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.

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/

The shifts in all of these feelings can be traced to intellectual movements which serve as the pivot and, as it turns out, the leaders of these movements have been jewish. This isn't a false attribution or scapegoating or prejudice or anything else. 5/