The Frankfurt School Goes to the Movies

The Frankfurt School was a Jewish intellectual movement beginning in Weimar Germany, which rejected Marxist class warfare (Klassenkampf) for cultural warfare (Kulturkampf). Disappointed with the triumph of fascism in Europe and the rise of a totalitarian state in the Soviet Union (especially when Joseph Stalin purged the formerly Jewish-dominated Bolshevik Party), the Frankfurt School determined that the reason for Communism’s failure was ethno-centrism, anti-Semitism, and authoritarian personality traits in the Gentile proletariat. So long as these personality traits existed – which the Frankfurt School believed stemmed from childhood – the Gentile proletariat would continue to fall short of their revolution and utopia. Using Freudian psychoanalysis (itself another Jewish intellectual movement) to seek and destroy these personality traits, the Frankfurt School “pathologized” healthy and high-functioning human behavior as “ethno-centric,” “anti-Semitic,” and “authoritarian.” Only when these personality traits were removed could true Communism be achieved. According to Kevin B. MacDonald, author of a three-volume study of Jewish group evolutionary strategy, “At a deep level the Frankfurt School is addressed to altering Western societies in an attempt to make them resistant to anti-Semitism by pathologizing Gentile group affiliations.”

For example, in their seminal study, The Authoritarian Personality, the Frankfurt School subjected Western culture to what they called “critical theory.” Preferring your in-group over an out-group and conforming to cultural norms is racist; not having an in-group preference and rejecting cultural norms is open-minded. Obeying your parents as a child and adopting their values as an adult is submissive; disobeying your parents and rejecting their values is free-thinking. Succeeding socially and economically is just “pseudo-success” to hide secret anxieties; social and economic insecurity is a sign of true success. In conclusion, those who are unhappiest are diagnosed as mentally healthy and those who are happiest are diagnosed with mental disorders. MacDonald correctly identifies this pathologization of “Gentile group strategies” as a “deeply subversive agenda.”

Although the Frankfurt School is rarely practiced out in the open, it has creeped into the West and infests virtually all major social, cultural, and political institutions. One of its main fronts in this Kulturkampf is entertainment, an industry controlled by Jews which has been a revolutionary vanguard for “progress.” Just ask Vice President Joe Biden!

I believe what affects the movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else. It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was “Will and Grace,” it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace gay marriage. Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good.

Biden, who was speaking in honor of Jewish American Heritage Month, also praised “outsized” Jewish power over immigration, civil rights, and jurisprudence. “The truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential part of who we are that it’s fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage,” claimed Biden. “No group has had such an outsized influence per capita as all of you standing before you and all of those who went before me and all of those who went before you.”

In entertainment, the trick of the Frankfurt School is to pathologize perfectly normal and natural thoughts, feelings, and actions – or, in the common parlance, to make them “politically incorrect” – by assigning them to antagonists. This cheap yet effective trick reprograms Gentiles into believing that what is normal and natural is actually abnormal and unnatural – the usual host of “isms” and “phobias.” With enough oblivious exposure to such entertainment, Gentiles are indoctrinated to hate their race, culture, country, and family without ever realizing what is happening to them. Key scenes from four various movies/shows catch this trick red-handed.

The first scene is from The Man in the High Castle, a counterfactual-history/science-fiction show set in a future world where the Axis Powers won World War II and the United States is occupied by the Third Reich and the Japanese Empire. The scene itself is a breakfast conversation between SS officer John Smith and his son, Thomas:

Father: We all ready for the day ahead?

Son: Yes, Father.

Father: Then why is your textbook open at the breakfast table, Thomas?

Son: Um, sorry, Father. I have a test today.

Father: Did you study last night?

Son: I did. It's just there's this boy Randolph. I don't want him to get the high score.

Father: Competition is healthy.

Son: He's just so annoying. He wears his hair past his collar and challenges teachers in class.

Father: Nonconformist.

Son: And proud of it. He makes negative comments about the school all the time.

Father: Why do you want to succeed, son? Why do you want to do well in school?

Son: To make my family proud. To bring honor to my school. To serve my country.

Father: Your goals are directed outward. A boy like Randolph wants only to gratify himself. This is the path to moral decay. The decadence ruined this country before the war. You will grow to be a useful member of society. You will make our nation stronger. Randolph will not, whatever his test score.

Mother: Your father’s a wise man, son.

Father: You may study at the breakfast table, Thomas. Just this morning.

Son: Thank you, Father.

