Jargoeauxgne

That, Idealism (maybe? you'll have to say) , is excellent but the "gotcha" is a false one: one can easily see how material factors influence consciousness without necessarily ceding that they determine consciousness, much less reality in general.

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.

Surprised at you @Logo_Daedalus for buying into this handwaving. This is a simple matter but Kantbot would rather keep his rep and so is using all kinds of tricks to take himself off the hook: switching between UpperCase versions of words (Globalism) and lowercase (globalism), 1/

making false attributions, equivocating, shifting goalposts and every other rhetorical trick. The issue doesn't need to be complicated: I said CoC may not be a watertight thesis but it does show that 20th C morally subversive intellectual movements have largely been jewish.. 2/

Kantbot goes on to make a few claims: that jews didn't invent these ideas, that the methodology is bunk, that it's a post hoc rationalization, that internationalization was austrian not marxian, and so on and so forth. Therefore, thoroughly all of MacDonald's thesis is invalid.3/

Firstly, the ideas' authorship is irrelevant. Secondly, the methodology is simply tracing shifts in western consciousness in the 20th C: from fidelity, patriotism, faith and self-confidence to liberation, decontextualized sense of justice, anti-theism and self-scrutiny. 4/