Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.18061208]

I'm reading this right now, what does /lit/ think of it?

[Anonymous No.18061255]

doghsit. and i’m no defender of “postmodernism”

[Anonymous No.18061259]

>>18061208
fuck I started this and forgot
>nohelpfag, but wanna hear someone chirp about it, so like a bump

[Anonymous No.18061262]

>>18061208
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHtvTGaPzF4
Watch this

[Anonymous No.18061276]

>>18061255
>>18061208
And btw “postmodernism” isn’t the source of today’s problems. I suggest stuff like picrel if you want to understand what’s going on. It’s not postmodernists, marxists, da joos, the illuminati, etc. It’s the “globalists” as Alex Jones calls them. His analysis is mostly correct, he’s just schizo.

[Anonymous No.18061283]

>>18061276
Jews are the international element. They are globalists.

[Anonymous No.18061303]

>>18061276
I think this come down to the debate of idealism influence vs material influence.
Are postmodernists at fault or are they just the products of their time (economics, technology, tradition)
Same thing with globalists - are they the ruling elite imposing their opinions on others or are they just representatives of the zeitgeist?

[Anonymous No.18061337]

>>18061276>>18061303

1789 has been a disaster for the human race.

[Anonymous No.18061349]

>>18061337
Yet again, was the french revolution some kind of conspiracy plot by the greedy elites or was it a natural consequence of the state of France?
Would it happen without the greedy elites? I mean, they are at fault, but is the ability to revolt in that situation some kind of divine intervention?

[Anonymous No.18061427]

>>18061283
The international order was conceived and put into action during the war years by wasp elites. Jewish elites rose later in places like media (media being the lowest rung within the ruling elite btw) and banking but they did so because they embodied Anglo ideology. Banking mystification is a product of London economics not “jewishness.”
>>18061303
>are they the ruling elite imposing their opinions on others
Yes they are, see picrel. I see lots of people say, “culture is chaos, no one controls it” but that’s not what people like Lippmann thought, and I think what he lays out in this book is observable today.

[Anonymous No.18061428]

>>18061276
>it's not actually the jews idiots it's the jews
Lmao you're such a retard

[Anonymous No.18061432]

>>18061349
>Would it happen without the greedy elites?
Yes you idiot. It didn't happen because the greedy elites. France was BANKRUPT. What the fuck was the king supposed to do? They took everything the royals had and France still starved for years. You know why? Because France was fucking BANKRUPT you dumb piece of shit. It was not muh greedy elites retarded commie piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.18061434]

>>18061427
Ok so it’s the Jews. And no, they don’t just work in the media.

[Anonymous No.18061436]

>>18061208
He calls Kant "counterenlightenment". Clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.18061442]

>>18061428
>>18061434
It’s the Anglos.

[Anonymous No.18061452]

>>18061442
>muh anglos
>muh jews are innocent
>muh capitalism bad
>>>/leftypol/

[Anonymous No.18061463]

>>18061442
The Anglos had an empire like many other peoples. That’s not the issue now.

[Anonymous No.18061562]

>>18061262
theres no way you can have any positive view of this book after wathcing this.

[Anonymous No.18061605]

>>18061452
/leftypol/ is actually hates Jews now to appeal to people though

[Anonymous No.18061619]

>>18061562
Ok but I'm not watching trannytube

[Anonymous No.18061620]

>>18061605
Not in real life

[Anonymous No.18061676]

>>18061432
I never implies it wouldn't. I argue FOR the existence of the social factors of the revolution.
>or was it a natural consequence of the state of France?
I'm literally stating question

[Anonymous No.18061689]

>>18061452
>>muh capitalism bad
Is calling capitalism bad a inherently left thing?
Capitalism obviously has it's weak point, but it's not like some magical revolution can save us all.
I think capitalism can be criticized form both directions

[Anonymous No.18061738]

>>18061676
Okay yeah there were many factors, but no one is saying the french revolution itself is the only bad thing. The FR is just the posterboy for everything that led up to it and the turning point in history after which we started a new era, which so far has been handled pretty badly.

[Anonymous No.18061749]

>>18061689
Yes calling capitalism bad is a leftist thing. Socialist nationalists are leftists too. Criticizing parts of the system and proposing reasonable solutions is ok, but just calling capitalism bad is lefty territory.

[Anonymous No.18061936]

>>18061262
This video is just destroying the book completely and proving that anyone using the book for arguing should get their lunch money taken.

>>18061619
>ad hom so it's ok to stay stoobid
brainlet take

[Anonymous No.18061949]

>>18061936
Go back

[Anonymous No.18061961]

>>18061303
Even the postmodernists would say that they are a product of their time. Certain social pressures drive certain questions and answers

[Anonymous No.18061977]

>>18061276
postmodernism and marxism are certainly used to further it and eliminate opposition though

[Anonymous No.18061983]

>>18061689
Yes it's a leftist thing. Also, welfare is too.

[Anonymous No.18061984]

>>18061208
Its bad. Its really bad. It misrepresents nearly all the authors mentioned, and the author is a literal who with no background which qualifies him to even be publishing on this stuff.

[Anonymous No.18061987]

>>18061208
We should just make Hicksism a post-post-modernist ideology where we use deconstruction to deconstruct deconstruction since at this point nobody fucking knows what pomo is and this book is becoming its own simulacra

[Anonymous No.18062648]

Good stuff. This dude is what Peterson dreams of being

[Anonymous No.18062847]

>>18061283
>>18061432
who cares even if they are? it doesnt matter who fills the role, just that theres someone who does. Jews have historically always been the ones forced into dirty banking business because kings needed a scapegoat to do the dirty work, just to kill em off again as soon as the masses got angry enough.
this globalist shit is exactly the same, kill them and they get replaced by something else and you get do the whole monkey dance all over again. fascism and european antisemitism in general is nothing more than a pathetic failure to see through a simple decoy trick.

[Anonymous No.18063347]

>>18062847
You don't get it. We're not lefties. We don't mind capitalism. We don't hate our history of colonial powers, and we don't have any resentment against powerful people. What we don't like is lying, manipulative, rootless parasites destroying our culture. White capitalists are corrupt but they don't actively hate who we are. Leftists are retards and no one cares about your anti-capitalist screeching.

[Anonymous No.18063413]

>>18063347
Capitalists don't give a flying fuck about culture, they only care about profits
They just tag along to what actually culturally influential groups do

[Anonymous No.18063436]

>>18063413
Yeah, and when parasites are not around, their profits no longer align with anti-European culture.

[Anonymous No.18063756]

>>18063347
the mistake is thinking that cultural decline only happen because theres some agent that actively wishes to destroy it. its the same mistake some environmentalist make where draw capitalists as these evil smirking fat monsters hellbent on pumping toxic waste into the air to destroy the world for no apparent reason. they just do that shit for profit, no bad intentions. Jews are exactly the same. get rid of them and the decline will continue.
both sides of the spectrum make this mistake, its a mistake almost always made out of pure ressentiment.
if you can only parse the idea that structural failures always arise from the structure as a leftist idea then youre at best just admitting to the right being very dumb.

[Anonymous No.18063969]

>>18061208
It’s a book so sloppy it’s kind of surprising it was published.

The basic premise of the book is founded on the mistake of thinking postmodernism is a reaction to modernity, rather than modernism.

