Sunday, 20 July 2014
Any other state that was currently engaged in military action which was slaughtering children, would be dealt with by the United Nations. Israel however has the freedom to massacre children and whole families with impunity. This goes to show that Western governments and the United Nations are controlled at the highest levels by Jewish financial and media manipulation. They dare not criticise Israel, they wouldn't dare impose sanctions on them, and they certainly wouldn't threaten them with military action, why not? There will be voices of opposition to what Israel is doing, but it is nothing more than smoke and mirrors in relation to the bigger picture of controlled Western nations turning the other cheek.
Every bomb that is dropped on Gaza and which kills an innocent child, is paid for with your tax money. Israel and its military hardware is bought and paid for by you, via your government funding them with your money. The killing of children is being done in your name. America funds Israel to the tune of roughly $3 billion a year. It is a nuclear state which has failed to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Stop the funding of this state founded on lies, ethnic cleansing and terrorism.
This isn't about being pro-Islam, it is about understanding the truth of what has gone on in Palestine since 1948. The ethnic cleansing, the massacres, the stolen land and the childrens lives ruined forever. It is about the realisation that the problems in the world today and especially in the Middle East are a result of Israeli aggression in Palestine which has a knock on effect in our nations. Some people will say let them kill each other why should we care. We should care, because it is not a fair fight and our nations are funding the state of Israel who are killing children with high tech missiles, artillery and bombardment from the sea. Nobody in their right mind can not fail to be angered at the images of children dying, limbs missing, shrapnel wounds and half a head because of what Israel is doing.
The media paints a picture of Hamas aggression, and il put it to you this way. If for decades your people were being blown to bits, your mother, father, son, daughter, niece or nephew had been killed would you not be filled with a desire for revenge? Because that is what has happened since 1948. If your people had been ethnically cleansed from their homes and forced into a piece of land hardly fit for animals whilst the invaders kept you imprisoned, would you not fight back? Just think about it, we in Europe are losing our homelands, and we have every right to oppose it, and so do the Palestinians in Palestine. If boat loads of foreigners turned up on your shores claiming that your land was their land because God said so, and proceeded to force you and your families out of your land using terrorism, what would you do?
Not only Muslims have suffered in Palestine since 1948. Christians have been dispossessed and killed also, this is a little known fact. Israel doesn't care whether it be Christian or Muslim in Palestine, they care only about the stealing of land to create space for the expansion of the 'Jewish state.'
We could go on and on about this, but most of you know the truth already. For those of you that don't, the next time you hear the laughter of your children, just remember that children the same age are dying daily in Gaza. I don't get kicks of seeing children suffer just because they are Muslim, that would make me as bad as the Israelis dropping their bombs on them.
Wanting to preserve our own people and culture does not have to mean hatred of others and ignorance to the plight of the innocent in other parts of the world. Especially when the people carrying out the atrocities are also the ones committed to OUR downfall aswel.
We all want a Europe free of the threat of Islam in all its forms, but at the same time we have to understand who is pulling the strings and who is manipulating our people into misguided support for the real aggressors.
There has to be an end to this, but what is it? A two state solution? I personally don't think the Palestinians would benefit from any deal which would be heavily in favour of Israel.
The argument that Israel is the land of the Jews because 2000+ years ago they had lived in the region is no justification whatsoever for the last 70 years of systematic ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. The 'right of return' or Aliyah, means that a Jew who has never set foot in that part of the world can up and leave to Israel, and occupy the homes and land of people who have lived there for hundreds of years simply because they are Jewish. The Palestinians have no right of return, they can't go home, they can't even visit the graves of their relatives.
Thursday, 17 July 2014
Tuesday, 15 July 2014
The Blackshirt stronghold of British East London and the myth of Cable Street.
