L
so do we run around pre-emptively attacking everybody out there because somebody declares them to be the next hitler?
this is a sick joke.
it really is.
everybody Israel doesn't like is hitler.
and yet - here we are - the US & Irseal ALLIED with SAUDI ARABIA....the House of Saud!!
it's just unreal.
.......
The Other Frankfurt School
Mark P. Worrell
The findings of the labor project were, on the surface at least, horrifying and dramatically undermined Horkheimer's earlier assumptions regarding labor prejudice. The ISR found that the interviewed workers possessed zero capacity for radical thought and, much to their surprise, discovered that roughly 21% of the workers were extreme authoritarians and virtually Nazi sympathizers (10.6% were classified as "exterminatory" and another 10.2% felt "intense hatred" for Jews but fell short of openly calling for the extermination of Jews). Ultimately, one half of the workers (566 AFL, CIO, and unorganized workers interviewed in New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, and Philadelphia) were debilitated to one extent or another by anti-Semitic beliefs. In the view of the ISR, anti-Semitism represented, as they called it, the "spearhead of fascism" and they wanted to know if the vaunted CIO was ready to repel authoritarianism on the domestic front. The answer appeared to be an unqualified "no" but, upon further analysis, the issue was not so cut-and-dry.
Gurland and Massing found deep variations along ethnic, educational, gender, and religious lines. Their ideal typical anti-Semite was:
Male; 50 or older; Italian; Catholic (infrequent church attendance); possessing less than a high school education; a menial laborer—at the bottom of the job ladder, low occupational status; and had not been "Americanized" (i.e. had not been transformed by the American experience due his or his family's recent arrival in the States).
Their worker who was ideal typically resistant to anti-Semitism was quite different:
Female; in her 20s; descended from White, Protestant, Northern European stock; either actively Protestant or nonreligious; possessing either a high school degree or some college experience; and was fully "Americanized."
They also found that white-collar workers were "amazingly liberal" in contrast to their European counterparts. Blacks and Hispanics also emerged from the study as being relatively free from the worst kinds of anti-Semitism. The labor report postulated that the future of American labor was heading, decisively, away from authoritarian ideology and that important segments of the working class were resistant or allergic to anti-Semitism.
The research was scheduled to be published along with its sister project that culminated in The Authoritarian Personality but it was shelved instead (Adorno et al.1950; see Jay [1973] 1996:225). (The only publication that bore any relation to the labor study was the little foam bubble Labor's Enemy: Anti-Semitism (1945) by Charles Sherman of the JLC that does not warrant further analysis here. In Martin Jay's (1996) classic history of the Institute, Pollock is relied upon to make the following assertion: "the conclusions of the study were so damaging to American labor that the Institut, with its characteristic caution, was hesitant about broadcasting its findings" (p. 225). However, it was not really the case that the labor study would have been the wrong book at the wrong time in the broadest terms, but, rather, the report's findings dramatically challenged the assumptions of Horkheimer's dialectics project and even undercut some of the theoretical inconsistencies of the Berkley study. While mildly damaging to labor, at least in a superficial ways, it represented a far greater threat to the bourgeoning anti-dialectical pessimism of Horkheimer and his inner circle, which was quickly jettisoning their Marxist baggage. In short, Gurland and Massing delivered solid, critical, sociological interpretations of their data grounded directly in the logic of capital accumulation and life in capitalist society whereas Horkheimer and Adorno weaved erratically between abstract philosophy and orthodox group psychology......
Fast Capitalism
i wonder how many americans know their gov't paid the Frankfurt School to secretly study them and classify them.
based on a WARPED paranoid ideology that continually saw the goyim foaming at the mouth.
always looking for the next HITLER.
and finding one under every bed.
...
well....those studies were actually for something ELSE.
you figure out.
this is a sick joke.
it really is.
everybody Israel doesn't like is hitler.
and yet - here we are - the US & Irseal ALLIED with SAUDI ARABIA....the House of Saud!!
it's just unreal.
.......
The Other Frankfurt School
Mark P. Worrell
The findings of the labor project were, on the surface at least, horrifying and dramatically undermined Horkheimer's earlier assumptions regarding labor prejudice. The ISR found that the interviewed workers possessed zero capacity for radical thought and, much to their surprise, discovered that roughly 21% of the workers were extreme authoritarians and virtually Nazi sympathizers (10.6% were classified as "exterminatory" and another 10.2% felt "intense hatred" for Jews but fell short of openly calling for the extermination of Jews). Ultimately, one half of the workers (566 AFL, CIO, and unorganized workers interviewed in New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, and Philadelphia) were debilitated to one extent or another by anti-Semitic beliefs. In the view of the ISR, anti-Semitism represented, as they called it, the "spearhead of fascism" and they wanted to know if the vaunted CIO was ready to repel authoritarianism on the domestic front. The answer appeared to be an unqualified "no" but, upon further analysis, the issue was not so cut-and-dry.
Gurland and Massing found deep variations along ethnic, educational, gender, and religious lines. Their ideal typical anti-Semite was:
Male; 50 or older; Italian; Catholic (infrequent church attendance); possessing less than a high school education; a menial laborer—at the bottom of the job ladder, low occupational status; and had not been "Americanized" (i.e. had not been transformed by the American experience due his or his family's recent arrival in the States).
Their worker who was ideal typically resistant to anti-Semitism was quite different:
Female; in her 20s; descended from White, Protestant, Northern European stock; either actively Protestant or nonreligious; possessing either a high school degree or some college experience; and was fully "Americanized."
They also found that white-collar workers were "amazingly liberal" in contrast to their European counterparts. Blacks and Hispanics also emerged from the study as being relatively free from the worst kinds of anti-Semitism. The labor report postulated that the future of American labor was heading, decisively, away from authoritarian ideology and that important segments of the working class were resistant or allergic to anti-Semitism.
The research was scheduled to be published along with its sister project that culminated in The Authoritarian Personality but it was shelved instead (Adorno et al.1950; see Jay [1973] 1996:225). (The only publication that bore any relation to the labor study was the little foam bubble Labor's Enemy: Anti-Semitism (1945) by Charles Sherman of the JLC that does not warrant further analysis here. In Martin Jay's (1996) classic history of the Institute, Pollock is relied upon to make the following assertion: "the conclusions of the study were so damaging to American labor that the Institut, with its characteristic caution, was hesitant about broadcasting its findings" (p. 225). However, it was not really the case that the labor study would have been the wrong book at the wrong time in the broadest terms, but, rather, the report's findings dramatically challenged the assumptions of Horkheimer's dialectics project and even undercut some of the theoretical inconsistencies of the Berkley study. While mildly damaging to labor, at least in a superficial ways, it represented a far greater threat to the bourgeoning anti-dialectical pessimism of Horkheimer and his inner circle, which was quickly jettisoning their Marxist baggage. In short, Gurland and Massing delivered solid, critical, sociological interpretations of their data grounded directly in the logic of capital accumulation and life in capitalist society whereas Horkheimer and Adorno weaved erratically between abstract philosophy and orthodox group psychology......
Fast Capitalism
i wonder how many americans know their gov't paid the Frankfurt School to secretly study them and classify them.
based on a WARPED paranoid ideology that continually saw the goyim foaming at the mouth.
always looking for the next HITLER.
and finding one under every bed.
...
well....those studies were actually for something ELSE.
you figure out.
