The Cathedral

Video Transcript

My impression is that some people think that The Cathedral is some sort of a conspiracy, that it’s an evil plot to take over our minds and control mankind.  I don’t think that’s what it is. I think it’s a social technology.

Cathedral as a Tool

It exists because it provides competitive advantage to its adherents, and like any tool, it can be used or misused. Because it’s a system, it can also be gamed.

The Cathedral is a self-organizing ideological alliance of the elite (abstract thinkers). This alliance is made up of academia, media, government and business (corporate interests). It is an engine of abstract, universalist consensus building and distribution.

Humans are social animals and we organize together into groups for competitive advantage. Larger groups out-compete smaller groups (generally).Humans (and other primates) generally organize along genetic lines. This poses a problem: As the group size grows, genetic distance increases… so how do we scale the group and maintain group cohesion at the same time?

Cathedral as Self-Perpetuating Memeplex

In highly intelligent primates (humans), you can use a memeplex. A memeplex is a set of ideas, abstractions. This set of ideas should create a universal identity. Christianity is such a universalist memeplex. Christians refer to themselves (ourselves) as ‘Brothers in Christ‘. There is neither Greek, nor Jew. The dogma of Christianity enforces the idea that the members should ignore racial and ethnic differences, and remain united in their religious ideals. The Communist ideology maintains similar ideals of ignoring racial and ethnic differences. Communism maintains that all differences are merely socially constructed and must be deconstructed. Global capitalism takes a similar non-racial, non-ethnic view of the people within the nation-states. They view them merely as customers within markets, or as human resource widgets within the system of production. This is the meaning behind terms such as the ‘Proposition Nation‘. A Proposition Nation is a group of people who are united in their acceptance in a set of ideals or a creed, ignoring racial or ethnic differences.

Dogma

Throughout the West, the dogma is equalitarian. All men are created equal. The dogma is Love, and that which goes against the dogma is Hate. To deny the dogma is a heresy. Those who benefit from the group cohesion created by the memeplex will defend it, simply because it is in their intuited genetic self-interest.

Heresy

Heresies are disruptions of the ideological consensus. Because the consensus creates group cohesion, which confers competitive advantage, the system will attempt to reject the disruption. This is the point where we see the Hegelian dialectic, as a compromise or integration is attempted. At root, there is a cost-benefit analysis. If the cost of the disruption outweighs the benefit, it will be rejected. But if the benefit outweighs the cost, it will be integrated into the system.

An example of this is when Galileo disrupted the Ptolemaic view of the solar system with the heliocentric model. HBD, race realism and evolutionary psychology are similarly disruptive ideas. The system has been attempting to reject them to maintain group cohesion, but the benefits to building functional systems outweigh the costs. Thus we see the current scientific assault against the equalitarian consensus.

The Chant

Any memeplex of ideological consensus must be maintained and distributed. Humans learn through repeated exposure to stimulus. The process of distribution of the memeplex through endless repetition is known as indoctrination. We call this endless repetition of the dogma the echo chamber. We can call this by other names: Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP), mind control, propaganda, etc. In call cases, it’s the process of creating in the minds of the adherents a Reality by Chanting.

Again, this is a social technology. It’s simply a tool that humans have created for the maintenance of our groups. Once the adherents are sufficiently indoctrinated, the reality of the universe is created in their minds. At this point, they have difficulty processing information which is counter to the dogma. The new information creates a painful cognitive dissonance. The modern secular cults label this information: Hate. While in religious memeplexes, these are labeled heresies or blasphemies. In the Alt-Right, we call this Taking the Red Pill. The process of overcoming our own programming is difficult. For many, this awakening is a very painful experience.

Analysis

In my opinion, abstract collectivism is a competitive strategy. It allows for group cohesion in large and disparate groups, which then allows the larger group to out-compete smaller, less-organized groups. It’s most effective in populations with a high ability for abstraction. The smarter the population, the more open they are to memeplexes.

I believe that this social technology is most beneficial in groups with single ends, meaning that they have a single reproductive strategy. When groups with competitive reproductive strategies are allowed into the system, then they may seek to game the system for their own reproductive advantage. I believe that this is what has happened in the West. We now the the anti-White bias of the Left as non-White polities attempt to gain competitive advantage within the system through the notion of White Guilt or Racism. Racism is an accusation of bad faith, of failing to adhere to the dogma of equalitarianism. Because the notion of racism is simply being used by certain groups to game the system for competitive advantage, to the white population the cost of it exceeds the benefit of group cohesion.

