Why are far right reactionaries obsessed with smearing a bunch of theorists who've had zero influence on the public at...

with bullets

Who are you trying to fool, Rabbi?

The Frankfurt School embodies the jewish, well, culture of critique ... meaning their tribal authoritarianism and the utter gall they display in the belief that they have the right to subversively attack the culture and society of those they live among.

The Frankfurt school jews did this openly and blatantly, and it cuts through to the essence of why jews are a sick and destructive race, that to not see it you have to be about near dumb.

Ironic /pol/ posting is a thousand times more cancerous than actual /pol/ posting.

I've never posted on pol and fail to see the irony you speak of.

I'm a newfag when it comes Veeky Forums. Do posts like this whopper of shit happen very often? Is he trolling or does he have the thought capacity of a vegetable?

His work draws from many different perspectives: marxist/neo-marxist thought; Kantian epistemology and ethics; American pragmatism. His greatest preocupation lies in the sustenance of democracy and democratic values in the public sphere, which in turn makes him both an avid critic of fascism and authoritarian leftist regimes.

>wrong
What's wrong about what I said? The influence of the Frankfurt School on the 60s' climate of social unrest and the New Left is notorious and widely recognized. Do you think those ideas just vanished from our collective consciousness? By the way, my college syllabus contained Adorno and Benjamin. I've also studied a whole lot of Habermas in post-grad.

I think your reasoning is slightly strawman-y. I've watched some of the material /pol/tards frequently refer to when talking about "cultural marxism" and, while some conspiratory undertones were certainly present, there was also argumentation in the same sense I proposed, meanwhile also referring to the role of neo-Marxist thought, particularly in the works of Antonio Gramsci. Are you familiar with his work? The strategy of "passive revolution" and its relation to cultural hegemony in the subversion of institutions, language and education sound congruent enough with the "cultural marxist" narrative /pol/ pushes forward.

I'm not trolling and you should educate yourself before you label what anyone else says a whopper of shit. Do you even know what the Frankfurt School is, little one?

Stop this jewish meme.

>Frankfurt School

Herbert Marcuse - jew
Theodor Adorno - half jew
Max Horkheimer - jew
Walter Benjamin - jew
Erich Fromm - half jew
Jürgen Habermas - jew
Friedrich Pollock - jew
Leo Löwenthal - jew
Siegfried Kracauer - jew
Otto Kirchheimer - jew

If my description is strawman-y, it's only because I'm working off of a generalization of what is itself a strawman conspiracy. And while your bringing up of Gramsci is valid, it doesn't speak to the actual effects that /pol/ claims cultural marxism brought about, namely SJWs and the generalized notion of "degeneracy".
Gramsci's idea of soft or passive revolution have also been pretty vehemently critiqued since then, (see: the inevitable failure of situationism). Furthermore, which I think is at the heart of all of this, capital-L Liberal education and ideology isn't Marxist in any manner, and is obviously opposed to it.

>By the way, my college syllabus contained Adorno and Benjamin. I've also studied a whole lot of Habermas in post-grad.
lmao who the fuck cares

Benjamin, Adorno, and Horkheimer were required reading for lit theory back in the day. I am familiar with the ideas of the other Frank-bros but i'm afraid I haven't read them. If by "educate yourself" you mean "think exactly like I think" I'm just gonna pass you up on that offer you precious son of a bitch.

Just because communists realized that they could just build up political power through the cultural sphere while letting the economy remains in private hands, it doesn't mean they have ceased to be communists.

Well, I'll reiterate since you clearly didn't understand what you were reading back in the day: educate yourself. The Frankfurt School was a collection of jews whose work focused primarily on deconstructing and pathologizing white culture and society. If such a statement takes you this much by surprise, you probably aren't ready for this place, though the naiveté is certainly adorable.

they're dweebs alright

>whose work focused primarily on deconstructing and pathologizing white culture and society
Imagine if you really thought the Frankfurt school set out to do this

i'd only hope that you are posting this to further your own misunderstood convictions, rather than genuinely thinking anyone with prior knowledge of this topic could read what you are saying and find themselves caught in your very same conviction. you fucking retard.

