As fun as it is attempting to puncture the mounds of lunacy currently doing the large rounds regarding the over-appendaged teacher in Ontario, this article, you will doubtless be pleased to know, is not about those (again).
Perception is reality, for the very trite reason we have nothing but our senses to collect information with. While one may argue, fully reasonable too, that using math and assorted other non-sense based methods of measurements helps us circumvent this problem, our perception in the sense of how we think about reality around is still, inevitably, formed by perception. No one goes around thinking about their actions in technical terms like "I'll activate my gluteus maximus to 35% of capacity when describing a downwards motion towards the rectangular wooden square balanced on four wooden poles" when sitting down.
But reality is not perception, and that's one of the two legs the pomos have cut off from themselves and everyone else, Harrison Bergeron style. The rock remains a rock; weight, mass, composition, position and so on no matter my perception of it. And The Rock too, for that matter.
The other leg they amputated using as you mention Queer theory and the overused word discourse (remember when that word had an actual well-defined meaning?) was that deconstructionism, postmodernisms mother-sister-daughter theory, was originally a tool .
And that tool, coming from literary analysis and therefore analysis of meaning/content in communication - all forms of communication - is in itself not an ideological or ontological position. How could it be? Picking things apart to the iotas of their being is initself the opposite of a position: it is nowhere, not anywhere. And since the aforementioned perception of reality informs our biases (again, the original sense and meaning of the word is sorely missed) any such analysis is wholly dependent on the one performing it - to quote a tutor of mine: "Whenever you analyse something using this, you tell as much about yourself as about the subject".
Put that one in the context of today's postmodernists. What is the CRT, BLM, LGBTPWTFBBQ, and so on telling us about themselves, with their analysis and conclusions of their perceived reality?
That they are sadists, mad with power, and with a lust for making others suffer and hurt simply because it makes them feel good.
And - this may offend most people - you cannot counter or combat this without violence.
I've essentially stopped trying to understand what they mean - and that's even with the help of Pluckrose and Lindsay. My head has not been constructed, either socially or biologically, to be able to process their 'logic'.
Yes, and that only exacerbates the problem, dosn't it?
So we go from the notion that there's one reality and we have different opinions about the things in that reality, to everyone has their personally perceived reality in which they are the ultimate arbiter of everything, to due to the severe atomisation of the human this induces follow-the-Leader worship of authority (as I outline in the above post) thus all sharing the authority's perception of reality.
Consider Life of Brian, the scene where Brian says: "You are all individuals!". Difference from today is, Brian was actually trying to get them to think for themseves whereas the Brians of our time are trying to force us to think like them.
Acknowledging their perception of reality as the one and only true perception of reality.
If one wants to apply psychoanalysis, Jungian as well as Freudian, and play a bit fast and loose with it, the whole modern PC/woke-thing has since the early 1990s been characterised by regression towards the infantile.
Before that, the marxist parts of it were still classical style such, meaning they were very well educated and learned in economy and related subjects such as history. They did however draw the erroneous conclusion that the communistsociety described could be forced through before its time, which is a total misunderstanding of Engels an Marx historical analysis: when technology permits, society will gradualy become communist, as evidenced by today's move towards one global politbüro of supra-national organisations, global law, global digital currency, global social order and so on.
Another way of looking at the modern day pomos, wokes et al is comparing their claims with as objective measures of reality as possible, void of norms and any ethos in the analysis itself. When perveived that way, they appear as schizoid and psychotic sadists projecting their anger and self-hate and sublimating all of this in their deconstructivist actions.
Funny, I just was describing this trend on another page as "immature," and "childish," but I suppose "infantile" is serviceable as a term!
But I wonder about your assertion that "society will gradually become communist"... It seems to me this latest gradual bent toward, actually, what I would call fascism, is not a natural process, technology or not, it's more like growing food inside your house-- It's deliberate.
If the masses are trained to think in a certain way, subtly trained, over time, they will accept certain things IF their most necessary needs are met, like most animals. If you feed them, teach them that they are "sinners" and therefore must work hard and earn their worthiness, and give them enough of the necessities required for a reasonable amount of comfort, they will accept it, especially if they are told over and over and over and over that This Is How Life Is.
It's a little brainwashing, a little fear installation, and a little bribery... I think the main problem is money. The ability for some people to buy other people, power, institutional control, governmental control, educational control, etc, is the problem. There is no real reason that stands the test of time and experience to say that anyone deserves to have any more power in the Commons than anyone else, regardless of their abilities or talents. If everyone had the means to live a decent life, with adequate shelter, healthy food, clean water, real medical attention, (and if there were the former we'd need far less of that!), and the ability to enjoy life, travel a bit if wanted, raise children in a healthy way, so that life could be good, for everyone, no starving, no wars...
People say this is impossible, a "Utopian Dream." I say it's entirely possible, if we want it, if we dedicate ourselves to creating it. But it would take time. So many people are beaten down, beaten up, angry, confused, hurt, sick... We could start with a simple few ideas: The Commons should be everywhere, and we can have our space for a homestead. Requirements for technology and manufacturing, etc, would be part of the Commons. No individual would be able to be any wealthier, in terms of money, than anyone else. Everyone would have a decent home, healthy food, clean water, and we would have to be Good Stewards of the Earth, and not use detrimental industry. I say this with these things in mind: There is no "climate crisis." There are the means NOW to create energy and energy systems without destroying the Earth. We can feed the entire world with much more left over. We can use better means of agriculture than what is being pushed on us. We can use healthier means of medicine than the current Evil. We can do so much of what we're told is not possible... and we can do it NOW. So much has been hidden from us, we've been lied to for so long, and now we (a few of us, at least) are finding out, figuring out, and bringing out truths we'd not realized, ever... Not just about the Earth, but about ourselves, and about other beings in the Universe, perhaps, as well...
If ever there was a time to come out of the cave, it's now. Plato would roll over and explode in his grave if we let this opportunity slip away-- again. Time for self-hate and anger and deconstructivism to ebb away and a real movement toward PEACE to develop... it's already begun.
The difference between communism and fascism is, in practice, largely academic. Add to that semantics in what the nomeklatura communicates and semiotics of the chosen symbols of the hegemony.
Like bears. (Channeling a bit of Plato here, despite I being more of the mindset of mr Wine-barrel philopher.)
Brown bear. Black bear. Polar bear. Gummi bear. All bears.
So, fascism, (inter/national) socialism, communism. Perhaps different by degrees but not in essence. Though admittedly I'm ignoring the cultural aspect of it, which is like doing figure skating without legs.
What is importan to remember here is that nary a one single program is -istic of any kind, until christened thus by pro- or detractors. Parents getting an instea-of-wage check from the state's coffers isn't socialist, unless instigated as a socialist measure. One may equally coach such a program in conservative language about "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" and yet in the elusive one and only reality achieve the same actual effect.
But to us the perception is more real than the actual reality, making the semantics and semiotics of the have-kids-and-get-paid program more important than the program itself.
Which brings us to present day and the oligarchs, acronym agencies, and cosmopolitan businesses. To them, all that matters is branding their system with positive labels. Like were they wearing strips of scripts with holy writs on them: swaddled in their atheist scripture they are proven pure of heart and mind, labouring for the Greater Good that will eventually arrive - or we arrive at it - if only all of us skeptics, critics, and leave me alone-ists would accept that they know better.
It will be communism. You will own nothing and you will be happy. But it won't be called communism. In fact, it won't be called anything special and unified at all, until it has become in the minds of the generations growing up inside it simply the way things are.
Why use a label on your movement, when that label is, is a target for the slings and arrows of your enemies?
