There’s Only One Way to Stop Polarization from Tearing America Apart

“Coexist” bullshit is bullshit. They do NOT want to coexist with Americans, their guns, and their bibles.
That’s the reality of that. They want you to accept that there are 72 genders. :astonished:

If you don’t, they do not want to coexist with you.

I think maybe you are not much in understanding philosophy or the history of it, so not sure if you fully understand the concepts I was trying to introduce to you (or I could be wrong about this). If did not start in 1970 as you are suggesting, and you are painting with a broad brush when is comes to the concept of Post Modernism so this is where I am going to disagree with you.

Post Modernism and the official decline of western ideas (or say the attack) came at the turn of the century with Nietzsche ideas (Death of God) and his passing. As it was him who actually challenged the idea of attacking Christianity and made being an atheist en-vogue. Then followed Heidegger challenging more assumptions on religion and origin of knowledge, followed by The Frankfurt Institute and the French Intellectuals of 50’s and 60’s that put forth all of the ideas such as language sensitivity, Moral relativism, Cultural relativism etc… etc that had devestating consequences within our institutions of leanring.! If you haven’t been a student of this subject matter, and are not going to be open enough to further understand this, then its really going to be hard for you to know what I am talking about.

Derrida introduced the concept of “Deconstruction” it has been the most destructive theory to date yet. We see it here all the time. We see in Derrida further relativism, both cultural and epistemic, and further justification for identity politics. There is an explicit denial that differences can be other than oppositional and therefore a rejection of Enlightenment liberalism’s values of overcoming differences and focusing on universal human rights and individual freedom and empowerment. We see here the basis of “ironic misandry” and the mantra “reverse racism isn’t real” and the idea that identity dictates what can be understood. We see too a rejection of the need for clarity in speech and argument and to understand the other’s point of view and avoid minterpretation. The intention of the speaker is irrelevant. What matters is the impact of speech. This, along with Foucauldian ideas, underlies the current belief in the deeply damaging nature of “microaggressions” and misuse of terminology related to gender, race or sexuality.

The French Philosophers of the the 50’s and 60’s such as Lyotard, Foucault, and Derrida are just three of the “founding fathers” of postmodernism but their ideas share common themes with other influential “theorists” and were taken up by later postmodernists who applied them to an increasingly diverse range of disciplines within the social sciences and humanities. We’ve seen that this includes an intense sensitivity to language on the level of the word and a feeling that what the speaker means is less important than how it is received, no matter how radical the interpretation. Shared humanity and individuality are essentially illusions and people are propagators or victims of discourses depending on their social position; a position which is dependent on identity far more than their individual engagement with society. Morality is culturally relative, as is reality itself. Empirical evidence is suspect and so are any culturally dominant ideas including science, reason, and universal liberalism. These are Enlightenment values which are naïve, totalizing and oppressive, and there is a moral necessity to smash them. Far more important is the lived experience, narratives and beliefs of “marginalized” groups all of which are equally “true” but must now be privileged over Enlightenment values to reverse an oppressive, unjust and entirely arbitrary social construction of reality, morality and knowledge.

The desire to “smash” the status quo, challenge widely held values and institutions and champion the marginalized is absolutely liberal in ethos. Opposing it is resolutely conservative. This is the historical reality, but we are at a unique point in history where the status quo is fairly consistently liberal, with a liberalism that upholds the values of freedom, equal rights and opportunities for everyone regardless of gender, race and sexuality. The result is confusion in which life-long liberals wishing to conserve this kind of liberal status quo find themselves considered conservative and those wishing to avoid conservatism at all costs find themselves defending irrationalism and illiberalism. Whilst the first postmodernists mostly challenged discourse with discourse, the activists motivated by their ideas are becoming more authoritarian and following those ideas to their logical conclusion. Freedom of speech is under threat because speech is now dangerous. So dangerous that people considering themselves liberal can now justify responding to it with violence. The need to argue a case persuasively using reasoned argument is now often replaced with references to identity and pure rage.

Despite all the evidence that racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and xenophobia are at an all-time low in Western societies, Leftist academics and SJ activists display a fatalistic pessimism, enabled by postmodern interpretative “reading” practices which valorize confirmation bias. The authoritarian power of the postmodern academics and activists seems to be invisible to them whilst being apparent to everyone else. As Andrew Sullivan says of intersectionality:

“It posits a classic orthodoxy through which all of human experience is explained — and through which all speech must be filtered. … Like the Puritanism once familiar in New England, intersectionality controls language and the very terms of discourse.

Postmodernism has become a Lyotardian metanarrative, a Foucauldian system of discursive power, and a Derridean oppressive hierarchy.

But to further re-enforce as proof of what I am talking about, I will ask you this?

Where do you think the phrase “Spread the Wealth” came from? Where do you think the Hegelian Dialectic came from? Where did you think “Political Correctness” came from?

These concepts and ideas did not formulate nor take root in 1970, nor did Post Modernism. AOC and any of the aforementioned players that you described as being culprits as having produced some tangible, which they did not, they only continued it and the decisions made were rooted in a specific Ideology.

Eh…TL ; DR
I stopped in the 60s area…yeah.

Read the topic and comment on the material presented. Keep your bullshit antisemitism to yourself.

You offer the usual shit.

1 Like

Yes I kind of figure that. No worries I won’t hold it against you.

I am finishing a book soon to which many years of research in my spare time was conducted, and I was able to identify a pattern to which the behaviors of today are heavily influenced by. For me anyway, in order to understand fully the root of any problem, one has to deep deeper in order to identify it.

1 Like

I did a tribute to CD due to his recent passing. He was a ferocious American Patriot.

Which he never does! Its why most here think he is certifiably retarded!