Something to consider, you will increasingly find it difficult to search up information regarding key people within these institutions and their parents, therefore their blood lines, this is important as to dechiper where their allegiances actually are.
And just in case anyone has a go at me for me mentioned blood ties being important, just remember that there is evil and it does actually exist and it does engage here on this world.
I would agree, so again if the blood tie is clean then it is a Theological Concept or Ideological Concept that infer why they are doing what they are doing, boiled down, they are evil cunts
it’s liberals of European descent who have distorted the lessons of the Bible. Their utter narcissism allows to paint their ancestors as the ultimate villains and by tearing down their values and trads paint them as saviors.
Well if I can't find the parents names anywhere because they have been scrubbed from the Internet then I am going to assume that it was done for a reason, plus many folk of Jewish blood lines are KNOWN for changing their names.
Now if the individual and thereby collective blood line doesn't have any Jewish ancestry then the connecting point with where their allegiances are based upon a different set of tenets, likely Theological Concepts or Ideological Concepts.
One of the major "connecting points" is archetypal/evolutionary psychology.
Ironically, a corrupt, toxic leftist researcher that tried to tie conservatism to genetic traits for neuroticism and authoritarianism, but he "accidentally" used "bad data", which when corrected showed that "liberals" have a greater tendency toward "psychoticism".
The last paragraph—Henry Ford II’s lamentation that he should have shut the whole thing down and why he didn’t—tells us all we need to know about the “elite class.” Being liked by their peers is at the top of the list, and it is a very short list.
Ayyan Hirsi-Ali recently made this point about the decline of Christianity in the west. It creates a vacuum in the souls of our young people--and then we are surprised when monsters rush in.
I'm still baffled by liberal elites subsidizing violent and destructive organizations as a way of improving society. If they were Marxists themselves, it would be easier to understand.
As in NS Lyon's article on "virtuals vs physicals", Joel Kotkin's book, Neo-Feudalism, explains how the global elites (digital capitalism in an unholy alliance with finance capitalism) are actively and openly trying to destroy the traditional middle and working classes, industrial capitalism, property owners and their employees to reduce resistance to the imposition of elite, totalitarian social control.
Controlled opposition on the "left":
A similar analysis:
... “woke” ideology (what I call “totalitarian humanism”) that presently constitutes the self-legitimating ideological superstructure of the ruling class is not the sole creation of the Brahmins alone. Every ideological superstructure has a materialist base and class base (which in the case of totalitarian humanism would be digital capital, the tech revolution, “financialization” of the kind that has emerged from neoliberalism, the expanded technocratic class which is the product of the wider degree of specialization and the division of labor rooted in increased technological sophistication).
Additionally, “wokeness” is rooted in the wider infrastructure of statecraft which can be traced, at the irreducible minimum, to the collusion between the Frankfurt School and the OSS during WW2, followed by the CIA’s creation of the Congress of Cultural Freedom in the 1950s. While elements of the ideological framework of totalitarian humanism may have their roots in the cultural revolution of the 1960s/1970s, in its present form “wokeness” represents a co-optation of those cultural patterns by the liberal wing of the capitalist class ( a specific strategy that was devised by Fred Dutton as far back as 1970).
Because the rising sectors of the ruling elites are seeking to expand their power, they are already in a mode of intense conflict with other sectors of society. (see Shellenberger on the new parts of the #twitterfiles that detail a vast censorship-industrial-complex.)
Because digital capitalism is "virtual", it accepts the postmodern "belief" that (NS Lyons quoting historian Christopher Lasch, 1990s) "reality is a social construct".
The traditional working classes, the "physicals", and their industrial and property owning employers, thus become the natural enemies of the "virtuals" and their dystopian, globalist dreams (Neo-Feudalism).
Basically the "virtuals" are totalitarian postmodernists, including a high percentage of corporate "Dark Triad" sociopaths and their political puppets (Senile Biden).
As such the postmodern, "woke" left is mentally dysfunctional, socially parasitic/predatory, but adept at exploiting the disintegration of classical, high-social-trust social institutions by techno-economic change.
~~in its present form “wokeness” represents a co-optation of those cultural patterns by the liberal wing of the capitalist class ( a specific strategy that was devised by Fred Dutton as far back as 1970).~~
A similar phenomenon was noted by Del Noce in 1970 as occurring in Europe. See his 'The Crisis of Modernity.' He referred to the group you mention as the "technocratic right."
I have Kotkin's book next up on my to-read list. I'm currently on Renaud Camus' 'Enemy of the Disaster,' which is very good. His critics try to paint him as a racist (of course) and a conspiracy theorist, but if one actually reads him for about three minutes it becomes quickly apparent that he is neither. Oddly enough, he comes across as a sort-of Burkean Leftist. I have a friend who did his doctoral dissertation on Kirk and Weaver, and I've recommended this book to him. I'm quite interested to hear what he has to say.
The elites believe they will be able to tame and control the violent and the destructive. Indeed that is the essence of what they believe they can do for society as a whole.
People always believe the demons (literal or figurative) they're summoning are controllable. And the demons are happy to play along. Until they're not. Which is why revolutions always eat their own last.
Assuming that postmodern neomarxism (ILLIBERAL, elite totalitarianism) operates as a quasi-religious, decentralized cult network (as a number of anti-woke social scientists have claimed), a major motivation of the cult would be to thwart any DEFLILEMENT of its basic premises and "beliefs" by critics.
Thus, the ultra wealthy global elites (transhumanists are probably the worst subspecies of totalitarians that think "reality is a social construct") that are propagating such totalitarianism would instruct their political puppets, and their PROFESSIONAL-MANAGERIAL CLASS propaganda mouthpieces in education and the mass media, to set up a vast CENSORSHIP-INDUSTRIAL-COMPLEX to attack their critics and political opponents.
I have the distinction of having obtained a grant from the Ford Foundation back in the days when it was merely leftist and not insane. It was a technical project to help higher education to adapt to the predicted enrollment decline that didn't actually happen back then. Perhaps the FF was playing the long game of shoring up one of their strongholds.
One thing to think about is that all your examples of lunacy are city based. Cities are inherently crazy and the only solution is to escape and isolate them from America. Abolish the FF and cities would still be dangerous.
I started reading about the corruption of higher ed in the 1990s, as a quasi-libertarian union rep., and it was along the same lines as you mention, the fake "decline in enrollment". There were explicit attempts by various elements of the corporate-state (digital capitalists, junk bond criminals, etc.) to take over colleges/universities.
A rebellious faculty union leader even defied the larger leftist union leadership by publishing documentation [written by [EDIT: Glynn] Custred*] of the sleaze (which probably cites FF documents) for a few years, but was marginalized with charges of "sexual harassment" of some other cancel-culture bs.
This isn't really a viable option though, since cities drive about a highly disproportionate share of GDP. They can't be walled off, they have to be made not crazy.