It’s easy to mix those up if you are just learning, but writing a whole book with that misunderstanding...

‘Modernity’ or The Modern Era, is usually used as part of our ‘three age’ model for European history. Europe’s history is divided into ancient, medieval, and modern.

‘Modernism’ is a change in culture that takes place in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

It can be confusing bc when somebody says early modern philosophy, they mean like Descartes and Spinoza, but if they say ‘modern art’ they mean Picasso and Dali.

Postmodernism refers to the various changes that took place in the postwar period after modernism. Stephen Hicks doesn’t understand this distinction and sees postmodernism as opposing philosophical and cultural notions from the 17-18th century rather than the early 20th.

It’s all just extremely sloppy and demonstrates he did effectively no research into what anybody else had to say about ideas like modernity and postmodernism before writing his book.

The second major problem is that he can’t explain why he thinks the goal of postmodernism is socialism, while also seeing it as a reaction to the rise and fall of actually existing socialism in the form of the USSR. His entire model of periodization breaks down when you realize that the entire time of actual socialist projects having real historical power *precedes* what he’s calling postmodernism. There is no possible explanation for how fascism or soviet communism are able to develop and catch on among large number of people long before postmodernism begins to catch on.

Also you can tell he doesn’t have that much knowledge of the postwar French academia because he only talks about french philosophers who were influential in the English world, and never mentioned any number of influential figures who hadn’t yet been translated. This is most conspicuous in the fact neither Deleuze nor Badiou are mentioned once in the book despite Deleuze exhibiting some of the worst aspects of “postmodernist” writing and Badiou being an open Maoist, a fact he would have made a ton of hay over had he known of him.

[Anonymous No.18063991]

>>18061262
>CCK philosophy
wtf???

[Anonymous No.18064110]

>>18063756
I don't know what you're talking about mate, your posts are all over the place. Who said cultural decline is only because of jews? Europe had plenty of ups and downs just like every other culture. Jews became a problem only after the French Revolution, and we want them gone. No one thinks that history will stop and everyone will live in an utopia. We'll continue history as per usual but without them.

[Anonymous No.18064265]

>>18061262
sometimes I wonder why people like that get a teaching position

[Anonymous No.18064286]

>>18061442
yes, waterjews, you say stop calling it a bird when it is a duck.

[Anonymous No.18065028]

>>18064110
im not sure what you see as all over the place, and im not talking about any end of history anywhere.
my point is simple: the problem you see jews as causing is not something inherent to the jews as an ethnic group but to the system that put the jews there. getting rid of them will fix nothing, its fighting symptoms. you need an antibiotic instead of just scratching your sores. and that requires a more sophisticated analysis than 'da joos'

[Anonymous No.18065110]

>>18065028
The problem is the lack of hierarchy and the absence of an aristocracy and the solution is complicated, but one of the issues that need to be gotten rid of is the jews. There are others as well, but jews oppose every solution so they need to be removed too. Anyway, you like every leftist that ever existed have said nothing of value and no one expects or needs help from your kind.

[Anonymous No.18065139]

>>18061208
Currently the oldest item in my Amazon cart

[Anonymous No.18065154]

>>18065139
Sickening

[Anonymous No.18065178]

>>18063991
His previous name was "cuck philosophy". Now It's cck. because the channel suddenly got bigger

[Anonymous No.18065188]

>>18063969
>it’s kind of surprising it was published.
he had to create his own publishing business to do this

[Anonymous No.18065447]

>>18061283

no it's Mexicans.

[Anonymous No.18065484]

OP here. Damn there are alot of responses. Anons, would you say that acceptance of neo-Scholasticism precludes one from postmodernism?
>>18065110
they already have insanely high intermarriage rates (overestimated, but still). Some of those kids don't identify as Jews and don't give a fuck about their "technically Jewish" status. If that increases enough, (((they))) could fall down with the Europeans. "If we're going down they're coming with us".

[Anonymous No.18065506]

>>18065028
>>18065110
just read pic related. I'm sceptical of evolutionary psychology, but it's the best elaboration of the JQ I've ever read. MacDonald is a white advocate, but he always tries to be objective, and sticks to the facts. I consider it relatively unchallengeable.

[Anonymous No.18065517]

>>18063756
pursuit of group interests, with an inadequate theory of ethics (i.e. moral particularism) will do that to anyone.

[Anonymous No.18065534]

>>18061987
"aCksHuALLy the very idea of systemic racism is deeply problematic, let me unpack this..."

[Anonymous No.18065613]

>>18065484
>Some of those kids don't identify as Jews and don't give a fuck about their "technically Jewish" status.
It's irrelevant what they identify as or what religion they are or whatever. The jews that are the issue do it mostly unconsciously because it's how they evolved to survive. And you're naive if you actually think the problem will just solve itself.

[Anonymous No.18065671]

>>18065613
no problem does. But yes, people are unconsciously biased in favor of their group (or groups), to the degree which they hold that group in regard. Question though, have you read the CoC trilogy?

[Anonymous No.18065685]

>>18065506
by pic related I meant this:

[Anonymous No.18065715]

>>18061427
The difference between jews and anglos is that jews have in-group preference and practice nepotism and anglos don't. That's why jews are the real problem. No, not all jews, and yes anglos are a problem too, but you know what I mean.
Also not just media and banking but academia, arts, medicine, judicial system, porn etc. Combined with their in-group preference and nepotism they are much more nefarious than anglos.

[Anonymous No.18065740]

>>18065715
>No, not all jews, and yes anglos are a problem too, but you know what I mean.

not him, but yeah I know what you mean. Did you read >>18065685 btw?

[Anonymous No.18065763]

>>18065740
Only CoC, have the other two in the to-read stack though. Have you read MacDonald's most recent book?

[Anonymous No.18065787]

>>18065763
I read em all, but my copy of "A People that shall Dwell Alone" lacked Chapter 2 (which discusses their genes, and apparently how Ashkenazi are 40% European!). His monograph on other ethnic minorities helped me understand (but not approve of, given my sympathy for Natural Law) why Eurofags outright hate Gypsies.
Which new book did he write?

[Anonymous No.18065815]

>>18065787
Yes Ashkenazis intermarried with southern and eastern Europeans iirc, that's why they often look somewhat more European than other jews such as Sephardis who look more like middle easterners.
His new book is "Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition", similar approach but looks at Europeans this time, and the role of individualism in our current predicament of course.

[Anonymous No.18065828]

>>18065506
You should also read Sombart's Capitalism and the Jews, and Verbeeten's Politics of Nonassimilation if you get a chance.

[Anonymous No.18065873]

>>18065815
>Sephardis
well there *is* a distinction to be made. Mizrahi Jews use the same liturgy as the Sephardi, and often get lumped in with them, but are Middle Eastern, the Sephardi were in Iberia... so maybe the Sephardi Jews proper have some bullrunner genes, idk.
>His new book is "Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition", similar approach but looks at Europeans this time, and the role of individualism in our current predicament of course.
alright. Insofar as individualism is voluntarism I agree with it, but when it gets to the level of "groups don't matter, group interests don't matter, every group is inherently the same" I get off the train. That shit is just cringe.

[Anonymous No.18065887]

>>18065828
thanks. I'm not a historicist but I read Sombart's "The Quintessence of Capitalism" already. If they were reduced to a sufficiently low mass (like in the Netherlands), could they be absorbed within a few generations?

