Free Markets, Free People

The emptiness of post-modernism

“Nihilism denies that there are any objective grounds for truth, especially regarding morality.” – Tom Lindsey

And Nihilism’s child is post-modernism.

Lindsey is talking about the recent outcry among liberal professors concerning the stifling of speech on campus due to … feelings.  Lindsey continues:

True enough. But I wonder whether Schlosser or Kipnis, or most of academe, understand fully the depths of the Academy’s complicity in the atrocities they cite. Take for example, my own field, political science, which, like all the modern social sciences, is grounded in a radical distinction between “facts” and “values, “ according to which, facts alone are knowable, because “empirically verifiable” (provable using only the five senses).  Values, in this account, are subjective preferences regarding facts.  Hence, for social science, the terms “right,” “wrong,” “just, and “unjust” are unknowable by reason or science.

And there’s the rub: Neither the academic freedom for which Schlosser and Kipnis rightly plea nor political freedom can be defended authoritatively on the basis of the moral-cultural relativism (often termed, “postmodernism”) taught today in the social sciences and the humanities. Why?

If all “values” (moral principles) are equal due to being equally unprovable through reason, then the embrace in the West of values such as political liberty, tolerance, equality, and the rule of law are demoted to mere “subjective preferences,” which are no better or worse than their opposites—slavery, intolerance, inequality, and tyranny. But while the postmodern Academy asserts reason’s impotence at answering life’s deepest questions, it simultaneously denies that we are capable of the “moral neutrality” that seems to follow from relativism. Simply put, they teach that we have no rational basis to make “value judgements,” but neither can we avoid making them.

And that’s what we face today.  As “Schlosser” said, “a simplistic, unworkable, and ultimately stifling conception of social justice” has produced “higher ed’s current climate of fear,” enforced through a “heavily policed discourse of semantic sensitivity.”

We’ve heard about the application in academia and how, now, some liberal professors are pushing back.  But it isn’t just academia which is infected with this nonsense.  Society at large is also becoming more and more infected with it – likely the product of the left’s constant pursuit of Nihilism since the ’60s at least.  How many times have you been told that we are not “fit to judge” another’s culture or choices?  How dare we assert “right” and “wrong”.  It’s all relative.  And thus everything is acceptable.

Except when it isn’t.

Take the case of Rachel Dolezel.  The most significant “judgement” I’ve seen of her deceitful life is to be found in, of all publications, in Salon.

So this isn’t about being an ally, or making the family of your choosing, or even how one feels on the inside. It’s about, apparently, flat out deception. It’s about how one person chose to obtain a college education and jobs and credibility in her community. It about allegedly pretending to speak from a racial experience you simply don’t have. You want to live your truth, that’s not how you go about it. And it’s an insult to anyone honestly trying to do just that to suggest anything otherwise, for even a moment.

Even this denouncement is careful though.  Note the qualifier – “You want to live your truth, that’s not how you go about it.”

Anyone know what that’s about?  That’s about carving out an exception to the basic rule of the left that you can indeed make up your own “truth” if you go about it an acceptable way.  I’m not sure who gets to judge what is “acceptable” in the world of non-judgement, but there you go.

Rachel Dolezal is a fraud and a fake.  It really doesn’t make any difference what her intent was given she has lied and defrauded her way to her present position … or former position given she resigned from the NAACP.  She is what she is – white bread as white bread can be.  Even her art is a fraud.

So how did someone so fraudulent rise to the level she did?

Well, it’s the wages of being “non-judgemental”.  Naively accepting.  In this world, you just accept on its face the claims of someone like Dolezal.  You let them invent their “victimhood” and revel in it.  “Authenticity” is more important than the truth even if the authenticity is counterfeit.  A good and useful story is much more important than facts.

It’s about “need” – on both sides.  The “need” of Rachel Dolezal to be someone other than she is.  And the “need” of those who are “authentically” black to have a “victim” to point too and say, “See! Racism”.  She claims to have been the victim of “8 documented hate crimes”.  How perfectly lovely.  The fact that they pretty much all were found to be baseless isn’t important.