They do that by exploitation of the countryside and have for 6000 years. Make them pay a fair price for the resources extracted and it reverses. Besides most of the GDP produced in the cities these days isn't real stuff. It's services at best but a lot is government, finance and law.
"It would be easy to assume [] the Ford Foundation must be run by some Marxoid cabal. But little evidence suggests that this is true. Rather, if anything, the reality appears worse: the foundation’s often bewilderingly destructive actions result from its complete faith in the superiority of liberal technocratic expertise to engineer a more perfect society from the top down."
Classical marxism assumed that international class revolution would destroy capitalism and imperialism and lead to a utopia free of class “oppression”, free of anxiety and the alienation from nature caused by industrialism, etc.
Lorenzo Warby of Oz has an ongoing series on substack about why Marxism itself is inherently a failure because has a fatally flawed model of human nature that only appeals to mentally dysfunctional people.
By the post-WW2 era, national liberation movements, anti-colonialism emerged, but most of the actual industrial classes saw marxism as a giant horror that had killed 10s of millions in pre-industrial and colonial regions, peasant societies, and so forth. Mao’s cultural revolution made it more obvious.
The intellectual elites in the west that still clung to marxism and revolutionary ideologies by the 1960s then pivoted away from class struggle to cultural revolution, which later became the insanity of “wokeism” and postmodern relativism. Having rejected class struggle, the neomarxists began to infiltrate the corporate-state in a “long march through the institutions “ , including technocratic managerialism, with the goal of corrupting and then destroying them via false ideologies such as Critical Race Theory. Then they expected that capitalism could be demolished and replaced with some kind of utopian bullshit.
The insanity being described in the FF is not consistent with classic Marxist class revolutionary ideology, but it IS consistent with technocratic, managerial neo-marxism and the postmodern “belief” that “reality is a social construct” (quote is from NS Lyons quoting historian Christopher Lasch). https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/reality-honks-back
"The insanity being described in the FF is not consistent with classic Marxist class revolutionary ideology..."
But it is. It's the exact same goddamn thing, going back to the French Revolution. It's Leftism --- an epithet based on seating arrangements during the French Revolution.
Leftist. I prefer that term as a historical catch-all, but Marxoid works too. Of course no one at the Ford Foundation has read Das Capital or has strong opinions concerning the surplus value of labor. Nonetheless, they're climbing the same vines sprouted from the same rotten soil. They want the same things: Liberty and Equality (and Power).
It's fruitless to get bogged down in labels though. Leftist, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Progressive, and now the modern Woke... it doesn't matter what you call these people. They change their own terminology as a matter of course. Heck, they revamp their flag every year. They don't believe in anything -- except revolution.
But what about the supposedly non-idealogical managerial elite? I'll quote Sam Francis:
"The ostensible purpose of the political and social reforms is to ameliorate the material conditions of the masses, oppressed by bourgeois selfishness and parochialism, and, indeed, this purpose is often sincere in the minds of the managers themselves. Whether sincere or not, however, the real effect of managerial political and social reforms is to level bourgeois differentiations, to 'liberate' the masses from the tyranny of bourgeois or prescriptive institutions, and to homogenize the mass population and bring it under the discipline of the mass organizations." (Leviathan and Its Enemies, p. 68)
Robespierre would concur -- then promptly have Francis's head lopped off. It's the exact same goddamn thing. Only once people understand this and stop refraining to 'That's not real communism,' do we have any hope of defeating it.
Again, by the 1950s international class revolution generally failed (even though it sputtered on in some relatively obscure national liberation movements in the 3rd world, eventually becoming corrupt everywhere). At that point the "left" pivoted to neomarxism, identity politics, "cultural revolution", and then absorbed postmodern relativism.
Having tossed class struggle aside, the "cultural left" ("New Left", neomarxism) then made itself useful to the corporate-state.
That is the actual reality that exists at present, a merger of global finance, digital capitalism, the corporate-state and identity politics.
If you insist that "labels" don't matter then to be consistent you have to insist that the reality of how leftism has evolved/mutated in the real world doesn't matter, in which case fighting it is going to be pointless.
"...to be consistent you have to insist that the reality of how leftism has evolved/mutated in the real world doesn't matter..."
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Perhaps I failed to convey that in my previous comment. So let me reiterate: Leftism was crazy and evil in 1789, and it's just as crazy and evil today.
I've interacted with devotees of Liberty and Equality for most of my life. Equality in education is a particular sticking point. Over the past couple decades gifted programs, geared towards kids able to understand fractions or whatever, have been systematically dismantled throughout public education in America. Why? Because Leftists, firmly in control of public education, would rather burn civilization to the ground than admit some kids are smarter than others. That's Equality.
I don't care what the teachers and administrators call themselves. Neither should you.
I'm in favor of burning down (metaphorically) most of the existing education establishment so that better alternatives can get some of the oxygen that the establishment has sucked out of the room, but that isn't specifically what I'm saying in this subthread.
I also don't actually care much about what you are saying given that you don't appear to understand that the French Revolution (1780s), was the urban commoner classes (Third Estate), bourgeoisie, including what we would now call the business/property owning classes (merchants, scribes, craftspersons, and so forth), against the church elites (First Estate) and aristocracy (Second Estate).
At the time of the French Revolution, "marxism" per se DID NOT EXIST.
The French Revolution wasn't anymore "marxist" than the American Revolution.
The French Revolution was a MIDDLE CLASS revolution against the Ancien Regime, upper classes (Alter and Crown).
The American Revolution was a MIDDLE CLASS revolution against the upper class British Royalty.
Marxism was a self-loathing MIDDLE CLASS revolution against rest of the MIDDLE CLASSES, on behalf of the fourth estate, peasants, the working poor in industrial slums, slaves and near slaves in colonies, and so forth (in other words a revolt within the middle classes).
But the Fourth estate: slaves, peasants and the working poor never had any real say in how Marxism was formulated.
What did exist prior to the 1780s, in various forms for 100s of years was "classical liberalism", including "classical medieval liberalism" (see Leonard Liggio) which is the foundation of the USA's Constitutional system, which is a remnant of medieval "classical liberalism".
If you are advocating the destruction of western civilization (modern rationalism, Enlightenment values, etc.) AND you want to bring back real, historical "conservatism", rule by high Church and Royalty, then your lumping of classical liberalism and Marxism might have some kind of weird logic to it.
But in a sense you are correct, the PRECONDITIONS for the emergence of marxism were present through the anti-reformation and anti-Enlightenment eras, as substacker Lorenzo Warby of Oz has pointed out.
Rousseau's romanticism (anti-rationalism, anti-classical-liberalism) is one example of the pre-marxist thinking that mutated into actual marxism.
