|
|
|
Counter-cultural ruminations – Part 2, the culture war  This second part of my thoughts on culture and counter-culture represents something of a departure for me. Although every nationalist is a cultural critic of sorts, I am not a very practised one. I tend to a critique which is more psychological in its address, with an occasional gesture in the direction of philosophy. Where possible, of course, psychology prefers fact over proposition. The hard ground of genotype and sociobiology ... of Nature intruding into the Mind and into the lived life ... is an amenable place for a fact-junkie like me to seek permanent truths and, too, an understanding of Nature’s bounds and limits, and of the pathological pretence in the culture beyond that the natural bounds can not only be broken, but that we can be freed by breaking them. Culture ... that fabulously coloured, capacious, elusive thing ... is a carrier of the natural too, of course. The trick for anyone seeking to interdict or reform or revolutionise it should be to exorcise its pathologies by means of appeal to that nature. It should be straightforward. After all, people are able to struggle for existence, and in that cause to discriminate for good over evil, and for truth over lies. They routinely refer to their instinctive interests and preferences as determinants of what is good, and what is natural, healthy and normal, and so on. So you might think this would be easy … that the mind’s supervenient natural qualities must predominate ... that working with Nature’s grain must lead to a life-giving outcome. Yet, the condition of our people in the pre-globality (let’s call it that, in the absence any generally accepted term) is such that little common understanding and agreement obtains on what constitutes pathology and what health, and little perception even that anything really fundamental is wrong. Life’s truths have been forced down into a morass of moral relativism and bare-faced ideological aggression, and disgorged of their vital, identifying signs. As a nationalist, one actually has to teach health, such is the confusion within the people whom we love and, because we love, seek to advantage and to serve. The revolution in the European culture Of course, there is no doubt as to why. In large measure, a double revolution - one philosophically Jewish revolution of the left of liberalism a half-century ago and one rooted in Austrian School economics of the right a decade later – saw to it; building, as both did, on older, telling deficiencies in the religion, philosophical canon, and economic culture of our race. The former, particularly, was a revolution not of politics but of campus culture, linguistics, and the activism of the left. The governing generation of the West, which in its youth had been used up in a six-year, fratricidal war and was still standing guard, facing down the Soviet bloc in the 1960s and 70s, was not just out-manoeuvred in the cultural blitzkrieg, it didn’t even notice something was wrong. Its old-school moral order fell to the culture of youth almost at once, without a single effective ideological shot being fired in reply. Nor was there any significant resistance from elsewhere among the elite class. In Britain since the 1930s at least, students enrolling upon a course in the humanities encountered a steadily marxising professoriate – people who, as Orwell had it, hated their country with a will. The nature of the beast was already difficult going on impossible. The spark which initiated its change of revolutionary focus from economics to sociology was the setting up of an historians group by the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1946. That was only two years after Horkheimer and Adorno published Dialectic of Enlightenment, and pre-dates the latter’s The Authoritarian Personality by four years. The other intellectual pillar of the New Left, Marcuse’s selective attack on prescription and control, One Dimensional Man, was still eighteen years away. Class war would remain a staple of the Labour Party until the 1983 election defeat, and of the union movement until the defeat of the miners in 1985. It would be killed off, finally, by the momentous events in the east in 1989. But by that point the university left had decamped into Critical Theory and culture war decades earlier, and decamped again into postmodernism. Somewhere along the way the professors’ hatred of their country had morphed into a po-faced, snotty hatred of their people. As for their students, they proved to be meek and suggestible, and fell in with it all, including the hatred. We, as nationalists and dissenters by spirit, can only gaze upon their bland, innocent faces and wonder at such lightness of being and incapacity for independent thought. But, then, obeisance before authority is the human condition, and moderate intellectual ability provides no immunity, just as vanity and ambition provide susceptibility. As graduates, the infected individuals carried the pathology into the orthodoxy of government, the media, judiciary, and the public sector generally. As doctorates they entrenched it in the academy. They were not simply unwilling to question the new dogma or to face up to its logical consequences; they were actual proponents and agents of it, as Gramscian theory predicted. By the middle of the 1980s – the point at which postmodernism began to assert itself as a force in the arts, a decade after it had done so in architecture – these new activist elites seem to have relegated serious