Okay, so there’s this thing that very few have been able to nail down. Some call it “Marxism”, some call it “Neo-Marxism”, most call it “Social Justice” and just leave it at that. Without definition or any consequence that would follow from defining such an ideal. Well, I’ve found someone who has defined this, free of charge, on YouTube (for fuck’s sake, I mean, who knew such a thing was possible?!)
The name of this philosopher is Jordan B. Peterson. I’ve taken to watch him on an almost nightly basis, and for good reason. He offers the most effective counter arguments to what I’ve been crying out against for the past twenty-five-or-so years. Giving credit where it is due, and to point all of you in the direction where I’m headed, this guy is seriously legit, on several different levels, and has managed to actually get me to question many of my own paradigms (and we’ll get into that below).
Dr. Peterson is a clinical psychologist who is a professor at the University of Toronto. His screed was weaponized when the Canadian Parliament chose to pass a law that mandated that he use gender pronouns other than “he” and “she”, thus crossing, in his mind, over into tyranny. He reckoned that his government had passed over telling him what he could not say, into a territory of what he MUST say. So, the guy went feral, became famous for it, and it brought to light the most sane intellect that I have read/seen/listened to since I sat down with Locke’s Treatise on Government, lo these twenty-five years ago.
Those who know me well will note that this is perhaps the highest praise, indeed hyperbole, that I can heap upon anyone. As one might expect in this day and age, Dr. Peterson has a YouTube channel, where he has cached his college lectures and some other material. It can be found here:
Because of the length of many of his discussions, he set up another website that is intended to make his arguments a bit smaller and thus easier to digest and share. Those arguments can be found on this channel:
So, now you know of Dr. Peterson, I have done my duty to give this man credit for his ideas, and it is time, gentlemen, for me to get to the fucking point.
Sweetheart, this ain’t no party, it ain’t no disco, it ain’t no fooling around.
Post-Modernism and Why We Will Win
Okay, so maybe you’ve clicked through the links offered above, and maybe you didn’t. While you should do so, at some point, it is why the hell I offered them up in the first damn place and if you don’t, the terrorists win.
So, there’s that.
What Doc Peterson is after is actually very simple: in the late 1960’s, those who were enamored of Karl Marx were running into a difficult moral conundrum:
They were shown to be full of shit by a man named Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Alex wrote several tomes that showed the Marxist experiment to be a complete moral, economical, and political failure. I’ve recently read the third volume of his Gulag Archipelago, and I highly recommend it because in that volume, Solzhenitsyn demonstrates exactly how Marxism convinced an entire country to turn on itself, for the greater good. He explains in fantastic detail how blaming Lenin and Stalin (et al) is a convenient argument, but that, when it came down to it, the Soviet people came to a calm and reasoned conclusion that the imprisonment, torture, and slaughter of their fellow citizens was the proper decision, in the name of “the people”.
One can see why the Marxists of the late 1960s came to understand that the downfall of their ideology was at hand. Many of them had unwittingly entered some sort of logical guillotine not of their making. They seemed to wish that the good will of humanity was in reverse correlation to the sheer tonnage of human suffering in the name of utilitarian good. That the good of the many might outweigh the misery of the few or the one, and that the misery of those poor bastards wouldn’t end up as the realization of tyranny so profound and so disgusting so as to make Kafka’s worst nightmares as common as the fucking TV Guide.
So, they met, the fiends, in Paris. Of course it was Paris. The City of Lights, for the love of God, would inexorably be the birthplace of the “repository of the most repulsive coterie of intellectuals ever seen”. People such as Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Jean-François Lyotard, and Richard Rorty. Along with those inane and self-deluded dwarfs, individuals such as Stanley Fish and Frank Lentricchia, Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin in feminist legal criticism, Jacques Lacan in psychology, Robert Venturi and Andreas Huyssen in architectural criticism, and Luce Irigaray in the criticism of science also surfaced in that slowly roiling oast of offal. This wasn’t just Mos Eisley on Tatooine, this was Paris, France on low grade weed and sautéed Psilocybin mushrooms and shitty foie-gras.
In short, it was a terrible idea for all involved. We’ve been suffering from its result ever since.
Because, what these vipers decided upon, as the moral high-ground of a united workers’ paradise crumbled beneath their $200 Italian loafers, was to deny the “old” ideal of a class struggle. Yes, sports fans, those cocksuckers decided, in those heady days of the late 1960s, that the elite and the bourgeoisie were no longer at war against the proletariat. They had a better idea.