Thus also the importance of reinventing language with new consciously thought-up words such as anti-pronouns, doing away with all names for all races no mater their species and eventually also doing away with the species as well - achieving the horror described in the most glossed over and overlooked parts of that book that always pops up in talks like this: Orwell's note on language in 1984.
What we can't think we can't say, and vice versa. Hence, kill language.
Look at the vast majority of the western school systems. We are 9/10 there.
I don't like winning by using the enemy's tools. When I translated Margaret Anna Alice's Letter to the German Bundestag, I left out (or, abbreviated and commented on) a paragraph on a gesture of Lauterbach that looked like a Hitler salute, when viewed from the right angle. That said, of course you are right that perception is key. And our brains are not well-adapted to what is being thrown at us in the age of internet and social media.
I get what you mean - but 'normality' is losing badly. Not in the public mind - if you take some time off Twitter and go and speak to the 'average' person I would say most people have either (a) not realised what's going on or (b) think it's insane.
The rot occurs in companies and institutions with a high fraction of university grads. My youngest daughter works in such a place and hates the "training" they put on to ensure compliance with the woke bullshit. She has been asked, for example, to confess her white guilt in some of these corporate-sponsored struggle sessions. My eldest does the finances for a large, and largely male-dominated, automotive maintenance firm where the response to such "training" would be an absolutely massive EFF OFF.
I think we do need to find a way, consistent with decent principles, to take the battle on more effectively. We can't abandon reason and logic and decency altogether, but we can't rely on it alone. The stuff Libs of TikTok does, for example, is very effective - and along the lines of "giving them enough rope" which might, along with ridicule, be very successful techniques to help turn the tide.
Your are 100% correct about the connection between the rot and the grad. My wife just told me that around here, teacher training will be restructured again: less pedagogy, more sensitivity training (racism and stuff). From there, it will unfortunately trickle down into schools. Even the boys that might staff the automotive maintenance firms later in life will have to deal with it.
The first mindset means that while you may well win, you have handicapped yourself by imposing arbitrary rules restricting your own behaviour. Like deciding to use only La Savate in a no rules fight for your life.
The second mindset acknowledges that while there's a difference between being right and being the victor, only being the victor matters. And Victory forgives all. So for the aformentioned fight, bring a gun while letting the opponent think it's unarmed combat only.
It's not nice, and it's a very dangerous mindset because it easily devolves into self-fulfilling prophecy in that one starts opting for the win no matter any notion of right or wrong, morally or factually, and we don't need more people like that, I don't think.
Of course, when they do not leave me alone, and demand belief instead of understanding, I need a strategy. I will retreat to the woods, and amuse myself by the occasional ambush.
I'm of a similar mindset, but I haven't forgotten the laws of the schoolyard. Prey, bully or too high up the hierarchy to be targeted or simply to dangerous because you don't play the game.
Someone calls you out, insults your family, tries to scare you. You smash their face in with the rock you put in your pocket in case that would happen. And you keep smashing until physically restrained.
That lesson.
Not saying this happened to me, and believe me I'd give a lot to make the world not be like that because that ain't the way it ought to be, but that's the way we make it be.
So that means, want to stop them from bothering you? Make them pick someone else, because attaining the power to stop them period turns you into something you don't want to become: all power over others cost is you still being you.
Sep 21, 2022·edited Sep 21, 2022Liked by Rudolph Rigger
Yes, they do that. But how lame the effort! In contrast, the Meme is a weapon proprietary to the partisan side, and whenever msm are trying it, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Tactical manoeuvres can be more or less ignored. I am worrying more about strategy, like the long march through the institutions.
There is so much more to say about this 'applied postmodernism' and the rot it's causing - but then I'd be in the position of writing a book (and it wouldn't be anywhere near as good as Cynical Theories).
Re: your summary statement of postmodernism; i.e., “narratives can control our perception” -- well, that is, in fact, entirely true for 'them', but it is very fortunately not true for the rest of 'us'. Can't argue with that local truth because that is all that 'they' [can] see. Knowing how it works makes hearing them talk, and wiggle around and throw their chronic tantrums, much easier to take.