thought to the sidelines, and said “Enough, we know what we must do!” Perhaps the post-structuralist Derridian obscurities simply did not yield enough hard politics for their taste. Perhaps, as mere Gramscian captives in most cases, captivity was the only framework in which they could think. Perhaps, with Reagan politically dominant in America and Thatcher in Britain, party politics as an agency of change was closed to them, but a coercive, destructive extra-political contingency was not - even the literary theorist Terry Eagleton, a bona fide culture warrior, once crisply observed “We are the worm in Thatcher’s apple”. It suited their temper, anyway. Certainly in Britain, there was a terrible, destructive energy abroad as the Tories systematically dismantled union power and struck (in two ways I will address in the next essay) at the very roots of the left’s communion with the traditional working class. It had to go into something. In any event, beginning on the American campus with, one must presume, very second-rate sociology teachers, an activism arose which, while it is in line with basic post-structural paradigms, reduced the latter’s linguistic idealism to the crude but spectacularly effective stratagem of appropriating the language for the revolutionary agenda. It is not too extreme to define that agenda as the literal erasure of the identity of the European peoples, their kinship, their past, and their future. It was, and is, a strategy of ideological enforcement by denunciation and threat – and by physical violence where possible or necessary (the former not being especially contingent on the latter). As such, it has powerful echoes of the coercive ideological homogenisation which characterised the 20th century totalitarian states, and may owe its appearance in our time more to that than to any line of descent from Jewish-authored philosophy. Its undoubted schwerpunckt, anti-racism, was also imported from without the philosophical line, though its adopted form was still Jewish originated (half-a-century earlier by Magnus Hirschfeld). Rather meekly but successfully labelled “political correctness” by the American right in the early 1990s, its working method is threefold, regardless of which minority or interest group it purports to serve: (i) it makes a specious claim on truth; (ii) it dehumanises all opposition to that claim, (iii) it licences destruction of the opposition. Thus in respect to race and immigration: (i) multiracialism of the European living spaces is “enriching” … is “a strength” … is “historically normal” ... is “human progress”, etc, while homogeneous white society is “dull” and even “hideous”, (ii) the defence of European peoples in any form is automatically “racism” … is “hate” ... is “xenophobia” ... is “supremacism” ... is “fascism”, etc, (iii) “racism”, “hate”, “fascism”, etc, are the ultimate crimes in our time; “racists” and “haters” and “fascists” are anti-human, and their existence in “our” society … on “our” streets … in “our” world cannot be tolerated. And so it goes. By this means, not eggshells but linguistic land mines were scattered beneath everybody’s feet. The freedoms of speech and association – common goods for which our forefathers fought and died - were put away as if they had no value at all, because “the project” was the only consideration of value. Therefore, ideologically correct thought was the only legitimised basis for saying anything actually relevant to life. Because the project is an expansive, escalating, trespassing thing, ever more unnatural, polarising causes were adopted, each cleaved to with a blind, partisan intensity. Inevitably, within a very few years a general climate of moral paralysis and self-censorship obtained among our poor, benighted kind. Today, it is so bad that an extensive industry of offence-taking by proxy has sprung up, and barely a day seems to go by without its well-publicised, synthetic fury falling upon the head of some unfortunate who has said too little or too much, or the wrong thing entirely. Characters are routinely assassinated. Livelihoods are destroyed. Fines and prison sentences are handed down by the courts. If, at its post-war beginnings, the revolution had some pretense of service to the common good, rather than sheer, bloody spite and racial destructiveness, its outright intolerance and repression leaves no doubt as to its nature now. None of this presents any kind of moral crisis for politicians and governments across the West. The most sincere response of British politicians to every outrage committed by the diverse and enriching is to instruct us in tolerance. In Germany, the strange creature Merkel considers it “haughty arrogance” for Germans to question the slow but steady Islamification of their nation (which she is striving to accelerate). In Sweden a former Prime Minister has stated that it is the immigrants who own Sweden, not the Swedes who “invented borders”. The newcomers, after all, are creating a New Sweden and this, for some unexplained reason, will be a “stronger” Sweden. Besides, the old Swedes are “an uninteresting ethnic group”. When, finally, some degree of border control does have to be asserted, the Swedish Deputy Prime Minister announcing it cannot hold back her tears! Of course, little Nicolas Sarkozy, with his demand from 2008 for métissage, holds the world record for outright offensiveness - but then there is always that question of who he really is, ethnically speaking. Anyway, the sainted Enoch Powell would not have hesitated