Adorable indeed! That was precisely the word that always comes to my mind whenever I see some booger-eater prattle on about God's chosen people. It's so reminiscent of little children constructing the most horrifying boogeymen and monsters out of their deepest insecurities. Imagine never outgrowing that need to project your own inner weakness/fragility onto a real life boogeyman! Sweetheart, you have nothing but my pity.

Well, that's exactly what they did. They attacked the foundations of white society. This is what jews do in general though, which is why what I'm saying is not controversial or even ambiguous: it was blatant. They pathologized normal behavior and promoted socially destructive concepts, and are a large reason why western society is in the degenerate state it is today. Jews are a very sick people who attack from within through subversion. There are many examples of this, and the Frankfurt School is merely one.

>Capitalism
>The foundations of white society

Not an argument.

You seem quite immature. No one can help you understand the things you currently don't, it's something you have to do yourself.

Not an argument.

they didnt call it "white culture" but thats more or less what they did. the real difference between what right-wing reactionaries accuse the frankfurt school of doing and what the frankfurt school actually did really only differs in language and perspective. frankfurt school wanted to deconstruct and subvert sociological tenets of western capitalism and what they perceived to be the precedents of authoritarianism and fascism.

what the frankfurt school identified as precedents of authoritarianism worthy of subversion, contemporary right-wing reactionaries identify as tenets of western civilization worth defending.

Was referring more to the family and patriarchal norms.

>Family and patriarchal norms
>The foundations of white society
More and more one realizes that you people know fucking nothing about what you supposedly claim to protect. Patriarchal white society, by which assumable you're referring to one that is thoroughly modern, is far more the result of economic conditions and need than any sort of cultural heritage. The worst part, is that the so-called degeneracy you're railing against is what inevitably stems from the progression of capitalism. Maybe you'd know this if you actually took the time to read the frankfurts.

I like seeing the shitposter thrash around in confusion because his ironic and disingenuous claim is indefensible and he can only stick his head in the sand and shout reiterations because he can't stand the indignity of someone pulling the curtain on his performance.

>marriage, heterosexuality, the nuclear family, the nation/race, etc.
>Capitalism

You received lots of frowny faces in school I assume.

why are zizek fanboys so retarded?

Your opinion is idiotic, capitalism has nothing to do with this conversation, and the norms I'm speaking of are inherent and immemorial. Your perspective will continue to be retarded if you keep reading these philosophical spooks who've handed it down to you.

Okay, I’ll bite. How exactly did the Frankfurt school attack the foundations of white society? Specifically?

>when you realize capitalism is destroying the white race

by assaulting the commodification of the lifeworld and the dilution of all culture
oh wait that's either them or Heidegger

What do you think would have happened had Hitler not have rose and forced them out of Germany? Shit, didn't Benjamin kill himself when he was approached by the gestapos?

The Culture of Critique has an entire chapter on it. Pdf is online, get to it if you want to learn about it. It revolves around associating normal male behavior with fascism and the 'the authoritarian personality' jews associate with their oppression at the hands of the goyim, so they set out to deconstruct and pathologize that and the societies those men had built ... and voila, we are now in many ways reaping the fruits of that.

he actually killed himself for two reasons, the first being his physical inability to illegally cross into spain (france was surrendering and he would be deported back to germany and killed) and the german-soviet commercial agreement had come to fruition following the molotov ribbentrop pact. he felt that the soviet union, the marxist suture of his hopes and dreams for all nations had nightmarishly joined with the ultimate fascism hellbent on his complete annihilation.

Someone else would have risen in his place. Read about Weimar and what the jews were doing. The had destroyed Germany and turned Berlin into a giant brothel, not dissimilar to what they've done to LA.

"they had destroyed germany and turned berlin into a giant brothel!"
you realize weimar germany was arguably the artistic zenith of the last one hundred and fifty years right?
oh no wait you don't, you don't know anything about art history, music, architecture, or anything outside your selective world war 2 literature and propaganda pamphlets

you should spend less time on the internet senpai

To advance the opinion you just did is to openly display your own ignorance. Look into to Weimar Germany, really, not selectively, thoroughly, and you will see the cultural sickness the jews had spread within that society, along with the conditions that led to the nationalist backlash against jews. And you might even learn something about the present age you're living through, which is a mere reflection of that period: Weimerica.