Some of us seem very resistant to manipulation, although I'd say we're all a bit affected to some extent. Lots of people bought into the covid narrative, and a significant fraction of them still do. The manipulation (the narrative) was very effective for the majority.
The main problem, I think, is institutional capture. It's hard, but not impossible, to fight the nonsense when government, media, corporations, police, courts, etc are all trotting out the same drivel. The covid tide turned (or is still turning) but it was much more difficult than it should have been because of the institutional capture.
No argument about your points there, Rudolph. Your "narrative=truth" equation for the postmodernists goes a very long way in explaining the resurgence of censorship and censorship-type actions in the Western world -- and, because "narrative=truth" is actually an Achilles heel for those who operate as if this falsehood is a truism, 'diluting' the institutional narrative with reality-based narratives turns out to be at least a partial solution to the general problem: hits the false narrative right in its kisser. Doesn't hurt either that real reality backs up reality-based narratives. Even institutional capture has to eventually yield to the steady head wind of reality -- hence the turning of the COVID19 narrational tide.
I agree. And I like the term "cretinocracy." Perfect. ^_^
And I also agree we need to take back the discourse.
This is a perfect example of how those of us born before a certain time are badly needed to explain the insanity going on. Female, Male, and then Freedom to do as you please in your bedroom as long as you're not hurting anyone or involving minors. Voila, one sentence.
Because reality is what it is, it doesn't fricken matter what someone THINKS it is. As if, LOL. If every human being suddenly disappeared from the Earth, guess what? The Earth would still be here, and at least for a while, it would be EXACTLY the same as before we all left.
It's an absurd viewpoint they have with regards to 'reality' and logical reasoning. In a way it's quite neat. By rejecting 'rationality' as merely a tool of oppression with no greater weight than any other 'way of knowing' they set up a system where their own ideas can't properly be challenged.
Let's dismiss the hard stuff, like logical reasoning, and then we can say whatever we want and dismiss any criticism of it!
You know, I sort of put together a "motto" this past year, since I got onto Substack a few months ago... It's to remind me that I am on a journey, a spiritual journey, of understanding and growth. To help me keep myself focused I say this: "Resist Not Evil: Work Around It."
Maybe there are ways to IGNORE certain ideas, certain actions, certain "trends." Sometimes this is very, very difficult, I'm finding, but when I stick to it, it seems to work very well.
Thanks GM - yeah it was long overdue. I'm very grateful to Pluckrose and Lindsay that they've spent the time wading through this garbage and have provided a masterful summary of it and the consequences of it.
“It’s a kind of cultural reparation that we feel ought to be paid.”
I suppose that’s true, for some value of “we”. That value doesn’t include me or anyone I know. I suspect the “we” is as conjured-from-nothing as the rest of it.
It's the same use of "we" as when I might say "we lost our minds over covid". It's obviously not true for everyone. It's not very precise language, I agree, but I hope the meaning is clear.
Perception is reality, for the very trite reason we have nothing but our senses to collect information with. While one may argue, fully reasonable too, that using math and assorted other non-sense based methods of measurements helps us circumvent this problem, our perception in the sense of how we think about reality around is still, inevitably, formed by perception. No one goes around thinking about their actions in technical terms like "I'll activate my gluteus maximus to 35% of capacity when describing a downwards motion towards the rectangular wooden square balanced on four wooden poles" when sitting down.
But reality is not perception, and that's one of the two legs the pomos have cut off from themselves and everyone else, Harrison Bergeron style. The rock remains a rock; weight, mass, composition, position and so on no matter my perception of it. And The Rock too, for that matter.
The other leg they amputated using as you mention Queer theory and the overused word discourse (remember when that word had an actual well-defined meaning?) was that deconstructionism, postmodernisms mother-sister-daughter theory, was originally a tool .
