Cultural Marxism?

[Anonymous No.19671216]

I decided that I want to learn about cultural marxism, and the ways in which communism has infiltrated western society. I was going to read pic related, is there any other good lit on the topic?

[Anonymous No.19671225]

>>19671216

[Anonymous No.19671327]

>>19671216
>there any other good lit on the topic?
Lolno. Because it’s a joke.
Marxism in the church? Hahah. Have you ever heof the American revolution? Th French Revolution? Read up on them and then move onto some biography of Marx or something find out why there was a socialist movement shadowing capitalism.

[Anonymous No.19671390]

>>19671216
>and the ways in which communism has infiltrated western society
The fuck? What do you think communism is?

[Anonymous No.19671421]

>>19671216
>learn about cultural marxism
have you done any learning on marxism yet? just make sure it's about class analysis and not idpolShit.

[Anonymous No.19671460]

>>19671216
>cultural marxism

[Anonymous No.19671489]

>>19671216
Cultural marxism doesn't exist. Show me where Marx wrote about racial or gender identity?

[Anonymous No.19671500]

>>19671216
If the right stopped saying cultural marxism and instead talked about gramscism to refer to the same phenomenon, what would the left say?

[Anonymous No.19671503]

>I cant have sex because cultural marxists in universities (that I never attended)

[Anonymous No.19671515]

>>19671503
Do chuds even know about the glass of water theory? Leftists are fucking around like rabbits. Righties can't fuck because they are nerdy looking and bitter.

[Anonymous No.19671518]

>>19671515
Religious people have the highest reproduction rate. Cope dysgenic mutant.

[Anonymous No.19671528]

>>19671500
>If the right stopped saying cultural marxism
Why would they stop? It filters lefty trannies, and normal people know exactly what it's being talked about.

[Anonymous No.19671588]

>>19671500
Same thing they do now. They will ask you if you have actually read Gramsci, even if they haven't read him themselves (just like Marx), and then they will use language games to pretend that what you're saying is nonsense anyway and they will mock you until gramscism as term becomes as discredited as cultural marxism.

[Anonymous No.19671592]

>>19671489
>Marxism ends with Marx.
Just look at the 1619 project. Trying to mainstream a narrative about how slavery and slavery alone built the USA is actually a covert attempt by Marxists to mainstream the LTV. Marxism is the framework of economic analysis of all academic progressivism.

[Anonymous No.19671600]

>>19671592
>Just look at the 1619 project. Trying to mainstream a narrative about how slavery and slavery alone built the USA
Okay
>is actually a covert attempt by Marxists to mainstream the LTV.
Wut

[Anonymous No.19671604]

>>19671225
fpbp
>>19671327
>>19671390
>>19671421
>>19671460
>>19671489
>>19671503
The above are in denial, too dull to recognise the foundation of their own beliefs. Class is interchangeable with any descriptor of your opponent, the methods of seeking power are the same.
Shafarevichs "The Socialist Phenomenon" informed Bezmenovs lecture, both are worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.19671605]

>>19671500
It doesn't matter. The whole point of terminology like this is to create a discourse that can allow for possibilities outside of the current academic hegemony. If they say it doesn't exist, tell them that it is an existing phenomenon and that we have decided to use the term "cultural Marxism" to describe it. If they want to argue semantics, just reiterate that this is the term we have decided on because we aren't bootlickers for academia, and if they don't want to use it, they have nothing to contribute to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.19671618]

>>19671605
>still engaging with dishonest lefties in 2022
ngmi

[Anonymous No.19671626]

>>19671588
Pretty much this. Anything that discredits the narrative gets mocked regardless of its merits. It's a common leftist play. Remember how much Chomsky whined about the people covering Cambodia's humanitarian crisis back in the day, saying they weren't rigorous or legitimate intellectuals and that their only purpose was to make socialism look back, even when they were actually there and Chomsky was writing bullshit in America? That's all you need to know about academics. They are a bunch of midwits snakes who will treat any dissidence as illegitimate.

