Cultural Marxism Defined

I’ve been seeing complaints from people that they don’t understand the term Cultural Marxism. Often this lack of understanding is communicated by labeling the term “meaningless”. I know what it means, and it’s a very appropriate term. Here’s a quick explanation.

Karl Marx was attempting to create a Workers Revolution. He intuited that there are a lot more workers than there are owners, and understood that if he could give the workers moral license to attack the owners, that they could take their stuff without having to produce it themselves. It was a simple plan and it worked well enough to kill hundreds of millions of people.

After the Workers Revolution failed to materialize in the US, a group of Marxists known as the Frankfurt School were theorizing on how to complete the revolution. They took Marx’s economic mechanism of dividing Labor (workers, proletariat) and Capital (bourgeoisie) and abstracted the economic model to a generalized Oppressed and Oppressors model, which is not economic but ideological. This is generally known as Critical Theory.

The Critical Theorists then realized that they could apply this method to any cultural/ideological space. Where Marx thought in economic terms (labor/capital), the Frankfurt school could divide any cultural space:

Social Space Oppressed Oppressor
Gender female male
Sexual Orientation gay straight
Race non-white white

Thus we see the Marxist divide-and-incite technique applied to culture : Cultural Marxism.

Once you have divided the space, the next step is to critique the ideology of the ‘oppressors’ as being self-serving and parasitic (Rule #3: SJWs Always Project). This is the ‘critical’ as in ‘critique’ part of Critical Theory. In essence, it boils down to chimping out while using scientific sounding terms like ‘marginalization’.

Bonus points for politicians if they can then herd all of the oppressed groups into a Big Tent Rainbow Coalition of Aggrieved Victims. The only problem is that you’ll have to be careful to work out a victim-status hierarchy, including intersectional victim status, which turns out to be a lot more complex than one might think, as we see with Political Correctness.

download

 

 

Marginalized

Marginalization as Obscurantism

The pseudoscientists use the words ‘marginalization’ and ‘marginalization’. From Social Exclusion (on the SJW Encyclopedia):

Social exclusion, or social marginalization, is the social disadvantage and relegation to the fringe of society. It is a term used widely in Europe and was first used in France.[1] It is used across disciplines including education, sociology, psychology, politics and economics.

Social exclusion is the process in which individuals or entire communities of people are systematically blocked from (or denied full access to) various rights, opportunities and resources that are normally available to members of a different group, and which are fundamental to social integration within that particular group[2] (e.g., housing, employment, healthcare, civic engagement, democratic participation, and due process).

Alienation or disenfranchisement resulting from social exclusion can be connected to a person’s social class, race, skin color, educational status, childhood relationships,[3]living standards, or personal choices in fashion. Such exclusionary forms of discrimination may also apply to people with a disability, minorities, LGBT people, drug users,[4] institutional care leavers,[5] the elderly and the young. Anyone who appears to deviate in any way from perceived norms of a population may thereby become subject to coarse or subtle forms of social exclusion.

The outcome of social exclusion is that affected individuals or communities are prevented from participating fully in the economic, social, and political life of the society in which they live.[6]

Marginalization is an overloaded term used by social pseudoscientists to frame the group under discussion as victims. Marginalization is a process that is performed upon someone. This brings up the concept of agency: the argument is that victim classes lack agency (the ability to act). Marginalization is such a term that removes agency from the groups under discussion. This is the loading. If the victim class lacks agency, then logically it follows that there are agents acting upon the class (the victimizers). Marginalization is defined by the social pseudoscientists as a form of victimization or oppression, which is the process of an agent acting upon those who lack agency.

These loaded terms: oppression, victimization, marginalization are obscurantist techniques: they are an attempt to hide something? But what?

Class

Humans can be roughly divided into classes. We build social hierarchies based on these classes. Class or caste is a common feature of many societies today, but in the West there was a reaction to aristocracy. The middle and lower classes murdered their upper classes (the aristocracy) and then attempted justify this murder with a lie: the denial of the existence of class.