It also confirms that view of developmental "integral" theorists that pre-liberal, pre-modern anti-Enlightenment values ("Alter and Crown") were recycled by the anti-liberal, postmodern "left".
The left's hatred of the middle classes wasn't anything new, it was the default of most of the medieval intellectual and artistic elites for many 100s of years. Those elites didn't want any competition from literate business people, so they came up with the idea that the illiterate peasant classes had an earthy purity that middle class merchants were polluting.
You didn't address my point about the doctrine of Equality, so I presume you believe it. Which is fine. Most people today do, if only because coming out against it risks losing their livelihoods. "A man's belief and his salary yadda yadda," or whatever that Upton Sinclair quote is.
And I will admit: I've read one book and a handful of essays about the French Revolution. My understanding of it is spotty at best. But was Robespierre not acting on behalf of the doctrines of Liberte and Equalite? Or was he a cynic after mere power? Does it reflect on those doctrines how frequently they're co-opted by venal opportunists? Hm.
Speaking of venal opportunists and the fate of Western civilization, who are those most stridently in favor of importing the rest of the world's taxable biomass into it? "No person is illegal" -- a planetary level of Equality. It really is something.
This behavior reminds me of the noblesse oblige of European nobility: "we have a duty to help you commoners because we're smarter and better than you." Endemic on the Left, it originates in Darwin and Pavlov and Rousseau and Freud's view of man as a blank slate (and therefore perfectible) creature. It's usually only spoken of among fellow progressives but occasionally leaks in public, as in "deplorables" and bitter clingers".
The American Foundations (especially Ford) are a perfect example of Robert Conquest's 2nd law of politics: "Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing." Even Ford Jr seems to realize that.
As for the solution, we have this law called RICO. The steps would be: 1) designate Antifa a terrorist organization; 2) trace funds from Ford to Antifa organizations; 3) seize Ford's endowment under civil forfeiture laws. It likely wouldn't work, but it would tie up the endowment for years in litigation and be a shot across the bow of the entire liberal foundation industry. Most importantly, it wouldn't require any legislation, just executive action.
Unfortunately, that requires a conservative party that is willing to use lawfare the way the Left does; to play the game by their rules. Alas, we do not have that. And I suspect things will have to get a lot worse before we will. (And no, Donald Trump is not the person to lead that; he's vindictive enough but lacks the attention span.)
Darwin thought that morals were biologically determined.* That isn't "blank slate".
The left's "blank slate" was scientifically debunked by sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists starting in the 1980s, sometimes under vicious attacks by the left (E.O. Wilson, Napoleon Chagnon, Bret Weinstein and others).
The real scientists established the credibility of "dual inheritance theory", aka "gene-culture co-evolution. Recent evolutionary psychologists have extended that scientific work, showing that human nature is contrary to materialism (Iain McGilchrist).
---
Peter Richerson, PhD ecology, UC Davis, quotes Darwin (as an example of group selection hypothesis and the neurobiology of sympathy in "primeval times"):
"It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of
[->] patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy,
were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes, and this would be natural selection (178-179)."
To be clear: "blank slate" was useful to the "left" because it allowed them to think that BIOLOGY DID NOT limit their attempt at shaping human personality (and thus expanding their ideology and political schemes).
When E.O. Wilson started publishing on the ACTUAL BIOLOGICAL LIMITS that evolution selects for in DETERMINING PERSONALITY, the "blank slate" movement was SCIENTIFICALLY debunked. That led to the "blank slate" (utopians) reactionaries on the "left" to viciously attacked E.O. Wilson with false accusations of "racism" and similar nonsense.
Traditional conservative ideology and mythic religion were not (at least directly) helpful to Wilson because they ARE NOT SCIENCE. It was only after decades of scientific debate about evidence-based objective facts that the "blank slate" left was rejected by scientific consensus.
There are of course still brainwashed lunatics on the "left" that reject scientific evidence, and people on the "right" that are incapable of understanding the actual science in question, which is a specialized area that requires specific training in understanding evolutionary theory, which is not something found in scripture or politics.
Darwin's strain of thought led to eugenics and forced sterilization so most progressives choose to ignore it today. Your comment about Weinstein is funny, since his book Hunter Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century (which is generally very good) actually resurrects some of the social evolutionary arguments that fell out of favor most WWII. Darwin did lay the intellectual groundwork for the idea of the perfectibility of man though, which is the core of progressive ideology to this day. Rousseau is probably the biggest popularizer of the blank slate theory; Emile's environment is more carefully curated than a modern teen girl's social media feed. Others (like Pavlov and Freud) would later pick up this thread and the progressives seized on it an excuse to coercively reshape the plebs' environments (purely for the good of humanity, of course.)
If you think I'm knocking Darwin specifically, I'm not. All 4 of these people are steps on the road to the progressive view that man is shaped entirely by his environment and thus perfectible given the right environment. This remains the dominant progressive view today. Darwin made some other great contributions, but this extrapolation from his work led to some very dark places. I'm not saying he's responsible for that, only that his work was used in that way by others.
Most discoveries and inventions have unintended consequences. Darwin's was no different.
"the progressive view that man is shaped entirely by his environment "
Wrong. It is the SCIENTIFIC view that living things evolve as they adaptive to their physical environment.
In the case of the human species evolution is complex and unique because of the evolution of culture. Cultural evolution is a scientific specialty, sociobiology (and evolutionary psychology). None of which you appear to actually understand, presumably because you are attacked to mythic religion, which science tends to contradict.
The more religious people mindlessly attack Darwin on the basis of ideological bullshit, the more ridiculous they look.
That is why Iain McGilchrist's work is valuable, it provides a scientifically credible argument (using brain science) for spirituality as crucial to the human condition.
Your narrative is logically incoherent. Darwin had nothing to do with "blank slate".
You might as well blame whoever invented sauerkraut and steam engines for marxism.
Again, when actual evolutionary theorists/sociobiologists published evidence contradicting the "blank slate", they were viciously attacked by the left.
I'm not going to argue with you, Pierce, since I'm not even sure what you're arguing about. You're right. Darwin was not singlehandedly responsible for blank slate theory.
Your last example is funny though, since I would say the steam engine and Marxism actually are pretty related. One of the things I teach my students is that Charles Dickens and Karl Marx criticisms of steam-based, factory capitalism are very similar.
Take the example of lunatics like Nora Bateson, a postmodernist [pro-"diversity" relativist], "anti-colonialist" on the countercultural left (step daughter of famous 1950s maverick anthropologist Margaret Mead).
Bateson claims that Darwin's ideas necessarily led directly to Nazism "because scientific rationalism is european, imperialistic, racist, sexist", etc. (she ignores many facts that contradict her ideology, including the fact that leftism was invented by white people).
You are asserting the same kind mindless cause-and-effect as the lunatic Bateson, but for the purpose of trying to legitimize conservative ideology instead of Bateson's cultural marxism.
