Jargoeauxgne

The reason it isn't well-defined in intellectual lineages is precisely the point. These movements aren't motivated by the quest for truth but as instruments in a struggle of weltanschauung and, as such, well-defined in ethnic lineages. They're cnncted by their negative character.

The use of the word "gerrymandering" however leads me to believe that there is no case that can be presented sufficient to meet the burden of proof, which is here abnormally higher. One wouldn't dispute the somberness of nordics or childishness of africans with near so much vigor

Lol what?

Maybe read Dr. Jones' book on the topic, since you've had him on your show. Methodologies et. al are not needed: Freud, Reich, Boas, Moskowitz, Friedan, Nathanson, countless others, at the front of their respective movements for solvent ideas. How many for fortifying ones?

How would also object to your false characterization that these things are negative, which again is not supported by reading the philosophies.

Like your whole reason that Jewish intellectuals don't promote societal dissolution through certain ideologies is that they didn't categorically invent them? Forgive me if that just seems like a willfully obtuse reading of your opponent.

I would dispute that 1. They’re necessarily negative. Very dependent on context and formulation. 2. That these thinkers really even supported all these ideas. 3. That someone like Marx supporting ‘social dissolution’ is grounds for condemnation compared to, traditionalism

But my point about genetic reconstruction goes to 1 and 2. As properly attributing these ideas and determining the role they play in these philosophies requires a degree of comparative historical analysis