Culture of Critique

Just so you know I'm gonna copypaste your post and possibly even use it in later arguments. I'm a madman like that.

Now read the Controversy of Zion, Esaus Tears, The International Jew, Against our Better Judgement, Secret relationship between blacks and Jews vol.3, and Final Judgement for maximum red pills.

Attached: 61hyLF-FDlL.jpg (832x1310, 92K)

So that jews control the world or?

MacDonald's book obviously sets out to prove causation but what it really proves is correlation. That's still valuable though, for some reason Jews throughout history are always prominent in destructive movements and destructive movements always prominently feature Jews as the vanguard. Why that happens is an entirely different question that you're right to point out isn't answered in CoC. But simple correlation seems to me to be enough to say "maybe we should be wary of Jewish influence and maybe we should be willing to question the current state of things".

Here's a very interesting book where a surprisingly honest Jewish Supremacist tells you why the Jews and Gentiles will always be in conflict

Attached: 41sR6hoy3TL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_ (1).jpg (333x499, 32K)

Sure. But, I don't think all, or even most of the movements Macdonald treats in the book are destructive. So I don't really think he establishes a meaningful correlation between Judaism and destructive social movements.

I also don't think that Macdonald and I would understand Freud to be destructive in a similar manner, so I think the series of correlations Judaism-Freud-Social Destruction is largely irrelevant to his greater point that Judaism-correlates-social destruction.

Correlation issues aside, I think that evo-psycho is conceptually barren. Everyone should be suspicious of concepts like Group Evolutionary Strategy which function by short-circuiting various other concepts -free will for example.

None of this should be taken as an assault on antisemitism as much as an assault on Macdonald's antisemitism, the perceived rigor of which is often deployed to secure antisemitism originating elsewhere. I am pretty indifferent to internet-people being antisemitic, I find Macdonald's book offensive for being stupid.

All of which is to say that I don't think his book really establishes anything meaningful. Your likely antisemitism (which I don't offer as an insult, I am just surmising, forgive me if I am off base) is better off without Macdonald's ontologically laden jargon.

>The primacy he accords group evolutionary strategies leads to a situation where the mere presence of ethnicity prefigures his reading of whatever thinker, say Freud, leading Macdonald to conclude that Freud's work is essentially Jewish.

So he's basically doing triple parenthesis as high art and science?

If you don't think the movements he tangles with are dangerous than you're probably not the intended audience. MacDonald seems to be going for disenfranchised conservatives who already know that movements and ideas like neoconservatism, philosophical deconstruction, and open borders are inherently harmful for their nation and broader civilization. If you think movements like neoconservatism are positives for the US then you really shouldn't be starting with CoC.

"Tangles" is a strong word. Categorically misrepresents is more accurate.

I don't think neoconservativism is good, it doesn't follow that its bad because its Jewish. There are a million reasons to criticize the movements featured in CoC -almost none of these come up in the book. Macdonald's principle goal is to show that these movements are spurious and damaging because of Judaism. Not that they are dangerous and happen to be Jewish.

I don't think the academic movements he mentions are dangerous because I have read those author's works and am well acquainted with their respective receptions. Barring Freud its hard to construe any of the thinkers/academic movements he discusses as having impacted CIVILIZATION.

As always the link between deconstruction and the identity politics internet-people find so objectionable is slight. This is not to defend either.

Its deeply misleading to collapse the distinction between Freud/Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead/The Frankfurt School (academic movements) and Neoconservatism, which is an expressly political movement.

This isn't to say that the prior group doesn't have an implicit, or even explicit politics, but it is deeply misleading to treat them as engaging in politics the way the neocons did and do. Which is precisely what Macdonald does by placing them all on the same level (even if he doesn't maintain that they are similarly efficacious).

Once again its a lazy book, filled with pseudo rigor.

Having said all that I think its perfectly acceptable to be opposed to mass immigration.

If you want to rag on postmodernism try: Peter Dews "Logics of Disintergration", Stanley Rosen (sorry he's jewish) " Hermeneutics as Politics" and 'Nihilism'

>evo-psych
>evolutionary theory in general

Attached: seyyed-hossein-nasr-660x350.jpg (660x350, 22K)

>it doesn't follow that its bad because its Jewish
I had to stop reading your post as soon as I saw this because this is not a correct characterization of what's presented in this book at all. He's not saying "this is bad because Jews are prominent in pushing it" he's saying "we know this is bad and this is why it's so popular despite the fact that we all know it's bad". This is why I said that I don't really think you're his intended audience. It's outside the scope of the book to thoroughly explain why all of the mentioned movements/thinkers are destructive because each of those movements/thinkers would need an entire book or even series of books to examine and explain why exactly they're so destructive. If you don't think something like neoconservativism is inherently harmful to the US based on the real world consequences of the policy it pushes then you're obviously not going to be interested in understanding why neoconservativism is as popular as it is within American right.