Conclusion

The Cathedral is a self-organizing ideological alliance of the cognitive elite. It is a social technology, which exists because it produces group cohesion in large populations and this group cohesion confers competitive advantage. Religions and ideologies are group organizing memeplexes. The tenets of the organizing memeplex may be referred to as the dogma. Ideas which conflict with the memeplex may be called heresies. The memeplex is distributed and embedded through repetition. Smart populations respond very well to indoctrination. The cohesion gained through this social technology can be very beneficial to groups with compatible reproductive strategies. This organizing technology can also be gamed, if groups with competing reproductive strategies are allowed to insert their memes into the echo chamber. The charge of racism is such a gaming of this system, and the cost of bearing the charge exceeds the benefit gained through group cohesion, thus we see a growing rejection of the notion.


 

Graphics

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Strange Fruit

Annie Lennox, of Eurythmics fame, has recently been castigated for not conveying the narrative that the Social Justice Warriors want conveyed. What is this narrative? Well, it is “CSWMs Are Evil”, of course. CSWMs is an acronym for Cisgender Straight White Males. If you don’t know that this is the narrative then it is quite possible that you are a cisgender straight white male, or maybe you are an earlier generation of American who watches football and the nightly news and is quite happily oblivious to the fact that the young, college-aged, 20-somethings of America (you know, the guys who will be running this country in 20 years, if it still exists) are batshit insane.

Dear Cis Scum
A very strange fruit.

What was Annie’s crime?

I’ve already given you her crime in a nutshell, but here’s the background. On her latest album, Annie covered Billie Holiday’s Strange Fruit, a protest song about lynching. It’s very poetic actually, as the lynched Negroes are metaphorized as strange fruit swinging from Poplar trees. Pretty high concept for a woman that dropped out of school at age 11 (more on that in a bit). I’m sure that because Annie is now in her 60’s, and probably had no clue about the strange new fruits in this world that she inhabits, that she thought this song would be a classy track to strut her liberal street cred, covering a 1930’s pre-pre-pre-Civil-Rights protest song about lynching. No, that wasn’t her crime, that’s just how she got involved with the batshit insane Left, by daring to whip out her shock-topped, genderblending, worn-out-like-a-cassette-tape, 1980’s-style Leftism and wave it in the face of the New Left. You see, when you pledge allegiance to the Left, you are now pledging allegiance to the New Left, and they will make damn sure that you know it. You had better be on message with the narrative: CSWMs Are Evil! You will not be allowed to whitewash it (by leaving out the white). Annie’s crime: Whitewashing.

We refer to Strange Fruit as Billie Holiday’s because she popularized it in the 1930’s. It actually came into existence as a poem penned by Abel Meeropol, a Jewish schoolteacher from the Bronx. Meeropol first published the poem in 1937, in the Marxist magazine The New Masses, which as far as I can tell was edited entirely by Jews. The magazine launched in 1926 as part of a number of publications run by the Communist Party USA in New York. I’ve included an image of a 1933 cover which portrays a giant King Kong-like non-White factory worker breaking his chains to attack a King, a Pope and a tycoon. I’m sure that this is a reference to King Kong which was also released in 1933. One can only assume that the commies envisioned a happier ending for the factory worker than for the great beast.

The New Masses published ‘Strange Fruit’ in 1937

Meeropol, when he wasn’t busy writing poems for Marxist magazines, or molding young minds in New York City schools, helped the ‘community’ in other ways. You may recall Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, both Jews from NYC, who became involved with the Communist party. They were eventually executed for spying and passing information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. Julius and Ethel had two sons, Michael and Robert, who needed to be cared for while Mommy and Daddy did time in the big house before buying the farm. Guess who cared for and adopted Mikey and Bobbie? Right, Abel and Annie Meeropol. Isn’t that swell? It sure is great to know you can count on your friends when you get caught for treason. The two boys took Meeropol’s name to avoid embarrassment at being the children of traitors. As you shall see, the embarrassment did not last long.