And that tool, coming from literary analysis and therefore analysis of meaning/content in communication - all forms of communication - is in itself not an ideological or ontological position. How could it be? Picking things apart to the iotas of their being is initself the opposite of a position: it is nowhere, not anywhere. And since the aforementioned perception of reality informs our biases (again, the original sense and meaning of the word is sorely missed) any such analysis is wholly dependent on the one performing it - to quote a tutor of mine: "Whenever you analyse something using this, you tell as much about yourself as about the subject".
Put that one in the context of today's postmodernists. What is the CRT, BLM, LGBTPWTFBBQ, and so on telling us about themselves, with their analysis and conclusions of their perceived reality?
That they are sadists, mad with power, and with a lust for making others suffer and hurt simply because it makes them feel good.
And - this may offend most people - you cannot counter or combat this without violence.
Perception is PERSONAL reality, perhaps.
I've essentially stopped trying to understand what they mean - and that's even with the help of Pluckrose and Lindsay. My head has not been constructed, either socially or biologically, to be able to process their 'logic'.
Possibly, because there is no real logic to their arguments.
Yes, and that only exacerbates the problem, dosn't it?
So we go from the notion that there's one reality and we have different opinions about the things in that reality, to everyone has their personally perceived reality in which they are the ultimate arbiter of everything, to due to the severe atomisation of the human this induces follow-the-Leader worship of authority (as I outline in the above post) thus all sharing the authority's perception of reality.
Consider Life of Brian, the scene where Brian says: "You are all individuals!". Difference from today is, Brian was actually trying to get them to think for themseves whereas the Brians of our time are trying to force us to think like them.
Acknowledging their perception of reality as the one and only true perception of reality.
I'm astonished at the level of childishness in the thinking of... who ARE these people, anyway?
Maybe it's all just a joke on those of us who still have a grip.
If one wants to apply psychoanalysis, Jungian as well as Freudian, and play a bit fast and loose with it, the whole modern PC/woke-thing has since the early 1990s been characterised by regression towards the infantile.
Before that, the marxist parts of it were still classical style such, meaning they were very well educated and learned in economy and related subjects such as history. They did however draw the erroneous conclusion that the communistsociety described could be forced through before its time, which is a total misunderstanding of Engels an Marx historical analysis: when technology permits, society will gradualy become communist, as evidenced by today's move towards one global politbüro of supra-national organisations, global law, global digital currency, global social order and so on.
Another way of looking at the modern day pomos, wokes et al is comparing their claims with as objective measures of reality as possible, void of norms and any ethos in the analysis itself. When perveived that way, they appear as schizoid and psychotic sadists projecting their anger and self-hate and sublimating all of this in their deconstructivist actions.
Funny, I just was describing this trend on another page as "immature," and "childish," but I suppose "infantile" is serviceable as a term!
But I wonder about your assertion that "society will gradually become communist"... It seems to me this latest gradual bent toward, actually, what I would call fascism, is not a natural process, technology or not, it's more like growing food inside your house-- It's deliberate.
If the masses are trained to think in a certain way, subtly trained, over time, they will accept certain things IF their most necessary needs are met, like most animals. If you feed them, teach them that they are "sinners" and therefore must work hard and earn their worthiness, and give them enough of the necessities required for a reasonable amount of comfort, they will accept it, especially if they are told over and over and over and over that This Is How Life Is.
It's a little brainwashing, a little fear installation, and a little bribery... I think the main problem is money. The ability for some people to buy other people, power, institutional control, governmental control, educational control, etc, is the problem. There is no real reason that stands the test of time and experience to say that anyone deserves to have any more power in the Commons than anyone else, regardless of their abilities or talents. If everyone had the means to live a decent life, with adequate shelter, healthy food, clean water, real medical attention, (and if there were the former we'd need far less of that!), and the ability to enjoy life, travel a bit if wanted, raise children in a healthy way, so that life could be good, for everyone, no starving, no wars...