to describe all of them as “mad, literally mad”, and who are we to argue? Plainly, tolerance without limit, even unto the perception of the dissolution and replacement of one’s own people as a great good, is completely demented. It is a post-Christian religious mania. But it is also the only non-statutory means the political elites can concoct that could, in their wild imaginings, do for the multicult what blood and love, land and history do for real peoples. Naturally, it will not work. But the essential thing is that the elites can point to us and say that that is our failing. Yes, they have to prevent ISIL outrages, mass sexual assaults at train stations, the trafficking and prostitution of white children, negro lootings and arson, etc. But they do not regard any of those as reasons to question, never mind terminate the multiracial project. Rather, these setbacks must never be allowed to “stoke up bigotry” and “far right extremism” among the existentially guilty ethnicities of Europe. They really do think that it means nothing ... nothing at all ...to kill us, and that the world will be better without us. There is simply no other interpretation which can fit the facts. They just can’t admit publicly to it. Official deceit, therefore … a cold, deathly need to propagandise and lie to us ... hangs over government thinking and policy-making (and over the media which unfailingly gives succour to that). And, ultimately, this, too, is a product of the revolution in the European culture; a product of denying Nature; of subjecting the normal to a violently radical redefinition; of dehumanising dissent and criminalising conscience. To reprise, all official respect and regard for the person and life of our people ... all official recognition of our natural right and interests ... everything that should be accorded us quite automatically and unreservedly, as it should any people of the land, is withdrawn. Indeed, the very idea is spat upon. In our case … solely in our case ... belonging, mutuality … the things of identity, the things of the blood … are officially repudiated. Indeed, these, too, are spat upon and associated directly with racism. At every opportunity, meanwhile, the foreign flood is lauded and, if at all possible, excused its vilest crimes against us. In every conceivable way its trespass is incentivised and facilitated. Not a moment’s official thought … at least, thought that is not hostile ... is given to the meaning of it all for us. We are utterly betrayed. Short of a full-bore genocide by moving us off our own land, the situation could hardly be more extreme and unbearable. But that is by no means the whole of the revolutionary problem. In the mid-1970s a second revolution took place, this time on the political right, and this time in the economic culture of the Anglosphere and beyond. In part 3 of this series I will investigate the long-run effects of that momentous event. Comments:2
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:47 | #
Post Modernity, proper, is good and necessary for Whites. White post modernity is what we need, not more modernity and its universal destruction of national delimits.. The right wing have been so repulsed by Jewish corruption of terms that they apparently find it near impossible to come to terms with this. Yes, critical theory decamped under the name of postmodernity, but falsely - using it as a false means to dispense critical theory’s liberal prescription to Whites. 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 23:58 | # Daniel,
That’s a key line from your definitions article of April 2014. For me, the problem here is that there is no postmodernity, other than in the imaginings of sundry Western intellectuals. I have gone along with that and used the term often myself. But the more I think about it from the nationalist perspective the more I suspect that thinking nationalists should not operate in this historical framework at all. The problem with it isn’t simply that it has been colonised by hostile Jewish thought. The problem is that we are still in modernity. The debilitations and degradations occasioned upon the European self by the age of the modern are continuing. Their natural point of completion is our obliteration. The phase which properly follows upon our obliteration will be globality (which is very much the heart of my Part 3 essay on the neoliberal revolution). I would also add that the aspects of modernity which present as technology, industrialisation, and urbanisation are substantially products of the European nature. I am not convinced that they are irredeemable negatives. There ought to be ways to re-humanise experience of them. Negativity enters only where the value of the European life is always reduced. So for example, the massifying and universalising and/or self-estranging tendencies of Christianity, liberalism, socialism, Marxism, economism, consumerism, etc, all reduce us in that absolute sense. Perhaps democratism is another such - I’m not sure. But, in any case, that one’s easily addressed via reform of the franchise. I just feel there is work for thinking nationalists to do here. We don’t have a satisfactory reading from which we can make politics. 4