Little Mikey has done pretty well for himself. He became an economist (a teacher like his adoptive father) advocating leftist economic policy, teaching at Western New England College. Since 2006 he has been a monthly commentator on an NPR affiliate. It’s good to know he’s helping to educate the youth, you know, like the ones berating Annie Lennox. Yes, we are still talking about her.

Mikey wrote a book in 1998 called Surrender: How the Clinton administration completed the Reagan revolution. It was given this glowing review:

“A wonderfully accessible discussion of contemporary American economic policy. Meeropol demonstrates that the Reagan-era policies of tax cuts and shredded safety nets, coupled with strident talk of balanced budgets, have been continued and even brought to fruition by the neo-liberal Clinton regime.” — Frances Fox Piven, Graduate School, City University of New York

That review was of course given by the illustrious Frances Fox Piven, a Jewish professor of political science and sociology at CUNY, where she has been molding minds since 1982. She is most famous for the Cloward-Piven Strategy detailed in her 1966 article The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty, in which she advocates that in order to force reforms to the social welfare system, that it should first be collapsed by the weight of the poor, which could be accomplished by increasing enrollment in these systems. Her strategy seems to be moving forward briskly. It’s good to know she’s helping to educate the youth, you know, like the ones berating Annie Lennox. Yes, we are still talking about her.

Baby Bobbie (Rosenberg) Meeropol has also done very well for himself. He briefly taught anthropology at Western New England College and is now a practicing attorney. For a couple of years in the 1980’s he was the managing editor of The Socialist Review, a socialist magazine in the San Francisco Bay area. In 1990, Bobbie started the innocuous-sounding Rosenberg Fund for Children, which is a charity to support the children of <scare-quote>Progressive</scare-quote> activists who are targeted by the Fascist-Nazi-White-dictators-who-run-the-USA-despite-the-fact-that-these-freaking-commies-are-everywhere.

The New Masses has another connection to Negro music like that of Billie Holiday’s other than publishing Abel Meeropol’s poem. The magazine also provided funding for a couple of concerts called From Spirituals to Swing and held at Carnegie Hall right at Christmas time in 1938 and 1939. I’m sure it is pretty coincidental that the Jewish-run Marxist magazine decided to hold these concerts at Christmas, it’s not like they were busy celebrating it, amiright?! No, they wanted to help spread a little Cultural Marxist cheer into NYC with all black acts such as Count Basie and the Jewish Bennie Goodman as the token ‘White’ act. Do you think this concert says anything about Goodman’s politics? I’m sure it is just a coincidence. The audiences attending the concerts were integrated. Why do you think it was important for The New Masses to stage this integrated concert, which at the time was quite radical? Do you think it is possible that fomenting cultural changes could have something to do with Marxism? If integrated concerts were important to Marxists, then does it follow that an integrated country could also be a Marxist goal? But wouldn’t that mean that the entire Civil Rights platform and era could be seen as a Marxist triumph in America? Who cares, we’re talking about Annie Lennox here, right? Yes, we are still talking about her.

Why bring up Meeropol, the Rosenbergs, the offspring of the Rosenbergs, The New Masses and Annie Lennox? Well, Strange Fruit, of course, and these are some pretty strange fruit. What we are seeing is intellectual fruit. This little trek through earlyish 20th century New York City Marxism is a walk through a garden. In this garden, men work to plant and tend seeds. They nurture ideas which are important to them, they grow them and spread them.

I know of a guy named Matthew who had some words about strange fruits:

15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

We are almost to the part where we talk about what it was that Annie Lennox actually did, but first, let’s look back at an Israeli election in 2009. Tzipi Livini is running for office and she wants to use a Eurythmics song on her campaign trail. Earlier that year Annie had made it clear to fans that just because she performed at what the Jerusalem Post calls an ‘anti-Israeli rally’ in London, that she is not anti-Israeli. Annie objects because of the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. She just wants to give peace a chance, you know? She’s an older model Leftist and so is still deluded into believing that the Left wants peace. From Annie Lennox: I was wrong about Israel:

Singer Annie Lennox has stepped back from comments she made about the Gaza conflict, to conclude that “both sides are right and both sides are wrong”. […]

Last year she attended an anti-war rally and held a press conference with comedian Alexei Sayle and other prominent opponents of the Gaza operation. […] She objected to the use of the Eurythmics song I Saved the World Today as part of Tzipi Livni’s 2009 election campaign.