People say this is impossible, a "Utopian Dream." I say it's entirely possible, if we want it, if we dedicate ourselves to creating it. But it would take time. So many people are beaten down, beaten up, angry, confused, hurt, sick... We could start with a simple few ideas: The Commons should be everywhere, and we can have our space for a homestead. Requirements for technology and manufacturing, etc, would be part of the Commons. No individual would be able to be any wealthier, in terms of money, than anyone else. Everyone would have a decent home, healthy food, clean water, and we would have to be Good Stewards of the Earth, and not use detrimental industry. I say this with these things in mind: There is no "climate crisis." There are the means NOW to create energy and energy systems without destroying the Earth. We can feed the entire world with much more left over. We can use better means of agriculture than what is being pushed on us. We can use healthier means of medicine than the current Evil. We can do so much of what we're told is not possible... and we can do it NOW. So much has been hidden from us, we've been lied to for so long, and now we (a few of us, at least) are finding out, figuring out, and bringing out truths we'd not realized, ever... Not just about the Earth, but about ourselves, and about other beings in the Universe, perhaps, as well...
If ever there was a time to come out of the cave, it's now. Plato would roll over and explode in his grave if we let this opportunity slip away-- again. Time for self-hate and anger and deconstructivism to ebb away and a real movement toward PEACE to develop... it's already begun.
Okay, that's my morning report.
The difference between communism and fascism is, in practice, largely academic. Add to that semantics in what the nomeklatura communicates and semiotics of the chosen symbols of the hegemony.
Like bears. (Channeling a bit of Plato here, despite I being more of the mindset of mr Wine-barrel philopher.)
Brown bear. Black bear. Polar bear. Gummi bear. All bears.
So, fascism, (inter/national) socialism, communism. Perhaps different by degrees but not in essence. Though admittedly I'm ignoring the cultural aspect of it, which is like doing figure skating without legs.
What is importan to remember here is that nary a one single program is -istic of any kind, until christened thus by pro- or detractors. Parents getting an instea-of-wage check from the state's coffers isn't socialist, unless instigated as a socialist measure. One may equally coach such a program in conservative language about "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" and yet in the elusive one and only reality achieve the same actual effect.
But to us the perception is more real than the actual reality, making the semantics and semiotics of the have-kids-and-get-paid program more important than the program itself.
Which brings us to present day and the oligarchs, acronym agencies, and cosmopolitan businesses. To them, all that matters is branding their system with positive labels. Like were they wearing strips of scripts with holy writs on them: swaddled in their atheist scripture they are proven pure of heart and mind, labouring for the Greater Good that will eventually arrive - or we arrive at it - if only all of us skeptics, critics, and leave me alone-ists would accept that they know better.
It will be communism. You will own nothing and you will be happy. But it won't be called communism. In fact, it won't be called anything special and unified at all, until it has become in the minds of the generations growing up inside it simply the way things are.
Why use a label on your movement, when that label is, is a target for the slings and arrows of your enemies?
Thus also the importance of reinventing language with new consciously thought-up words such as anti-pronouns, doing away with all names for all races no mater their species and eventually also doing away with the species as well - achieving the horror described in the most glossed over and overlooked parts of that book that always pops up in talks like this: Orwell's note on language in 1984.
What we can't think we can't say, and vice versa. Hence, kill language.
Look at the vast majority of the western school systems. We are 9/10 there.
I don't like winning by using the enemy's tools. When I translated Margaret Anna Alice's Letter to the German Bundestag, I left out (or, abbreviated and commented on) a paragraph on a gesture of Lauterbach that looked like a Hitler salute, when viewed from the right angle. That said, of course you are right that perception is key. And our brains are not well-adapted to what is being thrown at us in the age of internet and social media.
