Mathemagic is useful. We owe a debt of gratitude to the German genius pictured above.
You’re probably familiar with Cultural Marxism, the Marxist shift toward gaining power through the destruction of traditional cultures rather than through economics.
Barack Obama is more a Cultural Marxist, allied with the Saul Alinksky school of thought, than he is a traditional Marxist/Leninist.
Postmodernism, the ruling principle in most university departments, is Cultural Marxism on steroids.
In 2005, before I was so rudely fired by the university, I was struggling to understand post modernism. I never quite got it.
This piece by Bionic Mosquito is so good that I’m putting up the whole piece rather than an excerpt in case the power elites take down his site. If the author objects, I’ll condense it, but for now, it’s all here, all 2000 words. Images are my selections.
In listening to Jordan Peterson over the last few months, he has often commented on the destructive philosophy of post-modernism, a philosophy that – in his view – is the force behind the cultural destruction underway in the west.
Prior to hearing this from him, my knowledge on the matter went to the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School and, before this, Antonio Gramsci. Peterson is aware of these influences, but for him the Post-Modernists are today’s driving force.
What is meant by postmodernism?
Postmodernism is difficult to define, because to define it would violate the postmodernist’s premise that no definite terms, boundaries, or absolute truths exist.
Are nationalism, politics, religion, and war the result of a primitive human mentality? Is truth an illusion? How can Christianity claim primacy or dictate morals? The list of concerns goes on and on….
It seems both an infinite number of realities and no realities – all at the same time. No wonder it is difficult to define.
I have been thinking about this post from the first time I heard the subject mentioned by Peterson. Even setting aside the normal life that often gets in the way of writing, this has been a subject that I have had to let stew in the old noodle for a while. I offer the following as an initial foray into a subject that I do not yet understand very well.
I have found a few helpful resources on the topic and will reference two of these in this post. With this, let’s begin.
Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault, by Stephen R. C. Hicks, a book review by David Gordon
A more thorough definition and explanation of this philosophy:
…Hicks tells us exactly what he means by postmodernism: “Metaphysically, postmodernism is anti-realist, holding that it is impossible to speak meaningfully about an independently existing reality. Postmodernism substitutes instead a social-linguistic, constructionist account of reality. Epistemologically, having rejected the notion of an independently existing reality, postmodernism denies that reason or any other method is a means of acquiring direct knowledge of that reality. . . . Postmodern accounts of human nature are consistently collectivist, holding that individuals’ identities are constructed largely by the social-linguistic groups they are a part of . . . postmodern themes in ethics and politics are characterized by an identification with and sympathy for the groups perceived to be oppressed in the conflicts, and a willingness to enter the fray on their behalf” (emphasis in original).
Democrats are committing political suicide by refusing to moderate their migrant-first policy agenda, says the liberal intellectual who launched the push for same-sex marriage.
Andrew Sullivan, the immigrant British-born author who championed the same-sex movement, writes in New York Magazine:
Democrats in 2017, in general, tend to criticize the use of immigration enforcement, and tend to side with those accused of violating immigration law, as a broad matter of principle beyond opposing the particular actions of the administration … Democrats are no longer as willing to attack “illegal immigration” as a fundamental problem anymore.
This is, to be blunt, political suicide … In fact, the Democrats increasingly seem to suggest that any kind of distinction between citizens and noncitizens is somehow racist. You could see this at the last [Democratic Party] convention, when an entire evening was dedicated to Latinos, illegal and legal, as if the rule of law were largely irrelevant. Hence the euphemism “undocumented” rather than “illegal.” So the stage was built, lit, and set for Trump …
The entire concept of a nation whose citizens solely determine its future — the core foundation for any viable democracy at all — is now deemed by many left-liberals to be a function of bigotry. This is the kind of madness that could keep them from power indefinitely.
Sullivan is gay but also a liberal with some respect for ordinary people and their preferences. That leaves him out on the edge of the post-2008 Democratic Party, which is controlled by post-graduate elitists who are using divide-and-rule diversity politics to impose their own tastes, status symbols and economic self-interests on all Americans.
For example, Democrats reacted with hostility and contempt towards Trump’s popular immigration principles and also spotlighted their favoritism for illegal migrants, whom they portray as “dreamers.” On October 11, Democratic Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi described Trump principles as “trash” as she appeared alongside three illegal migrants who accused the GOP leaders of supporting racist policies.
So far, business-first groups and their media allies have muted white-collar concern about the economics of immigration by hiding the impact of cheap white-collar immigration from college graduate voters.
If your son or daughter is going off to college this fall, make sure they know the proper things to say to avoid being kicked out of school.
Excerpt from Zerohedge
Here is a partial list of the current dogmas and shibboleths inside today’s Overton Bubble:
*Russia hacked the election of 2016 (no evidence required).