[Anonymous No.19671630]

The term "cultural Marxism" triggered leftists so hard they actually deleted the entire Wikipedia page and replaced with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

They didn't just rename it: they literally deleted the page to remove the entire history of the page, which is against the rules of Wikipedia. The "right-wingers", "liberals", "libertarians", etc. who keep conceding vocabulary to the left are just running interference for the force and fraud of cultural Marxism. That's why people join fascists, because all other ideologies are embarrassing and useless.

[Anonymous No.19671639]

>>19671604
have u read critque of the gotha programme?
>class is interchangeable
btw you do know marx read and borrowed a lot from hegel right?

not that i dont agree with you in many respects(in respect to current modernity), i've read/agree with a lot of Nrx stuff afterall

[Anonymous No.19671645]

>>19671600
Affirming the former requires a belief in the latter. Mainstream acceptance of that assertion means the mainstream acceptance of the LTV. Marxists were unable to convince the population of it within economic discourse, so they found a discourse in which they could assert their ideology covertly. That's the thing about intersectionality, you can use different portions of the progressive coalition to attack enemies of different member groups. Racial, gender, and sexual discourse can easily be used to advance an economic or class agenda, and the latter can be used to support the former.

[Anonymous No.19671648]

>>19671626
Cope. Chomsky is not perfect and he was dead wrong about Pol Pot, but he's a well respected academic while the people who talk about "postmodern cultural marxism" like Peterson are seen as a joke by most academics and intellectuals. He doesn't know anything about postmodernism, culture or marxism.

[Anonymous No.19671653]

>>19671648
>well respected academic
>by most academics and intellectuals
That's because cultural Marxism infested academia, and why people reject its authority. Keep appealing to authority, but no one is listening.

[Anonymous No.19671654]

>>19671618
there's a couple of things I like to get at them one here. This is one of them. It's amazing how quick they go from "cultural marxism doesn't exist" to "well that's not marxism" to just shutting up.
What I like the most is seeing how much of the worldview these great rebels have adopted amounts to nothing more than groveling before academics.

[Anonymous No.19671663]

>>19671653
So you think you know better than the people who actually dedicate their lives to study these subjects? Do you know that no serious academic believes cultural marxism is a thing, right? If you told them about it they will laugh at your face and send you to read Marx to see how wrong you are.

[Anonymous No.19671664]

>>19671654
Elaborate.

[Anonymous No.19671669]

>>19671663
>the people who actually dedicate their lives to study these subjects?
They dedicate their lives to promoting cultural Marxism, so their opinion is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.19671670]

>>19671663
B-ut... B-ut Peterson told me it was a real thing and that postmodernists are conspiring to destroy western civilization from the inside!!!!

[Anonymous No.19671694]

>>19671663
>So you think you know better than the people who actually dedicate their lives to study these subjects? Do you know that no serious academic believes cultural marxism is a thing, right? If you told them about it they will laugh at your face and send you to read Marx to see how wrong you are.
And I could just read them the descriptions of cultural studies and sociology courses within their own institutions and shut them up.

[Anonymous No.19671703]

>>19671645
Yes the New York Times is trying to advance a proletarian agenda

[Anonymous No.19671713]

>>19671703
Yes, anyone who doesn't explicitly support the complete removal of communists from society is actively supporting the communist agenda. There is no middle-ground at this point.

[Anonymous No.19671718]

>>19671500
>if the right stopped saying cultural marxism and instead talked about gramscism
I'd rather people drop the labels fucking completely and just write out the exact thing they want. In this case, the belief that a social stasis amenable to puritan autarkists
>has ever existed
>is legitimate to pursue
Marx doesn't even need to be brought into the discussion, he's only there to frighten boomers who were around during the cold war.

[Anonymous No.19671722]

>>19671713
Is this the right path to go down on? It doesn't have a track record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_are_either_with_us,_or_against_us

[Anonymous No.19671726]

>>19671670
Marxist agitators certainly grift with all the enthusiasm of your average anarchist, but ultimately they're just a similar sort of pseud. "Postmodernism" isn't a thing, Peterson had a point (just a rehash of Hicks' shite book for an undereducated audience).
>>19671703
It's completely revisionist. Are you arguing that it's not? Because that would be really stupid.

[Anonymous No.19671729]

>>19671718
>people drop the labels fucking completely
Of course you prefer that people have issues communicating and pinpointing the issue.