The fact that she shared a platform with Ken Livingstone and George Galloway led to condemnation within the Jewish community. Her stance was considered all the more surprising because her daughters, Lola and Tali, are half-Israeli, from her marriage to film producer Uri Fruchtman.

So, now that we are clear that Annie Lennox is not anti-Israeli (just because she supported the Palestinians which seems awfully anti-Semitic), because she has two half-Israeli children. We would not want you to even get the faintest notion that Annie Lennox could be accused of violating one of the world’s greatest taboos. I’m sure that Richard Juzwiak, who’s Twitter handle is @RichJuz (get it? Rich Joos — still not sure if he’s Jewish), is probably not even aware of Annie’s misstep. I’m sure if he has a problem with Annie, that there could be no ulterior motive, other than forgetting the narrative: CSWM’s Are Evil. Richard is part of the New Left, so he will show this old dog some new tricks for sure.

This is how she flubbed the narrative. While on the media tour for her new album Nostalgia, Annie was asked about Strange Fruit and she didn’t mention lynching! <gasp> OMG!! Can you believe it? Instead Annie whitewashes the issue, dancing around how Evil Are CSWMs by talking about “violence and bigotry, hatred, violent acts of mankind against ourselves”. No mention of White people. None. Just a vague condemnation of unracialized bigotry and violence. You can see the problem here, right?

Well, luckily, Juzwiak is there to tell us how Annie should have done it, because he got it from another famous molder of young minds, Maya Angelou:

[Billie’s] face became cruel, and when she spoke her voice was scornful. “It means when the crackers are killing the niggers. It means when they take a little nigger like you and snatch off his nuts and shove them down his goddamn throat. That’s what it means.”

You see, Annie, you have got to be clear here: It’s the crackers. You cannot forget to mention that the Evil is the crackers. Otherwise you are whitewashing, or spinning the story to the advantage of Whites. You cannot talk about violence as a human problem. That doesn’t do the New Left any good.

Isn’t it a little ironic, though? When you think about all those Jews tending their Marxist intellectual garden at the beginning of the 20th century… do you think they could have imagined that in 100 years that the Marxist seeds that they had planted would be yielding such strange fruit? That Jews like Jonathan Chait would be attacked as CSWMs or Sad Progressive White Dudes? That Israel would come under attack from the Marxists around the world fighting for the rights of the oppressed Palestinian minority? That a Scottish White woman who married a Jew and bore his children and stood for every Marxist cause she could think of would be attacked from the Left for not condemning her own children’s race vociferously enough? That the New Left that grew out of the Marxist Old Left would not be able tell the difference between a Jew and a Cracker?

Dear Open-Minded Progressive Jews: “Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” You might want to think about getting on the side that’s ready to tear this tree down, now that you’re White too.

Strange Fruit indeed.

Brin and Gray

I just re-read David Brin’s NeoReactionaries drop all pretense: end democracy and bring back lords.

If I may summarize his argument, it is that those who oppose the Enlightenment want to create a New World Order of Monarchies to rub their hands maniacally and guffaw maliciously as they stamp their Nazi jack-boots on the faces of the oppressed. Did I get close enough there? Well, hysterical, might be a more succinct label.

He praises the Enlightenment, dubbing it the Enlightenment Miracle. He denies that Democracy and Communism are kissing cousins. Of course he references anti-NRx posts, with precious few references to actual NRx thought. Why should he bother to actually intellectually disprove the assertions of the Dark Enlightenment, when you can simply slander and ad hominem it? He employs the typical racism and sexism slanders, though does not stoop to fascism. The article is a commonplace attempt to evoke an emotional response while posing as intellectual commentary. I won’t bother re-hashing any arguments against the Enlightenment, just read the Neoreactionaries themselves for definitive debunking of it.

I think that Brin should read False Dawn by John Gray.

The book cover itself is interesting, the initiated will recognize the seal on the back of the one dollar bill, with the banner reading Novus Ordo Seclorum, translated as New Order of the Ages. Some see this as New World Order symbolism. The image is often used as an Illuminati reference by the conspiracy-minded. I personally see the pyramid simply as the graphic representation of human order: hierarchy. The eye is known as the Eye of Providence, which is they eye of God. I don’t find the image particularly frightening or sinister, but I think it currently represents an idea, and it is fitting that this idea is symbolized on the US dollar bill: the idea of global capitalism.