Obviously the Frankfurt School and Feud and Boasian Anthropology aren't explicitly political, that doesn't mean they're not impactful on social attitudes. Unless you're going to take the ridiculous attitude that politics is the singular driver of social attitudes, then you realize that these schools were impactful in their disciplines and these disciplines are impactful on society as a whole. You seem to have a really weird reading of this book.

The full title of the book is " The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements"

He is very explicit that he is providing an evolutionary account of Jewish Intellectual movements. This consists of two parts: providing an evolutionary explanation of how Judaism maintains itself (The Group Evolutionary Strategy), and demonstrating that various intellectual movements are in fact manifestations of this Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy.

Macdonald's method is always to take a given movement/thinker and establish that they are Jewish/ Leaving aside for now, Macdonald's consistent disregard for how the thinkers in questions relate to their Jewish heritage (pride, contempt, disinterest) this part is easily done.

From here he attempts to highlight how their Judaism is not incidental, but in fact essential to their work. It is by establishing that Judaism is essential to their work (something that is shoddily done) that he is able to make the case that the Group Evolutionary Strategy is in effect.

The through-line of the book is the fact that all of these movements are first manifestations of the Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy, second intellectual movements. The latter safely discounted by the former.

Macdonald is saying that these movements are necessarily bad because they aren't serious, because they have an ulterior function of pathologizing western life to allow Jews to better capture resources.

His argument is that Jews cant scholar because biological imperative. Everything hinges upon this. It isn't outside the scope to highlight how these movements are destructive, it is precisely the scope insofar as he is attempting to demonstrate that resource competition (which he believes to be biological in a weird way) is not merely operant within, but determining of these movements. His point is that resource competition between jews/westerners is the source of these ideas being destructive You're the one with the weird reading.

That's why how bad his readings are is significant. He consistently fails to represent the thinkers accurately at all. He papers over this deficiency by harping on Judaism so he can avoid having to explain particular manifestations of negative consequences. Because Judaism is bad, every instance he identifies of it is bad. Lazy. Its equally lazy to defend his bad scholarship with the appeal to other books. (Books that other people have written, or tried to write, that Macdonald didn't read.) There is a significant difference between providing an insufficient gloss on the thinkers in question and categorically misrepresenting them. Macdonald does the latter, other books don't enter in.

I am precisely his audience. He has said, time and time again, that he wishes the book was read by more scholars (check the preface of your edition, or his websight, or any of his replies to Nathan Cofnas' recent work on CoC).

Go to bed, Kevin.

>Did mods delete the thread from last night?
There were two last night. Activity was split between the two and both probably just dropped out of the catalog.

Finally, I am perfectly willing to allow that Neoconservatism is bad. I just think its silly to assume its popular because of Jews. Note, this is not the same thing as denying that Jews are an important force within Neoconservatism. But it is incorrect to assert that they somehow drove its mass popularity. Which is now largely spent.

I don't think that politics is the sole driver of social trends and I never said that. I said, specifically, that those movements are not really all that culturally significant. Those movements in particular. Its tedious and dishonest to appeal generally to 'schools being impactful in their disciplines which in turn impact society'. It doesn't matter that you can imagine them having a wider impact when we have access to what happened. They are all pretty insignificant -except Freud.

I would urge you to read much

>Agreeing on the outcome is not the same as agreeing on the cause and they should not be treated as such
How do you address Freud's statement:
>They don’t realize we’re bringing them the plague.
This sounds pretty cut and dry to me. This is only one anecdote, but it meshes well with the rest of his behavior.

Unless amazon is the American government, I don’t see the comparison. Amazon is a private business and if they don’t want to sell a particular book then they don’t have to.

That they maintain tribal tendencies while decrying Europeans engaging in tribalism.

>I don't think all, or even most of the movements Macdonald treats in the book are destructive
Name them.

What books does this guy talk about? I'm really tired of people telling me this guy said so and so, not knowing whether they are taking me for a ride, and then someone else pops up and starts refuting what was just said with actual citations.