Marxist theory contains an attack on class and advocates re-organization of every aspect of culture and society to remove any differences and achieve the Utopian Classless Society. The Founding Fathers sought to create a form related to a classless society, a middle class society. This was the American project: building a new country on a new continent out of only the middle class and higher. In the New World, more than a 1/3 of the newcomers returned home to Europe, they were the lower classes who could not produce on their own. The Aristocracy of the Old World sought to reduce the numbers of the lower class through selective breeding. This was achieved through manorialism, where only those capable of production (the middle class and above) were granted land, which was essentially equivalent to being granted breeding rights.

The Marxists attempt to achieve their goal by lying: there are no classes. The Founders attempted to achieve their goals through a combination of lying and incentive: all men are created equal and no welfare for layabouts. The Aristocracy attempted to achieve their goals through a combination of lying and incentive: we have the divine right to rule and these are our rules.

Quick Note on All Men Are Created Equal

Keep in mind that the Founders were reacting against Rule of Man (autarchy)(discretionary rule). What they sought was Rule of Law. Any system lacking universal standing, meaning fair and rules based treatment under law, which instead has discretionary rule for some and law for others, then that system cannot be called Rule of Law. For RoL to exist, then all members must be given treatment based on institutionalized rules (law). I believe the phrase ‘all men are created equal’ is an attempt to justify universal standing using religio-moral language, because the Founders at the time lacked the ability to articulate universal standing and its fundamental necessity for the creation of institutionalized order: Rule of Law.

Stop Lying About Class

It’s time to end the lies about class. Classes exist. We have the science. We can measure IQ, which is a rough approximate of class. All men are not created equal: We can create rule of law without lying. The Utopian classless society is an unachievable dream.

Rough Table of Classes (Curt Doolittle’s)

140’s revolutionize INTELLECTUAL (Professors)
130’s synthesize and communicate UPPER (CEO’s etc)
120’s solve and design UPPER MIDDLE (engineers, scientists)
110’s calculate and organize MIDDLE CLASS (white collar workers)
100’s interpret repair and operate (lower middle upper working managerial clsss)
90’s operate, report, but not repair.( midddle working class)
80’s operate (middle working class)
70’s dig ditches and clean. (lower class)

<70 = underclass

The lower and underclass are not ‘marginalized’. They have not been victimized. They have not been oppressed. They are not lacking agency and been acted upon to be placed into a lower position. They were born as lower and underclass.

There are no ‘marginalized peoples’. There are only those classes who cannot function within the system of production and which must be addressed in some way in order to make a functional society.

There is no ‘systematic blocking of access to rights and opportunities’, there is a biological inability on the part of the lower classes to participate meaningfully in the system of production.

Ending The Game

Of course, the end goal of the use of social pseudoscience is always the same: parasitism. To use words to extract resources from society at a discount (it beats working for a living). It doesn’t have to be this way. We can recognize the existence of class and then deal with it. There is no shame in being born in the lower classes, just as there is no shame being born in the upper classes.

The Founders and the Aristocracy were on the right track: the goal is to create a society made up of middle and upper classes (minimizing the lower class components through incremental suppression). This is the upward development of the species. This is true progress: increasing the genetic capital of a population through selective breeding. This is the domestication of man. It is self-directed evolution. It is transcendence. (Note: this strategy is available to all the peoples of the world. Africans and Arabs have just as much genetic potential as the Northern peoples.)

It’s time to be honest. The strategy of the West is that of transcendence. The average Western high IQ is the result of self-directed evolution, of the suppression of the breeding of the lower classes. The strategy of the modern ‘progressives’ is inverted, where the result is to suppress the breeding of the middle and upper classes, to redistribute their wealth to the lower classes, and to import millions of lower classes for short term political gain. This is a suicidal stratagem, and one that the men of the West have every incentive to prevent, by any means necessary. This is the crux of the current political turmoil, as millions of Westerns begin to intuitively grasp the situation. The modern progressive strategy will have the result of devolving the West back into savagery, and could potentially devolve it into a new Dark Age. Europe was on the cusp of an industrial revolution when the last Dark Age overtook it. It took a thousand years to recuperate. A new Dark Age is not beyond the realm of possibility.