(Russia (Vladimir Putin in particular) is bent on destroying the USA.
*All immigrants, legal or illegal, have equal status before the law.
*National borders are inconvenient, cruel, and obsolete.
*Western Civilization is a malign force in human history.
*Islam is “the religion of peace,” no matter how many massacres of “infidels” are carried out in its name.
*Men are a negative force in society.
*White men are especially negative.
*Brownie points given for behaviors under the rubric LBGTQ.
*All discussion about race problems and conflicts is necessarily racist.
*The hijab (head covering worn in public by some Muslim women) is a device of liberation for women.
*There should be a law against using the wrong personal pronoun for people who consider themselves neither men nor women (recently passed by the Canadian parliament).
*A unifying common culture is unnecessary in national life (anything goes).
*Colonizing Mars is a great solution to problems on Earth.
That list defines the general preoccupations of the thinking classes today – to the exclusion of other issues.
Now, the question of motive. Why does the thinking class in America embrace ideas that are not necessarily, and surely not self-evidently, truthful, and even self-destructive? Because this class is dangerously insecure and perversely needs to insist on being right about its guiding dogmas and shibboleths at all costs. That is why so much of the behavior emanating from the thinking class amounts to virtue signaling — we are the good people on the side of what’s right, really we are! Of course, virtue signaling is just the new term for self-righteousness. There is also the issue of careerism. So many individuals are making a living at trafficking in, supporting, or executing policy based on these dogmas and shibboleths that they don’t dare depart from the Overton Bubble of permissible, received thought lest they sacrifice their status and incomes.
Writer Philip Roth became famous in 1969 for his novel Portnoy’s Complaint, which focused on sick Jewish sexual themes.
Portnoy’s Complaint (1969) is the American novel that turned its author Philip Roth into a major celebrity, sparking a storm of controversy over its explicit and candid treatment of sexuality, including detailed depictions of masturbation using various props including a piece of liver. The novel tells the humorous monologue of “a lust-ridden, mother-addicted young Jewish bachelor,” who confesses to his psychoanalyst in “intimate, shameful detail, and coarse, abusive language.” Many of its characteristics (comedic prose; themes of sexual desire and sexual frustration; a self-conscious literariness) went on to become Roth trademarks.
Even as a youth I instinctively avoided all things overtly Jewish. Thus, while I used to read a lot of novels, I’ve avoided reading novels written by Jews. The abnormal sexual depravity turned me off. Naturally, Jewish critics love to praise the works of Jewish writers. Roth’s works are no exception, but I feel I have missed nothing by not reading them.
It doesn’t surprise me that a perverted, sex-obsessed Jew is lashing out at President Donald Trump. Tearing things down in a mean way is what Jews do. It’s cultural with them. It’s foreign to us goyim. At least it used to be. Now, it seems like half of us at least have been Jewed.
Novelist Philip Roth has lashed out at President Trump as an ignorant “con man” who could do untold damage to the country.
The retired “Portnoy’s Complaint” author told the New Yorker that Trump makes other polarizing Republicans like Richard Nixon and George W. Bush look angelic by comparison.
“Trump is ignorant of government, of history, of science, of philosophy, of art, incapable of expressing or recognizing subtlety or nuance, destitute of all decency,” Roth told the magazine in a string of emails. He “wield(s) a vocabulary of seventy-seven words that is better called Jerkish than English.”
The emails from the 83-year-old Roth came in response to uncanny parallels between the Trump’s win and his famous 2004 alternate history novel “The Plot Against America”, in which Charles Lindbergh taking over as president.
Roth insisted he never dreamt of the novel as being a warning about the rise of a Trump-like figure to the pinnacle of power.
“It isn’t Trump as a character, a human type—the real-estate type, the callow and callous killer capitalist—that outstrips the imagination,” he said “It is Trump as President of the United States.”
Jewish paranoia is on full display in Roth. It’s no wonder that Jews are so roundly disliked.
How many ways can a feminist demonize men?
How big is infinity?
Here’s a new way you couldn’t dream up in your worst nightmare because you’re still sane.
Insane Christian pastor Ruth Everhart has a book to sell. It’s called Ruined. The only audience for that book would be women equally as damaged as she. She thus needs to get her radically stupid message about the Church and the Virgin Mary out to those women.
Once upon a time, when space in newspapers was scarce, women writers like her would not be able to have their drivel published.
Now, the Internet devours words thrown together to create a new leftist narrative. A typically worthless narrative.
This year the Left’s annual War on Christmas has taken a bizarre turn with a Washington Post op-ed claiming that the Virgin Mary’s purity is offensive to victims of rape.