Why was she allowed to go on without questioning?  Because she was politically useful.  Because she represented a narrative that many want to perpetuate.

And, as with most liars who have told the story so often they begin to believe it, she’s now rationalizing her actions and denying a problem.  Her rationalization “I’ve always identified as black” somehow justifies her deceit and she believes her declaration is all that is necessary to provide “truth” to the matter.   To her it justifies all her actions, her lies and  her misrepresentations.  What’s awful and hilarious at the same time is she has allies in this endeavor.

The “deny reality” brigade have so programmed some that they believe that whatever you “believe” to be true is true, even if the reality that everyone else deals in daily says you’re full of beans.

And thus we’re at the point, now being discovered in academia by the left, where “feelings” rule over “reality”.

Lindsey provides us with a quote in closing (remember that he’s talking academia primarily);

 “I sit with Shakespeare, and he winces not. Across the color line I move arm and arm with Balzac and Dumas. . . . I summon Aristotle and Aurelius and what soul I will, and they come all graciously with no scorn nor condescension. So, wed with Truth, I dwell above the veil. Is this the life you grudge us, O knightly America?”

Who is he quoting?  Well someone Dolezal claimed we who wouldn’t “understand” about race should read – W.E.B. Dubose.

I wonder what he’d think of her sham life or the moral relativity she and others champion.

The quote says, at least to me, that he wouldn’t be too friendly to the idea.



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

19 Responses to The emptiness of post-modernism

  • “So how did someone so fraudulent rise to the level she did?”
    We just don’t understand.
    It’s complicated, and we’re being judgmental.

    Some people sorta suggested she was transracial, then bi-racial, then actually just black, and she never bothered to correct them.
    She was just fulfilling someone else’s belief and truth, see?

    And on that basis I’m going to retire from the Dallas Police Department since once some out of town Mexican visitors thought a couple of us dressed as Civil War era Regular Infantry were cops…..
    It all makes sense….well, no, it doesn’t.
    But she’s going to go down fighting.
    I’ve got the popcorn.

  • How many times have you been told that we are not “fit to judge” another’s culture or choices?

    Well, in my world, I get to make those decisions and you have no right to question my choices lest you be judgemental.

    So there.

  • Its also the plight of the Narcissist. A special kind of collectively reinforced narcissism which has been leveraged by the left. “I’m right and you’re wrong” and let’s work back the details from there. That kind of narcissist thinking requires the abandonment of standards or the embracing of ‘nuance’ of each and every situation.

    Dolezel’s plight would be entirely laughable if she hadn’t made ultimately derogatory claims against her parents.

    She’s being soft-sold and defended because of how much a beating the Left’s case by case each situation is a ‘nuanced’ situation mentality has taken over this.

  • If all “values” (moral principles) are equal due to being equally unprovable through reason

    Seems to me the social “scientists” have even the basis of their idiocy wrong. How would a similar situation be dealt with in a real science? What they are claiming is that their is no proof for any particular axiomatic foundation of values, which is tautological since that is the definition of axioms… you just assume them. They then claim all values are equal due to this inability to prove which set of axioms is correct. But that is nonsense. A real science is always dealing with competing axiomatic foundations of theories and even if you can’t prove which set is “true” you can assign differing likelihoods based on carefully designed observation. In the end one set of axioms is widely accepted as being most likely to be correct due to sheer weight of evidence. But, there is no absolute proof.

    So why in God’s name do these fools pretend to be scientists and fail to investigate in a scientific manner to find out what values are most likely to be true? It isn’t fricking rocket science, that’s for sure. I get the feeling that somewhere there are a lot of old Soviet cultural espionage geniuses cursing that if the Evil Empire (oooh value judgement) had only lasted a couple more decades it would indeed have conquered the West by infiltrating its academies with morons.

    • And Putin is probably chuckling in his Stoly Gold.

    • There is good evidence that “liberation theology” was very intentionally designed by the KGB to subvert Western religion for use as a Soviet tool.