[Anonymous No.18065910]

>>18065873
>Sephardi
Perhaps, afaik they are still majority jewish, in my country they're easily recognizable at least
>MacDonald
Read this https://counter-currents.com/2019/10/kevin-macdonalds-individualism-the-western-liberal-tradition/

[Anonymous No.18065933]

>>18065887
But even in the Netherlands they weren't absorbed completely and still retain their ancestral identity to a reasonable degree

[Anonymous No.18065936]

>>18065910
>https://counter-currents.com/2019/10/kevin-macdonalds-individualism-the-western-liberal-tradition/
will do

[Anonymous No.18065954]

>>18061463
No they do still have an empire it’s just occulted now. That’s what Quigley is saying in his book. While there’s no formal empire the Anglo-American establishment still holds many many satellite states.
>>18061977
The marxist states in the 20th century (Russia and China) were the ones resisting globalization. Postmodernism was an abstract intellectual exercise not affecting really anything until the identity politics stuff emerged (feminism, lgbt, race, etc.) I think the media promoted the identity politics to atomize a socialist vanguard from forming. The radical left in the 70s were potential threats to power but they were striated apart according to race, gender, and sexuality, with class issues (what Marx says is the only thing that matters, he would call identity politics bourgeois mystification) falling out of discourse. So basically radical leftist politics were reappropriated by power and became propaganda tools. No self identified marxists today are actually marxists. They are cia-designed “revolutionaries.”
>>18065715
>jews have in-group preference
What group doesn’t have this lol. Jews have never had a world dominating empire like the anglos, they haven’t come close to it. And it’s the Anglo ideologies of Darwinism and utilitarianism that have created the atheistic, dehumanizing world of today.

[Anonymous No.18065985]

>>18065954
>What group doesn’t have this lol.
In the western world, non have this to the degree of jews. Whites have the least in-group preference of any race.
>Jews have never had a world dominating empire like the anglos, they haven’t come close to it.
Are you retarded? You're living in it. Jews are majorly overrepresented in our current western cultural empire and dictate its course.
>And it’s the Anglo ideologies of Darwinism and utilitarianism that have created the atheistic, dehumanizing world of today.
Which exist because of protestantism, which is the jewish variant of christianity and was heavily (ab)used by jews in order to further their own goals. You should really read more on the role of jews in the modern world, capitalism western Europe, America etc. in order to understand this issue.

[Anonymous No.18065993]

>>18061208
Anything written by an Objectivist is good.... TO POOP ON

[Anonymous No.18065999]

>>18065887
>>18065910
Try reading an actual history book instead of using a history as a tool to affirm your already arrived at conclusion of “Jewish influence.” You’re simply projecting your ideology onto everything, it’s very poor historicism. If you’re right about the Jews, you should be able to read a normal history book and provide evidence of Jews guiding the hand of powerful leaders.

[Anonymous No.18066018]

>>18065999
Sorry bud, I read many history books of all kinds. It's not projection, nor affirmation, you just don't like the reality.
> If you’re right about the Jews, you should be able to read a normal history book and provide evidence of Jews guiding the hand of powerful leaders.
Yes. For history books on the past two centuries this is incredibly easy.

[Anonymous No.18066029]

>>18065933
nice dubs. I think their intermarriage rate is VERY high though. Consequently, their "ethnic purity" is being stopped.

Pic related is an example, The Kaifeng Jews do have Jewish ancestors, but are almost pure Han Chinese because they were cut off from the rest of the Jewish world, and so had to intermarry. They did so to such an extent that now they're basically Chinese. Their synagogue was destroyed in a flood or something, they lost knowledge of Judeo-Persian, and only managed to preserve a few rites. Unfortunately, some retarded Jews are now trying to help them "rediscover their roots"---thereby shooting themselves in the foot by seriously compromising ethnic purity (Euros are way closer to Jews than Han Chinese are). These "Jews" will probably be regarded in Israel the same way Ethiopian "Jews" are, even though the Jewish ancestry of the Ethiopian "Jews" is made-up.
>>18065954
>What group doesn’t have this lol.
The answer would be none, but groups don't have it to the same degree.

[Anonymous No.18066032]

>>18065985
>Whites have the least in-group preference of any race.
How do you know this? What proof do you have?
>Jews are majorly overrepresented in our current western cultural empire and dictate its course.
Again, you’re just making statements with no evidence.
>protestantism, which is the jewish variant of christianity
Pic related

[Anonymous No.18066037]

>>18065999
nice trips but that isn't what I did. I arrived at the conclusion after I read it. And have you read it? How can you argue against it unless you do a step-by-step refutation?

[Anonymous No.18066045]

>>18066018
>Yes. For history books on the past two centuries this is incredibly easy.
Ok please provide an outline of Jewish influence on the Bretton woods conference. Remember, this is when that arch globalist entity known as the imf was founded, so this was probably the most important event in the development of globalism.

[Anonymous No.18066073]

>>18066032
>How do you know this? What proof do you have?
Studies have been done, there's actually a divide between liberal and conservative whites regarding this, but it should be obvious in the fact that multiculturalism, anti-raicsm and willful replacement occur to the highest degrees by far in white countries.
>Again, you’re just making statements with no evidence.
You can look up the evidence for yourself. Politics, banking, multinationals, international law, academia, media, medicine are all filled to the brim with jews in high positions, far more than any other ethnic group/culture. Don't believe me? Just look at leading figures and look up their early life section on wikipedia. Very easy.
>Pic related
Most modern protestantist sects came from Calvinism, not Lutheranism. Fact is that as opposed to catholicism and orthodoxy, protestantism focuses on literal interpretation of the bible (including the jewish old testament). Plus its role in capitalism. How else do you explain the overabundance of cooperation between protestant and jewish capitalists?

[Anonymous No.18066080]

>>18065999
I'm >>18066037

Look buddy, I get you may not *like* the conclusion, but if you deny reality, it always comes back to bite you in the ass.

I'm trying to help you here, I really am. The thing is, even if you don't agree with it, if you read the CoC of trilogy (as opposed to some mysticist bullshit like "praying to Christ gives Jews subversive superpowers") your perspective will change.

Because of my natural law sympathies, I cannot abide murder, etc. But other people who see the issue unfortunately are consequentialists, and will persecute and hurt you if they "feel there is no other way". I am just one man, I cannot stop them. Cheers.

[Anonymous No.18066110]

>>18066080
*your perspective will change if you read it.

[Anonymous No.18066125]

>>18065999
>If you’re right about the Jews, you should be able to read a normal history book and provide evidence of Jews guiding the hand of powerful leaders.
The Story of the Goths by Henry Bradley
>In the year 694 the Government was thrown into the wildest panic by the discovery of another plot, in which nearly all the Jews of the kingdom were supposed to be concerned.
A plot to overthrow gothic leadership by any means necessary.
~
You can see the role of jews in slavery in the mediterranean sea during ~VII century. Especially southern Italy where they were mostly stationary.
This is not to mention banking, politics, media and others
Btw have the link for my (pic)
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k176204/f574.item

And also:
You Gentiles
We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will for ever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build. Beyond all temporary alliances with this or that faction lies the ultimate split in nature and destiny, the en- mity between the Game and God. But those of us who fail to understand that truth will always be found in alliance with your rebel- lious factions, until disillusionment comes. The wretched fate which scattered us through your midst has thrust this unwelcome role upon us.
https://archive.org/details/YouGentiles/page/n75/mode/2up

[Anonymous No.18066137]

>>18065671
No, but I'm familiar with MacDonald. I don't really see the point of whatever he's doing. I don't think the JQ is in need of further clarification as it's obvious to anyone with a brain. Framing it in some pseudo scientific way doesn't really do much to advance the discussion.