This is the false dawn, where a Western capitalism is universalized around the globe, and a new Utopian age of peace and prosperity rises over the horizon to bath us in the clear bright light of the Enlightenment. Anyone at all familiar with Neoreactionary thought, as David Brin clearly is not, will understand that Univeralism is one of the key pillars of Enlightenment thought, along-side Egalitarianism and Individualism. I express individualism as [1], and egalitarianism as [1=1], and universalism as [1=1=1=1…∞].

Only a believer in the Enlightenment could conceive of a New World Order of Western global capitalism enrapturing the entire world. Reactionaries cannot. We understand that Market functions must be built around the needs and worldview of the populations they serve. Markets must take the shape of their containers — the civilizations in which they are cultivated.

Perhaps the best way for you to get a feel for the book is a few quotes from a hatchet-job book review by the Libertarian Cato institute which dubs it “a relatively sophisticated version of reactionary globalphobia.” The article also appeared in the Libertarian masturbation journal of choice, Reason Magazine:

Now he rejects not just free trade, not just liberalism, but the whole “Enlightenment project”—or at least his caricature thereof. (In The Future and Its Enemies, Virginia Postrel identifies Gray as a leading voice of what she calls “reactionary stasis.”)

Hmm, a reactionary denial of the Enlightenment project?

Indeed, at the bottom of Gray’s hostility to the world economy is its supposed Enlightenment pedigree. “A single global market,” he writes, “is the Enlightenment’s project of a universal civilization in what is likely to be its final form.” In an invidious and oft-repeated comparison, he portrays global capitalism and the now-defunct ideal of collectivism as two sides of the same rationalist coin: “Even though a global free market cannot be reconciled with any kind of planned economy, what these Utopias have in common is more fundamental than their differences. In their cult of reason and efficiency, their ignorance of history and their contempt for the ways of life they consign to poverty or extinction, they embody the same rationalist hubris and cultural imperialism that have marked the central traditions of Enlightenment thinking throughout its history.”

Let’s be clear about this: A single global market is the Enlightenment’s project of a universal civilization in what is likely to be its final form. I don’t expect in-depth knowledge or logical consistency from David Brin on these matters, though I would appreciate it.

Fukuyama made the Enlightenment argument for liberal democracy and global capitalism in 1992 in The End of History and the Last Man. He subsequently came to a more moderate position in 1995 in Trust: Social Virtues and Creation of Prosperity where he came to realize that culture and economics are co-evolved, or as I stated above: Markets must take the shape of their containers — the civilizations in which they are cultivated. He still labors to make the Enlightenment functional, as many conservatives do. He will have a tough time of it until he realizes the majority of his assumptions are pseudo-scientific Enlightenment nonsense.

Read John Gray if you would rather have a dose of reality.

Because, in reality, who is it that has the plans for global domination? It is the deluded followers of the Enlightenment. John Gray says nothing other than what is patently obvious: that dream is dead. It was still-born because it cannot possibly function — Universalism is a false god of the Enlightenment. When David Brin is looking for the evil jack-booted thugs with plans for global domination, he needs to look in the mirror: it is Enlightenment Utopians like him that have that plan, not us. Read Gray’s words again, it is those like Brin who “embody the  same rationalist hubris and cultural imperialism“. We reactionaries understand that we must build walls around our civilizations and keep the pagan barbarians at bay. Running a civilization is a full-time job. We understand how hard it is to keep our own little civilization alive, and are busy working on that project. We will leave the plans for global domination to Utopian Universalists like Brin and his allies.

Roosevelt and Stalin

Article: Evidence of collusion between the US and Russia to cover up Russian atrocities in 1943.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/us-helped-russia-cover-up-second-world-war-katyn-forest-massacre-8122111.html

Also, well documented is the Holodomor, where the Red Commies (with significant Jewish leadership) in Russia starved at least 4 million Christian Ukrainians in 1932-1933. That’s a lot of dead Christians in that short of a time period.

The horrors of the Red Terror implemented by the Russian Cheka are also well documented.
So, given that the brutality of the Commies was well known to the US government, there is an obvious question: Why did the USA side with Russia? They could have declared war on Russia for Russian atrocities, just as they declared war on Germany for German atrocities. Germany had beaten Russia into a pulp, they were easy pickings. Why didn’t the US government stamp out the Commie threat when they had the chance?