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.

Toxo and Marx

It’s interesting to watch Sapolsky in this video describing how toxoplasmosis can rewire the brain, shutting down amygdala fear response, keeping in mind the discussion of free will versus biological determinism.

 

From Discovery, Parasite Infection Linked to Road Rage:

People who display frequent bouts of extreme, impulsive anger, such as road rage, are more than twice as likely to be infected with a common parasite than are individuals who do not exhibit such explosive behavior, according to a new study.

“Our work suggests that latent infection with the Toxoplasma gondii parasite may change brain chemistry in a fashion that increases the risk of aggressive behavior,” senior author Emil Coccaro of the University of Chicago said in a press release.

Free will? Knowing that our brains may be rewired to alter our perception of the world around us, it tends to cast more and more doubt upon the idea of free will.

This just in from Curt Doolittle:

On this one point, Locke was Wrong and Hobbes was right: as a member of a polity, man is reducible to a ‘mechanical’ engine fed drugs by his genes as reward and punishment for advancing their interests. And those interests are advanced through acquisition, retention and reproduction of all sorts of things.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enjoy the fulfillment of our genes interests. It’s the whole purpose of existence.

To make the most of it.

😉

This further confirms to me the theory proposed in my Language and Genetic Self-Interest piece. We are moist robots and we are wired to serve the interests of our genes (until a pesky and precocious parasite like toxoplasmosis figures out how to rewire our neuro-pathways). We imagine that we are freely thinking thoughts and making arguments which are simply logical. We are doing as we are programmed. Our ancestors found a competitive advantage in truth and logic, so the machinery of truth and logic is built into our people. We are acting in service of our genes and our genetic self-interest (our reproductive strategy). We found a competitive advantage in universalized belief systems, and so we are prone to universalism. We found competitive advantage in reducing our ethnocentrism, so we are prone to openness to other ethnicities.

The men of the West used truth and logic, universalism, and reduced ethnocentrism to build large, productive orders of humans. There is a lot of accumulated capital. Of course, just as toxoplasmosis exists and can parasitically rewire our brains, other parasites exist and can rewire and hijack our systems. Marxism is such a hijacking. People with a parasitic reproductive strategy and a high-verbal IQ can manipulate our brains by repeating half-truths with high frequency and high volume. All they needed was majority control over a centralized communications network to reinforce their messages. Combine this with the incentives of democracy and you have a recipe for disaster: a machine built to eat the accumulated capital of the West.

The internet has broken the monopoly control over the communications network. We are in the process of rewiring ourselves (see ‘deprogramming’ in relationship to cults). We are building antibodies to the parasites. This is what I mean when I talk about being a ‘memetic warrior’. I mean engaging in the work of deprogramming the cult members who share our reproductive strategy. We can never convert those who do not share our reproductive interests (incompatible ethnicities and to some extent even our women). We can only change their calculation of genetic self-interest.

That’s what I think, which I think must mean that I intuit it to be in my genetic self-interests. Luckily, I share genetic self-interests with the most dominant men on the planet. That gives me hope.

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.

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.

Christians and Boiling Pitch

The other day I read a particularly disgusting piece of White Hate, which prompted me to write this rather Nietzschean response:

To which BrightAbyss responds:

Ah, so now I’m on top of the socioeconomic hate machine because of my Will to Power over those who would destroy me and my brothers. I smell anti-racism and social justice, two ugly babies of Cultural Marxism. Anyone who uses the word hate to denounce the other is a Leftist. Among Leftists, Hate is overloaded  to mean heresy, denoting any thoughts which a Leftist finds distasteful. My refusal to submit anti-racism may be the worst of the Leftist heresies. His use of the word socioeconomic is a reference to class, which is classic Marxism; as socioeconomic status is a primary division used in critical theory to divide oppressors and oppressed. The article that he defends even bemoans the dead end that critical race theory has encountered in South Africa. I’m sure that breaks BrightAbyss’s heart too.