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:11 | # Also, on the matter of left and right, I am still puzzled as to why, as nationalists, these terms are useful at all, except as descriptives of the liberal status quo. Surely we need to define the axiality of our own beliefs and, where appropriate, cite that in discussion. We may not arrive at such a snappy short-hand form, but at least it would not require us to set aside the individualism inherent to us, as does your singular focus on “the white left”. That, I feel, risks prescription, therefore inauthenticity, therefore failure. A conversation on the meaning of “the social” and the role of communication within that is also most necessary. I have a suspicion that these are adaptations ... signifiers taken from another Weltanschauung and overlaid on (what, for us, should be the hyper-clean, hyper-clear contact to) our truth as a human ecology. I understand how that would happen. It is difficult to intellectualise, on demand, that which properly belongs to emotion and instinct. Even so, if we settle for adapted terminologies we risk dragging in associations that can only add to the general vagueness, and lessen the power and utility of our belief system, not increase it. 5
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:44 | # GW, you are correct that what we have - except for those articulate enough to compose a hermeneutic back and forth meaning of the ebbs and flows of tradition and modernity - is more modernity. But that is largely due to a lack of awareness and consensus - because the White Post Modernity that I’ve pointed-to is not being promoted so that enough people can understand it through their de-facto habits and Jewish obfuscation. I can only guess as to why I’m having difficulty marketing this eminently reasonable idea: Not believing in Jesus, Hitler, Jews…only being half Northern European (half Southern European), not being English, not being German, not flattering scientistic types by sporting a 240 I.Q. and/or devotion to them as if they are philosophically unassailable…I can only guess. But you really don’t need to add to the Jewish confusion of the critique of modernity - a critique set forth by the likes of Vico, Nietzsche and Heidegger with good reason - very good reason. I would guess that your resistance on this issue has to do with a valuation of those aspects of modernity, the enlightenment project, Epicureanism etc, that you should value. There is nothing wrong with that project until it does not take heed that not all dispositions, changes and newness of modern byproduct are healthy, authentic and good. Conversely, not all tradition, inherited ways and forms are mere customs and happenstance biology that can be discarded by way of new experiment without profound or unnecessary destruction to our nature. You are correct that neither should we look upon all aspects of modernity as destructive: but some of it is. Heidegger’s project, correctly, was to take us from technological and theoretical alienation from our nature as socially ensconced beings - taking us from impervious quest for pure Cartesian theoria and back into the social world of praxis in which we are thrown. You begin this piece by saying that you normally prefer the psychological perspective. You tell me that you question the value of Heidegger’s anti-Cartesian notion of “there-being”... I believe you are mistaken to be dismissive about that and to assert the permanent preferability of “of-being”....because “of being” while it would be fine as an anti-Caresian pole in hermeneutic interplay with there-being, by itself would perpetually reconstruct the Cartesian starting point “I” (think therefore I am) and stubbornly maintained, follow its anti-social, destructive path. The same good and bad news holds with inherited tradition, ways and forms - by our nature as mammals they would be concerned with relationships, social approval and cooperation - hence, of course, not all of that should be cast aside for liberal experimentation. White Post Modernity is a concept conceived to afford the best of both epochs - inherited forms and scientific inquiry - without falling-prey to the ruses of Jewish academia and public misunderstanding that gives us nothing but destruction - arbitrary other than being consistently anti-White. There is nothing in the concept that prevents you from locating the natural bearings of fitness and selection for your/our people. In fact, because it allows for what will happen anyway, viz. it allows you to take a step back into historical and temporal perspective on the broader social ecological system, it provides for the authentic consciousness to contextualize and harmonize those harder points of fitness with the broader social biological pattern, its homeostasis and advance. The good news with regard to your otherwise excellent essay is that really, you’d just need to change a few words/terms so as not to play-into deliberate misguidance of Jewish academia. 6
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 10:53 | #
Well, I focus on the social unit - an underlying pattern of ordinary usage of the term, ‘left”, corresponds with social unionization - because that is what is under attack - a race is a social unit - and that is what I am taking corrective measure - unionization - in defense of. We are also weak in regard to that unionized defense for our individualistic and pragmatically universalistic nature, for Cartesianism, modernity…Christianity etc. Nevertheless, I am not against individualism and like many others I maintain that our individualism will be destroyed if our group, systemic boundaries are not protected. Not only do I believe that individualism is important, I believe there are two very interesting aspects to it which must be harmonized in authenticity, creativity and naturalness: as Harre says - the corporeal self and the autobiographical self. Both aspects must be taken into account if the authentic European self is to be pursued. 7
