Jews are Destroying Western Society – Part 12
This essay continues to assemble evidence to validate a core thesis that the destruction of the family was central to a broader Jewish plan to dismantle Western civilisation. The historical record confirms that this was a clear goal of the Jewish Bolshevik revolutionaries and later refined by the Frankfurt School intellectuals. The outcome is that all Western societies are today in demographic collapse, with their cultural and moral foundations eroded. I will examine here the Frankfurt School, with an emphasis on the destructive effects of its ideology and philosophy on Western civilisation and family, and on morality, especially on the morality of women, with references to historical sources. This so-called “school” was a collection of Marxist intellectuals who moved from Germany to New York City in 1935.
From Russia, the Jews exported their sexual revolution to other countries. When Béla Kun briefly seized power in Hungary, he and György Lukács immediately launched a radical “sex education” program in schools, encouraging promiscuity and attacking marriage and religion as outdated institutions. This is not a fringe interpretation; it is documented history. The goal was to create a new communist man and woman, loyal to the state, not to their family. It is documented history that Wilhelm Reich, the Frankfurt School theorist, argued that female sexual liberation was a tool for mass subjugation by the state, making women a “slavery to the state and to themselves”. Reich sought to mobilise the masses for political revolution by unleashing female sexual passion, using this as essentially a form of control (“liberation and control are one and the same”).
From the historical record, I believe we can place the Jewish Frankfurt School at the center of a deliberate project to dismantle the Western family.
From Moscow to the Frankfurt School
The Bolshevik experiment was not an isolated event. That ideology was refined and exported to the West by a network of intellectuals, primary among them the Frankfurt School. Jews like Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse explicitly targeted the nuclear family as the key institution to destroy to achieve their goal of subverting Western (Christian) civilisation, and eventually obtaining political control. They saw the family as a bastion of traditional morality that had to be eliminated for the (Jewish) state to achieve total power.
Freud with daughter Sophie, around 1912, Foto Max Halberstadt. Source
The Jewish revolutionaries utilised psychoanalytic theory to manipulate women and undermine traditional morality. This involved a sweeping historical narrative, covering various aspects: Jews, psychoanalysis, female sexuality, the sexual revolution, cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, Freud, Marcuse, Reich, and others. The Frankfurt School served as the theoretical “general staff” of the sexual revolution movement. The theories of Freud, Reich and the Frankfurt School were employed as tools of psychological engineering to alter women’s self-perception and their morality, thereby undermining traditional family structures, including marriage. Sigmund Freud wrote in 1908, “Sexual morality … seems to me very contemptible. I advocate an incomparably freer sexual life.”
The sexual revolution is an exceptionally large and important portion of the movement to destroy Western society. It contains so many parts, from Freud to the Frankfurt School, to Alfred Kinsey’s publications, the “pride” in homosexuality, the push for transgenderism and LGBTQ+. It involves the loss of shame, the promotion of sexual pathologies as merely “preferences”, and the sexualisation of children. In Awake, Not Woke, Noelle Mering identifies the origins of this revolutionary consciousness in the Frankfurt School. They brought with them the “dramatic convergence of Marxist philosophy, Freudian psychology, rank perversion, and all manner of lurid ideas and practices introduced for the destruction and dismantling of Western culture by way of the destruction and dismantling of the family”. [1] These and more will be examined in the following essays.
According to the Frankfurt School, the Marxist Revolution failed to take hold because of Western society’s commitment to God and the traditional family, with the father’s role as its protector and defender, which served as a bulwark against the Jew’s revolutionary ideology. The first step to undermining this so-called “internalised authoritarianism” was to depose the father. Mering summarises their strategy: the remedy . . . [was] the subversion of the father. Making men lecherous would engender suspicion and distrust in wives and rebellion in children.
