I don’t think Trump should be deporting peaceful immigrants. I don’t know if he’s doing that, but I don’t trust him to do what’s right, although deporting violent immigrants is perhaps okay.
Conservatives Are Suckers
In the above video Karlyn said this.
Where conservatives and the right continue to absolutely fail in the culture War is they don't understand how the game is being played. Conservatives Focus only on the ramifications of what the left is doing. They do not focus on the strategy behind it. They do not understand that this has been a concerted effort in the United States for decades.
Ever since the Frankfurt School landed here at Columbia University, this has been a concerted and focused effort in the United States for decades, that started with taking over the universities, then taking over the schools, taking over the institutions. And every crazy thing that we see showing up in the culture war is the result of the left, the Marxists, the real socialists, coming in, taking over the universities, taking over the schools, taking over the institutions, training the little Marxists from the time they're four years old in the school system that they took over, reinforcing it through culture, through media, through news.
What we see, in terms of the reading and the craziness and the books and all that, is the logical end result of a decades-long strategy, that was implemented and now has created all these useful idiots running around on the woke left, doing crazy, crazy, crazy things. They don't often even understand why they're doing those things.
What the right does not understand though is that, when they focus in on the outcome of the strategy, not only will they never actually solve the problem, but they are taking the bait that the left is setting for them, because the left sets them up. Conservatives are very predictable. The left sets them up. They do something crazy they know the right is going to react, because that's all the right knows how to do. The left does something crazy, the right reacts, and then the left says, hahaha, got you. We're gonna use everything you say and do against you.
Who Was the Frankfurt School?
Institute for Social Research building in Frankfurt am Main, Germany wikipedia
The Frankfurt School refers to a group of scholars associated with the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), founded in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, in 1923. The Institute was established by Felix Weil, with Carl Grünberg as its first director, and later led by Max Horkheimer, who became the central figure of the School. The Frankfurt School became known for its development of critical theory, an interdisciplinary approach that combined Marxist social analysis with philosophy, sociology, psychology, and other fields1,2,3,5,7.
Notable members include:
Max Horkheimer
Theodor W. Adorno
Erich Fromm
Herbert Marcuse
Walter Benjamin
Friedrich Pollock
Jürgen Habermas (second generation)
These thinkers sought to understand and critique the ways in which capitalist societies maintained systems of domination, not only through economics but also through culture, ideology, and social institutions2,3,5,7.
Does the Frankfurt School Still Exist?
Yes, the Institute for Social Research still exists and is once again affiliated with Goethe University Frankfurt (formerly the University of Frankfurt am Main). After being forced into exile by the Nazis in the 1930s (relocating to Geneva and then to Columbia University in New York), the Institute returned to Frankfurt in 1951. It has continued to operate as a research and teaching center, with several generations of critical theorists contributing to its legacy1,4.
The Institute remains active today, with recent directors including Axel Honneth, Ferdinand Sutterlüty, and, as of 2021, Stephan Lessenich1,4.
Karlyn Borysenko’s Critiques of the Frankfurt School
Based on her published commentary and analysis, Karlyn Borysenko’s main critiques of the Frankfurt School are as follows:
“Long March Through the Institutions” and Leftist Capture:
Borysenko argues that the Frankfurt School initiated a “long march through the institutions” after arriving at Columbia University in the 1930s. She claims this allowed leftist ideology to gradually take control of higher education, shaping curricula, faculty training, and ultimately the values of generations of students and professionals5.Promotion of Collectivism Over Individualism:
She criticizes the Frankfurt School for promoting collectivist ideologies, which she sees as antithetical to American values of individualism and meritocracy. Borysenko asserts that the School’s influence led to the elevation of identity politics and group-based power struggles, undermining the principle of judging people by individual merit rather than group identity5.Undermining Capitalism and Meritocracy:
Borysenko links the Frankfurt School’s legacy to modern diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which she views as hostile to capitalism and merit-based achievement. She argues that the School’s critical theory framework encourages people to judge each other by identity group rather than individual contributions, which she believes destabilizes organizations and society5.Ideological Bias in Academia and Research:
She contends that the Frankfurt School’s influence has created a pervasive left-leaning bias in academic research, particularly in social sciences and psychology. Borysenko claims that this bias affects which studies are conducted, how findings are interpreted, and what is taught, resulting in research and education that serve ideological ends rather than objective inquiry5.Systemic Racism and Critical Theory:
Borysenko asserts that the Frankfurt School’s intellectual migration laid the foundation for the incorporation of systemic racism analysis into academia, which she views as a negative development. She suggests that this has led to the codification of race-based thinking and policies in education and public life6.
“The left controls higher education, starting their long march through the institutions when the Frankfurt School landed at Columbia University in the 1930s. Because they control the institutions, they control what’s taught in the institutions. Because they control what’s taught in the institutions, they control the training of all future tenured faculty in the institutions, the high priests that can never be fired.”5
In summary, Borysenko’s critiques focus on the Frankfurt School’s role in embedding leftist, collectivist, and anti-capitalist ideologies in American academia and culture, which she believes has led to the erosion of individualism, meritocracy, and objective scholarship5,6.
Karlyn Borysenko’s Definition of Capitalism
Karlyn Borysenko consistently defines capitalism as the system of private property ownership. She emphasizes that, in her view, the core of capitalism is the right of individuals to own private property, including homes and personal assets1,3,7. She frequently contrasts this with how she says the political left defines capitalism—also as private property ownership—and notes that when leftists call for the abolition of capitalism, they are specifically calling for the abolition of private property3,6,7.
“Capitalism is defined as private property ownership. Private property ownership has always existed.”1
She further explains that the left’s critique of capitalism often centers on the concept of private property, and that debates about capitalism versus socialism or communism hinge on whether private property should be preserved or abolished6,7.
My Comment on Capitalism
Everyone should have equal access to property, based on mental maturity. No one should have more property than they can use, unless no one else wants or needs it.