Posted by DanielS on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:01 | # There is another aspect of anti-socialism and almost paranoiac adherence to individualism (such as Bowery’s) that our people in the West are going to be prone to (hence the libertarian shtick now making the rounds at Red Ice) which they think that I can’t relate-to but I can, perfectly - that is, they are thrown, forced, into such a mix of people that they have no kindred feeling toward, have no relation-to and want nothing to do with, have no wish to share precious biology with, that they naturally view any idea of sharing social resource with utmost suspicion: especially since “socialism” has been associated with sharing common resource and social capital with these alien and destructive people, if not being totally bilked by them - that of course our people in such circumstances are going to be looking for a way to extricate themselves - whether through what was thought to be the “unassailable warrant of logical positivism” upon which The Austrian school was founded or by pure communication, i.e., individual to/ nature or holy spirit. But really, the only social leverage that White people are called upon to consider is accountability to the relative merit found in social capital delimited by their own genetic social group, nations and boundaries. 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:23 | # Not that a soul in the world even wants to understand what I have been saying at MR in a hundred different ways for the last decade and more, but ...
No, the intellect alone cannot address this issue. It is not a matter of mere calculation, to employ the Heideggerian analysis:
... and from the same article, for the purposes of comparison:
9
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 13 Jan 2016 17:43 | # On “White Post Modernity”, we do not possess the god-like power to sweep away modernity and replace it with postmodernity, white or otherwise. What arises as vivifying change in the world ... change which does not have degenerative consequences ... can only do so out of an emergent quality of a more consciously lived collective existence. I repeat:
absence ◄ habituality (mechanicity) ◄ immersion ◄ negation ◄ reverie ◄ sloth ◄ passivity ◄► intent ► attention ► stillness ► detachment ► affirmation ► appropriation ► presence ► non-ascription of identity ► self-annihilation ► Being 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:21 | #
I think that is too restrictive. A social unit may be racial, but a race is not restricted to being a social unit. A race is primarily a level of genetic variation at which a certain instinctive, shared particularism may or may not apply. The “may or may not” is determined by the degree to which the instinctive reaches into the general consciousness, and that is determined by the quality of that consciousness. The race as such has its own being in which its members have no choice but to live out their part. If they live in absence and mechanicity, of course, they will be unaware of that reality. Their heads will be full of whatever it is they’ve been enculturated in. 11
Posted by the lies will try to live otherwise on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:51 | # In regard to post modernity rather, we don’t have the capacity to bring back the naivete of sheer modernity or sheer traditionalism, nor to totally discard aspects of either of them - we’ve got to negotiate them. Nor can we afford to allow Jews to continue to define the term. With regard to ‘the left’, and the group social consciousness that underlies the positive aspects of its use, if we do not take it, the Jews will continue to misuse its neat perspective; or others in our struggle will try to co-opt its positive use and do it incorrectly, as in the case of the Regnery circus now, which has tried to commandeer it as a liberal and Jew friendly term in opposition to their “alternative right” - viz., an “alternative left.” Seems rather a hegemony of a Jewish-German diatribe over there that I am not, and will not be, beholden to. I’m sorry that you’ve been in the habit of using these terms in the way prescribed by Jewish academics and media, but the good news is, even if you stubbornly insist upon using them in that way, the astute reader can probably supply for themselves the more descriptive terms and meanings. The caution, of course, is that you might be giving them a bum steer and reconstructing the same old right-wing mistakes by means of these terms - as Heidegger says, the language comes into being in writing. 7 times out of 10 when people in our struggle use the word “left’ they mean ‘liberal”, the other 3 times out of 10 they mean “Marxist”, cultural or otherwise. I will take my time with your Heidegger quote (haven’t read it yet, will look at it in the morning), but suffice it to say for now, I am not concerned to interpret Heidegger verbatim, but rather with what I need of him. I’m not closed to the rest of what he has to say, but do not consider it requisite that I follow his every jot and tittle. 12
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 01:06 | #
It is not restrictive, it is a unit of analysis, which can accommodate everything you’ve said (quite eloquently). Rather, GW, that is a projection, your insistence on the psycological unit of analysis is too restrictive.