>Amazon banned it b
wtf

>There are a million reasons to criticize the movements featured in CoC
Name them.
>its hard to construe any of the thinkers/academic movements he discusses as having impacted CIVILIZATION
Why the capitalization? If the ideas promulgated by such movements are well established amongst media, entertainment, and social critics then why would I make the assumption that the ideas are not having an impact.

>Macdonald's consistent disregard for how the thinkers in questions relate to their Jewish heritage (pride, contempt, disinterest)
Why is this important? How could anyone prove or disprove any assertion of this kind?
>It is by establishing that Judaism is essential to their work
>(something that is shoddily done)
Examples, please.
>The latter safely discounted by the former.
How so?
>Nathan Cofnas' recent work on CoC
Gariepy did a pretty good takedown on Cofnas.

>Jewish intellectuals
Ah i see, so it's a critique of friedman, hayek, rand etc?

He's talking about the principle that you shouldn't prevent the free spread of information and ideas. Obviously, that's something the Nazi's came under fire for doing with them literally throwing books into bonfires. The idea that book burning and censorship is bad applies to governments, corporations, even individuals. Obviously Amazon is acting within its legal rights, but that wasn't the issue. If he was talking about it being a first amendment violation, you'd be right, but it's clear he wasn't.

CoC is almost as wildly misrepresented as is Mein Kampf.
>What books does this guy talk about?
Macdonald has footnotes and a bibliography for everything. CoC is sincerely one of the best works that Yea Forums ever memed me into reading. Give it a spin.

Amazon is the biggest retailer of all time. How big do they have to be until they become an exception?
Fucking constitutionalists are part of a cult and they don’t even realize.

Name the various movements Macdonald discusses? Or Name the ones I think are destructive?

I capitalized civilization because its a word I don't take very seriously but its bandied about by people who take the JQ seriously.

What ideas are these movements responsible for?What ideas promulgated by these movements are well-established amongst the media and social critics? What media firms?

SOME REASONS, BUT BY NO MEANS ALL OF THEM, I THINK ITS FAIR TO CRITICIZE PEOPLE MENTIONED IN CoC THAT DONT REVOLVE AROUND JUDAISM:
Freud: effectively completes the transformation of moral reason into psychology. His awareness of which is likely the basis for the random quote posted. (What behavior? Read primary sources like an adult)
Frankfurt School (Adorno): Has a tendency to assimilate aesthetic questions to a technical register when his back is against the wall (see his Jazz essays) which is something he is critical of in others (Radio Project letters, Dialectic of Enlightenment.)
Frankfurt School (Marcuse): His concept of technology is simplistic, which is a problem because technology is the basis of his optimism. (eros and civilization, one dimensional man)
FrankfurtSchool (Fromm): Simplistic psychological reduction in Escape from Freedom
Margaret Mead: didn't lie as much as her critics might insist, is much too credulous. Ended her relationship with Gregory bateson.
New York Intellectuals: General in focus (Riesman) Didn't age well (Bell), Was always a hack (Trilling)
Ill add more later (This is tedious).
This is a tricky question because of the way Macdonald structures his argument. Each section of Culture of Critique is on a different intellectual movement Macdonald has identified as Jewish. In some sections you see a shallow attempt at sustained engagement with a couple of texts -for example the Frankfurt school section on The Authoritarian Personality. Conversely, the section on the New york Intellectuals is mostly secondary sources establishing that they were jewish. There are a couple other sections -Freud, boasian anthropology- that exhibit the same basic pattern.

It isn't a great book, its mostly memed. If you're antisemitic I would urge you to skip CoC and read actual books on philosophy and politics.

Cringe

you guys literally think that corporations rules over the state, you fucking retards

>Obviously Amazon is acting within its legal rights
This is coming under question. They are becoming such a monopoly that many are suggesting that they fall under the ethical responsibility of a utility - that they should not be able to exert a political influence.

So is that a yes?

You know that amazon is responsible for 50% of all e-commerce trade, right?
So what happens when they are 90% or 100%, is it then okay for them to ban whatever they want? Are there any expectations to be upheld by them or can they just do whatever because they're a 'private business' and not a 'government'?

>Or Name the ones I think are destructive?
Name the ones that he discusses that you find non-destructive.
>I capitalized civilization because its a word I don't take very seriously
Do you take Judaism seriously?
>What ideas promulgated by these movements are well-established amongst the media and social critics?
Immigration good, Europeanism bad.
>Read primary sources like an adult
Well, I do the best that I can but I am not a neet.

warosu.org/lit/thread/S13530678#p13530845

Why did this never get a response

What a wordy way to avoid saying anything that actually relates to the book.
Also:
>Its a pretty lazy book. Anti-semites deserve better
Is just a way to conceal that it's not the supposed "anti-semitism" which is the issue for you even though your posts are full of butthurt about anti-semitism without actually engaging with the material presented in the book.