I get what you mean - but 'normality' is losing badly. Not in the public mind - if you take some time off Twitter and go and speak to the 'average' person I would say most people have either (a) not realised what's going on or (b) think it's insane.
The rot occurs in companies and institutions with a high fraction of university grads. My youngest daughter works in such a place and hates the "training" they put on to ensure compliance with the woke bullshit. She has been asked, for example, to confess her white guilt in some of these corporate-sponsored struggle sessions. My eldest does the finances for a large, and largely male-dominated, automotive maintenance firm where the response to such "training" would be an absolutely massive EFF OFF.
I think we do need to find a way, consistent with decent principles, to take the battle on more effectively. We can't abandon reason and logic and decency altogether, but we can't rely on it alone. The stuff Libs of TikTok does, for example, is very effective - and along the lines of "giving them enough rope" which might, along with ridicule, be very successful techniques to help turn the tide.
Your are 100% correct about the connection between the rot and the grad. My wife just told me that around here, teacher training will be restructured again: less pedagogy, more sensitivity training (racism and stuff). From there, it will unfortunately trickle down into schools. Even the boys that might staff the automotive maintenance firms later in life will have to deal with it.
My brother works at the geology department at a swedish university.
They have gender theory as a mandatory part of, well, everything they do.
Nothing outside the wokeism, nothing above the wokism to paraphrase ole' Benito.
Well, Sheldon Cooper might say that the Kardashians of Science do not consider much beneath them... :)
The dilemma is thus:
Do you want to win by being proven right?
vs
Do you want to win or do you want to be right?
The first mindset means that while you may well win, you have handicapped yourself by imposing arbitrary rules restricting your own behaviour. Like deciding to use only La Savate in a no rules fight for your life.
The second mindset acknowledges that while there's a difference between being right and being the victor, only being the victor matters. And Victory forgives all. So for the aformentioned fight, bring a gun while letting the opponent think it's unarmed combat only.
It's not nice, and it's a very dangerous mindset because it easily devolves into self-fulfilling prophecy in that one starts opting for the win no matter any notion of right or wrong, morally or factually, and we don't need more people like that, I don't think.
But it is also a necessary mindset.
I speak from an introvert's perspective:
I don't want to win, I want to be left alone.
I don't want to be right, I want to understand.
Of course, when they do not leave me alone, and demand belief instead of understanding, I need a strategy. I will retreat to the woods, and amuse myself by the occasional ambush.
I'm of a similar mindset, but I haven't forgotten the laws of the schoolyard. Prey, bully or too high up the hierarchy to be targeted or simply to dangerous because you don't play the game.
Someone calls you out, insults your family, tries to scare you. You smash their face in with the rock you put in your pocket in case that would happen. And you keep smashing until physically restrained.
That lesson.
Not saying this happened to me, and believe me I'd give a lot to make the world not be like that because that ain't the way it ought to be, but that's the way we make it be.
So that means, want to stop them from bothering you? Make them pick someone else, because attaining the power to stop them period turns you into something you don't want to become: all power over others cost is you still being you.
There's always more than two choices, especially when neither choice is satisfactory.
It seems to me we are in a time that requires us to kick over the table.
"My rook has put your King in check, your turn"
"My Imperator Titan 'Glory of Terra' uses its Plasma Annihlator Cannon to turn your pieces into gluons, I win"
As in, not playing the other side's game at all but your own.
Everyone stops growing at age 6,
keep playing conform the rules and you will never win.
for the opposite party doesn't care about the rules but only about the result.
remember when an AFD speaker at a demo was waving at the crowd and the msm cut the picture so that it looked like he did the nazi salute?
Yes, they do that. But how lame the effort! In contrast, the Meme is a weapon proprietary to the partisan side, and whenever msm are trying it, they are shooting themselves in the foot. Tactical manoeuvres can be more or less ignored. I am worrying more about strategy, like the long march through the institutions.