13
Posted by DanielS on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 01:55 | # Also, to quote myself below in order to extend the idea of the importance of not allowing Whites to accept the Jewish definition of “the left” as liberalism... because of this confusion, Whites cannot organize clearly in their exclusionary, socially unionized defense. No, no, that would be “leftist” - i.e., they mean liberal - because, through Jewish corruption of the term (outsiders as insiders, etc), they equate the left and social responsibility/accountability with its opposite, with hyperbolic liberalism in obsequious, prioritized service and responsibility to non-Whites… which is of course the opposite of what a White left would do.
14
Posted by The Dead Kennedies on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 06:04 | # I love pointing out to people who want to blame the sixties counter culture for our problems (that’s not you, GW) that Jewish power and influence combined with Modernist naivete were the forces that were the major culprits and that they were hard at work in the 50s and early 60s, well before kids grew their hair long, listened to rock n’ roll and resisted the Vietnam war draft. Kennedy had been ignoring Vice President Johnson’s advice [Johnson may have been partly Jewish; giving further indication to the need to exercise strict caution when including even the advice of mere partial Jews to decision-making circles], to look Southerners in the eye and tell them that integration was a moral and Christian issue.
This, GW, is why not only the Arahamic universalism of The Right, but its wedding to Enlightenment style objectivism (and universalism) must be overcome as well - and it is the post modern project, proper, which has undertaken to do that. Kennedy is also the one who got us into the Vietnam debacle with a strategy of showing strength against communism with “small wars” The documentary concludes,
.. Perhaps the most reliably good outcome of Kennedy biographies are the endings. 15
Posted by DanielS on Sat, 16 Jan 2016 22:49 | # GW, I don’t know why I was shy about looking at your quotes from Heidegger. All they do is confirm what I’ve come to understand about his program - viz, that one of its major aspects is to correct the relation of knower to known, taking it from the Caresian detachment and into the world of Praxis, which is also more akin to Poesis than the logic of scientific rigor. See my comment on the next thread - here - I’ve corrected it a bit from the original version which was hastily written at first and had some confusing typos.
Post a comment:
Next entry: JFK ‘63: asks Congress to commit to the proposition that ‘race has no place in American life & law’
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:33 | #
Lest the reader fall prey to our enemies, I am going to propose that they look at the following few sentences with alternative terminology.
There is nothing left - i.e., no unionization other than anti-White imposition of liberalism for Whites - about Cultural Marxism.
To Quote:
“Jewish revolution of the left of liberalism a half-century ago”
Alternative rendering:
one philosophically Jewish revolution of Cultural Marxism, i.e., of imposed liberalism coming into effect a half-century ago and having commenced with the Frankfurt school in the 20’s before having emerged in the public/political sphere during the 50s and 60s.
“and one rooted in Austrian School economics of the right a decade later.”
and one rooted in Austrian School economics of the Vienna School of logical positivism (founded on Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico Philosophicus) in the twenties and coming to fruition during the Thatcher and Reagan administrations
“The former particularly, was a revolution not of politics but of campus culture, linguistics, and the activism of the left.”
The former (cultural Marxism) particularly, was a revolution not of (democratic politics, but of Marxism) transformed in the campus culture of Berkeley, The New School and the like, its red cape language games and liberal activism of what is correctly called cultural Marxism.