You can read the thread, but the short of it is that BrightAbyss tries to pick up Christianity and use it as a moral club to beat me into submission to the Marxist ideology. Good luck with that.

This approach fails miserably because I am not terribly philosophical, ideological or moralistic. I’m thedish. My consistency is in loyalty, loyalty to my in-group and to my thede (still working on phyle). I come from a long line of Christians. I can trace my lineage back the the Revolutionary War (really more of a secession, but that’s for another time), and to a Christian doctor who was jailed, pilloried and had his ears cropped for criticizing the Anglican Church in England.

“In this sign, you will conquer”

You see, unlike most Christians in America, I understand that the current state of Christianity as BrightAbyss (mis)understands it, is a watered down, Leftist shadow of its former glory. The reason for this is that for hundreds of years now Enlightenment philosophers have reformulated Christianity in Enlightenment terms and imbued it with Enlightenment values.

To the side is a bronze of Emperor Constantine, who conquered under the sign of the cross. Christianity has been the light of the West, and Westerners have bathed the world in blood to bring Christian peace. You see, paradoxically, peace is achieved through violence. Peace does not occur in Nature, because Nature is a Hobbesian war of all against all. Peace is unnatural, it is manufactured. Peace can only be manufactured by men who have the Will to Power.

The West rose to power through the creation of Capitalism (an economic or social technology, in addition to other engineering technologies), a system which suppresses involuntary transfers of property, leaving no choice but to engage in the market. The Christian exhortation of men to behave peaceably, and to obey the authorities, has been extremely helpful in the creation of productive markets which lead to Western power. The Catholic church operated much as the House of Commons in modern systems, being the voice and advocate of the people to the Executive Branch function performed by the feudal lords, the Aristocracy. The story of the survival of Christianity through the Middle Ages, is the story of Aristocrats using violence, technology and economics to create and maintain walled gardens of civilization in a sea of barbarism.

You see, Christianity only functions in a civilized society. The rules of Christianity only apply within that walled garden, they do not exist in the sea of barbarism. This is why Christians built walls around their tiny pockets of civilization, to specifically exclude the barbarians. Christianity is a social technology, but social technologies do not work with all peoples and in all times and places. We must use the right tool for the job. To our fellows within the walled garden, we turn the other cheek. To the barbarians on the other side of the wall, we pour down boiling pitch. Get the idea?

Leftists are the barbarians, intent on tearing down the walls which keep our civilization safe. They are an infection, eating out our normative commons, dissolving norms of behavior, sowing discord and distrust in every corner. They subvert the Will to Power, spreading the lies listed in hacker hero Eric S. Raymond’s Suicidalism and Gramscian damage posts, leading to a listless and defenseless Christianity.

BrightAbyss is not in my thede. He admits in the thread that he’s not a Christian, yet he wants to throw Scripture in my face and to tell me what it truly means to be a Christian. The intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy is astounding: Why would a non-Christian exhort me to behave in a Christian manner, to follow rules that he admits he does not believe? Well, the answer is obvious: it is a transparent manipulation. He wishes to bind me down with the chains of modern Enlightenment Christianity, which lock me onto the Progressive plantation. I’ve got your number, buddy:

We Christians have been fools. We have been too trusting. We have allowed snakes in our midst to spread lies and discontent. We have treated our enemies as though they are Christians, rather than as the barbarians and destroyers of Christian virtue that they truly are.

Christians have always been willing to fight, kill and die for their civilizations. I am no different. Leftists like BrightAbyss need to understand this: it is Christian forgiveness for those inside the wall, and boiling pitch for those outside of it. Many modern Christians have lost the Will to Power, but my eyes are open: Peace is forged through Power.

So, I don’t need BrightAbyss to tell me what Christianity means, but maybe he can help any Leftist readers with some of their other burning questions: