By Kevin MacDonald | 1 Comment |
Print
Review of Thomas Wheatland’s The Frankfurt School in Exile, Part I:
Authoritarianism and the Family
From The Occidental Observer, October 19, 2009
Thomas Wheatland’s book, The Frankfurt School in Exile, provides a useful historical account of the travels, connections, and ideas of an important Jewish intellectual movement. The Institute for Social Research began as an orthodox Marxist organization during the Weimar period. During this period, they were dedicated to studying the class struggle and were often in close contact with members of the German Communist Party. Like several other members of the Institute, Max Horkheimer, who became head of the Institute, came from a wealthy background, but like so many Jewish radicals, had a “moral and emotional” opposition to bourgeois society (p. 15).
Wheatland agrees with other scholars that a persistent motivation of the Frankfurt School was to understand why a working class revolution failed to occur in Germany. Two main theoretical thrusts emerged from this realization: a critique that located ethnic prejudice, backward religious attitudes and lack of revolutionary fervor in the family, and a critique of mass culture seen as promoting passivity and escapism rather than revolutionary consciousness. Part I of this review deals with the first of these issues. Part II will discuss the theory of mass culture and interactions between the Frankfurt School and the New York Intellectuals.
The Frankfurt School Finds Authoritarianism in the Family
Since Marxist revolution was so obviously desirable to the Frankfurt Intellectuals, they developed a theory in which the failure of revolution could be attributed to psychopathology in the family. As reviewed here, the epitome of psychological health was the “genuine liberal” — a radical individualist who is completely detached from all ingroups, including race and family. White people who rejected their family as role models were analyzed as psychologically healthy, while those who had positive views of their parents were analyzed as psychologically inadequate.
Such a view is obviously subversive of traditional values, since competent parents transmit their religious and cultural values to their children, and at the time of the study, many of these competent White parents had a sense of White racial identity which they were transmitting to their children. The Frankfurt School was essentially claiming that White families who successfully transmitted their ethnocentric attitudes to their children were pathological — a view for which there isn’t a shred of evidence. (Needless to say, the successful transmission of Jewish identity to Jewish children was not considered a pathology.) . . . Read the whole article.


Another brilliant expose of the Frankfurt School, thanks. In college I learned a different but I guess related theory having to do with “marginal whites.” The idea was that racial conflict with blacks would be expected from those whites closest to them in economic status. The implication for us, which Steve Sailer has recently explained more thoroughly, was that the way for a young white upper middle class aspirant to begin playing that role was to appear unconcerned with such matters as affirmative action and street crime. And later I would find in the case of one boss that the way for the white success story to reinforce his achievement was to fund minority scholarships, all the while engaging in reverse affirmative action by renouncing any nepotism for his own family or friends. What made this sort of idea especially effective is that it was packaged to appeal to people like me who weren’t all that interested in ideas, but were very interested in our getting ahead.