I don't know why expecting Macdonald to consider how the thinkers he is studying relate to their heritage, in a book about how their heritage determines their work, is somehow unreasonable? He always interprets their Judaism in light of his own framing of Judaism which leads to distortions in his presentation of their work, which is a problem because he wants his book to be rigorous.

I'm going to bed so I am not going to provide more specifics. I don't want to dig out my book.

>The latter safely discounted by the former.
All of my posts so far have been explaining this? His point is to show that they do bad intellectual work because theyre jewish and competing with gentiles over scarce resources. His reading of the thinkers and trying to frame them as dumb/bad functions as soft support for his underlying conception of inexorable ethnic conflict.

Regarding Cofnas, that's interesting. I'll look at that. I am not at all invested in Cofnas, I just bring him up because its an example where Macdonald is clear that he wants an academic audience.

Footnotes and a bibliography don't mean that his notes are pertinent and his use of sources are good.

I don't take Judaism seriously the way you obviously take it seriously. But I am still mad about the USS Liberty? does that count

None of those writers, except neocons promulgate the idea 'the immigration is good and europeanism is bad.' You live in a bubble.

I am not a neet either. I am rich as shit and don't need to toil like a wagecuck.

What a concise way to avoid an argument. You very obviously understand neither the central claims, or underlying concepts, which motivate the book. I can tell you work with your hands for a living.

>I am not at all invested in Cofnas
lmao, your posts are basically cofnas reworded. like a student trying to hide the fact that his essay is just a slightly altered wiki article. one can tell that coc is causing you sleepless nights just by hard you're trying to come across as someone who isn't emotionally invested at all.

>to avoid saying anything that actually relates to the book
What the fuck are you talking about. Did you reply to the wrong post

>I'm going to bed so I am not going to provide more specifics. I don't want to dig out my book.
Right.

Haha ya dude who cares if the fascism is corporate and not from the govt...nevermind that Amazon recieves billions in taxpayer subsidies, has contracts with the CIA, doesnt pay taxes, holds a defacto monopoly and is lying about their terms of service. Kill yourself faggot, Amazon obviously banned it because the ADL and other jews told them to too.

Lefturds are total bootlickers.

Thats why it was banned though, Jewish organizations pressured Amazon to ban books because they didnt like what they said.

This.
This guy has just written huge 'academic' paragraphs of irrelevant material that doesn't engage with the material at all.
I guess this is what people call 'pilpul'

>Is just a way to conceal that
Dudebro does have an interesting dialectic. To properly engage him, you need to do a lot of footwork to disengage his false presumptions.

>muh antisemites
As if it werent already blatantly obvious you were a pseud who didnt understand the book.

Isn't it obsolete now? I through most Jews jumped on the pro-capitalism, pro-west train once they got Israel, USA and domination over the banking system. I mean why the hell would Jews support lefitsts and shill for muslims against their country, why the hell would they endanger their stranglehold over finance?

>But, I don't think all, or even most of the movements Macdonald treats in the book are destructive.
>communism, pseudoscience, and multiculturalism arent destructive
>muh antisemetism
Youre a fucking moron

Youre a terrible thinker and a hack of a "scholar".

Attached: jidf.jpg (1272x1023, 354K)

>how the thinkers he is studying relate to their heritage
IIRC, Macdonald makes an ontological assertion regarding Jewish collaboration against their enemies. You will never really know what lurks in another man's heart, but his actions speak well for him. The Jews, themselves, clearly wrote of the phenomenon that Macdonald claims:
>Proverbs 30:27

>don't mean that his notes are pertinent and his use of sources are good
I was directly addressing his question about what Macdonald had cited. This can easily be found in the footnotes.
>I don't take Judaism seriously
Then WTF are you on a CoC thread?

>I just think its silly to assume its popular because of Jews
It was created by Jews and pushed by Jewish media to subvert actual conservatism.

>I said, specifically, that those movements are not really all that culturally significant.
So? Boazian anthro and Freud and the Frankfurt school are the reason most social studies are such a fucking joke now.

There's always this thread where one guy presents mere assurances of insight and and deep scholarship, and pleads with skeptics to read the book and engage with it. There's also another person who angrily curses out critics and accuses them of being jews.