But bullshit is bullshit as far as science goes.
You have no objective facts or rational analysis that scientifically support your bizarre assertion.
What Darwin stated is that personality traits are GENETICALLY DETERMINED VIA SELECTION FOR SURVIVAL TRAITS, like everything else in evolution.
Some personality traits (ability to socially cooperate and be altruistic) are good survival adaptations, some (narcissism, sociopathy) are not.
"blank slate" makes the opposite claim from Darwin, that there is NO GENETIC SELECTION for personality traits, thus (they thought incorrectly), leftist ideology could be used to brainwash people, children specifically, into becoming zombies with leftist personalities that would them go on to create a leftist utopia.
---
Here, historian Lorenzo Warby of Oz explains at great length why leftist utopia is a delusion, scientifically illiterate mental dysfunction.
www. notonyourteam. co. uk /p/the-deep-appeal-of-marxism
excerpt:
Not science, not scholarship
We see again and again what I’ve come to call “the Hegel mode” emerge within activist scholarship, a combination Hegel both pioneered and exemplified. Scientific illiteracy, prophetic pretensions, power worship, and obscurity creating a patina of profundity.
The scientific illiteracy enables rejection of inconvenient constraints. The prophetic pretensions generate a highly motivating sense of future ownership. The power worship goes with a belief one knows the proper direction of history. The patina of profundity from obscure language puffs up intellectual pretensions, provides a coordinating language for believers, and protects adherents from error-revealing dangers of clarity.
Hegelianism, Marxism, French post-structuralism, Gender Theory, Queer Theory, Gender Identity Theory: varieties of the pattern keeps emerging. All four characteristics should be intellectually disabling in isolation, and the combination utterly so. But, on the contrary—and as Hegel himself exemplified—the Hegel mode has proven repeatedly to be a path to academic success.
🤯 These people need to be shut down or countered with haste. Thank you for the sunlight. I had no clue. I wonder how Hispanic people would feel about the fact that they were once just Americans along with the so-called whites (of which there are many many countries represented) but were manipulated to be used? Gross.
See Musa al Gharbi's publications. He is a PhD sociologist (black, heterodox liberal) that has been researching global elites vs the working classes (including Hispanics) for about a decade.
A former colleague turned me onto this book some years back. I don't know if you read it prior to writing this, but this problem has been understood for a while: "The Great Philanthropists and the Problem of Donor Intent". Progressives always skinsuit foundations, even the most conservatively intended. Always. And the courts are happy to help them.
Well worth reading to get a sense of how multifaceted institutional power is sometimes hard to recognize. Only once you understand that the managerial elite exercises it rule through every power center in society can you appreciate the extent of the problem. It's an entire culture and class that must be resisted. Well done again, Lyons.
Okay so how can we get these bastards to start paying their fair share of our national debt?? A national spotlight should be shone on this cockroach of an organization.
re: "free markets" co-evolved with new forms of govt. and high-social-trust (early modernism, 1700s)
A big part of historical "classical liberalism" (Constitutional order, the rise of peasants into the middle classes via an expansion of the urban commoner classes, increased literacy, etc.) was the evolution of local feudal economies into widespread river and sea trade (German free Cities, Hanseatic League), capitalism and "free markets".
All of that was a revolutionary, "liberal" break from the class and economic structure of medieval power: aristocracy and ecclesiastic elites, fealty oaths, and so forth.
Such Constitutional order was also completely dependent on a fusion of new classically "liberal" forms of high-social-trust (govt. education, insurance, banks) with emerging economic activity.
To vastly oversimplify, as the Ancien Regime (Alter and Crown) declined in wealth and power, the middle classes increased, leading the expanding middle (urban commoner) classes to agitate for more political power.
In some cases, such classically liberal, local, decentralized institutions were very old, having been established long before 1492 under the decentralized power of medieval Europe (Leonard Liggio), so the "middle class" revolution in modernity was actually about RESTORING democratic institutions that the new Imperial powers swept aside after 1492 in their imposition of centralized power (Spanish Absolutism being the classic example).
In other words, "free markets" were always integrated with "the state".
As the state evolved, so did its relation with the economy.
Instead of the aristocracy controlling the economy, the merchant and urban commoner classes eventually did and the economy became "free" of the control of the (usually corrupt) aristocracy and ecclesiastic elites.
The problem, of course was that there was little or nothing to stop the new, rising classes from becoming almost as corrupt. Constitutional order did help, and the remnants of religious-mythic moral order also helped, but after the Industrial revolution, Nietsche's statement that "God is dead..." and anxiety about class conflict led to a new crisis.
After the World Wars, bourgeoise capitalism mutated into managerial capitalism (the origins of FF), and then into postmodern consumer culture and relativism, and further into the insanity of "wokeism".
The Ford Foundation is just a sideshow. They make sure people get angry with the "left" and so allow the usual powerbrokers to get on with running the show. As such they are very much part of the establishment. There is no actual progressive left anymore.
Something to consider, you will increasingly find it difficult to search up information regarding key people within these institutions and their parents, therefore their blood lines, this is important as to dechiper where their allegiances actually are.
And just in case anyone has a go at me for me mentioned blood ties being important, just remember that there is evil and it does actually exist and it does engage here on this world.
Ylvisaker is a Norwegian surname.
McCoy is a Scottish surname.
Ford is a Scottish/English Borderer surname.
Darren Walker is... what a certain filmmaker you probably don't care for called a dazzling urbanite.
I suspect those aren't the blood ties you mean so please explain why it's actually all the fault of the Jews.
Don't forget McGeorge Bundy, the very picture of a WASP.
It's hard to imagine a better illustration than this article of just how homegrown the managerial revolution is.
I would agree, so again if the blood tie is clean then it is a Theological Concept or Ideological Concept that infer why they are doing what they are doing, boiled down, they are evil cunts
You should maybe, and this is a suggestion, ask why a lot of these homegrown folk have a odd tendency of coming from Christian backgrounds.
Because it’s egalitarianism run amok. It’s okay a lot of people have distorted the lessons of the good book.
I personally doubt this, more likely it is a deliberate attack on European Beliefs.
it’s liberals of European descent who have distorted the lessons of the Bible. Their utter narcissism allows to paint their ancestors as the ultimate villains and by tearing down their values and trads paint them as saviors.
Well if I can't find the parents names anywhere because they have been scrubbed from the Internet then I am going to assume that it was done for a reason, plus many folk of Jewish blood lines are KNOWN for changing their names.
Now if the individual and thereby collective blood line doesn't have any Jewish ancestry then the connecting point with where their allegiances are based upon a different set of tenets, likely Theological Concepts or Ideological Concepts.
One of the major "connecting points" is archetypal/evolutionary psychology.
