Jargoeauxgne

Yeah but I feel like CoC is absolutely overdetermining

I look at it as an attempt to provide an enlightenment-friendly explanation for the preponderant jewishness of morally subversive cultural engineering. That is to say, even in 'failing', it proves much.

I think its mainly a result of a gerrymandering of intellectual history that creates the deceptive appearance of “cultural marxism,” which isnt defined in (intellectually) genetic terms according to internal principles.

Like how to you define which parts of modern philosophy are “morally subversive social engineering”? I was talking about Hermeneutic standards earlier and the guy just auto-assumed it was a part of “cultural marxism” despite being a Christian tradition totally unrelated to Marx

But then again “cultural marxists” care about interpretation and critical method, so its not like there isnt an influence into cultural marxism. Like they read Gadamer in the 60’s. But all the Hermenuticists were christian theologians and preachers

So what is this methodology to select which philosophies get included, especially when youre already lumping together Marx and Freud under the same umbrella, two things that arent really compatible in their original formulations and werent intended to be

No methodology. I mean I don't even take the Marx+Freud thing seriously as most rw criticism of Marx is retarded and irrelevant to his works. But the jewish connection is, to me, clear: denial of higher (pure?) sources of causality, sex and matter, implicit anti-theistic feeling.

Yeah i agree. No methodology. Just “jews clearly suck so lets attribute a bunch of ideas i dont like to them whether such readings have any textual support whatsoever”. So the book has no actual scholarly value, just post hoc justification of emotional characterizing of jews