https://t.me/BertieBassett4Life/3725

With leftist theory, most of their observations are true, it's just that their rationalizations, conclusions, and solutions are always totally retarded. Plus, their works are full of needlessly convoluted and verbose gibberish.

Those guys did write some useful stuff, but it all seems pretty straightforward and obvious when you translate it into normal person language. I'll summarize below for anyone who isnt familiar.

Basically, these Western/Cultural Marxist guys (Althusser, Gramsci, etc) were trying to figure out why The Revolution failed everywhere except the place they didnt expect it to succeed, and why all of the proles of Europe sided with their "oppressors" over a bunch of Marxist scumbags who just wanted to become their new oppressors, and to destroy all of their nations, traditions, and cultural values.

Normal people say "we dont want to destroy all of our own culture etc because these things give our lives meaning, stability, serve biologically adaptive purposes (e.g. marriage traditions promote fertility and community), and so on." But Marxists basically think all of that stuff is a spook invented by the nasty capitalists to enslave the masses through "false consciousness" and make them love their own oppression, so they have to invent a bunch of convoluted theories to explain it.

Not really familiar with his solutions, but Althusser's theory of ideology is basically just that the ruling class use both ideology and force to make the masses do what they want, and that the masses are a bunch of NPCs with no agency who are programmed by ideology to live a certain way. Some other leftists semi-deb00nked this point by saying "then why do some people resist the dominant ideology?"

Gramsci's theory of cultural hegemony is pretty similar: The ruling class uses apparatus like media and education, alongside manipulation of language etc., to program the masses with an ideology by normalizing it as the default culture. This tricks the masses into thinking that the ideology is just "common sense." See modern Leftists who claim that their insane beliefs (e.g. child genital mutilation) are just "being a good person" — it's a "fish doesnt know it's in water" situation.

Foucault imo was the most interesting and seemed to have more original ideas. His theory of power is that it isnt held by one individual or group but expressed at every level of society. If someone can make you do something against your will, they have power over you. Helpful for understanding the "oppression olympics" inverted power hierarchy in the west (gay trumps straight, POC trumps gay, trans trumps all, etc.). Foucault wrote a bunch of genealogies on power using selected case studies (e.g. prison systems) to figure out how "power" of ruling class is expressed in modern societies, where it seems to be hidden. He invented different modes of power that operate in conjunction and build on one another. His baseline is sovereign power (to kill and take), and then disciplinary power (to regulate behavior), and biopower (to control biology and life of entire societies). He also talked of pastoral power (coercive nurturing with a religious/salvation aspect) - a good example of this is the leftist regime declaring that they "fight for the oppressed." This is extremely simplified ofc.

Anyway, back to my original point : most leftist theory is just pointing at normal stuff and then pathologizing it, but sometimes they do have useful observations. it's just that nothing else they say is useful.

Edit: btw not dunking on AA here at all I just saw his post and went on a ramble

No self-respecting “dyed in the wool” dissident’s bookshelf is complete without this standard. Waiting for AA’s analysis vid…

It's alright, I'll detox and remake in a few days

Annnnd.....let's start all over again.

Me reading internal memos and old issues of Lancet about hair raising Tavistock research in ww2.

The Tavistock Ethos: it is easier to change peoples underlying assumptions about the world than it is to change the world

Example:
It is easier to have Western people accept Fat Positivity distributed via psyop propaganda than it is to address the underlying causes of the Obesity Epidemic and the economic changes that would have to be made to fix it.

Another Example: WW2 happens and the official Anglosphere policy is to defang Ethnonationalism. It is easier to convince the Western World that “all races are equal” than address obvious evidence to the contrary and risk White-on-Black racial conflict

In English, when we want to sound authoritative we use French (par excellence, coup de grâce, fait accompli, etc.)

When the French want to sound authoritative they quote in Latin.

When the Romans wanted to sound authoritative they quoted in Greek.

When the Greeks wanted to sound authoritative they quoted Homer.

Homer quoted illiterate steppe chieftains.

Compressed version

When Spaghetti Man, Siesta Man, and Mustache Man arose in the 1920s and 1930s, the small business owners, military veterans, and industrialists supported their cause against the bankers, journalists, bloodthirsty class agitators, and the unskilled rabble. Musk represents the Industrialist supporting the Order coalition against the managerial Wall Street petty tyranny that was seen in post-WWI Italy, Republican Spain, and Weimar Germany

https://t.me/MorgothsReview/2776