The “Authoritarian Family”
Two major studies frame the Jews’ argument about the family: Studien über Autorität und Familie (Studies on Authority and the Family, 1936) and The Authoritarian Personality (1950). The core thesis of these Jews was that the bourgeois nuclear family, particularly through paternal authority, functioned as a “miniature authoritarian state”. Horkheimer claimed that the family was a “factory of authoritarian and reactionary ideologies”, an “exercise ground for authority”, and a “mechanism of subjugation” that produced compliant subjects incapable of critical thought. The Frankfurt theorists, adopting a Freudian framework, claimed that a child’s identification with the father created an “inner” authority that would submit. Their goal was therefore to dismantle the psychological machinery of paternal authority. But they went much farther than simply attacking the patriarchal family; they attacked all the foundations of Western society. Kevin MacDonald wrote that the Frankfurt School categorised healthy Western norms, nationalisms, sexual morality, and close family relationships as an indication of psychiatric disorder. [2]
The Frankfurt School’s work explicitly traced the father under modern capitalism. Horkheimer wrote that “the weakness of the father, socially conditioned, and not compensated by his occasional explosions of masculinity, prevents the child from really identifying with him”. Without a strong paternal figure to identify with and rebel against, the child could not develop the autonomous ego that the Oedipal model required. They used (or mis-used) Freud’s theories on authority and sexuality to argue that the “broken” Western family left a population vulnerable to total forms of external authority. They then made the leap from this mis-diagnosis to a program of sexual liberation of women as a political strategy, and that formed the new core.
Wilhelm Reich: The Paradox of Women’s “Liberation”
The Jewish theorist Reich, argued that the “sexual liberation” of women was a tool for mass subjugation. He was not a full member of the Frankfurt School, but his ideas were influential on Marcuse and on the broader New Left. In terms of political revolution, Reich believed that the Jews could politically mobilise the Gentile masses only by appealing to their sexual passions. His solution was that they could control women through their sexuality by “liberating” them, and thus create a viable political force.
This was an advanced strategy by the Jews to take political control of the world’s nations. The initial strategy of revolutions and civil wars (Russia, Hungary, Germany, Austria, Spain), had failed to put the Jews into the thrones of the nations they inhabited. Hence, the change in strategy from revolution to sex. Sex had always been part of the agenda, but it proved much more successful and pliable than did war and revolution, so this portion was enhanced. The sexual part of the agenda did not give Jews direct control over nations, but it did give them direct control over much of the population of those nations. This will become clearer as we progress. As an aside, the part of the agenda that did (and does) give Jews direct control over governments and nations lies in the primary benefit of (Jewish-created) “democracy”: The ability to purchase, blackmail or extort politicians (think of AIPAC and Jeffrey Epstein).
It may be of interest to note that one of Reich’s fundamental (and causal) claims – that sexual repression caused fascism – was in fact exactly backward. In the Weimar Republic, it was not sexual morality that brought Hitler to power. Hitler’s ascendance was a direct result of the Kulturbolschewismus (Jewish Cultural Bolshevism) and sexual decadence created by the Jews – Hirschfeld and the German sexual revolution. We will no doubt hear screams of “anti-Semitism”, but it was in very large part the sexual depravity of the Jews in Germany that helped to create the conditions for what was primarily a cultural (and religious) backlash that led to the formation of the NAZI party and the severe disaffection for Jews that existed in Germany. And not only in Germany.
Marcuse: Sex Against Civilisation
Using the conflict in Vietnam as their linchpin, Marcuse, the New Left, and the counterculture sexual revolutionaries made Legman’s “make love, not war,” the motto and attitude of the day. Source
Herbert Marcuse provided the most explicit positive program for the sexual revolution in his 1955 book, Eros and Civilization. His target was what he called sexual restraints imposed by society beyond those necessary for civilisation itself. Marcuse argued that society had channeled sexuality into monogamic, procreative institutions, subordinating the natural “pleasure drives” to the demands of productive labor. His version of female liberation was to release a woman’s sexuality from the genital, reproductive mode, transforming her body – and the woman herself – into an instrument of pleasure.
This was a direct assault on the Christian-bourgeois sexual ethic that had underpinned the Western family. Marcuse stated that “gay sex, because it was intrinsically sterile and non-productive, was a fine example of revolutionary behavior”. This statement makes the man’s logic explicit: any sexual practice that refused the reproductive, family-oriented (and morality-based) norm was (approvingly) politically subversive by its very nature. The sexual revolution of the 1960s, which drew heavily on Marcuse and Reich, translated this theoretical assault into a cultural one. The consequences we identify today – the loss of shame, the recasting of depraved sexual pathologies as merely preferences – are the downstream effects of this translation.
The Moral Effect on Women: From “Liberation” to “Objectification”
FRANCE – CIRCA 1937: Beauty contest. France, about 1937-1939. (Photo by Gaston Paris/Roger Viollet via Getty Images). Source
The emphasis on the negative moral effect on women finds support in an unexpected quarter: Max Horkheimer’s later repudiation of the sexual revolution he had helped theorise. In a late 1960s interview, Horkheimer argued that contraception – and the sexual revolution it enabled – had “destroyed love” and led to the “objectification and instrumentalisation of women”. But this is contradictory and perhaps false. Horkheimer’s reasoning was internal to his own critical theory that stripping erotic love of commitment and fertility was the way to accomplish the desired transformation that turns people into things. The “liberation” of sex from the family turned sexual partners into instruments of worth only insofar as they met one’s sexual needs. The fruit of the “liberation” of women, as critics from both left and right have observed, has been the “unprecedented objectification of women”, the most obvious symptom of which is pornography. Furthermore, Horkheimer clearly stated that he saw the sexual revolution “curdling into a new, dogmatic ideology that was destructive of humanity”.
The Frankfurt School placed the family at the center of its critique of Western civilisation. It developed a psychoanalytic account of how paternal authority produced a compliant subject, and it sought to dismantle that authority. Its theorists provided the intellectual scaffolding for “the sexual revolution” that followed, that revolution contributing mightily to the erosion of the family, the loss of shame, and the objectification of women.
We could focus more on the history and progression of this topic of sexual liberation. It seems evident that this began in earnest with the Jewish Bolsheviks in Russia, Bela Kun in Austria and Hungary, and the various Jewish “anarchists” in Germany, including Magnus Hirschfeld. It was these German Jews who merged and adopted various theories and formed the Frankfurt School. The members of this “school”, their theories and philosophy of sexual freedom and the so-called “sexual revolution”, were real, and were heavily promoted by the Western (Jewish-owned) media. And their destructive effects on morality, especially the sexual morality of women, are documented fact. It is also documented fact that these same theories led to the sexualisation of children.
During the era of Bella Kuhn in Hungary, Lukács ordered that children be educated in free love and declared marriage to be outdated; his aim was clearly stated as “the destruction of Christian morality and the family”. Hirschfeld’s institute in Germany was a center for sexual reform. Marcuse’s concept of “repressive desublimation” highlights how the sexual liberation of women was utilised to foster compliance, with the female body becoming a commodity. Reich argued that the sexual liberation of women would serve as a tool for political revolution. In total, the Frankfurt School combined Freud and Marx to form a theory that inevitably led to the disintegration of the family and a drastically corrosive effect on women’s morality.
An examination of the historical results of the Frankfurt theory points to a severe conclusion: the theoretical project that welded Freud to Marx was internally logical in a way that necessarily led to the subversion of sexual morality and the dissolution of the family. And once this theory entered society through cultural transmission mechanisms, its corrosion of women’s moral positioning and its dismantling of children’s sexual boundaries were no longer “unintended consequences” but the logical realisation at the social level of the theory’s core.
The core operation of the Frankfurt School was to “sociologise” Freudian psychoanalysis and graft it onto Marx’s theory of alienation. Herbert Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization is the model of this synthesis. Its chain of logic is as follows: Freud held that civilisation was built upon the repression of instinct; Marx held that capitalism produced unnecessary alienated labor. Once the two were merged, capitalist domination was redefined as a kind of “surplus repression” – that is, an instinctual suppression imposed on people in order to maintain the ruling order.