      • They were a bunch of raging communists focused on South & Central America and the movement was swatted down by John Paul II just in time. I believe the ultimate aim was to diffuse or confound any anti-communist/Marxist sentiment that would arise from the Church as the Soviets rolled through Central and South America via their proxies of Cuba and Nicaragua. And probably later offer a Splinter Church once the take over was complete. I think the cliche that central and south America were hyper religious was in the back of the Soviet’s minds. It might have been true at that time.

        A large part of 60’s & 70’s types that entered the positions in the Catholic Church are just raging communists. The promotion of Communism must have been much more profound as we have that generation of people in control of companies, wallstreet, government, etc now via the virtue of seniority. I never understood how you could be sincerely religious and communist it since it would be sort of a suicide but perhaps the purpose was infiltration and in many cases it was. Partly fueled by people living a communist lifestyle who fail to recognize, (1) they volunteered to live that way and (2) are kept afloat by external funding.

  • If you read her “statement” at quitting, you’ll see someone who has mastered the language of the Collective…more specifically the BGI wing.

    I think she actually bids fair to be the female Al Sharpton. We will watch and see…

    Andrew Klavan wrote a piece the other day about the temptation of the ring of invisibility, and how few of us would not succumb to its draw.

    In the Collective-world, people are not really ever invisible. We see them. Some of us simply refuse to recognize what we see, and the effect is the same as not seeing. We all know Hellary Clinton is a corrupt, weak, awful person, just as we know that poor Rachel is a sick, auto-victimized fraud. But we are surrounded by people who don’t see because they’ve elected to NOT see.

    Like someone who can form the sentence, “Obama will go down as one of the greats”.

    • Refusing to admit the lion is about to bite your head off won’t change the outcome.

      This kind of ignorant denial of reality can only go on for so long.
      Nature, economics, and power politics don’t take kindly to being ignored.

  • The concept of “non-judgementalism” is a philosophical “Möbius loop” that feeds on itself or those who are not non-judgemental.

  • Has anyone claimed the outing of Dolezal at this particular time was by Republican operatives? Just a few weeks ago Jeb Bush was found to have “accidentally” identified as Hispanic on voter registration forms. What better way to defuse any talk of fraud than to out a high profile leftist doing a blackface routine? Personally I question the timing.

    • Slow news day – no one got excited (pun intended) when Mattress Girl released her porn video.

      Plus you know with the level of lying going on all over the joint it’s statistically inevitable that some of these Dumpties tumble off the wall.

      • I wish the person behind Godfrey Elfwick well. He’s done more to expose the folly of the Left’s “wishful thinking = reality” among the Left and Middle and the Left intelligentia is probably out for blood on this guy.

      • Huh, put amateur porn on the internet… that’ll stand out and be noticed.

        • Huh, but I see from the news now that Dolezal has a sex tape too.
          More amateur porn!

          I wonder exactly how much ‘exposure’ the woman is willing to undergo before she stops trying to justify her delusions with lies.

    • The woman’s delusion level is pretty intense though.
      She went so far as to claim she was born out in the woods, and there’s no witnesses to the fact that those two white people really ARE he parents.

      Must be my archaic judgementalism from the last century but I’m pretty sure in the good old days she’d have been looking at an opportunity to spend some time in a mental facility for evaluation.

      • So what you are saying is if a white woman is born in the woods and there is no one around to witness it, is she really white?

        • LOL! 🙂 No, I wasn’t, but now that you SAY that, I think that is sorta what she’s claiming. Too funny man.

          Not only are her self contradictions entertaining, watching progressives trying to shoehorn them into a coherent belief structure they can accommodate is just as funny.

          I appreciate that I may have been poisoned at an early age by learning mockery from watching, repeatedly, the Three Stooges tilting with ‘sophisticated’ high society.

          • coherent belief structure

            Lord knows why they are bothering. They explicitly reject logic and reason. How else could Sokal make a fool of them back in the 90s? I think Erp once stated that internal logical consistency was not a necessary feature of a philosophy or belief system, but I’d have to trawl the archives for that.