[Anonymous No.18066141]

>>18066045
First, the fact that there were many jewish representatives of various countries here is already indicative, but just look at who the advisors to the major players were and you'll find mostly jewish advisors. Second, even back then jews were vastly overrepresented in (international) banking, and since we know jews have very high in-group preference and practice ethnic nepotism, it's more than unrealistic to suggest they were insignificant here.
Third, they don't even have to be the major players, so long as they work their influence in the background. See the first two points here.
>this was probably the most important event in the development of globalism.
Debatable, it was more the culmination.

[Anonymous No.18066149]

>>18065715
It's not just about ingroup preference. They have an entire epistemology that is hostile to white people. Their entire understanding of truth and reality is incompatible with our society.

[Anonymous No.18066157]

>>18066137
well, like I said I'm sceptical of Evolutionary Psych as a whole, but he seems to be one of the few guys that has a thorough elaboration of the JQ in a non-mysticist way. Tools that you find on places like Smoloko, etc. actually damage the awareness of the problem because their reasons for belief in the problem don't appear to be rational.

[Anonymous No.18066162]

>>18066137
>I don't really see the point of whatever he's doing.
Gathering proof from primary sources.
> I don't think the JQ is in need of further clarification as it's obvious to anyone with a brain.
Apparently it's not since most people will deny it.
>Framing it in some pseudo scientific way doesn't really do much to advance the discussion.
You're right, good thing it's not pseudo scientific then but just scientific. The people who call it pseudo science just don't like the outcomes but have never been able to refute it.

[Anonymous No.18066168]

>>18066149
Fair enough

[Anonymous No.18066170]

>>18066162
question tho (am >>18066157). Why doesn't every "Jpilled" guy just use MacDonald? Why do mysticists on this question even exist? They're counterproductive.

[Anonymous No.18066189]

>>18066170
Don't know, but even then MacDonald is maligned and framed as an anti-semite and that buzzword is strong enough to stifle any further discussion. So even though MacDonald's argument is sound, it doesn't matter since his enemies control the frame of discourse.
What do you mean by mysticists though?

[Anonymous No.18066213]

>>18066189
>What do you mean by mysticists though?

people like this: https://theapolloniantransmission.com/the-bride-gathering-cult/

it's often infused with (seeming) Platonism and neopaganism. These types also are the kind of people who thumb their noses at sound argumentation, truth, etc., and regard anything short of mass murder of every single Jew to be "anti-white". Basically the bottom of the barrel.

[Anonymous No.18066238]

>>18065178
Bad move, when you call yourself a cuck and mercilessly destroy a book, that adds a powerful insult to injury.

[Anonymous No.18066251]

>>18066213
or... to bring this thread full circle: they are postmodernists in pro-white clothing.

[Anonymous No.18066259]

>>18066213
I don't see the problem with that although I might disagree with the details. Judaism is an ethno-religion, and even secular atheist jews still operate within that frame of mind, just like secular Europeans operate within (post-)Christian morality. What the elite jews are doing amounts to a spiritual war and it's useful to try to understand that as well since the issue does go beyond the purely materialistic. I agree MacDonald's argument is most useful to normies, but you understimate the importance of the spiritual side.
>regard anything short of mass murder of every single Jew to be "anti-white".
Sorry but that's not true at all (although I'm sure a minority of such people exist).

[Anonymous No.18066265]

>>18066162
I guess I'm just not interested in the angle of redpilling randoms. The people who can help don't need MacDonald explaining something that has been observed since... well Herodotus' history starts with ancient Jews being Jews. But good for him for doing something I guess.

[Anonymous No.18066285]

>>18066259
>Sorry but that's not true at all (although I'm sure a minority of such people exist).
my mistake then. But I *have* run into such people. They are the mould of people that I described.

[Anonymous No.18066315]

>>18066285
I think most people who call for genocide of a particular group are either severely retarded or glowies. But even Brahmin whose article you link does not think that at all. None of the major figures in that sphere do as far as I know.

[Anonymous No.18066331]

>>18066315
>severely retarded
probably that. Or just spouting off in anger.
>But even Brahmin whose article you link does not think that at all. None of the major figures in that sphere do as far as I know.
good to hear. Tell me, do you think some kind of Natural Law is compatible with white advocacy?

[Anonymous No.18066352]

>>18066331
>probably that. Or just spouting off in anger.
Yes possibly, it's the internet of course.
>do you think some kind of Natural Law is compatible with white advocacy?
Could you elaborate on what you mean?

[Anonymous No.18066368]

>>18066285
Killing Jews is retarded and whites should be ashamed of this. It's been tried for millennia and it's both barbaric and counter productive. If law was applied fairly, the Jews would be relegated back to being a small annoyance. Wherever a Jew calls someone an antisemite without a good reason, they should be punished for slandering. Their main weapon is lexical abuse and it should be taken away from them. There's no need to kill a single jew, just apply the law, reintroduce free speech, implement proper education (including their part in Bolshevism and all Marxist off-shoots), etc.

[Anonymous No.18066399]

>>18066352
Natural Law is the perspective that at least in some form, morality is objective and rationally discoverable. The Caths are big on it (Thomas Aquinas was a big discoverer of it), but some Prots (William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler) had/have other versions of it.

Essentially, we cannot pursue our interests *at all costs* (which would be a variant of consequentialism) because *at least some* (not necessarily all, as in deontology, if I understand the latter correctly) acts are *intrinsically* morally disordered, and by definition we should not do them. This may seem "impractical" (especially to boomers and burgers), but it makes some sense to me.

On the other hand, we could ascribe guilt to... other parties that pursue their interests using inherently immoral means (rape, murder, theft, fraud, robbery are the big ones), rather than saying "it's not a matter of guilt or innocence". That they believe in moral particularism ("if it benefits us, it's automatically good") is not only anti-white, but *an intellectual error*, and one that deserves to be regarded as the moral equivalent of the phlogiston theory of fire.

Essentially, it puts condemnation of anti-white behavior on an objective, rather than subjective foundation (even if most exponents of it never elaborate on this implication). But, with regards to the fundamentally disordered acts, it takes it off the table as a solution, as consequentialism is discarded. A tradeoff, but I'd say a good one.

>>18066368
Based.

[Anonymous No.18066446]

>>18066399
Hm interesting. As a thought exercise sure, but how would you implement that practically? The overwhelming majority of people do not act out of rationality but out of emotion so this line of reasoning would be totally lost on them. How will you have non-rational agents accept that objective morality? If you play by the rules but the others don't you won't achieve anything.
I see what you mean but at this point I'm all for just doing whatever accomplishes the task (without violence of course), for example such as >>18066368 said here.

