Opinion | How The Left Uses Postmodernism to Win


Jacques Derrida


Postmodernism is something that the left has been using as an intellectual crutch since of the fall of the Soviet Union. Since that time there has been an increased demand for the abandonment of empiricism and rationality in the pursuit of a dystopian future, free from all agency. Post Modernism, in its origin, represented a departure from modernism, and not merely an extension of it. Modernism was an artistic movement filled with irony and inspired by enlightenment thinking. It was in a sense, an anti-establishment movement that promoted radical skepticism of various institutions, yet retained the most fundamental epistemological foundations that science had unequivocally proven. The foundation for modernism was the rejection of epistemology based solely on the supernature.

Postmodernism, on the other hand, represents a departure from objective epistemology itself, and all of its assumptions. The movement’s origins date back to the mid 20th century, although it did not gain considerable ascendency until the 1980s and 1990s. Postmodernism rejects enlightenment rationality and all forms of objective truth and morality. Unsurprisingly, it has garnered the most traction in the realm of higher education. In my estimation, it is no coincidence that ideas that reject rationality itself began to gain traction following the ever-increasing subsidization of higher education. When any institution or entity is subsidized, expect costs to increase, and quality to decrease. Higher education receives both direct subsidies and indirect subsidies, making it a uniquely vulnerable to this phonomina. If an entity is subsidized, they no longer have any incentive to keep the prices low, or the quality high, to the degree that the subsidy offsets the natural market leverage of the consumer. In effect, the subsidy substitutes for an additonal consumer, but without any of the associated operating costs. This allows for an ever-relaxing of standards, and an ever-increasing inflated price.

The fatal flaw for postmodernism is the claim that there is no objective truth, as this is a self-detonating thesis. If you make an objective claim that there is no objective truth, which is implicitly objective, then your claim is void of validity instantly. In other words, if you claim there is no objective truth, then your claim that truth does not exist cannot be objectively true, which means by your own admission your thesis statement is false due to their being a lack of validity to truth statements. Furthermore, if one is to claim that there is no objective truth then I cannot be objectively wrong to claim that there is an objective truth, for that is (apparently) my particular conclusion in an infinite number of interpretations that apparently can all simultaneously be true according to postmodernists.

Even if one were to overlook the fact that the theory immediately renders itself false, it sets the perfect stage for a will to power universe, in which one’s particular subjective experience or a collection of subjective experiences justify objectively immoral acts, as a means to mediate their individual or collective plight. Under these assumptions of objective truth, wherein objective truth is simultaneously non-existent (don’t as me how), events such as the reign of terror are justified, while also ignoring the equally justifiable power grabs by the established order in such a Nichean worldview. People who wish to escape objective moral condemnation or rational falsification are naturally attracted to this ideology, which makes it a breeding ground for communists and feminists.

The real danger of this refuted ideology is that it permeates through the culture, starting from the intellectuals straight down to the pop-cultural figures that are propped up by the leftwing establishment. Ask yourself, have you heard the phrase “my truth” spreading throughout the societal ethos like a virus lately?

A false rape accuser, such as Christine Blasey Ford (Justice Kavanaugh’s accuser), can now say that it is “her truth” that she was raped, even if it did not objectively happen, thereby creating a seemingly objective justification for punishing an innocent man. Funny enough, in practice it constantly juxtaposes reality with subjectivity, accepting the validity of reality when convenient, and then instantly rejecting its existence in the next sentence. Sadly, that is merely a microcosm of what the left is attempting to achieve with the society as a whole, whether each individual leftist knows this on a conscious level or not. Another example we have seen throughout the Kavanaugh controversy has been the phrase “we believe survivors”, which upon closer examination is an extremely disingenuous phrase. It is paradoxical, because if it is presumed that these women are survivors, then there is no reason to state that you believe them because it would already be recognized as objective truth, lacking the necessity for faith, belief, or an FBI investigation in the first place. This statement is not designed for honest inquiry, a pattern that tends to repeat throughout this examination of postmodernist thinking. The trick is to use the value of objective truth statements and counterfeit with subjective statements. In other words, sometimes reality exists when it benefits me, and sometimes it does not when it does not satisfy my preferences, but I will use the value that reality has to further my goals anyway. This detachment from reality could be used to justify anything. Conveniently, Democrats used the phrase “her truth” every time something that had been refuted, or could easily be refuted, came up. Interestingly, the second it is convenient, evidence becomes important, exemplified best by allegations against those on their own side, where credibility suddenly becomes valued (I.e. Bill Clinton). This is effectively passive aggression on the part of the left, wherein they are not so openly, but rather subtly, admitting that they are abandoning all rules, and opting for winning by any means, regardless of what level of deception or evasion is required, restrainted only by consequentialism. If the other side does not realize this, and they continue to play by the rules, they will surely lose.

One of the tenents of postmodernism is self-referential epistemology and moral relativism, and yet many of them often claim that toxic masculinity, capitalism, white privilege, and the patriarchy are all moral evils, even though there is supposedly no objective morality. They can do this easily because they have openly admitted that rationality does not exist to them, and consequently all of their statements have the capacity to be contradictory. At this point in the examination, it is fairly obvious that the people who argue these positions are not arguing in good faith. Those who believe in reason and evidence understand that two contradictory statements cannot both be simultaneously true. These people use the vestigial validity of what seemingly is a true statement, but which is actually their subjective experience, and while not explicitly revealing that they have no objective means by which to assert the experience or preference as truth, conflate the two purposefully. Using this implicit admission, we can recognize that they are merely attempting to use lies and deception to destroy their enemies, and will stop at nothing to gain that which they seek. Knowing that this “ideology” is only a means to their end of asserting their will and preferences, gives you the clarity necessary to disregard their non-arguments as nothing more than being equivalent to outright hostility, thereby defeating the purpose of their deception in the first place by seeing through it.

The reason this ideology is so addictive to the left is that it serves as a faux morality, a stand-in for their lack of virtue, a counterfeit designed to subvert the culture and justify their lifestyles and anything else that satisfies them, virtue signaling, so to speak. It is by design, a statement of truth that rejects itself and also has no null-hypothesis, in other words, it cannot be disproven by rationality, because it disregards it at face value, which makes it an exercise in sophistry rather than philosophy.

Latest Videos


Donations: Support Our Work

Patreon Donation GoFundMe Donations Paypal Donations

                                                                                                                                                 Missing Show QR Code

132DBomiwRvsirDGp nWyY2jWSRfZUMvcgV

                                                                                                                                                 Missing Show QR Code

0x1A5717cCbB0dd022EE9 0F18aC87536830F1F1847

                                                                                                                                                 Missing Show QR Code

Lhze1RNN9NE9tUv1 vgo6TtV64Tqoj1oeHv

                                                                                                                                                 Missing Show QR Code

17NfAxjWNqxShR54V CNqJhiFp9o4z9xysN


The Death of Reason


Is Divorce Contagious?


How The Left Uses Postmodernism to Win


Morality Is the Goal


What A Female Doctor Who Says About Our Culture

Subscribe To Our Mailing List To Stay Updated

* indicates required