[Anonymous No.19671736]

>>19671216
This is the best book on the topic. Cominterns are afraid of him. They even tried to label him an incel.

[Anonymous No.19671741]

>the marxist notion of a stratified society where there are oppressors exploiting and abusing the oppressed class totally has nothing to do with contemporary leftist ideologies about downtrodden minorities and patriarchal cisgendered heteronormative social injustice
>we only need to pull the whole system down to make everything equal and equitable
>also capitalism is evil
>also we have these guys, antifa (not communists) that will march (occasionally violently) in the streets for our desired equity

[Anonymous No.19671750]

>>19671741
BLM has nothing to do with Marxism dumb righoid

[Anonymous No.19671751]

>>19671718
>Marx doesn't even need to be brought into the discussion, he's only there to frighten boomers who were around during the cold war.
He does, the left has used academic spaces to amass power, and the work of Marx and his intellectual/political descendants are a component of his success. Part of any right wing agenda right now would be the removal from academia any field of study or figure who can be shown to have been influenced by Marx in any capacity.
>>19671670
Peterson is a dope, but he's not wrong here. Appealing to the people who have made it their mission to use academic spaces to advance an ideology when they can be successfully disputed with a course catalogue is just silly. It is precisely the manner of study which they have spent their lives doing that makes them not credible as authorities in this conversation.

[Anonymous No.19671759]

To say cultural marxism isn't marxist is like saying marxism isn't hegelian. They may not be the same thing, but there's a direct link between them.

[Anonymous No.19671761]

>>19671736
is there class analysis in this? not memeing at all like is there anything like caste system related/similar in this book?

i don't mind if anything pertaining to class is genetic in notion just want to know about this book moar

[Anonymous No.19671762]

>>19671736
A discredited antisemite?
>>19671741
>antifa
They only march in specific locations at specific times and accomplish nothing relevant whatsoever. Rittenhouse won, in case you hadn't heard.

[Anonymous No.19671763]

>>19671722
The presence of communists, particularly those of the Marxist variety, transforms all political discourse into Manichaeism.
My response is nothing more than a recognition of this reality.

[Anonymous No.19671770]

>>19671761
>is there class analysis in this?
No, because MacDonald correctly identifies Marxism was never about class.

[Anonymous No.19671773]

>>19671762
>Rittenhouse won
If evil postmodernist cultural marxists control every institution as Peterson or Moldbug say, then how come Rittenhouse won? You may argue he was technically innocent, which I agree, but if they had all the power that wouldn't matter to them. They would have used all the power of the judge, the prosecutor, the police and the FBI to inculpate him.

[Anonymous No.19671774]

>>19671762
>A discredited antisemite?
Discredited by Jews? He was never refuted.

[Anonymous No.19671779]

>>19671770
elaborate more is it about genetics?

[Anonymous No.19671781]

>>19671773
If they had all the power, we wouldn't be having this discussion here now. Preventing them from grabbing all the power is the point.

[Anonymous No.19671783]

>>19671750
>BLM has nothing to do with Marxism
Are you this uninformed or assuming everyone else is? Search; BLM Trained Marxists.

>>19671762
"On The Jewish Question" 1844, Karl Marx.
Who's the anti-semite again?

[Anonymous No.19671787]

>>19671779
Not explicitly about genetics, but MacDonald considers Judaism vs Whites as an evolutionary conflict for resources.

[Anonymous No.19671790]

>>19671751
>part of any right wing agenda would be the removal from academia any field of study who can be shown to have been influenced by Marx in any capacity
Which under the "cultural marxism" definition is any theory that is not either culturally absolutist or essentialist and that actually advances a field rather than reiterate a sacred cow. In this case sociologists would still be writing turgid nonsense-texts on contagious madness. Right wingers are not wrong in their assumption that the arbitrary categories have gone out of academia.

[Anonymous No.19671792]

>>19671773
>If evil postmodernist cultural marxists control every institution as Peterson or Moldbug say, then how come Rittenhouse won?
>If one side has developed an implemented a strategy about gradual infiltration and subversion, how come the other side gets the occasional win that they are rendered incapable of capitalizing on.
Really makes you think, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.19671794]

>>19671750
>no concrete goals
>vague, indeterminate language
Strange that 1 and 6 are completely contradictory; 4 necessitates government intervention that would be (and was) described as racist.