>Obviously Amazon is acting within its legal rights,
Probably not actually true. And I bet they pour fuckloads of cash into influencing politicians to let them get away with shit by bending laws.

>It isn't a great book
It is, youre just an assblasted kike

>I am rich as shit and don't need to toil like a wagecuck
Aka "daddy is rich and i go to school to make myself feel smart"

Not him but that redditors posts just vaguely reference and misinterpret material from the book

Nearly all far left politics are backed by jews. All the anti-west social marxist bullshit is invented and pushed by jews

No, he covers this in the book.

I haven't noticed any relevant far left or marxist movement arising in the west recently apart maybe from Syriza. However Syriza turned into good centrist puppet soon after elections.

And that one autistic butthurt jew who writes reddit-style posts wherein he uses a scholarly vocabulary to hide his terrible and dishonsst points.

>I can tell you work with your hands for a living.
Not everyone is a privileged little city boy living off daddies trust fund like you. The fact you think this is an insult tells me all i need to know.

Even wikipedia will tell you this.

>Neoconservatism was initiated by the repudiation of the Cold War and the "new politics" of the American New Left, which Norman Podhoretz said was too close to the counterculture and too alienated from the majority of the population; Black Power, which accused white liberals and Northern Jews of hypocrisy on integration and of supporting settler colonialism in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict; and "anti-anticommunism", which during the late 1960s included substantial endorsement of Marxist–Leninist politics. Many were particularly alarmed by what they claimed were antisemitic sentiments from Black Power advocates
>Many neoconservatives had been Jewish intellectuals in New York City during the 1930s. They were on the political left, but strongly opposed Stalinism and some were Trotskyists. During the Cold War they continued to oppose Stalinism and to endorse democracy. The great majority became liberal Democrats.

To add, the only real chance far left ever had of resurgence following the end of the cold war was directly supressed by a group of Jews.

Social Marxism (sjws)/left wing identity politics are far left. Campuses are full of far left psychos. Socialism is far left.

>The movement had its intellectual roots in the Jewish monthly review magazine Commentary, edited by Norman Podhoretz and published by the American Jewish Committee.[5][6] They spoke out against the New Left and in that way helped define the movement.[7][8]

Yes, Marxism and socialism failed in the 20th century. There was a rebranding and it is taking over the social studies and turning some young people into far left psychos. AOC and her gang of retards are also far left but admittedly it isnt only jews backing them.

"sjw"s are far from being Marxists, they mostly focus on cultural issues.

>Socialism is far left.
Communists are far left, yes. But there's very few of them left and they are mostly senile pre-boomers.

Its pretty on-point. The whole ingroup-outgroup dichotomy and the fact that these influential Jewish intellectuals bullshitted their research and had their Jew friends push it in academia was very eye-opening.

>There was a rebranding
It rebranded into "socialism with chinese characteristics", but I don't see it taking over the social studies.

>>And that one autistic butthurt jew who writes reddit-style posts wherein he uses a scholarly vocabulary to hide his terrible and dishonsst points.
Terrible, maybe. That's subjective. Dishonest. I don't think so. Autistic, butthurt, jew? Reddit-style post? You are trying too hard to fit in I think. Why do you come here all the time and start name calling and cussing people out when they don't have good things to say about this book? Where are the big words that I'm using?

>sjw"s are far from being Marxists, they mostly focus on cultural issues.
Hence the term "cultural (or social) marxism". I understand that they arent real marxists wanting to artificially redistribute power from the bourgeoisie to the workers. Instead, they want to artificially redistribute power from european white men for example, to whatever other arbitrary "oppressed" group they choose ("WE NEED MORE WOMEN OF COLOUR IN POSITIONS OF POWER!!!!"). It originated from the bullshit ideas of Jewish Marxists who realized real Marxism would never again be embraced after the 20th century, do they rebranded it.

Real socialism is far left. AOCs manager literally says his end goal is socialism.

>are far left
Political persuasion does not fit well on a Left/Right line. Trying to force this to be will only hamstring you.

>haha goys im going to bed just kidding
And by terrible i meant your logic and analysis are lazy and not sound.

You also formulate your shitty posts like a redditor faggot trying and failing to sound smart.

>Instead, they want to artificially redistribute power from european white men for example, to whatever other arbitrary "oppressed" group they choose
But then it has nothing to do with Marxism, it would be just generic resistance/empowerement/liberation movement. Those predate Marx.