Special Branch Police Report, November 1936, The National Archives ref: MEPOL2/3043:
“The general cry is that the entire population of East London had risen against Mosley and had declared that he and his followers ‘should not pass’, and that they did not pass ‘owing to the solid front presented by the workers of East London’. This statement is, however, far from reflecting accurately the state of affairs.”
After the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Philip Game, banned Mosley’s East London march on Sunday 4th October 1936, the main body of Blackshirts marched west to their National Head Quarters in Westminster. But back in East London at the four places where Mosley was going to speak Blackshirt meetings DID go ahead and Blackshirts DID march through East London late in the afternoon of the ‘Battle of Cable Street’.
This fact was ‘overlooked’ in the leftist myth that East London workers rose up and drove Mosley’s Blackshirts out of the area. But the march and meetings that did take place were clearly recorded at the time in Special Branch Police reports now released at the National Archives, Kew.
Special Branch report HO144/21061 records:
‘Aske Street, Shoreditch: The platform was set up at 10am and Lionel Duncan held the pitch for British Union. At 5.30pm 1000 people were still waiting to hear Mosley. Bailey, Nagels and Bill Hunt spoke. All the Blackshirt speakers were enthusiastically received by the audience and there were many cries of ‘Shame!’ when it was learned that the march had been banned. Meeting ended at 7.35pm. No disorder.
Chester Street, Bethnal Green: Police moved the British Union meeting to this site from its proposed location at Victoria Park Square. Alf Cooper held the platform from from 12.15pm. At 5.15pm there were 400 people present and 6 in Blackshirt uniform. This increased to 1500 with 26 in Blackshirt uniform. Mick Clarke, British Union District Inspector of the 8th London Area, spoke for 30 minutes denouncing the Government ban. At 6.05pm he closed the meeting and led a march of Blackshirts and supporters for one mile through Bethnal Green back to their District Headquarters at 222 Green Street. No disorder.
Stafford Road, Bow: Alex Brandon and Eddie Turner held the platform for British Union. 300 people were still present when Turner closed the meeting at 5.50pm. No disorder.
Salmon Lane, Limehouse: Platforms in position at midnight. By 11a.m. there were 300 people waiting to hear Mosley speak. Charlie Lewis and Dave Robinson addressed the crowd which by 3.45pm had increased to 5000. At 5p.m. 200 Reds attacked the speaker and the police closed the meeting.
After Cable Street the Reds organised a ‘Victory’ meeting in Hoxton Square. Afterwards, several hundred Communist supporters tried to hold a ‘Victory’ march through East London but it stopped and dispersed in nearby Hoxton Street after a slight affray occurred involving hostile East Londoners.’
The Red ‘Victory’ March.
The Sunday after Cable Street the Communist Party tried to hold another ‘Victory’ march in East London. The Morning Post reported (13/10/1936): ‘The Victory March organised by the Socialists and Communists had a stormy progress through the East End’.
This was confirmed by Joe Jacobs, Secretary of Stepney Communist Party, in his memoirs ‘Out of the Ghetto’: ‘As we marched along Whitechapel Road the shouting grew louder. We got to Green Street, everyone braced themselves because we were about to enter the enemy’s strong-hold…the pavements were lined with Blackshirts and their supporters. They pelted us with rotten fruit and flour.’
The Blackshirt March across East London.
The Wednesday after the failure of the Red ‘Victory’ March was a day of mounting excitement in East London as rumours grew that Mosley was coming. Sure enough, the Leader of British Union appeared at an unadvertised meeting and spoke to several thousand cheering people in Victoria Park Square, Bethnal Green. He then headed a march to Salmon Lane, Limehouse, which grew in numbers with every street it passed.
Special Branch report HO144/21061 records:
‘Mosley spoke at Victoria Park Square where the crowd had grown to 7,000 by 8pm. It was noticeable by the salute that 80% were his supporters. They marched to Salmon Lane, Limehouse, where the crowd swelled to 12,000…500 in British Union uniform. It was remarkable, in view of the attitude adopted by the anti-fascists towards the previous fascist march, that this procession should pass unmolested and practically unopposed…at intervals the fascist salute was given by people in doorways or on the pavements.’.