Thanks for the answer, user. You got any source material besides COC that gives a bit of history of the Frankfurts in Germany?

>muh joos
why does every thread devolve into this

>2017
>people still are hung up on some pre-WWII jewish intellectuals trying to disseminate marxist ideals

It's fucking over, buddy boyos. Just bask in the afterglow of neoliberal victory for revolutionary youth is too busy discussing transex bathrooms and progressively stacking their demonstrations to disrupt society. By this point, the only threat to capitalism is capital itself and the markets.

The problem is that capitalism is on the fast track to becoming authoritarian welfare-state-capitalism, which is really just as awful if not worse.
Although honestly my main concern w/r/t capitalism is climate change these days.

Don't they come to similar conclusions. Is Adornos's assault on mass-culture not the left-wing embodiment of reactionary thought?

to make bookfags die
reading is degenerate

Hitting this new meme hard aren't you, Shlomo?

Can someone point me to proof of what areas of "white" society the Frankfurt school "killed"? And how their writing manifests in this decadence?

holy shit your actually right

>mfw /pol/ is what got me into Adorno and Benjamin in the first place
Thanks guys

>there is virtually nothing recognizably marxists going on in the academy any more

HAHAHAHA holy shit have you ever even set foot on a campus you dumb motherfucker? Oh, wait, it isn't "reeeeeeaaaaaallllllll" Marxism, right? I mean, when my mandatory English 1102 student instructor told us how to consider applying a Marxist analysis to MacDonald's "The Princess and the Goblin" that wasn't *REAL* Marxism, it was just a thing that he called Marxism because he was an ignorant bourgeois academic, right?

BTW I had to read about a half-dozen Frankfurt school members across three separate fields, many in mandatory classes.

No influence after the 60s though, tovarisch. Fucking pseuds jfc

The Long March of Institutions is just Capitalist propaganda and also a conspiracy theory

Max Horkheimer said the revolution wouldn't happen with guns, but with time. By infiltrating the educational institution and political offices, and their students are now the boomer professors. It was Marcuse's idea of repressive tolerance as a way to tolerate only leftists ideals for their global egalitarian utopia. They loved Freud and his attack of the father, denying specific parental roles to destroy the family. They pushed for matriarchal theory so as to undermine the judeo-Christian ideals of the west.

And I'm sure everyone in your class became a full-fldeged communist after reading Benjamin and doing an exercise aimed at aiding comprehension.
I read Schmitt in my political theory class and was asked to try to apply his ideas to current contexts, does that suddenly make my professor a Nazi for making sure we're actually understanding the text? Jesus christ m8.

>moving the goalposts this hard

>I read Marxist philosopher in school therefore the school is trying to make me a Marxist
I'm demonstrating the absurdity of that post by using Schmitt, a Nazi philosopher. It's not "moving the goalpost", it's responding to a nonsensical "retort". The fact that people teach Marxist texts doesn't make the academy marxist.

Yeah, a professor asking you to work within a marxist framework isn't at all incompatible with the claim that "there is virtually nothing recognizably marxists going on in the academy any more". And the fact that his syllabus contained several Frankfurt School texts isn't at all anathema to the notion that Frankfurtian though is absent from academy. That other user is just being absurd right now

The previous user is talking about professors who are themselves active Marxists, and to whom the academy is financially and intellectually supporting. There was a time period where Marxist professors (most notably, the Frankfurts themselves) were active in attempting to understand contemporary conditions in a Marxist framework and taught classes according to their views. But by and large today's professors are neoliberals and neocons who teach Marxist texts because they're influential in their field, not because the academy and its professors are Marxists or are trying to push a Marxist agenda. In this sense, there is nothing recognizably marxist going on in universities today, especially in America where you don't even read Marx in most economic classes.
This isn't hard to understand.

Stop spouting nonsense, Horkheimer was an extreme anti-communist, he even opposed social democrats from taking part in parliamentary elections.

All communists hate social democrats though

oh that is VERY hard for a reactionary, libertarian, alt-right person to understand. They are basically retarded.

They would much prefer to learn from Joe Rogan and drop-out Lauren Southern than read one. single. book.

Do not over estimate these people.

