Frankfurt On The Hudson


Frankfurt On The Hudson


R.E. Prindle


     Adam Kirsch reviews  Thomas Wheatland’s The Frankfurt School In Exile in the above link to Tablet Magazine.  I haven’t read the book as yet and comment only on the basis of Mr. Kirsch’s thought as expressed in his first paragraph quoted below:

It would be hard to overstate the imprtance of the Franbkfurt School in recent American thought.  Philosophers, psychologists, and sociologists like  Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Max Horkheimer- to name just the best-known members of the group- helped to develop a subtle and powerful way of thinking about the problems of modern society.  Critical Theory, as it is usually capitalized, adapted the reveolutionary impulse of Marxism to 20th century conditions, in which mass culture and totalitarianism seemed to shut off any real possibility of social transformation.  Especially appealing to academics is the way Critical Theory makes the analysis of culture feel like a revolutionary act in and of itself.  Reading Adorno on modern music, or Benjamin on literature, it is momentarily possible to believe that criticism is a weapon of liberation, rather than simply a hermetic exercise for intellectuals.

     There is a willful obtuseness in ignoring the fact that the leading proponents of the Frankfort School are all Jewish theorists and not objective scholars.  To confuse Jewish goals with ‘the revolutionary impulse of Marxism’ is to lie outright.

     ‘Reading Adorno on modern music, or Benfamin on literature, it is momentarily possible to believe that criticism is a weapon of liberation, rather than simply a hermetic exercise for individuals.’

     With all appreciati0n for Mr. Kirsch’s polemic skills the last sentence stikes me as nonsense.  Assuming that criticism can be a weapon of liberation one must ask liberation from what for whom?  How is one ‘liberated’ from music or literature?  What is the underlying thought here?

     Music is music; literature is literature.  There are limits to what can be done with either.  To criticize either is merely to examine what is being attempted and how successful the attempt.  For myself I have never felt enslaved by any music or literature therefore requiring any liberation.  Who could feel liberated by what? the replacement of one literature by another? 

     Does Mr. Kirsch mean that goy writing is so oppressive to Jewish sensibilities that goy literture has to be obliterated to be replaced by Jewish writers with Jewish sensibilities?  And he calls that ‘liberation.’  Well, at least we now know from what for whom.

     Certainly Jewish control of mainstream publishing has resulted in the restriction, if not elimination of non-Jewish writers.  The only way to explain the near monopoly of Jewish writers in America is that goyish writers are systematically denied publication.  Certainly unless they treat of themes in a Jewish manner.  Goddamn those filty Nazis anyway. Just establishing my credentials.

     As Paul Simon said:  One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.  What is liberation for one is enslavement for another.  Does Mr. Kirsch not know that we goys- non-Jews- understand exactly what the Frankfurt School has been up to?  Does he not understand that we know what the Jews want?  Does he not understand that we know the Jews want to replace our culture with their own?

     Why be coy and pretend that the Frankfurt School is objectively seeking truth?  We all know they aren’t.  Jews despise the truth when it conflicts with Judaism.  We all know that.  Why not come out into the open and be halfway honest?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s