Within the framework of the merger of Freud and Marx, the nuclear family was designated an “agency of repression”. The father, as the internaliser of authority, transformed external social coercion into the individual’s inner “superego”, so that domination could operate at the “voluntary” level. Therefore, to destroy paternal authority within the family was, in logical terms, no longer a moral or cultural option, but a necessary revolutionary step. Wilhelm Reich reached the same destructive conclusion by another path: he regarded sexual repression as a “powerful pillar of reactionary forces” and believed that only by mobilising women through sexual liberation could political revolution be achieved. Sex was no longer a domain of private ethics, but was instrumentalised as fuel for Jewish political mobilisation. The family was no longer a shelter for emotion, but a psychological fortress that must necessarily be breached. The theory already contains all of its own consequences:
Applied to women, the destructive effect of the above theory is especially clear. The Frankfurt School’s conception of “sexual liberation” did not point toward women’s autonomy and dignity, but toward “desublimating” sex from all ethical restraints, making it a freely circulating “libidinal energy”. Marcuse himself offered a cool diagnosis of the inherent danger of this process: he pointed out that in advanced industrial society, the “liberation” of womens’ sexuality could (and would) precisely become a new form of control: “the pleasure thus administered produces compliance”.
The realisation of this diagnosis in women is direct. When sex is stripped from the framework of marriage, reproduction, and emotional commitment and becomes “free”, it is immediately captured by market logic. Marcuse’s analysis already foresaw that in this “controlled sexual liberation”, “women are increasingly transformed into sexual objects, and the female body becomes a profitable commodity”. So-called “liberation” did not give women a moral status beyond commodification; instead, it accelerated the transformation of their bodies into exchangeable signs. The sexual liberation advocated by Reich, in historical practice, did not produce women’s “moral autonomy”; its effect was that the collapse of moral restraints exposed women to a more thorough instrumentalisation. The old moral protective norms were dismantled, while new mechanisms of exploitation marched straight in. This is precisely the realisation of the theory’s logic: when sex is abstracted from family ethics, it does not enter a “kingdom of freedom”, but a “kingdom of power”.
The theoretical core of the Frankfurt School was to “Marxianise” Freud’s instinct theory, defining the family as a reproductive apparatus of oppression, and defining sexual liberation as a necessary condition of political liberation. This core contained within itself no braking mechanism that would inherently limit its destructive consequences. The logic of “desublimation” for women led logically to accelerated sexual commodification after the collapse of moral restraints; the dismantling of taboos regarding children led logically to a “legalisation” process that exposed infants and small children to adult sexual categories. The family was destroyed as the primary target of a revolutionary project by a theory that logically and necessarily required the destruction of the family.
Jewish Denials
When confronted with the facts, the Jews’ “official narrative” is that they did not seek to destroy the family, but rather believed that under capitalism it had been undermined by “advertising, social engineering, and fascism”, and that they actually sought to save the concept of the family. One Jewish writer (Slater) claimed in an essay that the Frankfurt School’s attitude towards the breakdown of the family was “not without a touch of sadness”. Others claimed (paraphrasing Horkheimer) that “from the hollow shell of the destroyed nuclear family, a new sense of ‘community’ might emerge”. Other Jewish writers claim that the destruction of the family was not really a coherent plot, but merely a series of intellectual interventions with “unintended consequences” that were unfortunately indeed destructive. They claim further that the Frankfurt School did not destroy the family, but rather mourned its destruction by the very forces of monopoly capitalism, advertising, social engineering, and fascism that they opposed. They claimed that the decline of the father’s economic independence under monopoly capitalism had already crumbled paternal authority, leaving the family hollow and subject to greater control by “public power”. Finally, the Jews claim that the work of the Frankfurt School was “an attempt to rescue the idea of the family from this annihilation, not to administer the coup de grâce”. These denials are all nonsense; the results speak for themselves.