>AOCs manager literally says his end goal is socialism.
Who's AOC?

>I don't know why expecting Macdonald to consider how the thinkers he is studying relate to their heritage, in a book about how their heritage determines their work, is somehow unreasonable?
From what I remember from it, it was more like an instinct for them to act in this and that way rather than something that happens consciously(due to the way selection worked within jewish communties). The evolutionary psychology, itself very speculative assumes that there's something pushing you into direction of some kind of mindset, but it may be discrete, you may even not believe you are being pushed there. Verifying it is however hard(just because it does make sense, doesn't mean it has to be true) and that's in general problem with e.p.

Then there is a part of upbringing vs. later life for example of such thing you can have logical positivists, modern atheist and science cultists - look at their ethics, is this scientific? For an example of honest, conscious person applying scientific mindset to ethics you have to go no further than Spencer and his social darwinism. In fact extreme ethnocentrism is in fact the scientific way of life!
Now look at the mentioned groups - what do they have to say about the honest scientific approach to ethics? How do they believe the world should work. You see, majority of them were brought up by christians or at least within some kind of christian community. What they're doing isn't that conscious, it really happens somewhere deeper. Back when they were kids they've heard that Jesus said to care for the poor and unfortunate, so now they're constructing an idea where this is actually scientific belief. I'm not saying this is what always happens(again, social darwinists are an example of it), but the declaration of abandoning some system of beliefs of worldview doesn't mean that you stop thinking in the cathegories of them. Same thing may apply to jews.

Thats pretty dope dude. Cultural marxists are extremists and identify with the so-called left wing.

>But then it has nothing to do with Marxism,
Hence the term cultural marxism. Its marxism rebranded.

AOC is that retarded beaner from new york who says cow farts cause floods and wants to build trains across the ocean

>>>haha goys im going to bed just kidding
I'm not that guy fyi. Is this book your first red pill btw? I'm just curious.

>your logic and analysis are lazy and not sound
I agree with "not sound" but the dialectic was not lazy. You really need to slice through his bullshit to see how he is spinning it - and that is the whole point: making you waste a lot of time on debunking him versus presenting your own argument.

>I'm not that guy fyi.
>Where are the big words that I'm using?

>Its marxism rebranded.
How can it be rebranded, when it lacks the defining attributes? Cow isn't rebranded pig. Cultural Marxism has specific meaning inside cultural studies, it's basically if you focus on the economic function of art. It's not what you mentioned.

>from new york
Oh, I don't watch mutt politics.

No really. I'm not that guy. Here are the posts that I've made.
Again, where are the big words?

>How can it be rebranded, when it lacks the defining attributes?
Bourgeoisie = straight caucasian men
Muh oppressed workers = womynz, poc, lgbtqq2aixyz+ etc etc

It evolved via the frankfurt school, aka a bunch of outspoken jewish marxists. I dont really care of your autistic definition of marxism isnt satisfied. You cannot see the forest flr the trees

Your thought process is why I pointed him to:
>Proverbs 30:27
earlier in the thread. The Jews identified this phenomenon. Is anyone going to criticize the Jews for writing:
>locusts have no king, yet they advance together in ranks
though this is exactly what Macdonald posits in CoC?

All i know is theres something going on with the jews and silencing people will cause violence eventually. The last thing we need is another genocide, i love jews. They rule!

Its the same as jews openly saying they brought about gay marriage and abortion while calling you an antisemite if you say this and youre on the so-called right.

>Bourgeoisie = straight caucasian men
Again, Marxism is found on economic classes and it's subjects were straight caucasian men. If you switched workers for something else, what is left of Marx? His mathematics? His monetary theory?

>It evolved via the frankfurt school
Frankfurters have used Marx, yes, but they made contribution towards a different things that you seem to suggest (like criticizing capitalism for degenerating culture into lower forms).

>All i know is theres something going on with the jews and silencing people will cause violence eventually. The last thing we need is another genocide, i love jews. They rule!
lmao retard trying to discredit CoC by pretending to be a rabid stereotypical nazi shitposter. You need to go back.

>Again, Marxism is found on economic classes
Hence the term cultural marxism

Pig isn't "snorted cow". What is "Marxism" according to you?

>via the frankfurt school
Not him, but Marx, himself, expounded on bridging the racial divide and instead aligning conflict along class lines. Current Marxism as manifested in SJWs, etc. still carry that Marx flavor. It was always D&C under the guise of unity.