Phil Piratin, Communist Organiser, wrote of the meeting in “Our Flag Stays Red”: ‘I went along to this meeting and watched to see the support which Mosley had…what kind of people would march. The fascist band moved off and behind about 50 thugs in Blackshirt uniform. Then came the people…men, women (some with babies in arms) and youngsters marched behind Mosley’s banner. I knew some of these people, some of them wore trade union badges…Why are these ordinary working class folk supporting Mosley? Obviously because Mosley’s appeal struck a chord…above all these people were living miserable squalid lives’.
Joe Jacobs wrote in his memoirs: ‘The fascists did rally in Victoria Park Square…and did march through Mile End to Limehouse right across Stepney.’ Jacobs claimed that Stepney Communist Party had a membership of around 300 at the time. However, Special Branch report HO144/21064 states that the Blackshirt membership for Limehouse, which was just one part of Stepney, stood at 1,700. (One of their agents had broken into the British Union Limehouse District Headquarters in Essian Street at night and read the membership ledger).
Mosley speaks to 12,000 people: Salmon Lane, Limehouse, October 14 1936:
‘The people of East London have created this Movement of ours in your midst. It is to the People we come and from the People we derive our strength…It is because they are so afraid of the appeal we have made to the People that they are anxious to prevent the People hearing that case…It is because the Blackshirt cause has gone straight to your hearts…They cannot meet our arguments or our case and they are terrified of my speaking…the only argument they have to the Blackshirt case is the brick and the razor…This I claim from History: whether you are for us or against us, love us or hate us, you will find in this Movement men who have stood fast against corruption and not let down the Working Class. Tonight you have given to me that kindness and comradeship that I have come to know in East London.’
After this speech Special Branch reported in MEPOL/3043: ‘There is abundant evidence that the Fascist movement has been steadily gaining in many parts of East London and has strong support in Stepney, Shoreditch, Bethnal Green, Hackney and Bow…the British Union conducted the most successful series of meetings since the beginning of the Movement…crowds estimated at several thousands of people assembled and accorded the speakers an enthusiastic reception…In contrast much opposition has been displayed at meetings held by the Communists…Briefly, a definite pro-fascist feeling has manifested itself throughout the districts mentioned since 4th October…it is reliably reported that the London membership has been increased by 2,000.’
Support for Mosley increases after Cable Street.
For more than 70 years, Mosley’s enemies have maintained the myth that the East End rose up against the Blackshirts at the Battle of Cable Street and British Union went into decline. Nothing could be further from the truth. Arthur Mason, later British Union District Leader for Limehouse, recalled that in the two days after the banned March, 600 new members joined the Limehouse branch alone.
Five months later came the local elections which in those days only the heads of households could vote in. This effectively prevented Mosley’s young East End supporters from voting in what was called a ‘Dad’s and granddad’s election’. Despite this handicap, in March 1937 British Union won over 23% of the vote in Limehouse. Without that handicap it could have been over 50%.
This proved conclusively that East London was a stronghold of British Union and Mosley’s Blackshirts had not been put to flight by Communists and their left-wing allies.
The ‘Observer’ newspaper commented (7/3/1937): ‘the size of their vote was a surprise even to those in touch with the East end’. The ‘Guardian’ (5/3/1937) called it ‘a surprising indication of strength’. Even the communist ‘Daily Worker’ (5/3/1937) admitted: ‘a disturbing feature is the large number of votes they recorded’. In the November 1937 Borough Elections British Union candidates moved up into second place in Limehouse putting a Tory/Liberal coalition bottom of the poll. The ‘Daily Worker’ noted (3/11/1937) : ‘For the whole of Stepney the fascist vote was 19%, an overall increase’.