[Anonymous No.18066477]

>>18066446
>The overwhelming majority of people do not act out of rationality but out of emotion so this line of reasoning would be totally lost on them.

oh totally agree. Many belief systems (Buddhism, I think? Postmodernism, Wokeism, etc.) appear to be predicated on little more than pathetic feeling.
>but how would you implement that practically?
essentially, as there is no political solution, it would require shaming or guilt-tripping NPCs for a.) not believing in it, b.) acting against it.

>How will you have non-rational agents accept that objective morality?

see above, but I'd add: it's sort of descriptive, it'd be true even if everyone denied it. It's that kind of thing. Although I suppose institutions like the Catholic church (as well as other churches) could bind their members with it, and possibly be the principal source of shaming and guilting members who go against it. Essentially use the NPC's groupthink (since it cannot be changed) and emotivism to keep them in line. Perhaps one could even try to press it onto the Jews, with varying degrees of success.

[Anonymous No.18066479]

>>18066399
>the perspective that at least in some form, morality is objective and rationally discoverable. The Caths are big on it
Many philosophers are on this side starting from Plato, then people like Hobbes, Kant, and ironically Spinoza.

[Anonymous No.18066506]

>>18066479
interesting. Had no idea that Hobbes and Spinoza believed in Natural Law. Natural Law is distinct from Kant's categorical imperative tho.

also, "antiracism" need not be any part of Natural Law, beyond the extent that it usually condemns hatred of all but evil itself. This pernicious influence can be attributed to pandering to the times in the Catholic and Protestant churches. I would not, in fact, analyze forming and enforcing a racially-homogenous community as contrary to Natural Law, at least not per se.

[Anonymous No.18066516]

>>18066479
>Plato
I'm more of an Aristotle guy. And he was a big undercurrent of it, with his thought being absorbed by Scholastics.

[Anonymous No.18066537]

>>18066506
addendum:

Feser, though he puts it in "patriotic" terms, defends ingroup preference as virtuous. Whether or not he sees the racial and ethnic implications of this (or is or is not public with it) is irrelevant, they are there. Cosmopolitanism is immoral, because you do not owe the same affection to some guy you've never met on the other side of the world as you do your relatives.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-virtue-of-patriotism.html

[Anonymous No.18066563]

>>18066446
The solution is obviously not simple. As soon as you try to bring up Jewish involvement in communism or accuse them of slandering you'll be yourself accused of anti-Semitism by a myriad mainstream sources lobbied or owned by Jews or Israel. Israel is a very powerful state and they will defend diaspora Jews everywhere. Many whites are corrupt and bought by rich Jews so they'll attack you too. The reality is that this takes a lot of effort, patience, and cleverness. It'll be done primarily via parliamentary and political avenues by resilient conservatives who are used to being demonized and know to ignore kvetching or sidestep it. It may not be completed during our lifetimes but the next generations will continue carrying on the project that was basically started by Burke. Needless to say, fascists are just as bad and conservatives who join them out of impatience are betraying their intellectual cause (like Schmitt and Heidegger did).

[Anonymous No.18066602]

>>18066563
>you'll be yourself accused of anti-Semitism

I think that for individual "rank and file" Jews at least, this is probably (and ironically) a instance of the defense mechanism of denial. "Anti-semitism" is just a rationalization to reject painful truth, because after all, it sucks to hear that your people suck, right? I think if you (for whatever reason, maybe you're tryna bang some Jewess or something, w/e) wanted to Jpill a J, you'd have to do it very gradually, and using something like the Socratic method to have him or her discover the truth himself.

[Anonymous No.18066629]

>>18066506
Yes, racism is natural and it's part of the words that shouldn't be used. Similarly left/right dichotomy is a ruse and should be discarded: it puts together capitalists, monarchists, and fascists just because they believe in hierarchy, but hierarchy is natural and the default state of nature. There doesn't need to be a designation for it, but it's part of the lexical spectacle that keeps distracting people who are not paying sufficient attention. Also events like the French Revolution should be condemned, fascists should be given more sympathy in the light of the 20th century political landscape (there were Jewish commandos committing terrorism regularly), etc. A lot of history needs to be rewritten and people re-educated.

[Anonymous No.18066646]

>>18066629
>A lot of history needs to be rewritten and people re-educated.
maybe not even what events that happened, but the *narrative* drawn from them, as well as which events are honed in on.

>but hierarchy is natural and the default state of nature.

this. I honestly don't know how (aside from literal insanity) someone could actually convince himself or be convinced, that this is not the case.

[Anonymous No.18066661]

>>18066602
Jews perceive the world to be more dangerous than it is, so they're detached from reality. So they respond overly defensive to the smallest threats. This is mostly unconscious and they can't help it. I wouldn't really try to redpill a Jew, they have to respect the law or be punished accordingly regardless of how they perceive the world. If they can't adapt to European civilisation, they're free to leave.

[Anonymous No.18066708]

>>18066661
>Jews perceive the world to be more dangerous than it is, so they're detached from reality.
Lithium? I kid, I kid, but only by a little.
>This is mostly unconscious and they can't help it.
true, but maybe some (prolly not all) could be taught to manage their condition, the same way an alcoholic manages his desire to drink.

>If they can't adapt to European civilisation, they're free to leave.
Based.

Also, unrelated question: do you think that evolutionarily, Europeans have gotten more ethnocentric (or predisposed to ethnocentrism, I suppose), with every conflict with non-Europeans? To what degree is ethnocentrism in a European a reproductive or survival advantage right now?

[Anonymous No.18066731]

>>18066646
Well Jews are overrepresented for schizofrenia and paranoia... In general extremists have mental issues and this has been observed by scientists too (pic related for right wing a authoritarianism and left wing authoritarianism traits)

[Anonymous No.18066757]

>>18066731
>Well Jews are overrepresented for schizofrenia and paranoia...
press x to BELIEVE.

let me ask you another question: if a European guy gets a Jewess preggo, but also gets a Euroess? preggo, how bad is this? Or is it merely ethnic warfare by other means? I'm seeing different outlooks on it from an evolutionary perspective.

[Anonymous No.18066800]

>>18066708
Ethnocentrism was pretty fundamental in Europe imo (almost everyone else was called barbarian up until very recently: even JS Mill who's used frequently as the main 19th century thinker of liberalism argued that Europeans have a right to conquer barbarians to civilise them and it's to their benefit). Even if Europeans fight among each other, they unite against non European enemies like Hellens against Persia, Europe against Islam, etc. This seems to be only growing in the past decades but we'd still need a few centuries to talk about an European ethnicity imo.

[Anonymous No.18066859]

>>18066800
>talk about an European ethnicity imo.

Nice dubs. We don't even need that, we need the wrongs between Europeans to be ultimately righted, and the Mediterranean to come into communion with Europe as a sort of spiritual extension of Europe (like America is in a way), as it sort of was in Ancient Times.

also, disc:
Iiii2001#5122

[Anonymous No.18066864]

>>18066757
Imo that's a good. Like Alexander the Great was marrying Greeks with barbarians to make sure the offsprings have no allegiance to either culture, diluting the gene pool of the enemies has always been a popular tactic even if it's done more covertly now. Anyway I'll be off to sleep. In their defense, at least Jews challenge Europeans to level up their warfare and rise above childish impulsivity. After fighting Jews, one can only look at white leftists as basically spoiled but harmless children.

[Anonymous No.18066893]

>>18066864
kek then I already have a "barbarian" in mind ;)

[Anonymous No.18066930]

>>18061208
OP here, I'm gonna ask it again: does Aristotelian neoscholasticism prevent Postmodernism, properly understood?

