Inspired by this quote, H/T John C. Wright, via Berean Watch:

According to Marxist theory, a world-wide war would be the catalyst for the workers of the world to overthrow their factory owners and create a communist society as Karl Marx envisioned. However, World War I came, but communism took hold in only one country – Tsarist Russia. And even there, it wasn’t so much a common-man movement, but a coup d’etat led by a relatively small band of ruthless elites. Thus in the early 1920’s, Marxist thinkers began to analyze what went wrong, and the search was on to find substitutes for the ‘oppressor vs oppressed’ and ‘factory owner vs factory worker’ model, and the thinking morphed into focusing on culture.


“What Gramsci proposed, in short, was a renovation of Communist methodology and a streamlining and updating of Marx’s antiquated strategies. Let there be no doubt that Gramsci’s vision of the future was entirely Marxist and that he accepted the validity of Marxism’s overall worldview. Where he differed was in the process for achieving the victory of that worldview. Gramsci wrote that “there can and must be a ‘political hegemony’ even before assuming government power, and in order to exercise political leadership or hegemony one must not count solely on the power and material force that are given by government.” What he meant is that it is incumbent upon Marxists to win the hearts and minds of the people, and not to rest hopes for the future solely on force or power.

“Furthermore, Communists were enjoined to put aside some of their class prejudice in the struggle for power, seeking to win even elements within the bourgeois classes, a process which Gramsci described as “the absorption of the elites of the enemy classes.” Not only would this strengthen Marxism with new blood, but it would deprive the enemy of this lost talent. Winning the bright young sons and daughters of the bourgeoisie to the red banner, wrote Gramsci, “results in [the anti-Marxist forces’] decapitation and renders them impotent.” In short, violence and force will not by themselves genuinely transform the world. Rather it is through winning hegemony over the minds of the people and in robbing enemy classes of their most gifted men that Marxism will triumph over all.”


First, some fundamentals. Alexander Pope said the proper study of mankind is man. I believe that the proper study of primitive man (man as animal) is the application of violence, and the proper study of civilized man (man as social animal) is the application of other men’s violence (through rhetoric, Game, and general psychosocial dominance) for the sake of one’s own posterity. Rather than belying Pope’s claim, I believe this theory buttresses it. Provided with the assertion that rhetoric is justified by the tendency of the truthful side to win out (a somewhile reasonable assumption that nevertheless deserves disambiguation), and the observation that the proper study of rhetoric is the typical weakness of men’s powers of reason, it follows that the proper study of mankind is, indeed, man.

Except in deference to Pope, I would rather speak of “men” than “mankind” here, because insofar as war is the business of men, so are politics, rhetoric, and reason. This follows both from observation and my assertion that politics is the continuation of war by other means (contra Clausewitz). So few exceptionally masculine women exist as to be negligible in this study, and any preponderance of women in governance and political discourse above 1% must be viewed suspiciously as puppet extensions of superior men, particularly if they are visibly fertile.

Returning to the subject, at long last, we must admit that Christian, traditionalist, masculinist, heterosexual, intellectuals (that is, WASP male intellectuals advocating on behalf of themselves and their posterity) must rediscover the art of rhetoric and devote themselves to perfection and prowess in cultural warfare. I think we, as a group, may have dithered for too long in the dialectic sphere, like soldiers who train for war and lack experience. If what we believe is true, and we believe it is true, and love truth, and believe truth has rhetorical power (again, an assumption worth further examination), then the conclusion is inescapable. Si vis pacem, para bellum, but I think we have been weak for so long that it will not be enough to prepare for war. We must be prepared to wage it, and potentially lose.

Critical Theory – Refers to destructive criticism of all aspects of traditional, Judeo-Christian-based culture, including family, sexual mores, religion, capitalism, patriotism, authority, morality, tradition, and similar. Critical Theory doesn’t propose remedial measures; its intention is to destroy.



About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Rhetoric

  1. Heaviside says:

    You know, this is a “Judeo-Christian” culture, I’m sure you can just leave everything to the jews, jews like Horkheimer and Adorno. I don’t see why you need any icky old WASPs at all.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      The problem, naturally, is that Jews are an uberminority precisely because they are superior at rhetoric (as described). They cannot be faulted for playing the game, or even for winning (or playing dirty- all’s fair in war), but only for being enemies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s