has provided a valuable account of how this came about.
Well, I have to admit that I think a lot like Hitler did. To me Adorno, Marcuse and company are a bunch of well-funded jewish perverts whose job it was to legitimize evil talmudic philosophies in mainstream western academia, thereby supplanting Christian thought with their own kabalistic perversions. They also built a defense for their compatriot jewish perverts by deflecting all causes of anti-semitism away from the behavior of the jews as a minority in society.
You wrote a good article, Organized Jewry Opposes Free Speech, to me this reflects the results of the Frankfurt School’s work: that jews are now comfortable that they have usurped our society, and by removing free speech they can maintain that control. For that reason the ADL campaigns to have even the most innocuous political opposition labelled as “hate”. Free speech is something that generations of ancient Greeks and Romans also sought – to get out from under the heels of tyrants. It is also a Christian ideal, and it must be preserved at all costs.
Alan Ginsburg attended Columbia. Jerry Rubin attended Berkeley where Adorno was. Abbie Hoffman and Angela Davis studied under Marcuse at Brandeis University. And all the 60’s radicals were enamored by the mainstream media, so there surely seems to be bigger forces at play in all of this. The marxist Cloward-Piven Strategy came out of Columbia. When Bill Ayers crawled back out of the sewer, he went to Columbia. None of this is a coincidence.
You give a very good assessment of the countercultural revolution where you say that:
“We have seen that despite this antagonistic perspective on gentile culture, Jewish 1960s radicals continued to identify with their parents and with Judaism. The countercultural revolution was in a very deep sense a mission to the gentiles in which adaptive behavior and group-identifications of gentiles were pathologized while Jewish group identification, ingroup pride, family pride, upward social mobility, and group continuity retained their psychological importance and positive moral evaluation. In this regard, the behavior of these radicals was exactly analogous to that of the authors of The Authoritarian Personality and Jewish involvement in psychoanalysis and radical politics generally: Gentile culture and gentile group strategies are fundamentally pathological and are to be anathemized in the interests of making the world safe for Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy.
I believe that Alan Ginsburg’s “Howl” announced the impending counter-cultural revolution, and that with so much of the media and entertainment industries working hand-in-hand with these so-called revolutionaries, there were evidently much greater forces behind it all, and that the Frankfurt School was simply a tool of those forces, but it was a major tool because it influenced several generations of academics and workers in the social sciences.
I have read enough about the Talmud, and enough excerpts from the Talmud, to understand that the jew seeks to reduce all mankind to his basest sexual nature. The concept of “free love” is a jewish conception which saw a manifestation in the Bolshevik Revolution as well as in 1960’s America. Is it fair to say that the Frankfurt School are among the intellectual torchbearers of the moral decay thzt we see so prevalent in America today?
Horkheimer and Adorno equated fascism with Christianity. The jews today, especially those in Palestine, publicly proclaim Christians to be Nazis. This cannot come from the Frankfurt School, instead, I believe that both are a reflection of the teachings of Talmudic Rabbinism. Do you think that is a fair assessment?
Slanders such as “homophobe”, are they not a part of this same perverted mentality? Do I have to be afraid of sexual deviants simply for considering public displays of such deviancy to be contrary to the well-being of society?
You have written that the “tendency to interpret anti-Semitism as fundamentally deriving from suppressing nature is central to Studies in Prejudice”, but hasn’t the entire PC crowd extended that same evaluation to anyone who is anti-anything which they promote?
You explain very well the unveiled attacks of Horkheimer and Adorno on both Capitalism and Fascism, and generally on “cohesive gentile group strategies”. This seems quite clearly to me to be an organized effort for the advancement of Marxism, in everything but name. Why didn’t contemporary academics countenance any of this? Or if they did, were their countenances suppressed? Anyone who has even causally perused the Communist Manifesto, and understood that marxism is jewish in nature, should recognize Horkheimer and Adorno’s true motives.
Where is this phrase from: “Happiness without power, wages without work, a home without frontiers, religion without myth”, and do you think the jews really believe it? Or is it another lie, like “ye surely won’t die”?
You also wrote that “The replacement of moral and political argument by reckless psychologizing not only enabled Adorno and his collaborators to dismiss unacceptable political opinions on medical grounds”. Doesn’t the ADL and SPLC today attempt to dismiss those same opinions on criminal grounds? Yet you yourself have also recognized this trend in subsequent paragraphs!