In the remaining years of peace, East London remained the Blackshirt heartland. At his very last appearance in the district on May Day 1940 Mosley addressed a friendly crowd well in excess of 100,000 at Victoria Park Square.
Almost total censorship of Mosley and British Union activity in East London by the press and the BBC left the rest of Britain generally unaware of the growing strength of Mosley’s Balckshirts in this important working class area of Britain’s capital city. This assisted the left-wing created myth that East Enders stopped Mosley once and for all at the Battle of Cable Street and his support thereafter declined. This fraudulent historical view has continued to appear in history books and autobiographies for over 75 years. Only recently is the truth beginning to emerge thanks to a new generation of enquiring academics and historians unwilling to accept political myths for which there is no substantiation.
Source - www.oswaldmosley.com/battle-of-cable-street/
Thursday, 10 July 2014
This is a 1933 BUF pamphlet written by William Joyce.
Fascism and Jewry
By WILLIAM JOYCE
First published 1933
FASCISM in Britain had advanced but a little way when it was assailed by forces of whose existence the Leader, despite his great political experiences, had not dreamed when he set out on the Crusade. The greatest of these forces, never arraigned against the old parties, was found to be the power of organized Jewry to-day mobilized against Fascism, which has long refused subservience to it.
Because Fascism has known how to resist this alien menace in the people's midst, the Jews have raised throughout the land the cry of religious and racial persecution. Yet, in the thousands of Fascist speeches it has been made clear that the Movement recognizes and will observe the principles of complete religious liberty; whilst the racial diversity of the Empire renders absurd the suggestion that the concept of persecution on racial grounds should be entertained by the Fascists. This Movement does not attack Jews by reason of what they are, it resists them by reason of what they do. They have dared, in their great folly, to challenge a conquering force of the modern age, and their challenge must be answered. The Jews have attacked us physically where there have been six Jews to one Blackshirt. Wherever organized opposition manifests itself at our outdoor meetings, there can be seen behind a row of policemen, in security, a mass of bestial Jewish faces contorted into hideous and obscene grimaces.
Apart from actual observation, the records of the Law Courts have irrefutable proof of our charge. In the whole population only six in every thousand are Jewish, and yet of the persons convicted during 1934-35 of offenses against Fascists at Fascist meetings, or on their way home after the meetings, over 20 per cent. are Jewish. The only possible inference is that within Jewry there is a ferocious, inflammable propaganda against Fascism. The Law Courts provide ample evidence that the attack on the Movement is led by Jewry and, be it noted, before we retaliated we had proof of this fact. During the five months prior to the Leader's answer to Jewry at the Albert Hall on October 28th, 1934, fifty per cent. of the persons convicted of attacks on Fascists were Jews. There can be little doubt but that the remaining fifty per cent. were subject to Jewish influence.
Nor has the attack of the Jewish sub-men been merely physical. They do not hesitate to employ the grossest and foulest devices of libel and slander against our members. Only a few months ago one of the leading propagandists of the Movement was the victim of the monstrous accusation in print that he had appropriated to his own use funds subscribed for an association of ex-service men of which he had been the Chairman.
Needless to say, the Fascist Officer was completely vindicated in court, the Jews not even offering evidence or appearing. He was awarded £700 damages and costs, but the Jewish mechanism for avoiding obligations of this kind is so thorough that he has not received a penny.
Likewise we have stated and proved, uncontested, case after case of the victimization of Fascists by Jewish employers. Long before we had joined issue with the Jews, Hebrew employers had dismissed British workers for no better reason than that they were Blackshirts, and it is not widely enough realised how often in this land an Oriental merchant can sentence a British man or woman to starvation. The very center of the Jewish attack, however, is the blackmailing and coercion of British business men whose names cannot he revealed because the revelation would ruin them. They have frequently come to the Leader and assured him of their agreement with the Movement's Policy and their desire to help, but have almost uniformly added that their business would be ruined by Jewish influence if their sympathies became known.
