Jargoeauxgne

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/

Psychoanalysis and feminism led to atheism and sexual liberation, anthropology led to cultural relativism, and the frankfurt school led to societal existentialism. There's no need to kick against the pricks. 6/

Atheism predates all of those things-- do you know who De Sade is? Does history begin for you in the 20th century? It's just absolutely silly nonsense.