It doesnt matter, the function of sjws on culture and society is analogous to the function of actual marxism on economic classes. MUH POOR OPPRESSED VICTIMS OF THE SYSTEM
Lel

Add the fact that sjws evolved from the bullshit ideas of outspoken marxist intellectials, cultural marxism is an apt term. (Note how I refuse to capitalize "marxism" - that gayest and most failed of old ideologies)

>antisemite
The term "antisemite" is, in itself, an example of pilpul.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moritz_Steinschneider
The term conflates Jews with all Semites, causing an immediate muddying of logic. Once the term "antisemitism" is used, the well of discussion is poisoned. At this point, I believe most people to think that all Semites are Jews and that the words are synonymous.

I think sjws care instead about dividing people by race/sex rather than classes. ie a caucasian janitor has privilege while jussie smollett doesnt.

>MUH POOR OPPRESSED VICTIMS OF THE SYSTEM
Sorry, that goes to Christ and further back.

>It doesnt matter
Then why are you arguing about that?

>Add the fact that sjws evolved from the bullshit ideas of outspoken marxist intellectials
That's not how it works. Why are you unable to define ideology you hate so much? Is it easier for you to maintain your worldview when enemies are ghosts?

Of course. I apologize fkr using that shitty term and considered not using it but decided to for simplicities sake

Cool story bro, tell it again

>Sorry, that goes to Christ and further back
No it doesnt you fucking niggerlover

>instead about dividing people by race/sex rather than classes
Yes, that was my point; It is the same tool being used for the same purpose, just being calibrated differently for the audience at hand.

Ah yes, i thought you were saying it the other way around

What are the classic marxists gonna to do the neo-marxists?
I don't imagine there's much love between the proletariat + their bourgeois socialist handlers and the intersectionally oppressed + their bourgeois socialist handlers.

My weener is really big and i say coc was a good book even if fascists and white supremists use it to justify oppressing poor and oppressed victim jews

Sure it does. Christianity ended slavery.

There's only Marxism. It has certain definition. Why are you unable to define it?

Sniff and rigourously scratch their noses while autistically rambling about a failed and regressive ideology invented by a NEET, and so on and so on.

Attached: zizek.jpg (1750x2400, 235K)

No, youre an autistic marxist

I rest my case.

Good post user

I rest on your face

Not him, but why are you so against people identifying subsets of the current political landscape with Marxism when the subsets use a similar dialectic to justify their intentions? He was willing to hyphenate the Social-Marxism to draw the distinction between his own identifier and classical Marxism.

Because I'm autistic about definitions and American newspeak has caused enough damage already.

>use a similar dialectic
But it's completely opposite. Marx had one founded on materialistic principles, the so called SJW operate in ideals.

>He was willing to hyphenate the Social-Marxism to draw the distinction between his own identifier and classical Marxism.
Can you cite the passage?

Because it's a lame semantics/nuance trap you're laying. It's old bait, glib, and disingenuous.

You guys are talking about the same one Hegel uses right?

>*rubs eyes*
I guess AOC and her clique doesn't exist because Zizek made a zinger to that neoliberal shill that one time.

Attached: nigga please.gif (326x268, 1.38M)

>Can you define the word you are using
>No, it's a trap!
craniallydeformedwojak.jpeg

>American newspeak has caused enough damage already
That is not strictly a burger issue and I posit that his is not an example of this.
>But it's completely opposite
Marx identified fractures in society and exploited them. The SJWs are part of a similar exploitation.
>Can you cite the passage?
Right here: , but I am not him so I may be mistaken. It looked like he was willing to draw the distinction between classical Marxism and Social-Marxism.

Thanks for proving my point.

Attached: commie brainlet.png (1063x603, 314K)

>That is not strictly a burger issue
Yet the semantic pollution transcends borders.

>Marx identified fractures in society and exploited them.
So did Gracchi bros.

>Right here
I through you were citating marx, not that brainlet. Opinion of the brainlet is irrelevant, because he can't even define what Marxism is.

You haven't read Marx.

Ah and there it is!
No one is learned enough about Marx to critique Marx. Probably not even Marx himself!

Imagine having an ideology for the unwashed masses that literally no one is qualified to understand.

Not him, but we learned that shit in high school philosophy classes (courtesy of preceeding regime). It's just Americans that are stupid enough to use words without knowing their meaning.

What was wrong with the previous regime?

No blue pants, no LGBT+ rights, no ethnic diversity, no bankers to earn my money, no advertisement etc.

Was this nazi germany?