Why didn’t the US prevent the Germans from coming West into Europe, while simultaneously allowing the Germans to wipe the Communists off the map in the East?

Why did the Commies and the Fascists hate each other? Why did the USA and Fascists hate each other?

Why did the US government side with the Communists in WWII (thus helping the Communists stay in power), given that the US government was openly anti-Communist and knew of Russian atrocities?

If the government of the USA was anti-Communist, then why did they do such a terrible job of wiping out Communism?

Another question: How did it come to pass that the USA now has a Communist president? Why did Joe McCarthy go on his Communist witch-hunt in the 1950’s? Why is McCarthy reviled in the present media (he is arguably one of the most hated figures in American history), if all he was doing was going after Commies (who didn’t exist)? Obviously you can’t hurt someone who does not exist. Then why is the media still so hurt? Why is it so important that present day Americans know how evil was McCarthy?

Why is it that you can openly profess to be a Marxist in America, but not a Fascist?

The answer to all of these questions is pretty obvious. The average American would have to wipe years of programming out of his brain and look at the situation objectively, if he wanted to have any hope of giving voice to that answer. Take the Red Pill, Neo. Follow the White Rabbit and see where it goes.

Dear Butch: Am I a Leftist?

BrightAbyss replied to my Dodging Leftward post. I thought it would be easier to respond on a new post than to put a longish response in the reply. I have responded inline.

“I like that you did your homework.

Couple things:

Just because I support gender equality, revolution, re-engineering society to mitigate climate change, and i’m against the plunder and domination of vulnerable populations by dominant institutions doesn’t mean in “leftist”, at least not how I understand it. Why? Because I don’t see the world through the prism of high school poli-sci heuristics. Those are your labels and lists, and that is the simplistic framework upon which you want to demarcate things and people to create your in-group. Yeah for you. But ‘Left/right’ is meaningless to me, and so I refuse your categories and rhetoric and all the bullshit antagonisms and logics (decisional binary sets) that go with it. Ideology is not my focus and ultimately meaningless to me – although unavoidable in subtle ways.
I’m a pragmatist and an empiricist. So I’m ‘against’ all things damaging to the human (and other) species and ‘for’ all things that might lead to a more health inducing arrangement of populations. Those are my guiding commitments. So I’m not lying I’m just refusing your game. Period.”

Hahaha! Now this is amusing: you are not sure you’re a Leftist!

Personally, I don’t buy it. You’re retweeting articles from Marxists calling each other ‘comrade’ where they emphasize the importance of building a New Left to fight the capitalist crisis. But you’re not a Leftist? Come now. Let’s drop the pretenses.

You claim to be an empiricist. Are you telling me that you have never done an empirical analysis of your own beliefs? Let’s say you did a cladistic analysis of this idea of ‘plunder and domination of vulnerable populations by dominant institutions’. That means you would try to figure out where that idea originated, because you are definitely not the originator. That sounds identical to the Marxist idea that ‘the bourgeoisie (owning class) dominate the proletariat (working class) by controlling capital (the means of production)’. And you are an anti-Capitalist. Doesn’t that mean anything to you? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that what you are against is what Marx was against. Again, I’m not buying this bullshit.

You can refuse my labels and lists, call it simplistic and refuse my categories. The truth is you don’t like the labels. You don’t want to be labeled a Leftist. You’re fine with thinking and acting like a Leftist, just so long as you’re not labeled as such. That’s your entire point. Sorry. Words have meanings. If you walk like a Leftist, and you talk like a Leftist, then you are a Leftist, whether or not you like that label. That’s why your bullshit is so petty. You understand clearly that we have norms of language, and that by flouting those norms, by refusing to use the words and their actual meanings, that you degrade our commons. When you refuse to label something that clearly deserves that label, because the application of that label would make you uncomfortable, then that is the same as lying. I’m sure cigarette manufacturers don’t like the labels either.

“I’m against the Koch bros because they put profit over ecosystems and do some in illegal and brutal ways. I’m against Marxism because it puts bureaucracy and ideology over people. I’m for reorganizing the economy to decrease carbon emission in order to mitigate global warming. I’m against involuntary taxes (socialism) because it consolidates money in the hands of wayward institutions. I’m for small government. I’m against financial oligarchy. I’m for valuing the family and individual responsibility. I’m against identity politics and the culture of blame. I’m for collectivising modes of production (for efficiency). I’m against fundamentalism.”