[Anonymous No.18067171]

>>18066930
Why would it?

[Anonymous No.18067177]

>>18067171
i dunno im here to ask questions

[Anonymous No.18067226]

>>18066930
prevent?

[Anonymous No.18067247]

>>18067226
read as "preclude"

[Anonymous No.18067258]

>>18061208
I couldn't read more than a chapter it was such trash

[Anonymous No.18067946]

>>18066073
>Studies have been done
What studies?
>willful replacement occur to the highest degrees by far in white countries.
Ok sure, but why does this matter?
>You can look up the evidence for yourself.
I mean almost every President and prime minister has been a wasp. None have been Jews. Intelligence agencies like the cia also are wasp dominated. Where power is most concentrated I don’t see an overwhelming amount of Jews.
>Most modern protestantist sects came from Calvinism
So? Calvin wasn’t a Jew.
>How else do you explain the overabundance of cooperation between protestant and jewish capitalists?
I suggest reading pic related. It describes how the wasp establishment died off and how some groups embraced this death while others carried on their legacy (those others were elite Jews and catholics.)

A good example of the wasp to Jewish transition can be seen in the establishment Soros’ rightfully infamous Open Society Foundation. In the early 90s Soros merged one of his foundations with an affiliate group of the Congress for Cultural Freedom. This kickstarted the rise of his now massive foundation. The CCF was a cia established global propaganda group operating during the Cold War who’s goal was to prevent any dissent against the global order from growing via communism.

This example demonstrates how the management of propaganda shifted from wasp hands (the cia) to Jewish ones. And Soros is not importing in his Jewish heritage here, he is operating in the same way the cia before him did. What’s different now is that the specter of communism is dead and there has been a shift to increase control within the country by finding domestic scapegoats.

[Anonymous No.18068075]

>>18066080
Fair enough, I’ll give the book a try when I have time. It’s just that in my own analysis of “why things are fucked up” I found a coherent lineage of British thought during the British empire through figures like Malthus, Darwin, and Bentham that provided justification for the empire’s colonial actions. This is when our modern conception of “race” concretized. British colonists classified native people in the same way they classified animals and plants. And since natives were viewed closer to animals than humans they felt it justified to treat them as animals.

Bentham was defining people in terms of “utils,” that being a supposed metric of how much universal happiness one could produce. Malthus saw overpopulation as a growing problem and advocated for eugenical measures to stop it. The continuation of this thinking can be seen in pic related.

On the economic side of this thought was the advocacy for an open, global market. From what I can tell these things come from a clear lineage of Anglo philosophy and economics. The idea that Jewish influence is responsible for these things seems unnecessary and unable to substantiate.

[Anonymous No.18068094]

>>18066125
I don’t read French but 694 was over a thousand years ago, so it’s pretty outdated. Seems like a pretty cherry picked example. I honestly don’t mean to dismiss you, if you have a more recent example please share it.

[Anonymous No.18068126]

>>18066141
Please name their names so I can verify if your claim is true or not. What I see at Bretton woods is a majority of anglos. If I’m wrong and the meeting was actually crawling with Jews correct me and give me their names. If you’re unable to provide basic information on these supposed Jewish controllers of Bretton woods then all you have are baseless claims.

[Anonymous No.18068138]

>>18066149
What’s our understanding of truth and what is their’sand how are they different?

[Anonymous No.18068206]

>>18066629
>events like the French Revolution should be condemned
Good luck condemning events that expand the rights of average people. The expansion of the lower class’ rights have been occuring as long as history has existed. Originally some people in a country were slaves and some were masters. This was determined by birth. But through revolutionary instances slaves gained rights. Then slavery had to be imported and the people imported were seen as animals so the slavery was justified, but they too fought for and gained rights. Countries that have an underclass with restricted rights eventually face the problem of when that class rises up. This process of right expanding cannot be reversed.

[Anonymous No.18068456]

>>18063436
Many of these parasites are European though. How do you account for that?

[Anonymous No.18069394]

>>18068075
Bentham is indeed a cuck

[Anonymous No.18069398]

>>18068206
>expand the rights of average people.
rights are not creations of the state. Why read Rousseau when you could read the Scholastics, or Hell, even Locke is better.

Also... history is non-deductive, there are no "scientific laws of history", sorry to burst your bubble.

[Anonymous No.18069403]

>>18065178
its because he is now publishing work that is associated with his channel

[Anonymous No.18069595]

>>18068075
>I found a coherent lineage of British thought during the British empire through figures like Malthus, Darwin, and Bentham that provided justification for the empire’s colonial actions. This is when our modern conception of “race” concretized.
What the fuck are you talking about? This is straight up marxist propaganda. What "coherent lineage" did you find? You're literally parroting marxist historiography. Are you even familiar with history or do you think the world started with the industrial revolution? Everything you said has been an integral party of European culture since the beginning of our history. Have you even read Herodotus and Thucydides or why do you even have the nerve to talk about your own historiography?

[Anonymous No.18069609]

>>18069398
>rights are not creations of the state.
Where do they come from then?
>Also... history is non-deductive, there are no "scientific laws of history"
I don’t claim the expansion of rights for the lower class to be a “scientific law.” Rather, I see it as a trend we can expect to continue. If you think this conclusion is flawed feel free to point out why.

[Anonymous No.18069664]

>>18068206
Who's talking about revoking or restricting rights?

[Anonymous No.18069686]

>>18069595
You’re claiming Darwinism and utilitarianism have existed since the beginning of British history? Sure you can trace back to the seed of these ideas but to say they were always integral to British history is I think a step too far.

The lineage I was hinting at was something like Bacon’s development of the scientific method to Hume’s skepticism to Mill’s utilitarianism to Russell’s logical positivism. These guys reacted to each other’s works and developed British philosophy, that’s all I was saying.
>You're literally parroting marxist historiography.
I have no idea what this is, I’m not a Marxist.

[Anonymous No.18069690]

>>18069686
Ok, how was Britain's justification of colonization and their conception of race different from that of the Ancient Greeks?

[Anonymous No.18069704]

>>18069690
I don’t claim them to be that different. I’m not pro colonization, whether it’s Greeks doing it or anglos.

[Anonymous No.18069722]

>>18069704
I don't understand you. If you admit they're no different then why are you blaming Anglos? They just inherited European culture. You're against European culture, not against Anglos.

[Anonymous No.18069764]

>>18069664
You mentioned you wanted to condemn the French Revolution so I presumed you’d like to return to the pre-French revolution state. That would mean undoing the Napoleon of code (which I think would be an impossible feat since it was nigh universally adopted.) The napoleonic code replaced the old feudal laws and ultimately expanded the rights of the lower class.

[Anonymous No.18069780]

>>18069722
Anglos are the modern incarnation of European colonization so that’s why my focus is upon them. But yes, if I was alive during Roman times I’d be on the side of Jesus not Caesar. I’m interested in art not conquest, this is the literature board after all.

[Anonymous No.18069900]

>>18069764
What, you think without the French Revolution people wouldn't get their rights like they did everywhere in the world in a more peaceful way? French Revolution has to be condemned because it's not how one should be encouraged to obtain anything in a civilized society.