Modernist thinking hearkens back to the renaissance. A golden age when men were fierce (those who had managed to survive the plague), women were fancy, and “reason” was the order of the day. Michelangelo was painting ceilings, while Gutenberg invented the printing press, Luther explained why man needed no intercession of holy men to be heard by God, Adam Smith explained why things and labor had value, and Locke described in detail why Hillary Clinton was a fascist. Good times.
Fast forward to the late 1960s, when LBJ, methaqualone, Bell-bottomed pants, and the New York Mets gained their prominence. This later set of theories, ushered in by the above mentally retarded coterie of french intellectuals, has been called “Post Modernism”.
What they decided was that the righteous path of civilization was to group people in to ever smaller identities, each race, creed, color, gender, and sexual orientation, each at war with every other. Ignoring the common tragedy of human existence, but noting only the harm that has been done to each of us in turn. This is Post Modernism.
When one extrapolates “Post Modernism” (or “unpacks it”, as our stunted media has coined), one sees that each individual has some motive against some group, and all claims are legitimate as if the gavel of God himself has struck the sound block of everlasting doom. Of course, according to Post Modernistic dross, there is no God, no judgement, nor any logic. These gifts of reason and republican government that have come to us through millions of years of discovery learning, hardship, and dying at the hands of tyrants has been claimed to have been “tools of oppression” (no, I’m fuckin’ serious. “Reason” has been recently shoved in my own face as a “tool of white, cisgender privilege”.) Further, as we extend the list of types of people who have been “oppressed”, we effectively keep any mandate from assembling on any issue. Look around. You can’t swing a cat on a street in any urban area without hitting several “people of color” who identify as one of fifty some-odd “gender groups” (or who can’t even make a decision in that realm and refer to themselves as “gender-fluid”) and who are suffering from some sort of “post-traumatic stress” brought on by channeling oppression from another group that took place several hundred years ago, of people they don’t know, by people of their own race. According to the Post Modernists, this is optimal. They’ve been doing this for almost fifty years. Urging us to divide ourselves in these ever-multiplying identities, precisely to provoke a violent and visceral response between each and every one of those hostile identities.
The problem with this argument has become manifest now, just as simply as it was forty years ago, when Solzhenitsyn exposed the soul-crushing cruelty of the original Marxist farce in Soviet Russia. We see the ramifications of this Post Modernism almost daily in Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Netherlands, every conceivable Western European country where this moral/political philosophy has been put into practice. We’re near the end of its sad example. As with every philosophy that is not grounded in the rights of individuals to life, liberty, and property, this new brand of tyranny is smoking and limping into the pits. It cannot sustain itself nor the people that it claims to protect. The reason why is almost mathematical.
The solution here is to casually as possible, disregard the stoned, french, post-modernist fellows in the corner. To survive as a people, none of us has a “duty” to defend the state. Rather the state has a duty to defend our rights against tyranny. Those rights, and none others, are outlined specifically in the Amendments to the US Constitution. We don’t exist to provide the government with a purpose, rather the government exists to provide each of us with the freedoms endowed upon us by the Creator. For, in the eyes of the Creator, we are all human. We have a duty to defend a way of life.
“So,” you ask, “what in the hell can I do to stop this insanity?”
Well, think about it this way. With modern technology and social media, each of us will end up talking to or interacting in some way with about 1000 people. Do the math. 1000 x 1000 = A million goddamn people. That’s only two orders. This is why we’ll win. These ideas can’t be unfounded. They can’t be unlearned. In a manner similar to what Gutenberg did with regards to communication that set the conditions for the enlightenment, the internet is in perfect position for each of us to let loose our barbaric yawp and claim our rights. Think, write, read, and don’t keep that shit a secret. Inform those around you. Teach the young, for Chrissake. Grab them by their pointed little heads and explain our story. Get the word out.
Consider that the practice of Marxism lasted less than a hundred years in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. What China is doing isn’t Marxist, despite Mao’s murderous attempts at the contrary. Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea are abject failures after less than fifty years of Marxist practices.
The concept of Republican Democracy and Capitalism has not just endured, but EXCELLED for more than 240 years, and finds itself only recently in danger from external forces.
I have faith that we will win this. Keep talking, people.
Immundus, In saecula saeculorum