The only fields where Marx is now relevant are those that do not challenge the status quo, you will never see a single Marxist teaching economics at a uni unless he has other sources of income and is sponsored by people, like in the case of Wolff
Marxism is politically incorrect.

Talking about marxist texts out of their historical influence and asking you to apply marxist theory to analyse a work of literature are two fundamentally different situations. Also, the comparison with Schmitt is clearly a false equivalence: as far as I know, even though he was a Nazi, his theory isn't concerned with the Party's politics or the ideas purpoted by Hitler. An equivalent situation to applying marxist analysis to a text would be asking your students to parse any work of literature by applying the theory of Goebbels and his concern with degenerate art.

Not that guy, but there's Grand Hotel Abyss. Rather than portraying frankfurters as a bunch of scheming jews plotting the spiritual castration of the west, this book falls more in line with leftists perceptions that they were ivory tower theorists that realized that capitalism was entrenched far deeper than their orthodox Marxists counterparts would have imagined, and thus retreated back to pure theorizing and critique and effectively disavowing revolution.

>even though he was a Nazi, his theory isn't concerned with the Party's politics or the ideas purpoted by Hitler.
Not the guy you were replying to but this is bullshit, his ideas were pivotal in the nazi party's context, read On dictatorship.

I saw that book at B&N the other day. Pretty thick book. Would you recommend it?

>Talking about marxist texts out of their historical influence and asking you to apply marxist theory to analyse a work of literature are two fundamentally different situations
They're really not. If you read a theoretical text in a class, you're expected to be able to apply it to a situation to 1) show understanding, 2) raise potential problems with the text, show how it doesn't work. That's how education fucking works.

>as far as I know, even though he was a Nazi, his theory isn't concerned with the Party's politics or the ideas purpoted by Hitler
His ideas are identifiably Fascistic in the proper sense of the word (this is not meant as a smear, I actually really like Schmitt). This point changes nothing about the fundamental idea of the example.

>asking your students to parse any work of literature by applying the theory of Goebbels and his concern with degenerate art.
If you're teaching Goebbels (Evola would be a more likely situation) you ought to do so, because students fucking learn through application.

I live in Brazil and Paulo Freire, a marxist scholar, is an unanimous figure in our pedagogy departments. Do you consider the field that forms teachers unable to challenge the status quo? Also, most of our economists learn marxist theory.

I'm not very familiar with Schmitt, but from what I've heard his theory isn't concerned with purging Jews or the supremacy of the aryan race. Another example: learning Heidegger is also fundamentally different from aplied marxist theory.

Habermas isnt Jewish afaik.
German wiki states his father was a member of the nazi party.

>I live in Brazil and Paulo Freire, a marxist scholar, is an unanimous figure in our pedagogy departments
Sick, but that is not the case in America at all, which is the main target and concern for Cultural Marxism conspiracy theorists.

>I've heard his theory isn't concerned with purging Jews or the supremacy of the aryan race
Nazism isn't simply defined by its racial element dude, c'mon now. And Schmitt is utterly concerned with in-v-out groups, that's what his literal definition of the form of The Political is; he just doesn't limit it to just racial or cultural dimensions.

>learning Heidegger is also fundamentally different from aplied marxist theory.
Learning Heidegger is fundamentally different from learning any political theorist, especially Nazi ones.

It's easy to read. I might recommend it if you don't know much about the lives or the thinking of the frankfurt school, and you don't want to be fed anti-semitic conspiracy theories.

A historical account of the rise of marxist thought and it's influence on society is different from demanding your lit students to apply marxist theory to a text: one carries an inherently political act to it, the other doesn't. Whether or not your students fall in love with communism thanks to your interjection is an entirely different matter.

>If you're teaching Goebbels
Nobody is teaching applied Nazi art theory. That's the point.

I love it when they squirm

>one carries an inherently political act to it, the other doesn't.
So my professor was making a fascistic act when trying to make me apply Schmitt to contemporary politics? Should we never teach anything that doesn't agree with our politics?

>Nobody is teaching applied Nazi art theory
Maybe because Nazi art theory isn't very influential.

This. No one cares what you study in your college, you fucking idiot. The Frankfurt School is not really a thing in America. Only alt-righters seem to think they are.

You know, the one thing that really gets me about the whole Frankfurt conspiracy, is that in /pol/'s eyes Communism is winning. Imagine really thinking that.