[Anonymous No.19671796]

>>19671774
I haven't read the book and barely know what it is about, but even if he were right about everything, it wouldn't matter because he's discredited, so you can't bring it up without people laughing at you or accusing you of being an alt-right sympathizer. It's worthless. If you want to change a world then make it in a way that people will actually listen to, because antisemitism/racism/homophobia won't cut it. If you have to appeal to those things for your argument to make sense, then you already lost the debate. No reasonable people will support that shit.

[Anonymous No.19671812]

>>19671783
Show me where Marx wrote about BLM. You can't. It wasn't even a concern for him during his lifetime, dipshit.

[Anonymous No.19671813]

>>19671796
>if you want to win you must play by our rules
I don't remember asking you for advice. Anon recommended an appropriate book to OP, and you posted something stupid.

[Anonymous No.19671814]

>>19671779
sometimes.

[Anonymous No.19671815]

>>19671787
ty anon, have you read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
by Julian Jaynes?

[Anonymous No.19671821]

>>19671815
No, it felt to me that Epic of Gilgamesh refutes his point, but I'll probably read it one day.

[Anonymous No.19671822]

>>19671713
>>19671741
>anything about that talks abouut oppression or conflict is marxist
>also we are in conflict with the jews who are oppressing us

[Anonymous No.19671833]

>>19671812
I can show BLM studied marx. Given his description of "that Jewish Nigger La Salle" I suspect he had some thoughts on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgEUbSzOTZ8

[Anonymous No.19671837]

>>19671821
but is Gilgamesh even real kek it maybe simulacra

[Anonymous No.19671839]

The absolute state of lefties

[Anonymous No.19671844]

>>19671814
that signl is also the UN symbol but u most likely know

[Anonymous No.19671857]

>>19671790
I think it would be better for sociology to not exist as a discipline altogether. I would perhaps be willing to give them a chance if they were willing to abandon Marxist style conflict theory to a method of determine social problems based around the health of the state as an entity.
>Right wingers are not wrong in their assumption that the arbitrary categories have gone out of academia.
No duh. I don't know how anyone can deny this when we constantly see academic terminology popping up in mainstream politics, the business world, and the media. Are we supposed to believe that it popped out of thin air?

[Anonymous No.19671859]

>>19671833
So she's influenced by Marx. Big fucking deal. Most intellectuals are to some degree, even the ones who disagree with him. That doesn't make cultural marxism real. Marx never talked about BLM. He wrote thousands of pages and didn't mention them a single time. Perhaps it's because they were even a thing when he was alive.

[Anonymous No.19671864]

>>19671859
No! No! You don't get it. She just confessed to be a cultural marxist! Peterson was right, see, see!?

[Anonymous No.19671865]

>>19671857
>I think it would be better for sociology to not exist as a discipline altogether.
You're being silly. Marxists just corrupted most humanities, but there's plenty of potential if it hadn't been subverted.

[Anonymous No.19671869]

>>19671833
anon you have to remember this is a perversion of BLM. the vid is the #BLM and the not of the blm from during furgeson riots, that blm was killed off strategically by intel

[Anonymous No.19671885]

>>19671859
ESL? The issue isn't that she read Marx, it's that she characterizes herself (and the movement) as "trained Marxists" which is a different thing altogether. Lets not be disingenuous about it.

[Anonymous No.19671886]

>>19671518
>all sex is reproductive
Incel moment

[Anonymous No.19671892]

>>19671822
I'm one of the people you responded to. I'm not into Jewish conspiracies. If anything I think they're just a way for white power types (of which I am not) to stick their heads in the sand and ignore just how many white gentiles are active supporters of policies they oppose.

[Anonymous No.19671894]

>>19671663
At a uni I attend teachers had a whole class about Marxism in Philosophy, had 5 major class assignments in English about writing Marxist ideas in a positive light otherwise we got bumped down in grade by an antifaite teacher, in Sociology my teacher praised Marx.