Ironically, a corrupt, toxic leftist researcher that tried to tie conservatism to genetic traits for neuroticism and authoritarianism, but he "accidentally" used "bad data", which when corrected showed that "liberals" have a greater tendency toward "psychoticism".
https://www.thecut.com/2016/07/why-it-took-social-science-years-to-correct-a-simple-error-about-psychoticism.html
---
also:
https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/radicals-are-worse-at-metacognition/
World class evolutionary psychologist and brain scientist Iain McGilchrist:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/maybe-our-culture-is-literally-crazy/
The last paragraph—Henry Ford II’s lamentation that he should have shut the whole thing down and why he didn’t—tells us all we need to know about the “elite class.” Being liked by their peers is at the top of the list, and it is a very short list.
I'm guessing that he actually would have had a very hard time doing anything. Legal paperwork had been signed, he was no longer in control.
Another Anti-American organization. Perhaps we can hound them to death with “lawfare” I’m sure they have some legal skeletons in their closet
The best author on Substack really who compares.
We replaced Christ’s love and I suppose Mohammed‘s supplication with utopian drivel and arrogance.
Ayyan Hirsi-Ali recently made this point about the decline of Christianity in the west. It creates a vacuum in the souls of our young people--and then we are surprised when monsters rush in.
NS, glad you are looking into this.. there is a lot more of this kind of oligarchic influence out there than anyone knows. Hope you continue.
Hope you're following Jessica Weinkle on this, e.g. https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-20-spring-2024/performing-climate-risks-to-financial-stability.
I'm still baffled by liberal elites subsidizing violent and destructive organizations as a way of improving society. If they were Marxists themselves, it would be easier to understand.
As in NS Lyon's article on "virtuals vs physicals", Joel Kotkin's book, Neo-Feudalism, explains how the global elites (digital capitalism in an unholy alliance with finance capitalism) are actively and openly trying to destroy the traditional middle and working classes, industrial capitalism, property owners and their employees to reduce resistance to the imposition of elite, totalitarian social control.
Controlled opposition on the "left":
A similar analysis:
... “woke” ideology (what I call “totalitarian humanism”) that presently constitutes the self-legitimating ideological superstructure of the ruling class is not the sole creation of the Brahmins alone. Every ideological superstructure has a materialist base and class base (which in the case of totalitarian humanism would be digital capital, the tech revolution, “financialization” of the kind that has emerged from neoliberalism, the expanded technocratic class which is the product of the wider degree of specialization and the division of labor rooted in increased technological sophistication).
Additionally, “wokeness” is rooted in the wider infrastructure of statecraft which can be traced, at the irreducible minimum, to the collusion between the Frankfurt School and the OSS during WW2, followed by the CIA’s creation of the Congress of Cultural Freedom in the 1950s. While elements of the ideological framework of totalitarian humanism may have their roots in the cultural revolution of the 1960s/1970s, in its present form “wokeness” represents a co-optation of those cultural patterns by the liberal wing of the capitalist class ( a specific strategy that was devised by Fred Dutton as far back as 1970).
https://attackthesystem.com/2021/12/06/curtis-yarvin-mencius-moldbug-on-tucker-carlson-today-09-08-21/
MAKE ORWELL FICTION AGAIN
NS Lyons on the "virtuals vs physicals"
INVERTED CLASS WAR by the dark triad (sociopathic) communo-fascist ruling elites on the working classes.
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/reality-honks-back
---
Because the rising sectors of the ruling elites are seeking to expand their power, they are already in a mode of intense conflict with other sectors of society. (see Shellenberger on the new parts of the #twitterfiles that detail a vast censorship-industrial-complex.)
Because digital capitalism is "virtual", it accepts the postmodern "belief" that (NS Lyons quoting historian Christopher Lasch, 1990s) "reality is a social construct".
The traditional working classes, the "physicals", and their industrial and property owning employers, thus become the natural enemies of the "virtuals" and their dystopian, globalist dreams (Neo-Feudalism).
Basically the "virtuals" are totalitarian postmodernists, including a high percentage of corporate "Dark Triad" sociopaths and their political puppets (Senile Biden).
As such the postmodern, "woke" left is mentally dysfunctional, socially parasitic/predatory, but adept at exploiting the disintegration of classical, high-social-trust social institutions by techno-economic change.
~~in its present form “wokeness” represents a co-optation of those cultural patterns by the liberal wing of the capitalist class ( a specific strategy that was devised by Fred Dutton as far back as 1970).~~
A similar phenomenon was noted by Del Noce in 1970 as occurring in Europe. See his 'The Crisis of Modernity.' He referred to the group you mention as the "technocratic right."
I have Kotkin's book next up on my to-read list. I'm currently on Renaud Camus' 'Enemy of the Disaster,' which is very good. His critics try to paint him as a racist (of course) and a conspiracy theorist, but if one actually reads him for about three minutes it becomes quickly apparent that he is neither. Oddly enough, he comes across as a sort-of Burkean Leftist. I have a friend who did his doctoral dissertation on Kirk and Weaver, and I've recommended this book to him. I'm quite interested to hear what he has to say.
The elites believe they will be able to tame and control the violent and the destructive. Indeed that is the essence of what they believe they can do for society as a whole.
People always believe the demons (literal or figurative) they're summoning are controllable. And the demons are happy to play along. Until they're not. Which is why revolutions always eat their own last.
The "liberal elites" under discussion are actually ILLIBERAL and authoritarian.
Standard, sociopathic Democrat party elite:
***HILLARY GOES FULL REPTILIAN***
https://www.racket.news/p/have-they-gone-mad
www. racket .news /p/have-they-gone-mad
Assuming that postmodern neomarxism (ILLIBERAL, elite totalitarianism) operates as a quasi-religious, decentralized cult network (as a number of anti-woke social scientists have claimed), a major motivation of the cult would be to thwart any DEFLILEMENT of its basic premises and "beliefs" by critics.
Thus, the ultra wealthy global elites (transhumanists are probably the worst subspecies of totalitarians that think "reality is a social construct") that are propagating such totalitarianism would instruct their political puppets, and their PROFESSIONAL-MANAGERIAL CLASS propaganda mouthpieces in education and the mass media, to set up a vast CENSORSHIP-INDUSTRIAL-COMPLEX to attack their critics and political opponents.
I have the distinction of having obtained a grant from the Ford Foundation back in the days when it was merely leftist and not insane. It was a technical project to help higher education to adapt to the predicted enrollment decline that didn't actually happen back then. Perhaps the FF was playing the long game of shoring up one of their strongholds.
One thing to think about is that all your examples of lunacy are city based. Cities are inherently crazy and the only solution is to escape and isolate them from America. Abolish the FF and cities would still be dangerous.
I started reading about the corruption of higher ed in the 1990s, as a quasi-libertarian union rep., and it was along the same lines as you mention, the fake "decline in enrollment". There were explicit attempts by various elements of the corporate-state (digital capitalists, junk bond criminals, etc.) to take over colleges/universities.