In an article titled, “Our culture of purity celebrates the Virgin Mary. As a rape victim, that hurts me,” Ruth Everhart explains that especially in the Advent lead-up to Christmas, Mary becomes a problem for many Christians because of her pristine purity.
Mary “set an impossibly high bar,” Everhart writes. “Now the rest of us are stuck trying to be both a virgin and a mother at the same time.”
As a rape victim, this has been especially difficult for the author, she says, which led to her becoming a pastor, in order “to come to terms with Mary’s story.”
Everhart writes that she doesn’t blame her sense of ruin “entirely” on the Virgin Mary. In fact, it isn’t really Mary’s fault, she states; it’s the Church’s for manipulating Mary into a model of purity.
“Mary is not responsible for what we’ve done to her story,” she writes. “Church culture has overfocused on virginity and made it into an idol of sexual purity. When it comes to female experience, the church seems compelled to shrink and distort and manipulate.”
To some people, “vaginas are inherently dirty,” she states. “They can never be purified.”
“And isn’t that the definition of hopelessness? Does it bother you that half of the human population is condemned to hopelessness because their body parts can never be pure?” she asks rhetorically.
Never mind that you can attend a thousand Christian church services without ever hearing a sermon on purity. Never mind that virginity is rarely held up as a model in our sex-soaked western culture, even within our churches. Never mind that Christians have elaborated an entire “Theology of the Body” to help people appreciate the human body and sexuality as a beautiful gift of God.
For Everhart, it’s the Christians’ fault when people feel sexually dirty.
“Maybe the church could ask body-owners to weigh in about their experiences,” she writes, as if most Christian preachers were incorporeal beings. “Most people have thoughts and feelings about their sexual selves. Having a body is complicated. It involves trial and error,” she adds, as if this were somehow news to Christians.
Yet, teaching young people the value of purity or to appreciate abstinence before marriage is no solution, Everhart contends. Purity is no model for today’s generation.
“We want to pretend sexuality is something we can lock in a box and keep on a shelf. But a lockbox won’t work. Neither will a chastity belt or a purity ring. Certainly not the abstinence pledges they make young folks sign,” she writes.
And turning to the Virgin Mary, Everhart asks: “How do you feel about what the patriarchy has done with you?”
It’s a good thing Mary doesn’t answer. She might be tempted to note that she fared considerably better at the hands of the “patriarchy” than she has from her feminist sisters who twist her story into something political, petty, and ultimately uninspiring.
It took her a while to get to the word “patriarchy,” but she got there. Once you see it in a feminists writings, you can dismiss the rest of her ideas as nonsensical most of the time.
Everhart is a fringe figure in American culture, but the attack on Christmas and Christianity isn’t something to dismiss. It’s part of the ongoing effort to enslave us in degeneracy by removing higher spiritual values from our minds.
There’s more than a hint of madness in the ideas propounded by the left as “intellectual.”
The full history of Paul Gottfried, conservatism, and the alt-right offered at the link below is significantly longer than the excerpt presented here. It’s well worth the read if you care to understand where Richard Spencer came from and how the alt-right evolved.
This excerpt has 1250 words, which is about twice as long as most posts.
Excerpt from (Jewish) Tablet Magazine
Gottfried doesn’t resolve the alt-right’s contradictions so much as he embodies them. He’s a sniffy traditionalist, a self-described “Robert Taft Republican,” with a classical liberal bent, and a Nietzschean American nationalist who goes out of his way to exaggerate his European affect. He opposes both the Civil Rights Act and white nationalism. He’s a bone-deep elitist and the oracle of what’s billed as a populist revolt. “If someone were to ask me what distinguishes the right from the left,” Gottfried wrote in 2008, “the difference that comes to mind most readily centers on equality. The left favors that principle, while the right regards it as an unhealthy obsession.”
Inequality is the alt-right’s foundational belief. In this view, there are inherent, irreducible differences not only between individuals but between groups of people—races, genders, religions, nations; all of the above. These groups each have their own distinctive characteristics and competitive advantages; accordingly, inequality is natural and good, while equality is unnatural and therefore bad and can only be imposed by force. In practice, it is typically a belief in white supremacy and a rejection of universalism.
To the ancient idea that the world is ordered by natural hierarchies the alt-right adds new wrinkles. It shows a nerdish enthusiasm for data-driven attempts to classify group cognitive abilities, an update on the social Darwinist “race science” popular before WWII that often resolves into a genes-are-destiny outlook. It also embraces concepts from the controversial field of evolutionary psychology, which attempts to explain the behavior of groups in terms of Darwinian natural selection. Because equality is both impossible and a kind of civic religion as Gottfried sees it, government attempts to enforce it are only pretexts for the state to increase its power and reach.