If this immoral influence prevents the ordinary business man from acting in accordance with his political convictions, how much greater must be the influence of Jewish finance upon the politicians who are supposed to govern the country. The little Jew in the gutter who insults the Crown and the Flag is an impertinent anomaly to be removed as soon as possible, but the great Jewish financier who dictates to Government and Industry alike, constitutes by far the greatest danger to our land. In Italy there are only 30,000 Jews; in Germany there are 600,000 Jews; and in Britain 300,000. Because the Germans have twice as many Jews as we have, they have been in a better position to apprehend the danger since they encounter Jews everywhere. In Britain the danger is more insidious because the operations of Jewry are so carefully masked. Some newspapers are openly controlled by Jewish owners, but others which are apparently free from Jewish control are, nevertheless, compelled to accept the dictates of the Hebrews through fear of losing the advertisements which the Jew provides, and upon which their revenue so largely depends.
No National movement can tolerate a menace of this kind. Organized Jewry, on the other hand, is bound to fight any National movement which teaches that the people have a perfect right to use to the fullest extent the resources of their own land, because the full use of National and Imperial wealth is possible only where the people are freed from the tyranny of International Jewish Finance, which deliberately restricts the production of wealth on the assumption that the fruits of the earth are intended for a small parasitical class consisting mainly of Orientals who have no sense of obligation to the West and no sense of kinship with the Western peoples. A small but important example of this attitude is shown in the progressive ruin of British traders by the Jewish chain store proprietors in this country.
The Jew grants his allegiance to his own people and is generally quite incapable of bestowing it otherwise, hence he must be regarded and treated as a foreigner who gives first and last consideration to the interests of his own invisible, intangible, but, nevertheless, real and very powerful state; nor can this secret but mighty state be permitted to exist within the boundaries of any other state which claims to call itself National or free. Never has the danger of this state within a state been clearer than in recent tunes. The organized power of Jewry, in a racial interest, has consistently striven for more than two years to foster the policy of War. Because the Jews have lost their power in Germany, they seek to recover it by the slaughter of British men and women in war. Through the Jewish boycott in Germany, Lancashire has suffered heavy losses. Herring fleets are idle because the Jews have been partially successful in preventing Germany from buying abroad. From every platform and in every paper which they control, they have striven to arouse in this country the feelings and passions of war against a nation with whom we made peace in 1918.
They must be made to learn through iron experience that, having fought Germany once in a British quarrel, our people will not fight Germany again in a Jewish quarrel. British prestige has been ruined and our nation has been brought to the verge of war, because, under the presidency of the Jew Litvinoff (alias Finkelstein), the Social Democrats at Geneva have tried to intimidate Italy by threats of armed violence, caring nothing of Halie Selassie, but much of Abyssinian potash, secretly scoffing at the myth of Collective Security, but intensely anxious to establish by action against Italy, the precedent for action against Germany on the day when her people feel no longer able to tolerate the persistent Bolshevik attempts to plunge them into Red Revolution and Civil War.
The Jewish Bankers have financed Soviet Russia for two reasons; first, because of the 500 controlling officials in Russia, more than 400 are Jews and, secondly, because the Hebrews having no army of their own are determined to use the vast military forces of Russia to destroy the Nationalism and the spirit of freedom which revoked against the tyranny of Jewish International starvation finance.
Such is the grim truth of the European situation to-day. The Jews control and actuate alike the decadent democratic capitalism and the hideous fratricidal Communism. Using both instruments they hope to prevent every white people from achieving the freedom to work out the fullness of their own economic destiny. Only through the defeat of Jewry can Britain be free.
The Press has been habitually characterizing physical attacks upon Fascists in the streets as spontaneous uprising of Englishmen against Fascism. Lest we may be tempted to think that the homes of our workers and the Halls of our old Country families have greatly changed character, let us survey a typical list of the "Englishmen" who have been convicted through excessive zeal in these "spontaneous uprisings."