In this scene, the son is expressing a normal, natural desire to make his family proud and serve his country. His father is reaffirming that desire, explaining the difference between wanting to make the world a better place and wanting to live only for oneself. Furthermore, the father is not only giving his son advice, but also is clearly the patriarch of a traditionally structured family. Millions of conversations just like this one took place around breakfast tables every day in 1950s America. By putting this conversation into the mouths of Nazis, the scene pathologizes civic virtues, family values, and patriotic duties.

The next scene is from American History X, a movie about a young “skinhead” in California. The scene itself is a speech he gives to a gang of other “skinheads” before they vandalize an immigrant-owned grocery store:

Alright, listen up. We need to open our eyes. There are over two million illegal immigrants bedding down in this state tonight! This state spent $3 billion last year, on services for those people who have no right to be here in the first place! $3 billion! $400 million just to lock up a bunch of illegal-immigrant criminals, who only got into this country because the fucking INS decided, “It's not worth the effort to screen for convicted felons!” Who gives a shit? Our government doesn't give a shit! Our border policy’s a joke! So, is anybody surprised that south of the border, they’re laughing at us? Laughing at our laws? Every night, thousands of these parasites stream across the border like some fucking piñata exploded. [laughter]. Don’t laugh! There’s nothing funny going on here! This is about your life and mine; it’s about decent, hard-working Americans falling through the cracks and getting the shaft because their government cares more about the constitutional rights of a bunch of people who aren't even citizens of this country! On the Statue of Liberty it says, “Give me your tired your hungry, your poor...” Well it’s Americans who are tired and hungry and poor, and I say until you take care of that, close the fucking book! ’Cause we’re losing, we're losing our right to pursue our destiny, we’re losing our freedom, so that a bunch of fucking foreigners can come in here and exploit our country! And this isn’t something that’s going on far away. This isn't something that’s happening places we can’t do anything about it. It’s happening right here, right in our neighborhood, right in that building behind you. Archie Miller ran that grocery store since we were kids here. Dave worked there, Mike worked there [points out members of the crowd]. He went under and now some fucking Korean owns it who fired these guys and is making a killing ’cause he hired 40 fucking border jumpers. I see this shit going on and I don’t see anyone doing anything about it...and it fucking pisses me off! So look around you, this isn't our fucking neighborhood. This is a battlefield. We are on a battlefield tonight. Make a decision: are we gonna stand by the sidelines quietly standing while our country gets raped?

This movie is infamous for trying to discredit good words by putting them into the mouths of bad people. Derek is expressing the widespread frustration with how the U.S. government, by refusing to control its own southern border and enforce its own immigration laws, has uprooted the American way of life and sacrificed the future of American citizens. The Mexican immigrants of whom Derek is speaking are bringing problems to his community, such as poverty, dependency, and crime. Even without the particular Third-World dysfunction of Mexico, studies all around the world have replicated the results of Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community: diversity dissolves the social cohesion necessary for healthy communities. By putting these words into the mouth of a “skinhead,” this scene pathologizes nationalism and nativism.

The third scene is from Gangs of New York, a movie about the ethnic gang warfare in New York City between the Anglo-American natives and the Irish immigrants. The scene itself is a conversation between the “nativist” gang leader, Bill Cutting, and Boss Tweed, the head of the first and most famous political machine, as they observe the disembarkation of Irish immigrants:

Tweed: That’s the building of our country right there, Mr. Cutting. Americans aborning!

Cutting: I don’t see no Americans. I see trespassers. Irish harps, do a job for a nickel what a nigger does for a dime and a white used to get a quarter for. What have they done? Name one thing they’ve contributed.

Tweed: Votes.

Cutting: Votes, you say? They vote how the Archbishop tells them, and who tells the Archbishop? Their king in the pointy hat what sits on his throne in Rome.

Tweed: Bill, deliver these good and fervent folk to the polls on a regular basis, and there will be a handsome price for each vote.

Cutting: My father gave his life making this country what it is. Murdered by the British with all of his men on the twenty-fifth of July, Anno Domini 1814. Do you think I’m going to help you befoul his legacy by giving this country over to them, what’s had no hand in the fighting for it? Why, because they come off a boat crawling with lice and begging you for soup?

Tweed: You’re a great one for the fighting, Bill, I know, but you can’t fight forever.

Cutting: I can go down doing it.

Tweed: And you will.

Cutting: What did you say?

Tweed: I said you’re turning your back on the future.

Cutting: Not our future.