You are retarded or blind or both, but most likely a liberal. You need everything to have footnotes because you have 90 IQ. It’s ironic that liberals can’t do enough intuitive thinking to save their own lives.

[Anonymous No.19671898]

>>19671216
Cultural Marxism is Marxism that seeks to achieve Marxist ends through the invocation of sex and race instead class, assuming that class consciousness does not sell in the US. However, their assumption is that sexual and racial oppression in the US tracks class oppression more often than not.

[Anonymous No.19671902]

>>19671892
>I'm not into Jewish conspiracies
What's your refutation to MacDonald's thesis then?

[Anonymous No.19671906]

>>19671859
See how the goal posts move. I've already shown he discussed "Jewish niggers", so you've either not read "1000s of pages" or are lying once again. Bear in mind the original statement was;
>BLM has nothing to do with Marxism

>>19671869
I'm well aware that everything which discredits socialism is a conspiracy, including the words and actions of its adherents, it's never real socialism.

[Anonymous No.19671939]

>>19671906
socialism just needs to be workers owning the means of production. i'm monarchy minded so i just think there needs to be a distinction between what is the original version and the globalhomo version to know what we are dealing with

[Anonymous No.19671960]

It's so strange reading these replies. All these utopian baits, but nobody ever points to the utopians (More, Campanella, Bacon) and the Saint-Simonians and notices the degree of proposed conformity (and ultimately dystopic dictatorial influence). Its why they're always written from an observer's perspective. It's such a basic bitch observation, but I never see it mentioned in threads like these.

[Anonymous No.19671975]

>>19671960
People ITT, and any similar thread make their opinions based off of tweets, not books. Modern politics discussions always bring in a bunch of traffic from non-readers.

[Anonymous No.19671995]

>>19671902
That for every jew involved with whatever it is you don't like, you'll find many more white gentiles there and that singling out Jews will inevitably give you an incomplete picture. The interesting thing would be to learn what leads both those jews and gentiles to their political beliefs and social activism.

[Anonymous No.19672004]

>>19671995
>That for every jew involved with whatever it is you don't like, you'll find many more white gentiles there and that singling out Jews will inevitably give you an incomplete picture.
Not related to MacDonald's thesis. Maybe you should read the father of modern antisemitism before speaking about it or about "Jewish conspiracies"?

[Anonymous No.19672013]

>>19672004
That is related to MacDonald's thesis. There's a piece on on the board right now where he claims that CoC's merit is how many jews are in activist organizations.

[Anonymous No.19672016]

>>19672013
>That is related to MacDonald's thesis.
What's his thesis?

[Anonymous No.19672025]

>>19672016
That there is a preponderance of Jews in specific activist organizations. Unless you're talking about his early books, where he just claims culture is genetic.

[Anonymous No.19672034]

>>19672025
>That there is a preponderance of Jews in specific activist organizations
No, his thesis is that there have been multiple successful political/ideological movements that were anti-white and in which Jews played an essential role. Your arguments are red herrings because you never read the book you're trying to refute.

[Anonymous No.19672041]

>>19671960
I mentioned Shafarevich. Appealing to anything older than Marx will have them whining about "Duh, that wasn't socialism". God forbid we mention the Incans. We always bring in the Jew thing as well for some damn reason. Jews did Socialism, sure, so did so many other reprobates that weren't jewish yet still killed millions. Were the Chinese secret Jews? Did Jews total the economies of South America?

>>19671939
No. Does not work, incentives are required. No-one starts a company to be an employee with no say in the business you started. Starting every enterprise is a risk, it should have an equal reward or no-one takes the risk. If you're idea was viable it would be in practice, if you believe that socialist bullshit start your own co-op and see what happens.

[Anonymous No.19672053]

>>19672034
All you did was restate what I said but with a bit more detail. Here is a summation of the previous discussion:
>there are many more white gentiles in organizations pegged by Macdonald as anti-white
>that's not related to his thesis
>yes it is, his thesis is the jewish involvement in such organizations
>no, his thesis is that there is jewish involvement in such organization
I don't know what point you think you're making

[Anonymous No.19672059]

>>19672053
>>no, his thesis is that there is jewish involvement in such organization
Wrong again, he says there's an essential Jewish element in those ideologies i.e. without Jews they wouldn't have existed. It has nothing to do with how many whites or Jews were there and comparing proportions or representations. It sounds like you're too dumb to understand words.