Epilogue
There is much more to this Jewish-sponsored agenda of “sexual liberation” as a tool for the deconstruction of Western society. The first steps took us from the Jewish Bolsheviks in Russia, through Hungary and Germany, to Karl Marx, and to the Frankfurt school. When the Frankfurt Jews relocated to the US and began their promotions in earnest, the floodgates of sexuality opened wide. The resulting corruption and signs of social destruction are everywhere to be seen. Following the Frankfurt School, we had the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s, the various Women’s Movements, the intense push for free abortions, the Jewish-created birth control pill. We had the so-called “studies” of Alfred Kinsey and Masters and Johnson; no-fault divorce, the divorce explosion, and so much more.
The Jewish-inspired and heavily-promoted sexual revolution was not merely a change in attitudes; it was a technological and legal transformation that severed intercourse from procreation, and severed marriage from permanence. The women’s movements redefined marriage itself from a binding covenant to a temporary contract that could be freely terminated at will.
Kinsey, Marcuse, the mass media, court rulings, and the widespread availability of contraceptives; these actors did not require a conspiratorial “command center”; what they shared was the same conceptual grammar. Sexual repression was pathological, sexual liberation was healthy, traditional morality was “Victorian hypocrisy”, and the family was a place of oppression. Once this conceptual framework became the cultural default, disparate institutions – universities, publishing houses, the media, the courts and pharmaceutical companies – each promoted the same set of practices in accordance with their own interests and incentives.
I do not think of a “conspiracy” here in any usual sense. It seems that the progress toward the destruction of sexual morality and the family, was more the result of disparate groups sharing the same philosophy and ideology, and not necessarily acting in unison or under central direction. This framework is historically and sociologically defensible, and it explains the speed and depth of the diffusion of these phenomena better than “conspiracy theory” does. But the result on morality and society is essentially the same as if we had a coordinated conspiracy.
What emerged was a catastrophic convergence: a critique of authoritarianism that identified the family as its seedbed; a psychoanalytic theory that sought to liberate a woman’s (or a child’s) “natural” body from “repressive” morality; and a political strategy that used sexual passion as a mobilising tool. The result was a cultural revolution that, as Horkheimer himself recognised, liberated individuals into new forms of subjugation – to the very instrumental rationality the Frankfurt School had pretended to oppose.
In following essays in this series, within the context of the Jew’s weaponising of corrupted sexuality, we will identify many other portions of the agenda, and examine the damage done to society, to women, to teen-agers and children, in terms of morality and the loss of religion in this context.
*
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 150 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).
His full archive can be seen at
https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/
He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com
*
NOTES – Part 12
[1] Noelle Mering, Awake, Not Woke: A Christian Response to the Cult of Progressive Ideology
https://catholicvote.org/chris-rufo-trans-takeover-documentary.
[2] The Assault on Gender and the Family: Jewish Sexology and the Legacy of the Frankfurt School, Part One
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2015/12/26/the-assault-on-gender-and-the-family-jewish-sexology-and-the-legacy-of-the-frankfurt-school-part-one/1
*
This article may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not been specifically authorised by the copyright owner. This content is being made available under the Fair Use doctrine, and is for educational and information purposes only. There is no commercial use of this content.
Jews are Plundering the World — New!
Who Starts All The Wars?Jews are Plundering the World — New!
What we Are Not Told :German POWs in America – What Happened to Them?
The Jewish Hasbara in All its Glory
Democracy – The Most Dangerous Religion
NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 1 — How the US Became Rich
NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 2 — Life in a Failed State
NATIONS BUILT ON LIES — Volume 3 — The Branding of America
Police State America Volume One
Police State America Volume Two
THE WORLD OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE
False Flags and Conspiracy Theories
Kamila Valieva
LARRY ROMANOFF FREE E-BOOKS & PDF ARTICLES
Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Blue Moon of Shanghai, Moon of Shanghai, 2026
/https://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2021/09/25/huawei-executive-meng-wanzhou-receives-warm-welcome-upon-return-to-china/_1_meng_wanzhou_2.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.