per ACD, can twist a metaphor quicker and better than the libs can rewrite their own history.
24 April 2020
...on how it all came to be in America as we find it today.
Although pooh-poohed on
occasion by one and likely others with whom I correspond (or, much more like,
to whom I broadcast!), to my mind, Dot Connecting remains a
venerable, respectable, worthy discipline, shoulder-to-shoulder with its
oft-neglected counterpart, Critical Thinking. Except in
courses devoted to The Culture of Critique (Kevin MacDonald), these
subjects typically get "short shrift".
Even the simplest
exercise in Dot Connecting can raise ire, gorge, and the Wrath of Cain
(Kane?). Example. Take these two dots.
DOT 1.
"Antifa"
Organizer Exposed As Member of Elite Political Family
EXCERPT FROM DOT 1
A leading organizer in a
self-described “Antifa” cell, Iron Front USA, is a member of a prominent
Maryland political family. The organization takes inspiration from the German
Iron Front, a paramilitary group that embraced violence against conservatives,
National Socialists, and even left-wing rivals.
Sean Thomas
Kratovil-Lavelle, pictured above at an “Antifa” rally next to his sister
Charlotte, posts on the Iron Front’s reddit under his own name,
bragging about engaging in the groups masked antics. Kratovil-Levelle is
wearing the three arrows symbol appropriated by anarchist paramilitary
organizations, while his sister is wearing a “Refuse Fascism” t-shirt, a group
run by the Revolutionary Communist
Party.
According to witnesses, the
mother of the two, an immigration attorney and open borders activist, was
present with them at the rally.
ACD: I note that
"Antifa' in Beserkeley, Kalifornication, featured a local
bike-lock-wielding "professor" -- masked, possibly presciently, well
before the viral scare that caused Americans everywhere to "hunker
down", OR, alternatively (alt-LEFT, doncha know?) the man simply realized
that facial recognition could lead to his arrest for assault with a deadly
weapon -- seems not unlike "Antifa" in Maryland, where the above
story got exposure. As I commented at "The Truth Seeker" site,
Miles Mathis would have commented with the quote "Nothing new under the
sun." Which leads us directly to consider DOT 2, with the name
and methodology of Miles Mathis a handy clue.
DOT 2.
Review
of "Agitprop in America", Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.
QUOTE: “Agitprop has been the method for
destroying America’s culture and rebuilding it as Cultural Marxism.”
John Harmon McElroy, Agitprop in America
EXCERPT FROM DOT 2
McElroy
is at his best when he focuses on the methodology of Culture Marxism,
writing:
“...Instead of overturning the U.S government by force and
taking comprehensive control of the United States all at once, the Counter
Culture/Political Correctness Movement has been engaged for the last fifty
years in gradually but relentlessly transforming the United States from within
little by little, by co-opting its institutions and destroying existing cultural
beliefs slowly and methodically, and replacing them with the dogmas of Marxism.”
The
key to the success of Cultural Marxist agitprop is its “intrinsic
deceptiveness.” McElroy writes,
Political correctness represents itself as
a champion of fundamental American values. That brazen pretense, that
Marxism is identical to American liberalism and progressivism, is why the
Counter Culture/Political Correctness movement has had so much success in the
United States.”
Drawing on Saul Alinsky’s infamous Rules for Radicals,
McElroy explains how Cultural Marxists provoke their opponents into reacting
(e.g. threatening to take down historical monuments, ordering “gay cakes”) and then
denounce them as irrational “reactionaries” Another tactic is to create
problems, or interpret problems, in such a manner that permits the proposal of
Marxist “solutions.” I thought that an analysis of Alinsky’s works might
provoke a deeper reading from McElroy, who writes that Alinsky was “an
atheist.” In fact, Alinsky was an agnostic
who, when asked specifically about religion, would always reply that he was
Jewish. This error is indicative of a broader blind spot in the text
— the ethnic component of anti-American activism. This blind spot manifests
more subtly throughout the lexicon of Cultural Marxist terms that comprises the
middle of the book. Quite frankly, when one actually looks at the individuals
who have coined or popularized many of these genuinely novel agitprop terms
(e.g. ‘homophobia’ by George Weinberg, ‘deconstructionism’ by Jacques Derrida,
‘racism’ by Magnus Hirschfeld and Leon Trotsky, ‘transgender’ by Magnus
Hirschfeld and later Harry Benjamin, ‘sex work” and ‘sex worker’ by Carol Leigh,
‘cultural pluralism’ by Horace Kallen), they emerge almost exclusively as Jews.
It’s a simple and unavoidable fact that Jews have been at the forefront of
changing “ways of seeing” by first changing “ways of describing.” I agree with
McElroy that we shouldn’t call anti-American agitators “liberals,” and that
“Leftists” also leaves a lot unsaid. McElroy, however, proposes “PC Marxists,”
which I feel doesn’t get any closer to the mark.
ACD: It is at this
"point" in the lecture on Dot Connecting that PC folks
and others with "snowflake sensitivity" bail wholesale out of the
classroom, make signs for carrying around denouncing the "teacher' or
"professor" giving the course, and demand -- if consistent with their
multi-faceted "cause" -- his|her|it's dismissal
forthwith! WHY? some of you might ask, curious if not completely
puzzled. Succinctly, even mention of disproportionate numbers of persons
who claim or acknowledge "Jewishness" in particular areas of interest
(! pun intended) or of concern seems politically correct grounds for shunning
and protest. Woe be unto those who discuss, critically, "Jewish
Power"! So, in DOT 2, the reviewer of the book "Agitprop
in America " crossed the line and mentioned what the author of the
book could not, did not, for whatever reason, blind spot or deference to
"Jewish Power" and the havoc it can bring to one's book sales and|or
one's peace of mind. [I note here that Veterans Today adopted the phrase
Khazarian Mafia. Brandon Smith (Alt-Market.com) prefers "globalists"
and "elites". To each their own. It's a "free
country" right? Left?]
.
So, drawing a simple
line (conceptually) between DOT 1 and DOT 2, for some, is IMPOSSIBLE! I
assure you, a child with a mind still open could accomplish the task in 9-11
seconds, then spend profitably a sunny afternoon reconstructing the absurdities
of Sandy Hook in the backyard sandbox.
My own takes -- 12
spokes like those of the Wheel of Samsara -- I have entitled Kultural
Marxi$m. Though my spelling be idiosyncratic, my thinking has
congruence with thoughts expressed and the lexicon developed by John
Harmon McElroy, author of Agitprop in America.
Dr. Joyce ended his
review with this, and I concur!
John Harmon McElroy’s work of catharsis is a worthy addition to
the Arktos library, and offers an original and multifaceted new approach to the
subject of America’s undeniable and ongoing decay. At almost 400 pages of
commentaries on numerous subjects, including a
large lexicon of Cultural Marxist terms, the book certainly
represents value for money and will consume many hours of study.
Of course, it doesn’t
have “all the answers,” something it has in common with the vast majority of
political texts on the market, but it does
approach a normally pessimistic subject with intellectual vigor, aggression,
confidence, and even optimism. It’s a book worthy of being “balanced
out” by the later reading of another text like Sunic’s Homo Americanus,
and I think readers can gain much from such an exercise. Readers could also
benefit by conducting some of their own research into the origins of certain
agitprop terms. McElroy includes several blank pages at the end of his book for
“notes,” which could be put to use in this manner. As hinted at earlier in this
review, I guarantee that readers will find some predictable but useful
information in the process.
Andrew