A rebellious faculty union leader even defied the larger leftist union leadership by publishing documentation [written by [EDIT: Glynn] Custred*] of the sleaze (which probably cites FF documents) for a few years, but was marginalized with charges of "sexual harassment" of some other cancel-culture bs.
* see my substack note, in a separate comment.
---
found it:
https://web.archive.org/web/19990116234609/www2.inow.com/~mukesh/NOGOALS2000.htm
This isn't really a viable option though, since cities drive about a highly disproportionate share of GDP. They can't be walled off, they have to be made not crazy.
They do that by exploitation of the countryside and have for 6000 years. Make them pay a fair price for the resources extracted and it reverses. Besides most of the GDP produced in the cities these days isn't real stuff. It's services at best but a lot is government, finance and law.
"It would be easy to assume [] the Ford Foundation must be run by some Marxoid cabal. But little evidence suggests that this is true. Rather, if anything, the reality appears worse: the foundation’s often bewilderingly destructive actions result from its complete faith in the superiority of liberal technocratic expertise to engineer a more perfect society from the top down."
That's... literally a Marxoid cabal.
Classical marxism assumed that international class revolution would destroy capitalism and imperialism and lead to a utopia free of class “oppression”, free of anxiety and the alienation from nature caused by industrialism, etc.
Lorenzo Warby of Oz has an ongoing series on substack about why Marxism itself is inherently a failure because has a fatally flawed model of human nature that only appeals to mentally dysfunctional people.
By the post-WW2 era, national liberation movements, anti-colonialism emerged, but most of the actual industrial classes saw marxism as a giant horror that had killed 10s of millions in pre-industrial and colonial regions, peasant societies, and so forth. Mao’s cultural revolution made it more obvious.
The intellectual elites in the west that still clung to marxism and revolutionary ideologies by the 1960s then pivoted away from class struggle to cultural revolution, which later became the insanity of “wokeism” and postmodern relativism. Having rejected class struggle, the neomarxists began to infiltrate the corporate-state in a “long march through the institutions “ , including technocratic managerialism, with the goal of corrupting and then destroying them via false ideologies such as Critical Race Theory. Then they expected that capitalism could be demolished and replaced with some kind of utopian bullshit.
The insanity being described in the FF is not consistent with classic Marxist class revolutionary ideology, but it IS consistent with technocratic, managerial neo-marxism and the postmodern “belief” that “reality is a social construct” (quote is from NS Lyons quoting historian Christopher Lasch). https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/reality-honks-back
"The insanity being described in the FF is not consistent with classic Marxist class revolutionary ideology..."
But it is. It's the exact same goddamn thing, going back to the French Revolution. It's Leftism --- an epithet based on seating arrangements during the French Revolution.
Leftist. I prefer that term as a historical catch-all, but Marxoid works too. Of course no one at the Ford Foundation has read Das Capital or has strong opinions concerning the surplus value of labor. Nonetheless, they're climbing the same vines sprouted from the same rotten soil. They want the same things: Liberty and Equality (and Power).
It's fruitless to get bogged down in labels though. Leftist, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Progressive, and now the modern Woke... it doesn't matter what you call these people. They change their own terminology as a matter of course. Heck, they revamp their flag every year. They don't believe in anything -- except revolution.
But what about the supposedly non-idealogical managerial elite? I'll quote Sam Francis:
"The ostensible purpose of the political and social reforms is to ameliorate the material conditions of the masses, oppressed by bourgeois selfishness and parochialism, and, indeed, this purpose is often sincere in the minds of the managers themselves. Whether sincere or not, however, the real effect of managerial political and social reforms is to level bourgeois differentiations, to 'liberate' the masses from the tyranny of bourgeois or prescriptive institutions, and to homogenize the mass population and bring it under the discipline of the mass organizations." (Leviathan and Its Enemies, p. 68)
Robespierre would concur -- then promptly have Francis's head lopped off. It's the exact same goddamn thing. Only once people understand this and stop refraining to 'That's not real communism,' do we have any hope of defeating it.
Yes and no.
Again, by the 1950s international class revolution generally failed (even though it sputtered on in some relatively obscure national liberation movements in the 3rd world, eventually becoming corrupt everywhere). At that point the "left" pivoted to neomarxism, identity politics, "cultural revolution", and then absorbed postmodern relativism.
Having tossed class struggle aside, the "cultural left" ("New Left", neomarxism) then made itself useful to the corporate-state.
That is the actual reality that exists at present, a merger of global finance, digital capitalism, the corporate-state and identity politics.
If you insist that "labels" don't matter then to be consistent you have to insist that the reality of how leftism has evolved/mutated in the real world doesn't matter, in which case fighting it is going to be pointless.
"...to be consistent you have to insist that the reality of how leftism has evolved/mutated in the real world doesn't matter..."
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Perhaps I failed to convey that in my previous comment. So let me reiterate: Leftism was crazy and evil in 1789, and it's just as crazy and evil today.
I've interacted with devotees of Liberty and Equality for most of my life. Equality in education is a particular sticking point. Over the past couple decades gifted programs, geared towards kids able to understand fractions or whatever, have been systematically dismantled throughout public education in America. Why? Because Leftists, firmly in control of public education, would rather burn civilization to the ground than admit some kids are smarter than others. That's Equality.
I don't care what the teachers and administrators call themselves. Neither should you.
I'm in favor of burning down (metaphorically) most of the existing education establishment so that better alternatives can get some of the oxygen that the establishment has sucked out of the room, but that isn't specifically what I'm saying in this subthread.
I also don't actually care much about what you are saying given that you don't appear to understand that the French Revolution (1780s), was the urban commoner classes (Third Estate), bourgeoisie, including what we would now call the business/property owning classes (merchants, scribes, craftspersons, and so forth), against the church elites (First Estate) and aristocracy (Second Estate).
At the time of the French Revolution, "marxism" per se DID NOT EXIST.
The French Revolution wasn't anymore "marxist" than the American Revolution.
The French Revolution was a MIDDLE CLASS revolution against the Ancien Regime, upper classes (Alter and Crown).
The American Revolution was a MIDDLE CLASS revolution against the upper class British Royalty.
Marxism was a self-loathing MIDDLE CLASS revolution against rest of the MIDDLE CLASSES, on behalf of the fourth estate, peasants, the working poor in industrial slums, slaves and near slaves in colonies, and so forth (in other words a revolt within the middle classes).
But the Fourth estate: slaves, peasants and the working poor never had any real say in how Marxism was formulated.
What did exist prior to the 1780s, in various forms for 100s of years was "classical liberalism", including "classical medieval liberalism" (see Leonard Liggio) which is the foundation of the USA's Constitutional system, which is a remnant of medieval "classical liberalism".