Levitas, Rigotsky, Schaeffer, Fenelblom, Aarons, Saposnick, Goldberg, Santi, Kraforski, Elderman, Distelmann, Fergenbaum, Goldstein, Faber, Ziff, Kerstein, Sternlight, Minskey, Jalsberg, Georgiads, Silverman, Brenden, Freeman, together with various Cohens and Becows.
These little sub-men are a nuisance to be eliminated, but their wealthy instigators and controllers, well known to us, are, in sum, a criminal monstrosity, for which not all the gold of Jewry can pay the just compensation which we will demand and obtain.
Tuesday, 8 July 2014
By Alex Kurtagić
Max Horkheimer died 41 years ago today. Director of the Institute of Social Research from 1930 till 1953, Horkheimer was a leader of the Frankfurt School, a group that became identified with Critical Theory, a wholly speculative concoction blending Marxism and Freudian psychoanalysis.
Horkheimer was born into a conservative, wealthy family of orthodox Jews. His father, Moritz, was a prosperous businessman, owning several textile factories; he expected his son to succeed him at the helm, and from 1910 prepared Max for a career in business. This, however, was not to be: Max met Friedrich Pollock at a dance soon after, and the two struck a friendship. Pollock had been brought up by a father who had turned away from Judaism, so he was not in any way traditional. In his history of the Frankfurt School, Rolf Wiggerhaus tells that this friendship gave an impetus towards Max’s ‘emancipation’ from his bourgeois, conservative background. With Pollock he read
Ibsen, Strindberg, and Zola—naturalist critics of bourgeois society; . . . Tolstoy and Koprotkin—social revolutionaries who advocated a form of life marked by asceticism and universal love; . . . Schopenhauer’s Aphorisms on the Wisdom of Life and Spinoza’s Ethics, . . . and Franz Pfemfert’s Aktion, which was a forum of literary opposition to the war and to the bourgeois world of pre-war Europe, marked by its editor’s radical political views.
In time, he rejected a career in business, and by 1924, he and Pollock were described as “communists.”
Max began by studying psychology, but, as he prepared his doctoral thesis, a very similar one was published elsewhere, frustrating his efforts. As a result, he turned to philosophy, and completed his Habilitation within this discipline.
The work of Horkheimer’s group was pseudoscientific. It sought, among other things, to understand the “authoritarian personality,” and in 1950 it published an eponymous “study,” led by his good friend and colleague, Theodor Adorno, a man whose thinking was nearly identical to his own. Typically, the Frankfurt School’s work was tendentious and rife with double standards. For example, it completely ignored Left-wing authoritarianism (even though most of Asia and half of Europe was in the grip of brutal communist regimes, with death tolls already in the tens of millions), and focused only on Right-wing authoritarianism, which it treated as a psychiatric disorder. Amazingly, it is still taken seriously by many academics today, who feel no moral difficulty at their continued support for a murderous ideology. The group’s conclusions, however, were always strained and counter-intuitive, and not adequately supported by empirical evidence.
Indeed, the group was very hostile to empiricism and positivistic science, and this is evident in Horkheimer’s 1947 book, The Dialectic of Enlightenment, co-authored with Adorno. The tone is abstract and assertional, with no effort made to substantiate its claims. As with Adorno et al’s The Authoritarian Personality, this work is taken seriously by modern academics, and appears in the curricular reading lists of Western universities.
Because Critical Theory gained support from academics throughout the Western world, Horkheimer’s group ended up causing harm on a scale that is difficult to quantify. The aim of Critical Theory was to subject the whole of liberal Western society to a radical critique—from the Left. Recognizing that classical Marxism was ill-equipped for the task, since it focused exclusively on a putative opposition between capitalism and the proletariat, they set about developing a new framework. The work of Horkheimer’s group enabled them to achieve an unlimited expansion of oppressed groups, which now included victims of racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and on and on. This became front and center of the New Left project, whose “father,” Herbert Marcuse, unsurprisingly came out of the Frankfurt School.