[Anonymous No.19672077]

>>19672059
Which doesn't make the racial percentile question unrelated to his thesis, which is what you said. You insult my intelligence but you're not particularly good at expressing yourself. The idea that these ideas would not have come into existence without the existence of Jewish character is an extension of his essentialist dogma anyway.

[Anonymous No.19672084]

>>19672077
>Which doesn't make the racial percentile question unrelated to his thesis, which is what you said.
It does. Jews can be 5% but if they're an essential element, his thesis stands unrefuted. Your argument was a red herring. It's also wrong for most of his examples, because he shows they were in majority in most of them, but that's besides the point.
>You insult my intelligence but you're not particularly good at expressing yourself.
You don't know what 'essential' means, you argue about a book you haven't read, and you're wasting my time. Don't act dumb if you don't like being called dumb.
>The idea that these ideas would not have come into existence without the existence of Jewish character is an extension of his essentialist dogma anyway.
It's not. You keep arguing against something you don't even understand. How can I call you anything else than dumb? Go read the book or stop spreading non-sense.

[Anonymous No.19672103]

>>19672041
is enterprise in its nature fascist? or at least will become fash economically in order to subsist. i see the term socialism as just a descriptor, i don't think either ricardian/marxist socialism can actually work and has to be heavily modified in order to produce results

[Anonymous No.19672114]

>>19672084
It does matter because essentialism is circular. Which is why in every response to criticism his view gets narrower.
>White people wouldn't have had these ideas without Jewish influence
>Why did white people support these movements? They were corrupted by Jews
>Were they all Jews, no they were specifically Jewish elite and they own these ideas
>Why weren't Whites able to maintain control? Because the anglo-american elite class declined
And so the whole conception of idea-ownership based on Jewish subversion and insular nature becomes meaningless because in the end it's simply elite vs elite anyway and it's difficult to look away from the fact he's masking an ideological shift with a veneer of race. If white people weren't by nature geared towards there own interests then how come the anglo-elite class was a better protector of these interests? I don't know, and I don't think he does either. A class and education distinction creeps in that muddies the causal link of race to a degree that the whole thing is rather unimpressive.

[Anonymous No.19672125]

>>19672114
>>Why did white people support these movements? They were corrupted by Jews
He doesn't say that
>>they were specifically Jewish elite
They weren't
>>Why weren't Whites able to maintain control? Because the anglo-american elite class declined
He doesn't say that.

You're a retard.

[Anonymous No.19672137]

>>19672125
From The Default Hypothesis fails to Explain Jewish Influence:
>Cofnas (2021) has three central claims. First, he repeats his erroneous assumption that the “anti-Jewish narrative” depends on showing that Jews in general are ethnocentric, his argument in opposition being contemporary rates of intermarriage in Western societies. But contemporary rates of intermarriage are completely irrelevant to whether Jewish activists who have been described as participating in influential intellectual and political movements in earlier decades—the subject of CofC—had strong Jewish identifications and saw their work as advancing Jewish group interests such as combatting anti-Semitism. For example, a major theme in all the movements discussed in CofC is that Jewish ethnic networking, an aspect of ethnocentrism, has been important for the success of the movements. This is not at all a claim that Jews in general are ethnocentric, only that the Jews under discussion were ethnocentric as indicated by ethnic networking.

From the same
>The general subject of CofC is the rise of a new, left-of-center, substantially Jewish elite in the post-World War II era, an elite centered in the media, the academic world, and political culture—the latter influenced not only by media and academic consensus, but also by political donations enabled by increasing Jewish wealth. The demise of the former white Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) elite is the theme of Eric Kaufmann’s (2014) The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America (critiqued by MacDonald, 2015–16), and Hollinger (1996: 4) notes “the transformation of the ethnoreligious demography of American academic life by Jews”

[Anonymous No.19672144]

>>19672137
Cofnas didn't understand MacDonald's argument, which was explained extensively by MacDonald himself

https://www.unz.com/article/reply-to-nathan-cofnas/
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/SecondReplyCofnas.pdf

[Anonymous No.19672148]

>>19671225
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.19672151]

>>19672144
Yes, that is a quote by an article written by Macdonald against Cofnas

[Anonymous No.19672155]

>>19672151
Then I don't know what's your point. You've been wasting my time for an hour now with things you just Googled now.