[Anonymous No.18069913]

>>18069780
So you'd have sided with the jews then and you side with the jews now. Good for you, but people who hate the jews do it because they love European culture for which you don't seem to have any affinity, so not sure why you are here telling people to stop hating the jews. Your issues with the world are different and we don't care about them.

[Anonymous No.18069915]

>>18061262
>Watch this
No. I give a rat's ass about some youtubers opinion.

[Anonymous No.18069959]

>>18069900
If an aristocracy is unwilling to address the citizenry’s grievances than violence is the only way. I don’t say this to glorify violence, it’s merely a reaction you can expect to an uncooperative government.

[Anonymous No.18069993]

>>18069913
You lack consistency, Caesar was pro global empire as your Jewish boogeyman is today. I’m against both of them. You likely throw your support behind whatever aesthetic you think is “based.” That aesthetic being the militaristic empires of Caesar and Hitler, both globalists btw!

[Anonymous No.18070046]

>>18069959
>unwilling
It was unable, you can't make up resources out of thin air.

[Anonymous No.18070056]

>>18069993
Who said I'm against a global empire?
> You likely throw your support behind whatever aesthetic you think is “based.” That aesthetic being the militaristic empires of Caesar and Hitler, both globalists btw!
You're just being pathetic now.

[Anonymous No.18070101]

>>18067946
>What studies?
Studies on in-group preference for different races and political orientation. It shows that most have average to strong in-group preference, especially jews, whereas liberal (non-conservative) whites are the only group that has out-group preference.
>Ok sure, but why does this matter?
Are you retarded? Because it shows that they lack in-group preference and are willing to replace themselves by other groups. Jews wouldn't do this, nor would asians or blacks.
>I mean almost every President and prime minister has been a wasp. None have been Jews. Intelligence agencies like the cia also are wasp dominated. Where power is most concentrated I don’t see an overwhelming amount of Jews.
You are being disingenuous. The political power has never been with the president/PM and you know it. Their advisors have been mostly jewish since the start of the previous century, and the most important figures in lobby groups have been jewish. I don't thinki you're acting in good faith here.
>So? Calvin wasn’t a Jew.
But his ideology was very jewish, which was my point, and it allowed jews to capitalize on it, which is exactly what happened.

You understand there's more to the world than just the US right? And besides that, if you look at jews in government, banking, academia, media, multinationals, international law, all institutions that are as powerful if not more powerful than the office of the president, you will see jews are vastly overrepresented. Combined with their in-group preference and ethnic nepotism, the case should be clear. Are you jewish by any chance?
Also read pic related, and I'll read your book.

[Anonymous No.18070108]

>>18069993
Hitler was a nationalist, not a globalist. An expansionist sure, but definitely not a globalist. His entire schtick was to fight the globalists.

[Anonymous No.18070185]

ITT: pilpul and deflection, as is tradition

[Anonymous No.18070305]

>>18063347
you're a faggot and you're feeding into jewish tricks. Jews are inherently capitalists, they make the most money in capitalist societies by usury and deception. Your argument is such trite "I happen to be x,y,z, I'm reasonable BUT LEFTIES ARE ALL RETARDS MARCIST CULTURAL SWINE KILLING BLAH BLAH BLAH". You can be leftwing and dislike the jews, dislike immigration, be nationalist, etc... Actually national socialism is probably the most based ideology, because it's natural to man. We're inclined to help people that look like us.

[Anonymous No.18070351]

>>18070305
Aren't you tried of the same stormfront posting for years? You're a fascist, not everyone is. Get over it.

[Anonymous No.18070352]

>>18070351
Years? Hmm you've got the wrong girl.

[Anonymous No.18070356]

>>18063347
Based. If I knew you IRL, I'd buy you a scotch.

[Anonymous No.18070357]

if you read american takes on european philosophy, you should be euthanized

[Anonymous No.18071798]

>>18061208
postmodernism is based if you're based and retarded if you're retarded
since the proles have integrated it into their thoughts, postmodernism is retarded

[Anonymous No.18071821]

>>18061262
hicks should be embarassed. absolutely BTFO.
maybe if some of you fags watched this you'd stop shitting up this board with your endless braindead strawmanning of "muh postmodern cultural neomarxists" who live in your walls and whisper threats to you every night when you sleep.

[Anonymous No.18071841]

>>18062847
Because they are harming Europeans

[Anonymous No.18071845]

>>18071798
this man knows whats up. Postmodernism is elitist and if the masses touch it, it becomes shit.

[Anonymous No.18071999]

>>18061262
what the fuck is wrong with american educational system if they produce books like this? Hicks is phd too? is this a fucking joke?

[Anonymous No.18072038]

>>18071798
Nah it was always kinda cringe

[Anonymous No.18072042]

>>18071821
No one is watching your jewtube shit kike find a different hobby

[Anonymous No.18072067]

>>18072042
>get presented with opposing viewpoint about something youre not very knowledgable about
>jew kike jew kike
typical. i'd tell you to read a book about the things you dont understand but who would i be kidding.
youre exactly the kind of person who would genuinely learn something from that video, if you had an attention span that long.

[Anonymous No.18072092]

>>18063969
>>‘Modernity’ or The Modern Era, is usually used as part of our ‘three age’ model for European history. Europe’s history is divided into ancient, medieval, and modern.
>
>‘Modernism’ is a change in culture that takes place in the late 19th century and early 20th century.
there is no difference between modernity and modernism, jeez. it's not even hard to see.

[Anonymous No.18072141]

>>18061562
>>18061936
>>18064265
>>18071821
>>18071999
Yikes

[Anonymous No.18072612]

>>18072067
Not reading kike

[Anonymous No.18072790]

>>18072612
antisemites dont read, what a surprise

[Anonymous No.18072830]

>>18072790
Seethe

[Anonymous No.18073280]

>>18070056
>Who said I'm against a global empire?
Lol so what problem do you have with today’s empire? Is it too “Jewish?” Would you be ok with it if the aesthetic was Roman?

[Anonymous No.18073325]

>>18072830
dilate

[Anonymous No.18073398]

>>18070101
>Studies on in-group preference for different races and political orientation.
You realize just saying, “studies have been done” doesn’t mean shit? Actually cite those studies so I can look at them myself.
>they lack in-group preference and are willing to replace themselves by other groups.
I get it, they’re more open to immigration, but what’s wrong with that? Most progressive whites don’t care if they become a minority in their country. Why should they change their mind?
>Their advisors have been mostly jewish since the start of the previous century, and the most important figures in lobby groups have been jewish.
All you say is, “there’s lots of Jews in powerful places, isn’t that obvious bro?” You’re method of argumentation is very weak and would hold no water in a court room. You need to actually start providing historical examples where these Jews supposedly guided world events according to their “Jewish nature” that you claim has remained constant for thousands of years. I provided a relevant historical example when I presented my case for modern Jews being successors of wasp ideology, so provide yours.

[Anonymous No.18073435]

>>18069915
You should separate people form their opinions. Just because he is a youtuber doesn't mean he is wrong. Look at his arguments.

[Anonymous No.18073456]

>>18072141
You can go ahead and address arguments in the video

[Anonymous No.18073653]

>>18073280
Never mentioned aesthetics.

[Anonymous No.18073775]

>>18073398
Are you jewish?

[Anonymous No.18074794]

>>18073653
What specific problems do you have with today’s empire then?