Bullets my be a bit too much, but let's make sure to punch fascist scums whenever we can.

Good luck with that

>and the utter gall they display in the belief that they have the right to subversively attack the culture and society of those they live among.

This is just false. Why do /pol/tards pretend there are no Jewish philosophers besides Marx And the Frankfurt School? Have you heard of Lessing? Mendelssohn? Spinoza? None of them were particularly subversive. Also, Jews don't thrive through exploiting Gentiles. Look at Germany 1871-1918, since it's a country you alt right folks are so obsessed with. Jews were second class citizens until 1869 and yet, they managed to rise to the higher ranks of society, on the meantime the Germans rose in renown as well. I don't want to use the word "symbiosis", but still, you get my point. Jews and German culture benefitted each other.

Sure Jews were unproportionately represented among Revolutionaries. Considering how they were marginalized, do you blame them? Would you blame white minorities, like the Boers for subverting south African culture?

Like I said, I'm not very acquainted with Schmitt but from what people have told me he isn't really teaching you how to be a fascist.

>A group of authors sympathetic to Schmitt argue that Schmitt's analysis of liberal constitutionalism during the Weimar period is separable from his support for National Socialism and that it constitutes an insightful and important analysis of the political presuppositions of a well-functioning liberal constitutional system

It's like you guys expect to have your professors openly proselytizing about the need for workers to unite and take the means of production in order to admit the existence of Marxism in academia. When you try and deny that a professor teaching you how to deconstruct literature via marxist lens is an instance of Marx's ideas being present in academia, I can't help but consider it intellectual dishonesty.

Thanks. Good luck to you too.
Why is punching nazis so satisfying? Personally I don't like violence but I can't help but feel great every time I see a nazi getting punched or humiliated.

Low moral character

My philosophy entrance exam book had one (1) page, the last one, on the Dialectic of Enlightenment and it was an essay topic lel. I only remember writing something like "[...]transforms into a machine's rationality" in the middle of the page and then scribbling nonsense around it. Got in of course.

I mean it's a punchline. The people whose entire ideology is bent on their supposed natural superiority are revealed to be the lowest and most pathetic members of society. Of course their public humiliation is satisfying.

le-merchant dot jpeg

Everyone looks pathetic after getting beaten to a pulp. Publicly humiliate someone instead of defeating his ideas with open debate. That's what tyrants do it to their opposition.

But I hope you guys keep doing it. Nothing makes you look worse than violence based on political disagreement.

>why not just debate with someone whose beliefs involve actual genocide
Yeah now that you mention it, we really should just sit down and talk with ISIS in an open, impersonal, and mild fashion.

Words are not the same as actions. You can't debate with ISIS because they are trying to kill you, you can debate with islamic scholars who advocate for basically the same things without indulging in them.

You are not defeating their ideas by hurting them, you are just defeating them personally. And your unwillingness to make your points with logic and evidence tells other people that you are in the wrong and the guy on the floor is in the right and the only way you could win was raw physical force.

Also everyone right of the center gets called a nazi at this point. Your genocide point is a strawman, not even all actual nazis advocate for genocide. Certainly most white nationalists don't advocate for genocide. Virtually no normal nationalist advocates for genocide. People who want harsher immigration policies don't advocate for genocide.

Adorno is standard reading in social sciences.

>Nazis aren't trying to kill you
Didn't they literally kill someone in Charlottesville, and attempted to do so again like two weeks later? These were people yelling nazi slogans.
>Because you don't want to debate a nazi, and attack them instead of debating them, they really must be right.
Really amazing logic. I refuse to debate with Nazis (actual neo nazis that we saw in Charlottesville, and that chucklefuck who got knocked out in Seattle) because they cannot be reasoned with.
>everyone right of center gets called a nazi
I'm not talking about Neocons, I'm talking about /pol/ and actual Neonazis
>Certainly most white nationalists don't advocate genocide
Which is why they constantly reference and adore the Turner Diaries. You're full of shit.

Why do some people constantly pretend that their literal who "intellectuals" are maligned and vilified by obscure, contemporary right-wing conspiracy theories? Is it some bizarre way of pretending that their ideas still have relevance in the 21st century?