Collectivising modes of production? Probably you were thinking ‘means of production’. Collectivism, as in socialism, communism, fascism… consolidating the means of production into the hands of the state. Got it. But you’re against involuntary taxes because it consolidates money in the hands of wayward institutions. As though consolidating the means of production into the hands of government institutions is not exactly the same as consolidating money into the hands of wayward institutions. The lack of logical consistency and awareness of what you are saying is astounding. Amazingly empirical.

Also, you’re not against fundamentalism, you’re against Christianity. Please stop with that bullshit. Remember: I’ve read your Twitter feed.

And I draw from a lot of sources – left and right, but mostly empirical studies. Doesn’t mean I am committed to every organization or theoretical stance I re-tweet or draw from. Life is messy and so is one’s intellectual growth. SO where do these commitments put me on your color by number chart? Left-right? 

Where does that put you on my chart? Let me see.
[Beep boop beep bop… ping!].
Yep. As I suspected. You’re a Leftist.

Look, I suppose it’s possible (in the same way that a coin landing on its edge is possible) that you are so immersed in Leftism that you think you understand the sum of all things that might lead to a more health inducing arrangement of populations, but you don’t know that the aggregation of all those things has a name, and that name is Leftism. You just think it is common sense. Of course, you would be wrong in that assessment.

I also suppose you think you are some rational atheist. You should read RadishMag’s Reign of Reason article. Or maybe Free Speech, you know, so you can do an empirical cladistic analysis of your ideas to find out from whence they originate.

Dodging Leftward

Apparently, BrightAbyss disagreed with my assessment of him as a Leftist using Marxist tactics, as expounded in my previous post: Christians and Boiling Pitch.

He feigns ideological neutrality on Twitter: 

1h1 hour ago

– ya, the problem is I’m neither “leftist” nor Marxist so your ideological frames just don’t fit. Sorry.
This is typical of Leftists. They are persons without virtue, they have a dual set of morality. They shamelessly lie to those in the out-group. I decided to take a moment to peruse BrightAbyss’s Twitter timeline to see if his interests really were not Leftist or Marxist. Guess what I found? Wait for it… a boatload of Leftism and Marxism. 
Why does he lie? Because he must. As I stated in the previous post, it is the business of Leftists to spread lies and discontent. BrightAbyss, you do know that I can read your Twitter feed, right? Why play this game? I had you pegged from that single tweet of yours that I referenced.
I have documented BrightAbyss’s tweets below. But my absolute favorite is his retweet of the article Piketty, Marx, and the Political Economy of the Internet, which states (emphasis mine):
all three reactions do not help the task of creating a New Left that is urgently needed in the situation of sustained capitalist crisis. Marxists will certainly view Piketty’s analysis of capitalism and political suggestions critically. I argue that they should however not dismiss them, but like Marx and Engels aim to radicalise reform suggestions.
Wow. Interested in creating a New Left to take on that whole capitalist crisis, are we? The Marxists are having some internal discussions on the topic? But you’re not a Marxist are you, BrightAbyss? Are you sure we shouldn’t take another look at those ideological frames of mine?
Here’s what I found on the rest of his Twitter feed. It seems that BrightAbyss is extremely concerned about Climate Change and Ecological Disaster. He thinks that all aspects of our lives should be re-oriented to address climate change. He implores President Obama to DO SOMETHING. He Tweets about oppressed minorities being crushed under the Capitalist boot. He retweets on behalf of the journal of Decolonization, which is anti-colonialist. He retweets against the evil Koch brothers. He calls for riot and a Revolution Now at some Occupy Wall Street rehash. He calls to gang rush the Capitalist Devils. He defines nationalism as pathology. He mocks others for calling out him and his causes as Marxist agitation – insisting that Communism and the Cold War are dead. (nice deflection) He tweets about how disgraceful it is to be wealthy and honored in an unjust society. Oh, wait. That sounds awfully like social justice to me. He tweets that real men support gender equality. He defines Whiteness as entitlement. He accuses others of ideological projection, while pretending that he has none. He’s openly anti-Christian, but I didn’t bother documenting that.
So we have: radical climate change support, anti-capitalism, class warfare, anti-colonialism, anti-nationalism, social justice, gender equality and anti-racism. Really, BrightAbyss? My ideological frames just don’t fit? Ha! They fit you like a glove.
Let’s look at Eric S. Raymond’s list of Leftist memes infecting the West and propagated by Marxists, enumerated in his Suicidalism post:

Consider the following propositions:

  • There is no truth, only competing agendas.
  • All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and
    colonialism.
  • There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.
  • The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.
  • Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
  • The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)
  • For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But “oppressed” people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.
  • When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions.