[Anonymous No.18074815]

>>18073775
>Are you jewish?
Still can’t provide any examples I see. I’m not Jewish, I’m white and I’m willing to change position and switch primary blame from anglos to Jews if you can provide a convincing example, but no anti-Semite I’ve run into has been able to. I know culture of critique posters don’t claim to be anti-Semitic, they say it’s an evolutionary theory, but you know what I mean.

[Anonymous No.18074903]

>>18074815
No you're not. You act like you're open to new information but you've already decided beforehand. There's loads of books documenting the role of jews in these world events, a recent one would be "the Jewish hand in the World Wars" by Dalton, an older one Sombart's book on Jews in capitalism, but you won't read those anyway. You probably haven't read CoC either.
It's fine though, your examples weren't convincing either since you willfully left out an important factor from the equation, one you refuse to look at. At least I and "CoC posters" don't deny the role of the Anglo, we're just willing to accept what is behind it.

[Anonymous No.18074958]

>>18062648
>Hasn’t read Peterson
>Doesn’t like Peterson because Liberals told him Peterson bad.
>Relies on pitiful ad-hominem to justify not liking Peterson.
Maybe your life will be better if you stop being such a bitch.

[Anonymous No.18075114]

>>18061262
I couldn't stand this for half an hour. This Hicks guy is a charlatan. If Kant is counter-enlightenment, than I might as well be Jeff Bezos.

[Anonymous No.18075429]

>>18074903
>There's loads of books documenting the role of jews in these world events
Yea and there’s loads of books documenting the Illuminati. Throughout this whole exchange your entire defense has been to repeat, “there’s tons of evidence man” yet when I ask for one example you can’t provide anything! Asking for names and dates is basic stuff, the fact you can’t provide it means you must be taking a lot of things on faith. Honestly if I were to play devil’s advocate I could advance a better argument than you.
> your examples weren't convincing either since you willfully left out an important factor from the equation
By all means correct me where I’m wrong, but do so by addressing where you think I missed a crucial historical element. Provide specifics.

I do plan on checking out CoC since people shill it so hard, but based on the poor articulation of it you did here I suspect it’s scholarship to be lacking.

[Anonymous No.18076167]

>>18061208
I'm reading a bit of it about the Counter-Enlightenment and it seems to be another example of thoughtlessly adopted rationalism and scientism. Trying to throw Kant in with the Counter-Enlightenment, just because he doesn't think reason should be our only priority is nonsense in the extreme.

[Anonymous No.18076968]

>>18061208
Good book

[Anonymous No.18077048]

>>18075429
>blabla
I'm not going to type over entire paragraphs from books, I gave you the info you wanted, it's up to you to look it up if you're really that open to new ideas.
>Provide specifics.
I did, you keep deflecting to the names on top and I said look up the names behind them, the advisors, the lobbyists, the internationalists etc
>I suspect it’s scholarship to be lacking.
You'll be pleasantly surprised then, it's mostly a collection of primary source quotes and as good as all as the criticism has been "no that's antisemitic!!". I guess in that case you are anti-anglo huh? You bigot.

[Anonymous No.18077128]

>>18077048
If Jewish influence is so pervasive how come you can’t provide even one example?

[Anonymous No.18077343]

>>18077128
I provided many examples, you just refuse to look them up.
Why don't you look up who the advisors were to all major parties exerting influence in the drawing up of the treaty of Versailles. Why don't you look up who the most powerful figures in the first Soviet regime were. Why don't you look up the lobbyists and advisors to the American president/government before, during, and after the the Great Depression of 1929. Why don't you look up who the individual representatives from all different countries at the Nuremburg trials were. Why don't you look up who the families are that have had monopoly power in banking and media since at least the 19th century.
Trust me, the effect is much better if you look it up yourself instead of me giving you a list of names. I'll hear from you when you've done the research.

[Anonymous No.18077509]

>>18061262
What a nit-picky video. 52 minutes of "he didn't categorize these philosophers as I categorize them!"

[Anonymous No.18077538]

Glad I didn't post in this shitty thread

[Anonymous No.18078254]

>>18074794
The anti-European element.

[Anonymous No.18079704]

bump

[Anonymous No.18079750]

>>18077509
It's called misinterpretation sweetheart

[Anonymous No.18079780]

>>18077343
I read this article https://www.unz.com/article/the-jewish-hand-in-the-world-wars-part-1/ which seems to be in the same flavor as your anti-semitism. As far as who pushed for the world wars, I found Antony Sutton’s Wall Street trilogy informative. He traces the names and money funding seemingly opposed states in the lead up to the world wars>>18079704
. It was the Anglo-American establishment seeking to trigger ww2 so they could preside over the war spoils and install their global trade system.

[Anonymous No.18079786]

>>18079750
that's called post-modernism deary

[Anonymous No.18079809]

>>18068094
>Seems like a pretty cherry picked example.
I didn't have much time at the time of the wirting.
If you want to see their role in medieval slavery, you can read "The Jews" by Giancarlo Lacerenza; it is briefly mentioned (it's unavoidable) because the author is a part of Masonry.
If you want more examples of jews leading powerful people, you can see Francisco Lopes Suasso, who funded the Glorious Revolution. The Balfour Declaration, in which the Rothshilds convinced (or coerced, who knows) the Crown and goverment of the UK into forming the state of Israel. There are more but I'm not in a good position now to give you the information.

[Anonymous No.18079834]

>>18072092
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism

They are totally distinct concepts. It's very easy to discover this.

[Anonymous No.18080617]

in after
>you are misinterpreting post-modernism
>PM doesn't actually hold any narrative

[Anonymous No.18080645]

>>18061262
surprise surprise I had already downvoted this dogshit

[Anonymous No.18080704]

>>18080645
lmao imagine manifesting your dislike of garbage in an interactive way with a kike big corp instead of closing the tab lmaooo what kind of bitch behaviour is this did you leave a comment too

[Anonymous No.18080764]

>>18080645
>>18077509
enjoy eating dogshit, like you always do

[Anonymous No.18081133]

>>18061208
Based, but this is better.

[Anonymous No.18081144]

>>18061262
>Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/cuck
>Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilosophyCuck
But(tfucker) of course.

[Anonymous No.18081151]

>>18080764
>NOOOO PLEASE LIKE MY FUNNY JEWTOOOOB VIDEOSERINOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.18081155]

>>18081151
>gets btfo by facts and logic
>throws a temper tantrum
kek, go read your jewterson and other NPC anglos that help you sleep better at night after slaying ebil pomos

[Anonymous No.18081161]

>>18081155
Cope

[Anonymous No.18081192]

>>18081161
stop malding

[Anonymous No.18081341]

>>18079809
Even if Jews were the prime mover behind the British revolution (it takes more to prove this than one Jew funding it) what’s wrong with that? My guess is you would have preferred the government remained a monarchy forever, but governments change eventually, sometimes for the better. As for the establishment of Israel, I obviously don’t agree Jews pushed for that in Britain, but what’s wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.18081629]

>>18081341
*do agree

[Anonymous No.18081720]

>4 replies in

[Anonymous No.18082233]

>>18081720
>colored hair
>not the schizo
Sure anon.

[Anonymous No.18082258]

>>18071821
this

[Anonymous No.18082263]

>>18079786
>evitin i dunt lik is pomo