quote:
The always look for a way o cause conflict. That was the entire purpose of the Frankfurt school. They worked off the assumption communism was inevitable and just needed to figure out what social conditions were preventing it from happening. They will look to weaponize anything that can be used to pit two groups against each other. If it wasn’t race then it would just be something else.

As for what disparate groups the "schoolers" sought to pit against each other, if one goes just by their major expansive study they called The Authoritarian Personality, it was less about causing discord among the races/cultures than it was about setting up one specific group as a prime target for more than its share of attention.

A study whose ostensible purpose was to eliminate the wages of prejudice by identifying those types most likely to embrace "authoritarianism,"

But there was only one type of authoritarianism they seemed to be interested in and found it necessary to study - Fascism.

Somehow they didn't recognize any redeeming value in studying the personas of those who might have a penchant for Communism (Leninist-Marxism), Anarchism, Syndicalism.

Also, not that they can be accused of trying to be conspicuous, but they exempted from the study Blacks, Jews, Latinos, and anyone with ethnic ties to the Orient.

So what specific goup/disapora did that leave as the prime focus of the study?

So right out the gate they were nailed for "sample bias."

Along with a trove of other problems with it that fell short of scientific method best practices.

A "study" that in every way should qualify as one of the two unofficial neo-Marxist "handbooks" in the West. The other being Marcuse's Eros and Civilization.

In this seemingly never ending search for what were the motivating factors that have brought us to this dubious point in our history we can't avoid the question of how could such a train wreck of a study have acquired such credibility and acceptance among our institutions, particularly academia (no explanation needed there). And not have been a source of discussion in the classrooms, even upon its appearance in 1950.

Its Foreword was written by the alleged "Father of Sensitivity Training" Max Horkheimer an avowed, proud, virulent Gramscian marxist.

Even in Horkheimer's Foreword we see the first blatant attempt at causing suspicion against and diminishing the West's historically heroic view of its military by portraying those returning from the War as most likely to exhibit those characteristics they had targeted in the "study."

Looking back at their attempts and how ill they spoke of "authoritarianism," it becomes obvious they merely wanted to eliminate and replace any other authoritarian system, not decidedly Leninist/Marxian.

As though they knew that they couldn't realize their utopian dreams unless they produced a populace as maladjusted as they were.