If you are advocating the destruction of western civilization (modern rationalism, Enlightenment values, etc.) AND you want to bring back real, historical "conservatism", rule by high Church and Royalty, then your lumping of classical liberalism and Marxism might have some kind of weird logic to it.
But in a sense you are correct, the PRECONDITIONS for the emergence of marxism were present through the anti-reformation and anti-Enlightenment eras, as substacker Lorenzo Warby of Oz has pointed out.
Rousseau's romanticism (anti-rationalism, anti-classical-liberalism) is one example of the pre-marxist thinking that mutated into actual marxism.
It also confirms that view of developmental "integral" theorists that pre-liberal, pre-modern anti-Enlightenment values ("Alter and Crown") were recycled by the anti-liberal, postmodern "left".
The left's hatred of the middle classes wasn't anything new, it was the default of most of the medieval intellectual and artistic elites for many 100s of years. Those elites didn't want any competition from literate business people, so they came up with the idea that the illiterate peasant classes had an earthy purity that middle class merchants were polluting.
You didn't address my point about the doctrine of Equality, so I presume you believe it. Which is fine. Most people today do, if only because coming out against it risks losing their livelihoods. "A man's belief and his salary yadda yadda," or whatever that Upton Sinclair quote is.
And I will admit: I've read one book and a handful of essays about the French Revolution. My understanding of it is spotty at best. But was Robespierre not acting on behalf of the doctrines of Liberte and Equalite? Or was he a cynic after mere power? Does it reflect on those doctrines how frequently they're co-opted by venal opportunists? Hm.
Speaking of venal opportunists and the fate of Western civilization, who are those most stridently in favor of importing the rest of the world's taxable biomass into it? "No person is illegal" -- a planetary level of Equality. It really is something.
This behavior reminds me of the noblesse oblige of European nobility: "we have a duty to help you commoners because we're smarter and better than you." Endemic on the Left, it originates in Darwin and Pavlov and Rousseau and Freud's view of man as a blank slate (and therefore perfectible) creature. It's usually only spoken of among fellow progressives but occasionally leaks in public, as in "deplorables" and bitter clingers".
The American Foundations (especially Ford) are a perfect example of Robert Conquest's 2nd law of politics: "Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing." Even Ford Jr seems to realize that.
As for the solution, we have this law called RICO. The steps would be: 1) designate Antifa a terrorist organization; 2) trace funds from Ford to Antifa organizations; 3) seize Ford's endowment under civil forfeiture laws. It likely wouldn't work, but it would tie up the endowment for years in litigation and be a shot across the bow of the entire liberal foundation industry. Most importantly, it wouldn't require any legislation, just executive action.
Unfortunately, that requires a conservative party that is willing to use lawfare the way the Left does; to play the game by their rules. Alas, we do not have that. And I suspect things will have to get a lot worse before we will. (And no, Donald Trump is not the person to lead that; he's vindictive enough but lacks the attention span.)
Darwin thought that morals were biologically determined.* That isn't "blank slate".
The left's "blank slate" was scientifically debunked by sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists starting in the 1980s, sometimes under vicious attacks by the left (E.O. Wilson, Napoleon Chagnon, Bret Weinstein and others).
The real scientists established the credibility of "dual inheritance theory", aka "gene-culture co-evolution. Recent evolutionary psychologists have extended that scientific work, showing that human nature is contrary to materialism (Iain McGilchrist).
---
Peter Richerson, PhD ecology, UC Davis, quotes Darwin (as an example of group selection hypothesis and the neurobiology of sympathy in "primeval times"):
"It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of
[->] patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy,
were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes, and this would be natural selection (178-179)."
To be clear: "blank slate" was useful to the "left" because it allowed them to think that BIOLOGY DID NOT limit their attempt at shaping human personality (and thus expanding their ideology and political schemes).
When E.O. Wilson started publishing on the ACTUAL BIOLOGICAL LIMITS that evolution selects for in DETERMINING PERSONALITY, the "blank slate" movement was SCIENTIFICALLY debunked. That led to the "blank slate" (utopians) reactionaries on the "left" to viciously attacked E.O. Wilson with false accusations of "racism" and similar nonsense.
Traditional conservative ideology and mythic religion were not (at least directly) helpful to Wilson because they ARE NOT SCIENCE. It was only after decades of scientific debate about evidence-based objective facts that the "blank slate" left was rejected by scientific consensus.
There are of course still brainwashed lunatics on the "left" that reject scientific evidence, and people on the "right" that are incapable of understanding the actual science in question, which is a specialized area that requires specific training in understanding evolutionary theory, which is not something found in scripture or politics.
Darwin's strain of thought led to eugenics and forced sterilization so most progressives choose to ignore it today. Your comment about Weinstein is funny, since his book Hunter Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century (which is generally very good) actually resurrects some of the social evolutionary arguments that fell out of favor most WWII. Darwin did lay the intellectual groundwork for the idea of the perfectibility of man though, which is the core of progressive ideology to this day. Rousseau is probably the biggest popularizer of the blank slate theory; Emile's environment is more carefully curated than a modern teen girl's social media feed. Others (like Pavlov and Freud) would later pick up this thread and the progressives seized on it an excuse to coercively reshape the plebs' environments (purely for the good of humanity, of course.)
You are blaming Darwin for other peoples’ bullshit.
If you think I'm knocking Darwin specifically, I'm not. All 4 of these people are steps on the road to the progressive view that man is shaped entirely by his environment and thus perfectible given the right environment. This remains the dominant progressive view today. Darwin made some other great contributions, but this extrapolation from his work led to some very dark places. I'm not saying he's responsible for that, only that his work was used in that way by others.
Most discoveries and inventions have unintended consequences. Darwin's was no different.
"the progressive view that man is shaped entirely by his environment "
Wrong. It is the SCIENTIFIC view that living things evolve as they adaptive to their physical environment.
In the case of the human species evolution is complex and unique because of the evolution of culture. Cultural evolution is a scientific specialty, sociobiology (and evolutionary psychology). None of which you appear to actually understand, presumably because you are attacked to mythic religion, which science tends to contradict.
The more religious people mindlessly attack Darwin on the basis of ideological bullshit, the more ridiculous they look.
That is why Iain McGilchrist's work is valuable, it provides a scientifically credible argument (using brain science) for spirituality as crucial to the human condition.
Your narrative is logically incoherent. Darwin had nothing to do with "blank slate".
You might as well blame whoever invented sauerkraut and steam engines for marxism.
Again, when actual evolutionary theorists/sociobiologists published evidence contradicting the "blank slate", they were viciously attacked by the left.
https://www.razibkhan.com/p/setting-the-record-straight-open
I'm not going to argue with you, Pierce, since I'm not even sure what you're arguing about. You're right. Darwin was not singlehandedly responsible for blank slate theory.