Having read Raymond’s list, read through BrightAbyss’ tweets that I have selected below. I think the tweets speak for themselves.

BrightAbyss, you are a Leftist and a Marxist agitator and a liar.

Boiling pitch for you.

 ·  Nov 6

“Whiteness” as kernel of essentialist racial ontologies is not about biodiversity but rather about existential entitlement.
[m]: retweeted
We can’t afford a climate movement that’s just an ethical add-on to business-as-usual. Climate action must become the new business-as-usual.
[m]: retweeted
ICYMI: As Casualties Mount, Scientists Say Global Warming Has Been “Hugely Underestimated”
[m]: retweeted
Piketty, Marx, and the Political Economy of the Internet … great new essay from comrade
If I read the word ‘neoliberal’ one more time I’m going to punch something in its pinky toe. Let’s call it what it is: corporate mafia. Thx.
Monsanto has a revenue of over $10.5 billion per year, yet it is currently suing farmers in poor countries who make less than $500 per year.
“To be wealthy and honored in an unjust society is a disgrace.” – Confucius
[m]: retweeted

Our new issue is OUT! Check it here, and please share!  

Note: Overview of Decolonization Journal

Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society is an undisciplinary, peer-reviewed, online Open Access journal committed to supporting and advancing decolonization scholarship, practice, and activism within and, more importantly, beyond and against, the academy. We believe in connecting decolonization struggles across locations and experiences, in connecting academics, activists, and artists – and their production – within larger communities of decolonial struggle, and connecting knowledge production to histories of resistance to colonial power; we believe in a lived out decolonial praxis. Decolonization is not new and we do not aspire to meet the academic demand for new and invigorating paradigms; it is not the academy we are interested in invigorating. Instead, we seek to ground decolonization in the lived experiences and histories of those individuals and communities that have and are living out decolonization, seeking to invigorate connections, struggles, and knowledges that reside beyond the academy.
[m]: retweeted

Inside the Koch Brothers’ toxic empire:

Northern Cree occupy Manitoba Hydro dam over longstanding grievances
the COMMIES are coming the COMMIES are coming! For yer guns and yer monies!!!
– commies?! LOL you do know the Cold War is over? The Red scare is not necessary. Do you have any real thoughts?
“We cannot condemn our children & their children to a future that is beyond their capacity to repair” < THEN DO SOMETHING
do you have a right-wing nutter bingo card you need to fill? Your tired arguments are all ideological projection
Insurrection is the appropriate response to inappropriate social conditions.
Emma Watson to men: Gender equality is your issue too Real men support gender equality
The cops would be powerless to stop hundreds of thousands of people rushing Wall Street with riotous intent. REVOLUTION NOW
. Stop Capitalism. End the Climate Crisis. LETS GANG RUSH THOSE DEVILS!!!
That unawkward moment when an interview with your 15 year old activist daughter is interviewed on p.2 of the daily newspaper.
Nationalism is pathology but regionalism is an opportunity to align local priorities with geo-affordances via infrastructural innovation.

Reaction viewed from the Left

This is what Reaction, Neoreaction and the Dark Enlightenment look like when viewed from the Left. Loki is the Arch-Reactionary (evil to the core, sadistic and cruel), the old Jew is the ideological center of the Left (brave and selfless, standing for the freedom of the underclasses) and Captain America is the Red Terror (handsome, brave and ready to violently defend the righteous cause of the Left). This is pretty much the 20th century in under 2 minutes, except in this Fairy Tale the Cheka doesn’t rape, torture and murder Reactionaries for fun (See Republican Marriage). The Left always sees Nazis under the bed… this commie propaganda is what passes for entertainment in modern America. This is simply a morality play for Leftists: Kings are Evil. The End.


A Republican Marriage:

How the Reds really treat their enemies: