Life-hating leftist: “Morality is subjective to the lived experiences of individuals and cultures, and therefore meaningless.”
Life-affirming rightist: “Morality is subjective to the lived experiences of individuals and cultures, and therefore as meaningful as anything can be”.
It's not just morality though. When we treat truth itself as functionally subjective in the political domain, we cease to labor under the delusion that social justice fanatics can be taught.
What, so the hope is that the hierarchy will naturally reemerge just in a more logically aligned way than it was before WW2? So a similar house will be built because that’s the way nature bends, but this time the house will be stronger and people will understand why generalizations/stereotypes were put there? If so I strongly support it.
things will get worse before they get better. Every collapse burns a hole in collective memory a mile wide, it takes a millenium to gloss over it and forget the important parts. That’s a millenium of growth
I think I agree with the sentiment somewhat. Obviously we can't go back to a golden age that likely wasn't the golden age we would like to think it was. It's also obvious that the left doesn't take post-modernism to it's logical conclusion. So I guess I'm not opposed to using the left's weapon against them. Even if I do think post-modernism in general is self-defeating in the end.
My only concern is that once we are successful in doing this, if we stay under a post-modernist way of thinking, we are very likely going to end up right back where we are currently at some point. But hey, I guess nothing lasts forever. Humanity might be destined to go round and round with itself till the end of time.
You speak the truth but I'm not just a pragmatic advocate I'm a true believer. Ideas are like weapons or tools to be picked up and discarded as necessary. You can use postmodernism to dislodge the system then put whatever you want in its place.
Here is part of your own assessment of post-modernism, and I think it gets at the core of what's critically wrong with it: "It challenges the idea of absolute truths, replacing them with a worldview where everything is subjective, fluid, and "socially constructed"
But not everything is subjective. Not everything is socially constructed. And I would argue that a lot of our biggest modern problems is due to people failing to realize this.
For example, our modern gender dynamics are increasingly because our society is in denial over how there are *objective* biological differences between the two sexes, at least when talking about averages. It's in denial because of wokeness and post-modernism. I'm finally starting to see even moderate liberals starting to seriously grapple with this, and start to move closer to something sensible and well-informed. People are gradually starting to realize the flaws in post-modernism, and through realizing those flaws, there's a good chance of them eventually throwing off both post-modernism and wokeness. So I would argue this would be a terrible time to promote post-modernism, just as more reasonably-minded moderate people are starting to see how harmful and incorrect much of it is.
At best, post-modernism heavily overstates its case, creating serious blind-spots for society. It creates experts who are genuinely afraid of referencing concrete biological realities. We should want a society that respects these objective truths, and so I would argue we should strongly oppose a philosophy that over-promotes subjectivity at the cost of widespread understanding of objective reality.
"'objective' biological differences between the two sexes, at least when talking about averages."
They don't believe in biological sexes, and even if they did, they'd still deem much of it socially malleable, especially since sex-differences are both a product of history & environment.
"It's in denial because of wokeness and post-modernism."
Nah, this goes back to liberalism, and more importantly, individualism - an ideological construct - which instills belief in people that they are fundamentally equal to one another on the basis of their "humanity," and this is coupled with individual rights, civil rights, human rights, etc. Rad lib ideology (wokeness) builds on this, hence attempts to completely erase any mentions to "mother," "father," to re-assert importance of choice (dozens of genders), obsession with consent, etc.
Some here might have the impression that wokeness is a collectivist ideology. It isn't. It's hyper-individualistic. We see this most clearly with the endless different genders, the other-kin, and other such things.
Post-modernism leads directly into hyper-individualism because it elevates the subjective way above the objective. Well, if the subjective is far and away what matters most, then who are you or I to dispute anybody's subjective gender identity? And if someone's subjective sense of self is offended by the words "Mother" and "Father", then I guess we need to get rid of those words.
Now, once people believe that personal sense of self is all that matters, then standards immediately go through the floor. Personal grooming gets worse, people don't care about their weight any more, dress standards totally collapse, "people are beautiful and healthy at any size". This is obviously what's going on in much of our society today, isn't it?
Now, is this going on in the China or Japan of today? Certainly not from anything I've seen. It's because they're not hyper-individualistic.
Here's the tricky thing - even if you pride yourself on your independence and independent thinking, you don't really want to live in a world as hyper-individualistic as the current United States is. Because while you personally might make good use out of this huge freedom of subjectivity, many of the people around you *won't* make good use out of it. It'll just make them worst, it'll just cause the victory of the lowest common denominator.
If you want good art, if you want good movies, if you want good music, if you want the trains to run on time, if you want planes that are safe to travel, if you want firemen that are likely to be able to rescue you from a burning building, if you want any of these things, you want a society with high standards. And post-modernism erodes high standards because high standards hurt many people's subjective feelings.
"Post-modernism leads directly into hyper-individualism because it elevates the subjective way above the objective. Well, if the subjective is far and away what matters most, then who are you or I to dispute anybody's subjective gender identity?"
Transsexualism predates post-modernism, in fact much is owed to Magnus Hirschfeld (whose work - translation of it anyway - also helped popularize "racism" in the academia). In fact, he created the first "LGBT" org in Germany in the late 19th century. "Gender identity" specifically is nonsense, and goes back to Money (he didn't create it, but it's basically his product).
Regardless, I don't think your assessment is correct. I don't doubt some people have been influenced by post-modernism to embrace such things, but the main reason why individualism has as much influence goes back to much bigger factors, including economy & laws which cement it in society. The reason why some people are embracing it is varied, and has little to do with subjectivity over objectivity, as much various institutions promoting it including schools, media, etc, and it's basically replaced other roles that existed before (E.g., emo, goths, etc).
Your point btw has been a critique of individualism since the French Revolution. Here's a (partial) quote from Joseph de Maistre, who basically created the term and used it pejoratively: "The social order 'shattered to its foundations because there was too much liberty in Europe and not enough Religion'; everywhere authority was weakening and there was a frightening growth of 'individual opinion [I'esprit particulier].' The individual's reason was 'of its nature the mortal enemy of all association': its exercise spelt spiritual and civil anarchy. Infallibility was an essential condition of the maintenance of society, and indeed government was 'a true religion,' with 'its dogmas, its mysteries, its priests; to submit it to individual discussion is to destroy it.' In the earliest known use of the word, de Maistre spoke in 1820 of 'this deep and frightening division of minds, this infinite fragmentation of all doctrines, political protestantism carried to the most absolute individualism.'"
But he wasn't the only one" "The 'philosophers of the eighteenth century'-men such as Helvetius, with his doctrine of 'enlightened self-interest,' Locke, Reid, Condillac, Kant, and the 'atheist d'Holbach, the deist Voltaire, and Rousseau'-all these 'defenders of individualism' refused to 'go back to a source higher than individual conscience.'"
"Personal grooming gets worse, people don't care about their weight any more, dress standards totally collapse"
This mostly goes back to inversion of standards, not rejection of standards. It's why the opposites are promoted (E.g., body positivity).
"Now, is this going on in the China or Japan of today?"
Japan isn't a great example tbh, mainly because its basically a vassal state, and its current state of society is much owed to the west/US which occupied it, enforced changes, and pushed propaganda. Not solely, of course, but significantly. China for sure, but again this goes back to liberalism. If you want a good document on it, you can look up "The Crisis of the Modern World" by Rene Guenon (if you add ".pdf" at the end you can find it, and it's not book length either) which discusses both the differences between China and the west and individualism. It was published in 1927, so some points re: China might be a bit outdated.
I don't really disagree with your last point, but I do disagree with what you're blaming as the cause. I've been avoiding western (and American) stuff for years now.
We had liberalism, as in classical liberalism, for literally hundreds of years while people still widely recognized the differences between the sexes. It's only very recently that a lot of people have failed to recognize these differences, causing all sorts of problems. You yourself provided a great example of this, with very recent attempts to erase any mentions to "mother" and "father". Was something this extreme going on back in the late 1800s, early 1990s, or even as recently as the 1990s? If so, I don't recall ever hearing about it. Given how long liberalism has been with us, blaming this primarily liberalism seems questionable to me, even a bit weird. And I mean, it's fine if you don't like liberalism or even classical liberalism. Both ideologies have their flaws. But it's important to try to catch the right culprit for the right crime.
To my reckoning, the very harmful cultural shift began with post-modernism, in exactly the way Bliss laid out. Perhaps there were some weird intellectuals in ivory towers with weird ideologies back in the 1700s and 1800s sure. But their ideas were never able to completely up-end basic common sense until post-modernism came along.
Our society needs a return to common sense and greater respect for objective reality. That's the exact opposite of post-modernism.
"It's only very recently that a lot of people have failed to recognize these differences"
It's a process, the same way "gay marriage" didn't become a thing overnight, or for that matter, "surrogacy" for such people. There's a reason these theories, whether ones concerning sexuality, or gender, or whatever, developed within the west and not middle east or China or elsewhere - it needed necessary preconditions, and the main precondition isn't post-modernism, but liberalism and individualism.
"But it's important to try to catch the right culprit for the right crime."
If we were talking several years back, I probably wouldn't disagree with you since I shared many of the same views. There are places I've written at reflecting as much, but that's not the case anymore. These attempts to blame anything but liberalism, and I'm not referring to you doing so, arise from attempts to defend and re-affirm liberalism. This is the case with "cultural Marxism," "wokeness," but also other things; it's basically a variation of "no true Scotsman" but applied as a heresy; the most recent example of it would be "woke right," in effort to neuter anyone further right. It's same with -isms, but they are heresies outright.
"Perhaps there were some weird intellectuals in ivory towers with weird ideologies back in the 1700s and 1800s sure."
Nah, it started with French Revolution, well, gained prominence, but it probably goes back somewhat further. To list some concrete examples, "individualism" would be one, since it's an identity built on liberal values - much like dozens of genders are nowadays. "Homosexuality" would be another, an identity created in late 19th century, developed in part by Karl Maria Kertbeny in effort to defend the actions, claiming that "the penal code of the German Empire" concerning sodomy violated the "rights of man," and argued for the classical liberal public-private distinction that became so prominent in justifying "gay rights" and marriage. I think this needs to be stressed, but before it - and before 20th century especially - sodomy was seen (and criminalized) as an act committed out of 'wickedness,' initially not limited to an act committed by a man against a man, and there was no such concrete identity as it exists today (same w/ heterosexuality which he termed "normosexuality"). Obviously, it didn't stop there, as nowadays you have countless identities - zoophiles, furries, etc, etc, you get the point.
It's also worth noting that works by those like Spengler - a right-winger, who's also had influence on some leftist figures - basically served as a precursor to post-modernism. Even Derrida, who developed deconstruction, was influenced by Heidegger who was a member of the nazi party (and lost his job over it after WW2).
You might be right. You made a good argument here.
I'll admit I'm somewhat hesitant to blame liberalism as a whole because humanity has progressed a great deal since the American Revolution. The French Revolution, yes, that was far worse than most people realize.
Can we have a society that values technological progress without liberalism? Can we get rid of wokeness while maintaining the liberalism of Bill Clinton?
These are questions I'm not confident on, and still thinking about.
That's fair. I think this system, like most others, isn't eternal, and it's significantly flawed that another system is bound to take place eventually. Chances of going back, as OP notes, are minimal, so some adaptation has to happen.
I think you'd end up in the same position as long the same values and aspirations for it are present, although this would undoubtedly be influenced with technological change. Imho, there are bigger issues w/ liberalism than these, namely immigration, and I don't really believe that liberalism is be compatible, long-term, with restrictionism.
Spengler has written quite a bit about liberalism & leftism, definitely worth the read if you ever have time. I mostly came across him when my views were already similar to his.
If you want something that might reshape your views on liberalism, beyond approaches to immigration or Spengler (Hour of Decision is good and short-ish read, I've yet to read his book on technology though), look at NSSM-200 or Robert McNamara's speeches regarding population control. Especially since many of liberal aspirations are aligned with it.
The right and left have fundamentally different strategies and tactics as they have different outlooks, strengths and weaknesses. The right *cannot* use the tactics of the left in order to seize back power; it does not work that way. The left is the definition of entropy. If a right-leaning individual joins a leftist institution in order to "opposite march through the institutions", he will be either corrupted by the institution or expelled from it, without exception. The right, to the extent it seizes power, can only do it in one fell swoop at the top much like Julius Caesar or Augustus did. This is why our elites have such strict rules against populist generals gaining power.
Currently there is no agreed upon value system among the right for what it should push. It is shattered and entirely reactive except for the tyrannical fake-populist, elite-driven techbros with "Dark Enlightenment" neoliberal feudalism views like Yarvin, Thiel, Vance, etc. As far as right wing populism, the European blogger Kynosarges in 2019 castigated the short-sightedness of the movement, which he believes has six major deficiencies:
1. Right-wing populists have no awareness of the depth of the [societal] problem and the necessity of a massive social transformation.
2. Right-wing populists consider metapolitics irrelevant. They view our plight as strictly a matter of state policy, therefore solvable by the legislative and executive branches (which is understandable given point 1).
3. Right-wing populists do not command parliamentary majorities or sole governments – neither in the past nor in the present, nor likely in the future. They are always in opposition or dependent on coalition partners who are not right-wing populists.
4. The institutional corset of late liberalism narrows the factual scope for political action to such a degree that profound changes are impossible.
5. Right-wing populists offer no grand designs for solutions because they lack a positive alternative framework beyond “liberalism without foreigners” (which is closely linked to points 1 and 2).
6. Right-wing populists are objectively too slow even where they bring about changes. A critical comparison between the development of right-wing populism and demographics during recent decades clearly shows that this approach is impossible solely due to lack of time (ignoring points 1–5)…
Because of these six issues, according to Kynosarges,
"[Right wing populists] have no concept of how to actively solve the problems of late modernity or liberalism. They offer no counter-culture that goes beyond reactionary ideas. They become almost apolitical when they merely retreat into their nation-state bunkers (typical for Poland or Slovakia). They lack a dynamic counter-ideal, and they are not at all equipped to propagate such an ideal to the furthest corners of the West (and beyond), as the chief enemy is (still) capable of doing.
The equation of our identity with the liberal state (e.g. the Federal Republic of Germany as the land of the Germans) inevitably leads to disappointments and at best to the realization that this state neither defends nor recognizes our identity, sometimes even destroys it. No Western constitution has a decidedly identitarian foundation, nor is there any trend in that direction. Anyway such a foundation would be incompatible with the self-concept of liberalism (universalism, egalitarianism, individualism) – the left is correct on that point! But right-wing populists believe that liberalism would only need a “right-wing” orientation to solve the problem, thanks to insufficient analysis….
Modernity can only be overcome with the experiences of modernity, not by an utterly impossible return to an earlier or pre-modern era. The profound change that is now necessary is not genuinely political but belongs to the cultural, metapolitical sphere. Such a counter-enlightenment or counter-culture requires – in contrast to the liberalist eclecticism of right-wing populists – a spiritual preparation for a new European myth that binds us to our oldest past and reconciles us with our future. Nothing less than such an attempt at European rebirth is our task and the most promising exit from political modernity."
I disagree. Post-modernism is not built to work the way you are hoping for. Post-modernism can't defeat egalitarianism becomes it logically leads to egalitarianism. If nothing is sacred, then who is to say that one way of life is better than another? If nothing is sacred, then who is to say that one moral value is better than another? Post-modernism essentially destroys the word "better", which leads directly into all the terrible things that plague our modern world, including wokeness.
To fix our modern world, we have to say that post-modernism is simply wrong. That some ways of living *are* in fact better than others. That some stories *are* more valuable than others.
The idea that postmodernism inevitably leads to egalitarianism assumes that skepticism toward absolute truth must result in moral and cultural relativism. That's not necessarily the case. Postmodernism isn’t about declaring all things equal—it’s about questioning the foundations upon which hierarchies are built. If anything, it provides a way to expose the weaknesses of the existing egalitarian order by showing that its claims to moral authority are just as arbitrary as the traditions it sought to replace.
For example, progressives wield postmodern deconstruction selectively. They deconstruct masculinity, nationalism, and religion but refuse to apply the same scrutiny to their own sacred cows—diversity, equity, and inclusion. A right-wing postmodernism wouldn’t seek to level everything down to egalitarian mush but rather to dismantle their structures of power, exposing them as just another constructed ideology rather than an unquestionable moral truth.
In other words, postmodernism doesn’t have to destroy the concept of hierarchy itself—it just forces us to acknowledge that any hierarchy is built on assumptions. The difference between left and right isn’t whether hierarchy should exist, but which hierarchy should exist. If the progressive order has convinced the world that "wokeness" is the natural conclusion of postmodern thought, then the right’s job is to use the same tools to dismantle that illusion and replace it with a superior vision.
"The idea that postmodernism inevitably leads to egalitarianism assumes that skepticism toward absolute truth must result in moral and cultural relativism." Yes, and post-modernism does precisely that.
Without absolute truth, there is no logical basis for hierarchy. For an hierarchy to exist, there must be a concrete sense of "good" and "bad", or at least "good" and "less good".
The right's job should simply be to reject post-modernism because it's false. Something does not have to be perfect to be good, dismantling the good causes more harm than good. Post-modernism made our world much *much* worse than it was before, and the poison will not be the cure.
The right should provide a coherent vision of a better way of living, not merely trying to beat the left at it's own game. Especially at a time when people are frankly tired of deconstruction and have a strong desire for a more uplifting and life-affirming message.
No, you can simply argue that your culture or values are intersubjectively superior.
"Without absolute truth, there is no logical basis for hierarchy. For a hierarchy to exist, there must be a concrete sense of 'good' and 'bad,' or at least 'good' and 'less good.'"
Why not frame it in terms of stronger and weaker instead?
"The right's job should simply be to reject postmodernism because it's false."
That’s where we disagree—not only do I think postmodernism is useful, but I also believe it’s correct.
"Postmodernism made our world much much worse than it was before, and the poison will not be the cure."
That’s like saying you don’t want your country to have nuclear weapons because the world was better before the atom bomb.
"Why not frame it in terms of stronger and weaker instead?"
I do think it's better to be strong than weak. We likely agree on that much at least.
But strength can be used in both helpful and unhelpful ways, so I'm inclined to consider strong vs. weak to be secondary to good vs. bad. I would say that one of the differences between good and bad is good is found in building valuable things while bad is found in destroying or harming valuable things in one's life and society.
By this standard, I find it inescapable that post-modernism is quite bad.
"No, you can simply argue that your culture or values are intersubjectively superior."
What makes them superior?
"That’s where we disagree—not only do I think postmodernism is useful, but I also believe it’s correct."
It isn't correct. One reason is that the western culture that existed before post-modernism was clearly superior to most other cultures. By extension, the stories that informed western culture are superior to the stories that informed most other cultures. By extension, we should value those stories and the lessons that can be learned from them.
"That’s like saying you don’t want your country to have nuclear weapons because the world was better before the atom bomb."
No, it's like saying that I would want to dismantle nuclear weapons on a world-wide level. I'm not opposing merely "right-wing post-modernism", I'm opposing post-modernism in general.
In the case of any particular value, you can argue superiority based on some shared axiom. For example, if you and your interlocutor both agree that liberty is good but disagree on gun control, you can argue that gun control is bad because it diminishes the axiomatic value of liberty. If your opponent has different axioms, then you just have to be stronger than them so that their opinion doesn’t matter.
"It isn't correct. One reason is that the Western culture that existed before postmodernism was clearly superior to most other cultures. By extension, the stories that informed Western culture are superior to the stories that informed most other cultures. By extension, we should value those stories and the lessons that can be learned from them."
I can ask you the same question—superior on what grounds? Stronger? More prosperous? More advanced? Sure, but valuing those things over others is entirely subjective. So we arrive at the same problem.
In my view, the answer to cultural relativism is that what we value is entirely subjective, based on our own axioms. But I can still subjectively value certain things or cultures above others simply because I like them more.
"I can ask you the same question—superior on what grounds? Stronger? More prosperous? More advanced? Sure, but valuing those things over others is entirely subjective."
No, it's not. With all due respect, *get real* here. *Everybody* wants to live in a prosperous society, this is precisely why the US has an immigration problem. It's like the old game show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?". My father would often joke "The answer is everybody." Everybody wants to be prosperous.
Also everybody, at an individual level, would prefer being strong over being weak. Anybody who says otherwise is either lying or just being a stubborn contrarian.
Ideas like post-modernism obscure these facts, undermining basic common sense.
Post-modernism has done more harm than good, and society can function perfectly fine without it. Good arguments against wokeness can be made without it.
"Without absolute truth, there is no logical basis for hierarchy. For an hierarchy to exist, there must be a concrete sense of 'good' and 'bad', or at least 'good' and 'less good'."
It's pretty much the opposite. Universalism is inherently destructive and levelling, it's what forms the very pursuit of "spreading democracy," "human rights," globohomo, etc that's so much of an issue currently, because these liberal values are seen as inherent truths, and thus everyone must be subjected to them.
No, it's not. Universalism is at least as old as Christianity, as Christianity is clearly an universalist faith and one of the world's major religions. Christianity has been with us for almost two thousand years. Are you now going to blame a 2000 year old religion for cultural problems that only became really severe in the post-WWII era?
Universalism is only bad if the specific sort of universalism currently being promoted is bad. And here again we come to post-modernism, an ideology that does indeed promote an extreme form of universalist hyper-individualism that atomizes individuals because it over-emphasizes subjectivism at the expense of anything that could build good strong communities and good strong families and good social bonds.
Life-hating leftist: “Morality is subjective to the lived experiences of individuals and cultures, and therefore meaningless.”
Life-affirming rightist: “Morality is subjective to the lived experiences of individuals and cultures, and therefore as meaningful as anything can be”.
In practice those amount to the same thing.
It's not just morality though. When we treat truth itself as functionally subjective in the political domain, we cease to labor under the delusion that social justice fanatics can be taught.
Expand on this, write a playbook
will do
What, so the hope is that the hierarchy will naturally reemerge just in a more logically aligned way than it was before WW2? So a similar house will be built because that’s the way nature bends, but this time the house will be stronger and people will understand why generalizations/stereotypes were put there? If so I strongly support it.
Yes precisely
things will get worse before they get better. Every collapse burns a hole in collective memory a mile wide, it takes a millenium to gloss over it and forget the important parts. That’s a millenium of growth
I think I agree with the sentiment somewhat. Obviously we can't go back to a golden age that likely wasn't the golden age we would like to think it was. It's also obvious that the left doesn't take post-modernism to it's logical conclusion. So I guess I'm not opposed to using the left's weapon against them. Even if I do think post-modernism in general is self-defeating in the end.
My only concern is that once we are successful in doing this, if we stay under a post-modernist way of thinking, we are very likely going to end up right back where we are currently at some point. But hey, I guess nothing lasts forever. Humanity might be destined to go round and round with itself till the end of time.
You speak the truth but I'm not just a pragmatic advocate I'm a true believer. Ideas are like weapons or tools to be picked up and discarded as necessary. You can use postmodernism to dislodge the system then put whatever you want in its place.
Wash your penis - gold
Their axiomatic values aren't to my liking. But if we lose to them, we'll deserve it.
No because their axiomatic values aren't to my liking. But if they win then they deserve to win.
Here is part of your own assessment of post-modernism, and I think it gets at the core of what's critically wrong with it: "It challenges the idea of absolute truths, replacing them with a worldview where everything is subjective, fluid, and "socially constructed"
But not everything is subjective. Not everything is socially constructed. And I would argue that a lot of our biggest modern problems is due to people failing to realize this.
For example, our modern gender dynamics are increasingly because our society is in denial over how there are *objective* biological differences between the two sexes, at least when talking about averages. It's in denial because of wokeness and post-modernism. I'm finally starting to see even moderate liberals starting to seriously grapple with this, and start to move closer to something sensible and well-informed. People are gradually starting to realize the flaws in post-modernism, and through realizing those flaws, there's a good chance of them eventually throwing off both post-modernism and wokeness. So I would argue this would be a terrible time to promote post-modernism, just as more reasonably-minded moderate people are starting to see how harmful and incorrect much of it is.
At best, post-modernism heavily overstates its case, creating serious blind-spots for society. It creates experts who are genuinely afraid of referencing concrete biological realities. We should want a society that respects these objective truths, and so I would argue we should strongly oppose a philosophy that over-promotes subjectivity at the cost of widespread understanding of objective reality.
"'objective' biological differences between the two sexes, at least when talking about averages."
They don't believe in biological sexes, and even if they did, they'd still deem much of it socially malleable, especially since sex-differences are both a product of history & environment.
"It's in denial because of wokeness and post-modernism."
Nah, this goes back to liberalism, and more importantly, individualism - an ideological construct - which instills belief in people that they are fundamentally equal to one another on the basis of their "humanity," and this is coupled with individual rights, civil rights, human rights, etc. Rad lib ideology (wokeness) builds on this, hence attempts to completely erase any mentions to "mother," "father," to re-assert importance of choice (dozens of genders), obsession with consent, etc.
"objective reality"
Much of what's considered as such, isn't.
There's something I want to add here.
Some here might have the impression that wokeness is a collectivist ideology. It isn't. It's hyper-individualistic. We see this most clearly with the endless different genders, the other-kin, and other such things.
Post-modernism leads directly into hyper-individualism because it elevates the subjective way above the objective. Well, if the subjective is far and away what matters most, then who are you or I to dispute anybody's subjective gender identity? And if someone's subjective sense of self is offended by the words "Mother" and "Father", then I guess we need to get rid of those words.
Now, once people believe that personal sense of self is all that matters, then standards immediately go through the floor. Personal grooming gets worse, people don't care about their weight any more, dress standards totally collapse, "people are beautiful and healthy at any size". This is obviously what's going on in much of our society today, isn't it?
Now, is this going on in the China or Japan of today? Certainly not from anything I've seen. It's because they're not hyper-individualistic.
Here's the tricky thing - even if you pride yourself on your independence and independent thinking, you don't really want to live in a world as hyper-individualistic as the current United States is. Because while you personally might make good use out of this huge freedom of subjectivity, many of the people around you *won't* make good use out of it. It'll just make them worst, it'll just cause the victory of the lowest common denominator.
If you want good art, if you want good movies, if you want good music, if you want the trains to run on time, if you want planes that are safe to travel, if you want firemen that are likely to be able to rescue you from a burning building, if you want any of these things, you want a society with high standards. And post-modernism erodes high standards because high standards hurt many people's subjective feelings.
"Post-modernism leads directly into hyper-individualism because it elevates the subjective way above the objective. Well, if the subjective is far and away what matters most, then who are you or I to dispute anybody's subjective gender identity?"
Transsexualism predates post-modernism, in fact much is owed to Magnus Hirschfeld (whose work - translation of it anyway - also helped popularize "racism" in the academia). In fact, he created the first "LGBT" org in Germany in the late 19th century. "Gender identity" specifically is nonsense, and goes back to Money (he didn't create it, but it's basically his product).
Regardless, I don't think your assessment is correct. I don't doubt some people have been influenced by post-modernism to embrace such things, but the main reason why individualism has as much influence goes back to much bigger factors, including economy & laws which cement it in society. The reason why some people are embracing it is varied, and has little to do with subjectivity over objectivity, as much various institutions promoting it including schools, media, etc, and it's basically replaced other roles that existed before (E.g., emo, goths, etc).
Your point btw has been a critique of individualism since the French Revolution. Here's a (partial) quote from Joseph de Maistre, who basically created the term and used it pejoratively: "The social order 'shattered to its foundations because there was too much liberty in Europe and not enough Religion'; everywhere authority was weakening and there was a frightening growth of 'individual opinion [I'esprit particulier].' The individual's reason was 'of its nature the mortal enemy of all association': its exercise spelt spiritual and civil anarchy. Infallibility was an essential condition of the maintenance of society, and indeed government was 'a true religion,' with 'its dogmas, its mysteries, its priests; to submit it to individual discussion is to destroy it.' In the earliest known use of the word, de Maistre spoke in 1820 of 'this deep and frightening division of minds, this infinite fragmentation of all doctrines, political protestantism carried to the most absolute individualism.'"
But he wasn't the only one" "The 'philosophers of the eighteenth century'-men such as Helvetius, with his doctrine of 'enlightened self-interest,' Locke, Reid, Condillac, Kant, and the 'atheist d'Holbach, the deist Voltaire, and Rousseau'-all these 'defenders of individualism' refused to 'go back to a source higher than individual conscience.'"
"Personal grooming gets worse, people don't care about their weight any more, dress standards totally collapse"
This mostly goes back to inversion of standards, not rejection of standards. It's why the opposites are promoted (E.g., body positivity).
"Now, is this going on in the China or Japan of today?"
Japan isn't a great example tbh, mainly because its basically a vassal state, and its current state of society is much owed to the west/US which occupied it, enforced changes, and pushed propaganda. Not solely, of course, but significantly. China for sure, but again this goes back to liberalism. If you want a good document on it, you can look up "The Crisis of the Modern World" by Rene Guenon (if you add ".pdf" at the end you can find it, and it's not book length either) which discusses both the differences between China and the west and individualism. It was published in 1927, so some points re: China might be a bit outdated.
I don't really disagree with your last point, but I do disagree with what you're blaming as the cause. I've been avoiding western (and American) stuff for years now.
We had liberalism, as in classical liberalism, for literally hundreds of years while people still widely recognized the differences between the sexes. It's only very recently that a lot of people have failed to recognize these differences, causing all sorts of problems. You yourself provided a great example of this, with very recent attempts to erase any mentions to "mother" and "father". Was something this extreme going on back in the late 1800s, early 1990s, or even as recently as the 1990s? If so, I don't recall ever hearing about it. Given how long liberalism has been with us, blaming this primarily liberalism seems questionable to me, even a bit weird. And I mean, it's fine if you don't like liberalism or even classical liberalism. Both ideologies have their flaws. But it's important to try to catch the right culprit for the right crime.
To my reckoning, the very harmful cultural shift began with post-modernism, in exactly the way Bliss laid out. Perhaps there were some weird intellectuals in ivory towers with weird ideologies back in the 1700s and 1800s sure. But their ideas were never able to completely up-end basic common sense until post-modernism came along.
Our society needs a return to common sense and greater respect for objective reality. That's the exact opposite of post-modernism.
"It's only very recently that a lot of people have failed to recognize these differences"
It's a process, the same way "gay marriage" didn't become a thing overnight, or for that matter, "surrogacy" for such people. There's a reason these theories, whether ones concerning sexuality, or gender, or whatever, developed within the west and not middle east or China or elsewhere - it needed necessary preconditions, and the main precondition isn't post-modernism, but liberalism and individualism.
"But it's important to try to catch the right culprit for the right crime."
If we were talking several years back, I probably wouldn't disagree with you since I shared many of the same views. There are places I've written at reflecting as much, but that's not the case anymore. These attempts to blame anything but liberalism, and I'm not referring to you doing so, arise from attempts to defend and re-affirm liberalism. This is the case with "cultural Marxism," "wokeness," but also other things; it's basically a variation of "no true Scotsman" but applied as a heresy; the most recent example of it would be "woke right," in effort to neuter anyone further right. It's same with -isms, but they are heresies outright.
"Perhaps there were some weird intellectuals in ivory towers with weird ideologies back in the 1700s and 1800s sure."
Nah, it started with French Revolution, well, gained prominence, but it probably goes back somewhat further. To list some concrete examples, "individualism" would be one, since it's an identity built on liberal values - much like dozens of genders are nowadays. "Homosexuality" would be another, an identity created in late 19th century, developed in part by Karl Maria Kertbeny in effort to defend the actions, claiming that "the penal code of the German Empire" concerning sodomy violated the "rights of man," and argued for the classical liberal public-private distinction that became so prominent in justifying "gay rights" and marriage. I think this needs to be stressed, but before it - and before 20th century especially - sodomy was seen (and criminalized) as an act committed out of 'wickedness,' initially not limited to an act committed by a man against a man, and there was no such concrete identity as it exists today (same w/ heterosexuality which he termed "normosexuality"). Obviously, it didn't stop there, as nowadays you have countless identities - zoophiles, furries, etc, etc, you get the point.
It's also worth noting that works by those like Spengler - a right-winger, who's also had influence on some leftist figures - basically served as a precursor to post-modernism. Even Derrida, who developed deconstruction, was influenced by Heidegger who was a member of the nazi party (and lost his job over it after WW2).
You might be right. You made a good argument here.
I'll admit I'm somewhat hesitant to blame liberalism as a whole because humanity has progressed a great deal since the American Revolution. The French Revolution, yes, that was far worse than most people realize.
Can we have a society that values technological progress without liberalism? Can we get rid of wokeness while maintaining the liberalism of Bill Clinton?
These are questions I'm not confident on, and still thinking about.
That's fair. I think this system, like most others, isn't eternal, and it's significantly flawed that another system is bound to take place eventually. Chances of going back, as OP notes, are minimal, so some adaptation has to happen.
I think you'd end up in the same position as long the same values and aspirations for it are present, although this would undoubtedly be influenced with technological change. Imho, there are bigger issues w/ liberalism than these, namely immigration, and I don't really believe that liberalism is be compatible, long-term, with restrictionism.
Spengler has written quite a bit about liberalism & leftism, definitely worth the read if you ever have time. I mostly came across him when my views were already similar to his.
If you want something that might reshape your views on liberalism, beyond approaches to immigration or Spengler (Hour of Decision is good and short-ish read, I've yet to read his book on technology though), look at NSSM-200 or Robert McNamara's speeches regarding population control. Especially since many of liberal aspirations are aligned with it.
The right and left have fundamentally different strategies and tactics as they have different outlooks, strengths and weaknesses. The right *cannot* use the tactics of the left in order to seize back power; it does not work that way. The left is the definition of entropy. If a right-leaning individual joins a leftist institution in order to "opposite march through the institutions", he will be either corrupted by the institution or expelled from it, without exception. The right, to the extent it seizes power, can only do it in one fell swoop at the top much like Julius Caesar or Augustus did. This is why our elites have such strict rules against populist generals gaining power.
Currently there is no agreed upon value system among the right for what it should push. It is shattered and entirely reactive except for the tyrannical fake-populist, elite-driven techbros with "Dark Enlightenment" neoliberal feudalism views like Yarvin, Thiel, Vance, etc. As far as right wing populism, the European blogger Kynosarges in 2019 castigated the short-sightedness of the movement, which he believes has six major deficiencies:
1. Right-wing populists have no awareness of the depth of the [societal] problem and the necessity of a massive social transformation.
2. Right-wing populists consider metapolitics irrelevant. They view our plight as strictly a matter of state policy, therefore solvable by the legislative and executive branches (which is understandable given point 1).
3. Right-wing populists do not command parliamentary majorities or sole governments – neither in the past nor in the present, nor likely in the future. They are always in opposition or dependent on coalition partners who are not right-wing populists.
4. The institutional corset of late liberalism narrows the factual scope for political action to such a degree that profound changes are impossible.
5. Right-wing populists offer no grand designs for solutions because they lack a positive alternative framework beyond “liberalism without foreigners” (which is closely linked to points 1 and 2).
6. Right-wing populists are objectively too slow even where they bring about changes. A critical comparison between the development of right-wing populism and demographics during recent decades clearly shows that this approach is impossible solely due to lack of time (ignoring points 1–5)…
Because of these six issues, according to Kynosarges,
"[Right wing populists] have no concept of how to actively solve the problems of late modernity or liberalism. They offer no counter-culture that goes beyond reactionary ideas. They become almost apolitical when they merely retreat into their nation-state bunkers (typical for Poland or Slovakia). They lack a dynamic counter-ideal, and they are not at all equipped to propagate such an ideal to the furthest corners of the West (and beyond), as the chief enemy is (still) capable of doing.
The equation of our identity with the liberal state (e.g. the Federal Republic of Germany as the land of the Germans) inevitably leads to disappointments and at best to the realization that this state neither defends nor recognizes our identity, sometimes even destroys it. No Western constitution has a decidedly identitarian foundation, nor is there any trend in that direction. Anyway such a foundation would be incompatible with the self-concept of liberalism (universalism, egalitarianism, individualism) – the left is correct on that point! But right-wing populists believe that liberalism would only need a “right-wing” orientation to solve the problem, thanks to insufficient analysis….
Modernity can only be overcome with the experiences of modernity, not by an utterly impossible return to an earlier or pre-modern era. The profound change that is now necessary is not genuinely political but belongs to the cultural, metapolitical sphere. Such a counter-enlightenment or counter-culture requires – in contrast to the liberalist eclecticism of right-wing populists – a spiritual preparation for a new European myth that binds us to our oldest past and reconciles us with our future. Nothing less than such an attempt at European rebirth is our task and the most promising exit from political modernity."
From: https://archive.ph/dmmtD
I disagree. Post-modernism is not built to work the way you are hoping for. Post-modernism can't defeat egalitarianism becomes it logically leads to egalitarianism. If nothing is sacred, then who is to say that one way of life is better than another? If nothing is sacred, then who is to say that one moral value is better than another? Post-modernism essentially destroys the word "better", which leads directly into all the terrible things that plague our modern world, including wokeness.
To fix our modern world, we have to say that post-modernism is simply wrong. That some ways of living *are* in fact better than others. That some stories *are* more valuable than others.
The idea that postmodernism inevitably leads to egalitarianism assumes that skepticism toward absolute truth must result in moral and cultural relativism. That's not necessarily the case. Postmodernism isn’t about declaring all things equal—it’s about questioning the foundations upon which hierarchies are built. If anything, it provides a way to expose the weaknesses of the existing egalitarian order by showing that its claims to moral authority are just as arbitrary as the traditions it sought to replace.
For example, progressives wield postmodern deconstruction selectively. They deconstruct masculinity, nationalism, and religion but refuse to apply the same scrutiny to their own sacred cows—diversity, equity, and inclusion. A right-wing postmodernism wouldn’t seek to level everything down to egalitarian mush but rather to dismantle their structures of power, exposing them as just another constructed ideology rather than an unquestionable moral truth.
In other words, postmodernism doesn’t have to destroy the concept of hierarchy itself—it just forces us to acknowledge that any hierarchy is built on assumptions. The difference between left and right isn’t whether hierarchy should exist, but which hierarchy should exist. If the progressive order has convinced the world that "wokeness" is the natural conclusion of postmodern thought, then the right’s job is to use the same tools to dismantle that illusion and replace it with a superior vision.
"The idea that postmodernism inevitably leads to egalitarianism assumes that skepticism toward absolute truth must result in moral and cultural relativism." Yes, and post-modernism does precisely that.
Without absolute truth, there is no logical basis for hierarchy. For an hierarchy to exist, there must be a concrete sense of "good" and "bad", or at least "good" and "less good".
The right's job should simply be to reject post-modernism because it's false. Something does not have to be perfect to be good, dismantling the good causes more harm than good. Post-modernism made our world much *much* worse than it was before, and the poison will not be the cure.
The right should provide a coherent vision of a better way of living, not merely trying to beat the left at it's own game. Especially at a time when people are frankly tired of deconstruction and have a strong desire for a more uplifting and life-affirming message.
"Yes, and postmodernism does precisely that."
No, you can simply argue that your culture or values are intersubjectively superior.
"Without absolute truth, there is no logical basis for hierarchy. For a hierarchy to exist, there must be a concrete sense of 'good' and 'bad,' or at least 'good' and 'less good.'"
Why not frame it in terms of stronger and weaker instead?
"The right's job should simply be to reject postmodernism because it's false."
That’s where we disagree—not only do I think postmodernism is useful, but I also believe it’s correct.
"Postmodernism made our world much much worse than it was before, and the poison will not be the cure."
That’s like saying you don’t want your country to have nuclear weapons because the world was better before the atom bomb.
"Why not frame it in terms of stronger and weaker instead?"
I do think it's better to be strong than weak. We likely agree on that much at least.
But strength can be used in both helpful and unhelpful ways, so I'm inclined to consider strong vs. weak to be secondary to good vs. bad. I would say that one of the differences between good and bad is good is found in building valuable things while bad is found in destroying or harming valuable things in one's life and society.
By this standard, I find it inescapable that post-modernism is quite bad.
"No, you can simply argue that your culture or values are intersubjectively superior."
What makes them superior?
"That’s where we disagree—not only do I think postmodernism is useful, but I also believe it’s correct."
It isn't correct. One reason is that the western culture that existed before post-modernism was clearly superior to most other cultures. By extension, the stories that informed western culture are superior to the stories that informed most other cultures. By extension, we should value those stories and the lessons that can be learned from them.
"That’s like saying you don’t want your country to have nuclear weapons because the world was better before the atom bomb."
No, it's like saying that I would want to dismantle nuclear weapons on a world-wide level. I'm not opposing merely "right-wing post-modernism", I'm opposing post-modernism in general.
"What makes them superior?"
In the case of any particular value, you can argue superiority based on some shared axiom. For example, if you and your interlocutor both agree that liberty is good but disagree on gun control, you can argue that gun control is bad because it diminishes the axiomatic value of liberty. If your opponent has different axioms, then you just have to be stronger than them so that their opinion doesn’t matter.
"It isn't correct. One reason is that the Western culture that existed before postmodernism was clearly superior to most other cultures. By extension, the stories that informed Western culture are superior to the stories that informed most other cultures. By extension, we should value those stories and the lessons that can be learned from them."
I can ask you the same question—superior on what grounds? Stronger? More prosperous? More advanced? Sure, but valuing those things over others is entirely subjective. So we arrive at the same problem.
In my view, the answer to cultural relativism is that what we value is entirely subjective, based on our own axioms. But I can still subjectively value certain things or cultures above others simply because I like them more.
"I can ask you the same question—superior on what grounds? Stronger? More prosperous? More advanced? Sure, but valuing those things over others is entirely subjective."
No, it's not. With all due respect, *get real* here. *Everybody* wants to live in a prosperous society, this is precisely why the US has an immigration problem. It's like the old game show "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?". My father would often joke "The answer is everybody." Everybody wants to be prosperous.
Also everybody, at an individual level, would prefer being strong over being weak. Anybody who says otherwise is either lying or just being a stubborn contrarian.
Ideas like post-modernism obscure these facts, undermining basic common sense.
Post-modernism has done more harm than good, and society can function perfectly fine without it. Good arguments against wokeness can be made without it.
> No, you can simply argue that your culture or values are intersubjectively superior.
Yes, and so can everyone else.
> Why not frame it in terms of stronger and weaker instead?
Well, the woke have managed to put themselves in charge. Therefore, they're clearly stronger.
The become stronger than the woke
Why? If all that matters is strength and the woke are stronger as demonstrated by them winning, shouldn't you be joining them instead?
"Without absolute truth, there is no logical basis for hierarchy. For an hierarchy to exist, there must be a concrete sense of 'good' and 'bad', or at least 'good' and 'less good'."
It's pretty much the opposite. Universalism is inherently destructive and levelling, it's what forms the very pursuit of "spreading democracy," "human rights," globohomo, etc that's so much of an issue currently, because these liberal values are seen as inherent truths, and thus everyone must be subjected to them.
No, it's not. Universalism is at least as old as Christianity, as Christianity is clearly an universalist faith and one of the world's major religions. Christianity has been with us for almost two thousand years. Are you now going to blame a 2000 year old religion for cultural problems that only became really severe in the post-WWII era?
Universalism is only bad if the specific sort of universalism currently being promoted is bad. And here again we come to post-modernism, an ideology that does indeed promote an extreme form of universalist hyper-individualism that atomizes individuals because it over-emphasizes subjectivism at the expense of anything that could build good strong communities and good strong families and good social bonds.
Postconversatism just sounds like a limp liberal version of neoreaction