>no bankers to earn my money
>Nazi Germany
nah, try again. Hint: No one was trying to burn my village to the ground

>Amazon banned it because Jews are pussies apparently and can't take what they dish out.
Their entire religion is the artificial manufacturing of collective narcissism and baby torture. They act the way, too.

Attached: 85f51c70.jpg (564x495, 64K)

Marxism is an outdated way of looking at the world and its events. Godless morons clinging to their fantasies, dreading the next step - those are the only ones still claiming to be 'marxist'.

>It's just Americans that are stupid enough to use words without knowing their meaning
At a place where I used to work I had a Malaysian girl publicly state:
>Blowjob!
>Learn it!
>Love it!
>Live it!
and then spend a week recanting because she had misunderstood what "blowjob" meant. Burgers are not unique in having this flaw.

I´m talking about little, funny, individual mistakes like that in english language, I´m talking about collectively misusing international terms. E.g. "Liberals wants to increase taxes, ban my guns and regulate bussiness!", "corporatism is when corporations have power" or more recently people using the word "capitalist" to imply one´s ideology instead of class.

>I´m talking about little, funny,
*I´m not talking about little, funny..

yep, every conversation with an American starts having to explain to them what the term "liberal" means or that anarchism is not a right-wing ideology (ancap is not anarchism, just corporate domination)

>AOC and her clique
>right-wingers are trembling to the most milquetoast democratic socialists
your country deserves to burn for spawning this many stupid people, it's embarrassing

>the most milquetoast democratic socialists
I must have underestimated the corruption/leftism here in Finland, then.

>macdonald has footnote and bibliography

Is this what it takes to impress antisemites? That's sad.

I honestly believe a single guy keep making the majority of those thread, each OP spunds tye same and it's the kind of subversion /pol/fag are well versed in.

>Media of Sweden: The press is subsidized by the government and is owned by many actors, the dominant owner being Bonnier AB
>The Bonnier family is a Swedish family, originally of Jewish descent
Yes now you all know why Sweden is so fucked up right now

The two current leaders of the group are germans and british but ok.
Why do non-jews are never taken note of? If all you look for is red care don't be surprised if you see them everywhere.

>Macdonald also tends to treat epistemic/methodological disagreement as error on the part of Jewish intellectuals. This is most apparent in his discussion of the Frankfurt School and The Authoritarian Personality which they sponsored and Adorno coauthored. It is fairly common for social scientists (especially of Macdonald's generation) to try and dunk on the Authoritarian Personality for methodological *errors* without understanding that these *errors* are deliberate, consequences of a less-positive conception of social science. Macdonald's insensitivity to this suggests to me that like many, he never read the book, where the Adorno-authored section deals with these epistemic issues at length.
He criticizes the Authoritarian Personality because they would never apply those concepts to Jews in the way they apply them to white Christians. You seem to have to ignored this when it was his main point about the book.

>because they would never apply those concepts to Jews in the way they apply them to white Christians
So it's just his hypothetical belief

Attached: Adolf kawaii.jpg (1200x1720, 1.39M)

>t.leftist shill

The guy who coined it was a retarded French journalist who probably hated Arabs to. It's unfortunate that early 20th century people have taken such a liking to the term.

>yep, every conversation with an American starts having to explain
I hereby apologize for the burger retardation of this sort. Keep in mind that this retardation is not universal.

>Is this what it takes to impress
I was addressing his specific question about what was referenced in CoC. It can all be found in the footnotes. Where else should he look?

>The guy who coined it was
Sauce, please. I would like to get to the bottom of the etymology.

You don't understand how language works

>Macdonald has footnotes and a bibliography for everything. CoC is sincerely one of the best works that Yea Forums ever memed me into reading.

If you really want to get to the bottom of it I guess it's Renan who used the word Semite to refer to a group of peoples that includes the Jews and the Arabs, and claimed the Semite were inferior to Aryans. Then a Jewish guy called him out on this and labeled this stance "antisemitism". At the time it was still etymologically accurate, since it applied to a guy who was against both Jews and Arabs.

Then it became increasingly racially loaded and used specifically against Jews by the Prussians (because they weren't many Arabs in Prussia I guess). It's only at this point (late 19th century) than it took the sense it currently has. But even Nazis had scorn for self-proclaimed antisemites, they viewed it as an antiquated and inefficient belief, they fashioned themselves to be more scientific and pragmatic (although they borrowed for the same racialist theories originally).

See
>muse.jhu.edu/article/18229