The essence of the Marxian critique of liberalism is that the latter failed to deliver on its promise of equality: through capitalism, liberal societies created and perpetuated hierarchies. Thus, Marxism focused on equality. But this resulted in tyranny, mass murder, and poverty. Because it was obviously oppressive, it could not defeat Western liberalism, which had, by contrast, produced safe, wealthy, attractive societies. In fact, communist theorist Antonio Gramsci was forced to think about alternative ways of imposing communism in Western democracies because all attempted communist revolutions had failed in the West. By contrast, although it also focused on equality, the New Left was ostensibly emancipatory—a wolf in sheep’s clothing—and mounted a much more successful challenge. Liberalism was not overthrown, but it was permanently altered. Because, as does the Left in general, it holds equality as one of its fundamental values, it could not oppose calls for greater equality on principle; it could, however, accommodate. Liberalism thus shifted its emphasis, away from individual liberty, and towards unbounded equality. It resulted in a Hegelian synthesis. Horkheimer’s group must, therefore, be seen as the agent, or one of the key agents, that made this transition possible. Their tenebrous theories became street politics and then established ideology.
On the surface, this may seem like a good thing to many. And there certainly was scope for reform and more enlightened attitudes in some areas—no reasonable person would deny it. But when we analyse the situation more deeply, we find that boundless equality—this particular approach to reform—has not created a more just and harmonious society, but rather a sublimated war of all against all, with identity politics, gender politics, class politics, and racial politics in a permanent confrontational state, constantly irritated by a sense of grievance and historical injustice. Similarly, the shift of emphasis from the liberal equality of opportunity to the Marxian equality of outcome has meant that in the fight against ‘privilege’ the attendant policies have not eliminated it, but simply transferred it from one class of citizen to another: different ability means that the more able must be penalized in order to make way for the less able, who then become a privileged class with a sense of entitlement as they receive undeserved rewards. Worse still, we have even seen reports of science departments in universities being defunded, scaled down, or closed down altogether as lavishly funded equality and diversity departments are launched, with the salary of a single equality officer being sufficient to pay for two cancer researchers. The pursuit of equality of outcome, therefore, not only privileges the undeserving, but also causes pain, suffering, and even death. Relationships between the sexes? Instead of more happy marriages, we now have more divorce, broken homes, gender antagonism, and the war of the sexes. How ironic that Horkheimer was born on Valentine’s Day. We could go on. The material costs have been incalculable. Social costs even more so.
According to Wiggerhaus, Horkheimer’s main argument was that those living in misery had a right to material egoism. While Kevin MacDonald notes that Horkheimer eventually became reconciled with his heritage, embracing once again Jewish metaphysics, ultimately, one cannot escape the conclusion that the anti-bourgeois crusade was a sublimated rebellion against his father. Rebellion against parental authority is a theme in Kerry Bolton’s The Psychotic Left, where he highlights it as a psychological trait of militant egalitarians. This The Authoritarian Personality regarded as healthy. Yet, Horkheimer’s visage, particularly in later life, bears the stigmata of inner conflict.
Thus, Max Horkheimer is not someone we ought to be remembering. He is someone we ought to be forgetting. If Dante’s Inferno paints an accurate map of where evil-doers go in the afterlife, Horkheimer’s place is in the malebolge, along with the panderers and seducers, the flatterers, the simonists, the soothsayers, the grafters, the hypocrites, the thieves, the false counselors, the sowers of discord, and the counterfeiters and falsifiers. His life was all too long, so we must be grateful death finally stopped him from causing still more harm. As for his legacy: it will do the most service by falling into obscurity, wherefrom it can do good as an an object of refutation.
1. Rolf Wiggerhaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995), 42.
2. Ibid., 46.
Source - http://www.wermodandwermod.com/newsitems/news070720140000.html