[Anonymous No.19672165]

>>19672155
You said he didn't say those things, I have posted an article where he claims that the thesis of CofC rests on what the Jewish elite were doing and not what the standard Jewish citizen engaged in, and where he specifically references the decline of the Anglo-American elite as presaging the Jewish presence in academia.

[Anonymous No.19672176]

>>19672165
He still didn't say any of the things you claimed, and you misunderstood that quote. CofC describes how disenfranchised poor Jews built the Bolshevik movement, so not elites, and the post-War American elites that he mentions in that quote are traced back to the 19th century when they were not elites. The fact that Anglo-American elite declined doesn't mean "the anglo-american elite class declined" anything.

Anon I think you are just really bad at reading anything, so any discussion with you ends up with me trying to explain to you what words mean. It's tedious.

[Anonymous No.19672183]

>>19672176
>The fact that Anglo-American elite declined doesn't mean "the anglo-american elite class declined" anything.
The fact that "Anglo-American elite declined" doesn't mean it's why whites were unable to maintain control*

Whites lost control long before WW2 and it happened first in Europe as extensively detailed in CofC.

[Anonymous No.19672189]

>>19671790
>advances the field
>of sociology
LMAO

[Anonymous No.19672190]

>>19671500
i think bakunin was a featherbrain but even he put 2 and 2 together and saw how Marx and Rothschild had similar interests. and he didnt evne know they were related.

[Anonymous No.19672194]

>>19672176
The article references a criticism that general Jewish citizens were not involved in these anti-white activist movements, which he does not argue, and claims that CoC's merit is on the activity of Jews in positions of power. So the essentialist doctrine, that this is held in common between all Jews, must fall down. That's the point also.
>the fact that anglo-american elite declined doesn't mean they declined (said no to) anything
el mayo
I think you may be the illiterate, friend

[Anonymous No.19672198]

>>19672183
>it happened in Europe first
What does that have to do with American immigration policy

[Anonymous No.19672202]

>>19672194
>The article references a criticism that general Jewish citizens were not involved in these anti-white activist movements
Because the article talks about immigration, not about all the ideological movements in CofC
>>19672198
Immigration policy is just one chapter in CofC. Do you see how you're wasting my time because you haven't read the book? All your replies have been retarded.

[Anonymous No.19672208]

>>19672103
Enterprise requires someone to kick it off, negotiations from then on vary vastly but generally involve a modular hierarchy that apportions risk, reward, responsibility and a litany of other factors that a singular top down system imposed by the state cannot completely account for. For that reason, ivory tower academics are shite at describing and designing economic systems, the economy is organic and works from the ground up. Arbitrary decisions regarding what they ought to be are cancerous to their development, they either impede growth or incentivise destructive behaviour.

[Anonymous No.19672213]

>>19671960
The only pre-Marxist socialist that is at all relevant today is Proudhon,m and even that's a stretch. Marxism transformed the discourse on virtually every single social issue, so it's fair to use him as a starting point. Some sort of similarity between one of today's leftists and Robert Owen means practically nothing when the latter is still using a Marxist framework to understand the world and Marxist terminology to express it.

[Anonymous No.19672222]

>>19672202
I don't think you understand that if these ideas don't follow his doctrine of genetic culture, then the fact that these people are Jewish is irrelevant. I'm describing to you a specific case that violates this rule, and that he admits, and you don't even have a counterargument, you just want to quibble about the text. You don't seem to be able to take Macdonald's principle of culture and apply it as a general rule, your content to only look at it for authority in the specific cases he mentions in his book.

[Anonymous No.19672241]

>>19672222
Because non-elite Jews played a minor role in immigration it doesn't meant non-elite Jews didn't want to play a larger role in immigration. They just couldn't affect it as regular citizens aside from lobbying and voting for it, which they did. However, whenever they could play a role, they did as shown by previous movements which were more open to non-elite Jews. You're just very stupid, so it's hard to communicate ideas.