Nice job Rigger!!!!
thank you
There is so much more to say about this 'applied postmodernism' and the rot it's causing - but then I'd be in the position of writing a book (and it wouldn't be anywhere near as good as Cynical Theories).
Re: your summary statement of postmodernism; i.e., “narratives can control our perception” -- well, that is, in fact, entirely true for 'them', but it is very fortunately not true for the rest of 'us'. Can't argue with that local truth because that is all that 'they' [can] see. Knowing how it works makes hearing them talk, and wiggle around and throw their chronic tantrums, much easier to take.
The operative word here, Larry, is "can".
Some of us seem very resistant to manipulation, although I'd say we're all a bit affected to some extent. Lots of people bought into the covid narrative, and a significant fraction of them still do. The manipulation (the narrative) was very effective for the majority.
The main problem, I think, is institutional capture. It's hard, but not impossible, to fight the nonsense when government, media, corporations, police, courts, etc are all trotting out the same drivel. The covid tide turned (or is still turning) but it was much more difficult than it should have been because of the institutional capture.
No argument about your points there, Rudolph. Your "narrative=truth" equation for the postmodernists goes a very long way in explaining the resurgence of censorship and censorship-type actions in the Western world -- and, because "narrative=truth" is actually an Achilles heel for those who operate as if this falsehood is a truism, 'diluting' the institutional narrative with reality-based narratives turns out to be at least a partial solution to the general problem: hits the false narrative right in its kisser. Doesn't hurt either that real reality backs up reality-based narratives. Even institutional capture has to eventually yield to the steady head wind of reality -- hence the turning of the COVID19 narrational tide.
He saw it coming, and nailed the tools too. https://palexander.substack.com/p/mike-wallace-interviews-aldous-huxley?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
A brilliant take on that by a real expert on it.
https://brownstone.org/articles/fiat-money-and-the-covid-regime-actually-existing-postmodernism/
that's a good article - thanks for that
I agree. And I like the term "cretinocracy." Perfect. ^_^
And I also agree we need to take back the discourse.
This is a perfect example of how those of us born before a certain time are badly needed to explain the insanity going on. Female, Male, and then Freedom to do as you please in your bedroom as long as you're not hurting anyone or involving minors. Voila, one sentence.
Because reality is what it is, it doesn't fricken matter what someone THINKS it is. As if, LOL. If every human being suddenly disappeared from the Earth, guess what? The Earth would still be here, and at least for a while, it would be EXACTLY the same as before we all left.
It's an absurd viewpoint they have with regards to 'reality' and logical reasoning. In a way it's quite neat. By rejecting 'rationality' as merely a tool of oppression with no greater weight than any other 'way of knowing' they set up a system where their own ideas can't properly be challenged.
Let's dismiss the hard stuff, like logical reasoning, and then we can say whatever we want and dismiss any criticism of it!
Yeah, I agree.
You know, I sort of put together a "motto" this past year, since I got onto Substack a few months ago... It's to remind me that I am on a journey, a spiritual journey, of understanding and growth. To help me keep myself focused I say this: "Resist Not Evil: Work Around It."
Maybe there are ways to IGNORE certain ideas, certain actions, certain "trends." Sometimes this is very, very difficult, I'm finding, but when I stick to it, it seems to work very well.
Nice. I'm glad you checked out the book.
Thanks GM - yeah it was long overdue. I'm very grateful to Pluckrose and Lindsay that they've spent the time wading through this garbage and have provided a masterful summary of it and the consequences of it.
“It’s a kind of cultural reparation that we feel ought to be paid.”
I suppose that’s true, for some value of “we”. That value doesn’t include me or anyone I know. I suspect the “we” is as conjured-from-nothing as the rest of it.
It's the same use of "we" as when I might say "we lost our minds over covid". It's obviously not true for everyone. It's not very precise language, I agree, but I hope the meaning is clear.
It is. I was just yanking your chain. Thanks for another great article.