Cutting is expressing resistance to the change which mass-immigration is bringing to his country – a country which he sees as his rightful patrimony. Tweed, on the other hand, a booster of such immigration, cares nothing for his country or even the immigrants; he (like modern Democrats and Hart-Celler Americans) simply wants their votes so that he can stay in power and continue to control the patronage. Cooperation is in Cutting's individual self-interest: he and Tweed belong to the Democratic Party (for which the Irish disproportionately vote) and Tweed even offers Cutting a bribe to help get out the Irish vote. Nevertheless, Cutting refuses, choosing the country for which his father died over the country which the politicians are remaking. By putting these words into the mouth of a violent gang leader, the scene pathologizes nationalism and nativism.

The fourth scene is from Good Night and Good Luck, a movie about the conflict between CBS broadcaster Edward R. Murrow and Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. The scene itself is McCarthy’s actual on-air reply to Murrow’s attacks:

Good evening. Mr. Edward R. Murrow, Educational Director of the Columbia Broadcasting System, devoted his program to an attack on the work of the United States Senate Investigative Committee, and on me personally as its chairman. Now over the past four years he has made repeated attacks upon me and those fighting Communists. Now, of course neither Joe McCarthy nor Edward R. Murrow is of any great importance as individuals. We are only important in our relation to the great struggle to preserve our American liberties.

Now ordinarily…I would not take time out from the important work at hand to answer Murrow. However, in this case I feel justified in doing so because Murrow is a symbol, the leader, and the cleverest of the jackal pack, which is always found at the throat of anyone who dares to expose individual Communists and traitors. I am compelled by the facts to say to you that Mr. Edward R. Murrow, as far back as 20 years ago, was engaged in propaganda for Communist causes; for example, the Institute of International Education of which he was the Acting Director, was chosen to act as a representative by a soviet agency to do a job which would normally be done by the Russian secret police.

Now, Mr. Murrow, by his own admission, was a member the IWW – that's The Industrial Workers of the World, a terrorist organization cited as a subversive by an Attorney General of the United States. Now, Mr. Murrow said on this program, and I quote…“The actions the Junior Senator from Wisconsin had given considerable comfort to the enemy.” That is the language of our statute of treason, rather strong language. If I am giving comfort to our enemies I ought not to be in the Senate. If, on the other hand, Mr. Murrow is giving comfort to our enemies he ought not to be brought into the homes of millions of Americans by the Columbia Broadcasting System.

And I want to assure you that I will not be deterred by the attacks of the Murrows, the Lattimores, the Fosters, the Daily Worker or the Communist Party itself. Now I make no claim to leadership. In complete humility, I do ask you and every American who loves this country to join with me.

McCarthy is expressing disgust with Murrow for his unethical behavior (using his virtual monopoly over televised news for a smear campaign) and disloyalty to his country in a time of crisis (the Cold War, shortly after the Soviets obtained the secrets to nuclear weapons from their American spies). The inconvenient truth about McCarthy is that he was absolutely right and did absolutely nothing wrong. Behind the back of the Stalin-infatuated FDR, American intelligence, in a covert operation known as the “Venona Project,” had cracked Soviet codes and decrypted communications between Moscow and its spies in Washington, D.C. McCarthy did indeed have in his hands a list of hundreds of suspected Communists who had infiltrated the U.S. government. Indeed, several of Stalin’s agents were well-positioned to take over entire executive departments, such as State and Treasury, had they not been exposed. Of course, none of this is conveyed in the movie. For example, McCarthy’s words are played not over shots of the Rosenbergs giving Stalin the technology to build nuclear weapons, but over shots of the courageous, concerned faces of the heroes as they listen to the ramblings of the paranoid, tyrannical McCarthy. By presenting McCarthy as a villain terrorizing the United States rather than a hero exposing treason, this scene pathologizes patriotism and anti-Communism.

In the Soviet Union, psychiatry was weaponized into a form of thought control – a tool to make the New Soviet Man by remaking his mind. Those who opposed Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, or the Communist Party were condemned as dissidents, diagnosed as mentally ill, and sent to insane asylums. Today, in the West, a similar, though far subtler, form of thought control is still carried out, this time by Jews against Gentiles (specifically, white Europeans and Americans). Of course, Gentiles are not consciously indoctrinated to hate their identity, as this would met with resistance and rejection. Instead, they are tricked into indoctrinating themselves through the very entertainment they consume: what seem to be mere diversions are actually sinister, subversive, and subliminal propaganda. In that sense, then, Aldous Huxley’s dystopian vision of a consumer culture manipulated by elites in Brave New World was more prescient than George Orwell’s totalitarian regime in 1984. Indeed, indoctrination in the current year is not a reeducation camp, but a television, and tyranny in the current year is not a jackboot, but a pill – a blue pill, if you will.

Author image
I was a lolbertarian who grew up in the "nice, safe, clean" suburbs but went full-fash after moving out to "diversity" and "vibrancy."