Your last example is funny though, since I would say the steam engine and Marxism actually are pretty related. One of the things I teach my students is that Charles Dickens and Karl Marx criticisms of steam-based, factory capitalism are very similar.
Peace, man.
Take the example of lunatics like Nora Bateson, a postmodernist [pro-"diversity" relativist], "anti-colonialist" on the countercultural left (step daughter of famous 1950s maverick anthropologist Margaret Mead).
Bateson claims that Darwin's ideas necessarily led directly to Nazism "because scientific rationalism is european, imperialistic, racist, sexist", etc. (she ignores many facts that contradict her ideology, including the fact that leftism was invented by white people).
You are asserting the same kind mindless cause-and-effect as the lunatic Bateson, but for the purpose of trying to legitimize conservative ideology instead of Bateson's cultural marxism.
But bullshit is bullshit as far as science goes.
You have no objective facts or rational analysis that scientifically support your bizarre assertion.
What Darwin stated is that personality traits are GENETICALLY DETERMINED VIA SELECTION FOR SURVIVAL TRAITS, like everything else in evolution.
Some personality traits (ability to socially cooperate and be altruistic) are good survival adaptations, some (narcissism, sociopathy) are not.
"blank slate" makes the opposite claim from Darwin, that there is NO GENETIC SELECTION for personality traits, thus (they thought incorrectly), leftist ideology could be used to brainwash people, children specifically, into becoming zombies with leftist personalities that would them go on to create a leftist utopia.
---
Here, historian Lorenzo Warby of Oz explains at great length why leftist utopia is a delusion, scientifically illiterate mental dysfunction.
Warby of Oz explains the problem with Marxism:
https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/why-does-anyone-believe-marxism
www. notonyourteam. co. uk /p/why-does-anyone-believe-marxism
And
https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/the-deep-appeal-of-marxism
www. notonyourteam. co. uk /p/the-deep-appeal-of-marxism
excerpt:
Not science, not scholarship
We see again and again what I’ve come to call “the Hegel mode” emerge within activist scholarship, a combination Hegel both pioneered and exemplified. Scientific illiteracy, prophetic pretensions, power worship, and obscurity creating a patina of profundity.
The scientific illiteracy enables rejection of inconvenient constraints. The prophetic pretensions generate a highly motivating sense of future ownership. The power worship goes with a belief one knows the proper direction of history. The patina of profundity from obscure language puffs up intellectual pretensions, provides a coordinating language for believers, and protects adherents from error-revealing dangers of clarity.
Hegelianism, Marxism, French post-structuralism, Gender Theory, Queer Theory, Gender Identity Theory: varieties of the pattern keeps emerging. All four characteristics should be intellectually disabling in isolation, and the combination utterly so. But, on the contrary—and as Hegel himself exemplified—the Hegel mode has proven repeatedly to be a path to academic success.
...
🤯 These people need to be shut down or countered with haste. Thank you for the sunlight. I had no clue. I wonder how Hispanic people would feel about the fact that they were once just Americans along with the so-called whites (of which there are many many countries represented) but were manipulated to be used? Gross.
See Musa al Gharbi's publications. He is a PhD sociologist (black, heterodox liberal) that has been researching global elites vs the working classes (including Hispanics) for about a decade.
I absolutely will. I often wish I had the knowledge I am gaining in middle-age when I was 20. Thank you for the recommendation.
Yes, I spent ("wasted"?) several decades studying islamic esotericism and middle eastern history before broadening my interests in middle age.
Another important resource on the nature of global elites is Joel Kotkin.
Israel and the Kennedy Assassinations – note the BIPARTISAN War party 60+ year silence
Jack Ruby, who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, was Jewish. His birth name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein, and he was born to Polish Jewish immigrants.
JFK pushed to halt Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons.
RFK tried to designate a precursor to AIPAC as a foreign agent. He was “killed” by drugged/hypnotized Palestinian.
Why has Israel been avoided when discussing the Kennedy assassinations?
https://open.substack.com/pub/husseini/p/israel-and-the-kennedy-assassinations?r=byea&utm_medium=ios
A former colleague turned me onto this book some years back. I don't know if you read it prior to writing this, but this problem has been understood for a while: "The Great Philanthropists and the Problem of Donor Intent". Progressives always skinsuit foundations, even the most conservatively intended. Always. And the courts are happy to help them.
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Philanthropists-Problem-Donor-Intent/dp/1892934124
Well worth reading to get a sense of how multifaceted institutional power is sometimes hard to recognize. Only once you understand that the managerial elite exercises it rule through every power center in society can you appreciate the extent of the problem. It's an entire culture and class that must be resisted. Well done again, Lyons.
Okay so how can we get these bastards to start paying their fair share of our national debt?? A national spotlight should be shone on this cockroach of an organization.
re: "free markets" co-evolved with new forms of govt. and high-social-trust (early modernism, 1700s)
A big part of historical "classical liberalism" (Constitutional order, the rise of peasants into the middle classes via an expansion of the urban commoner classes, increased literacy, etc.) was the evolution of local feudal economies into widespread river and sea trade (German free Cities, Hanseatic League), capitalism and "free markets".
All of that was a revolutionary, "liberal" break from the class and economic structure of medieval power: aristocracy and ecclesiastic elites, fealty oaths, and so forth.
Such Constitutional order was also completely dependent on a fusion of new classically "liberal" forms of high-social-trust (govt. education, insurance, banks) with emerging economic activity.
To vastly oversimplify, as the Ancien Regime (Alter and Crown) declined in wealth and power, the middle classes increased, leading the expanding middle (urban commoner) classes to agitate for more political power.
In some cases, such classically liberal, local, decentralized institutions were very old, having been established long before 1492 under the decentralized power of medieval Europe (Leonard Liggio), so the "middle class" revolution in modernity was actually about RESTORING democratic institutions that the new Imperial powers swept aside after 1492 in their imposition of centralized power (Spanish Absolutism being the classic example).
In other words, "free markets" were always integrated with "the state".
As the state evolved, so did its relation with the economy.
Instead of the aristocracy controlling the economy, the merchant and urban commoner classes eventually did and the economy became "free" of the control of the (usually corrupt) aristocracy and ecclesiastic elites.
The problem, of course was that there was little or nothing to stop the new, rising classes from becoming almost as corrupt. Constitutional order did help, and the remnants of religious-mythic moral order also helped, but after the Industrial revolution, Nietsche's statement that "God is dead..." and anxiety about class conflict led to a new crisis.
After the World Wars, bourgeoise capitalism mutated into managerial capitalism (the origins of FF), and then into postmodern consumer culture and relativism, and further into the insanity of "wokeism".
The Ford Foundation is just a sideshow. They make sure people get angry with the "left" and so allow the usual powerbrokers to get on with running the show. As such they are very much part of the establishment. There is no actual progressive left anymore.