"When they allow a talk show host to play them like a two-dollar banjo, they demonstrate what kind of backbone they'll bring to the job later on, if we elect them. After they get elected will they continue to allow Jeff Crank to put a nickel in them and wind them up every Saturday morning?"

Barry Noreen, former columnist, Colorado Springs Gazette

Sunday, July 11, 2010

THE POST MODERN POLITICAN


By

ROBERT HARKINS

If Americans are ever to fully understand the glories of post-modern philosophy, and the politicians who are its protagonists, they must abandon such antique superstitions as discoverable and objective truth, the progression of knowledge, science, natural law, ethics and rational excellence. Truth, after all, is not rational; indeed, strictly speaking, truth does not exist. Truth be told, there is no truth, except that perceived by the post-modern acolyte. It is a subjective, relative and conditional truth at once evanescent and absurd. Postmodernism, writes classicist Victor Davis Hanson,

“… is a fancy word — in terms of culture, nihilist; in terms of politics, an equality of result and the ends justifying the means — that a lot of people throw around to describe the present world of presumed wisdom that evolved in the last part of the 20th century.”[1]

The post-modern philosopher dredged up from a wacky pseudo-reality, a perverse dogma as radical, irrational and dangerous as that medieval dogma, which birthed the Inquisition, its cast iron instruments of sadomasochist torture, the faggot and the burning stake. It is the post-modernist who intends the deconstruction of American philosophy, opinion and speech and the imposition of a reality that is politically correct.

The term [political correctness] comes from Mao’s Little Red Book. Derida got the term “deconstruction from Heidegger (who got it from a Nazi journal edited by Hermann Goring’s cousin, and used it to advocate the dismantling of ontology, the study of the nature of being).[2]

For the post- modernist all civilizations, however miserable or grand, are nevertheless, in all and everything, entirely equal. He who says otherwise blasphemes. All ideas are conditional. Truth is subjective. Morality is entirely flexible. Objective law does not exist: There are only root causes and the demands of blind, universal and pointless empathy. Reason, particularly inductive reasoning, the critical tool of scientific inquiry, is chauvinist and arrogant. In fact, there are many sciences, Marxist, feminist and Chinese communist to name only a few

It is the ambition of the post-modernist to deconstruct the multitude of superstitions derived from the ancient Greek, Roman and Judeo/Christian philosophers. It is for him to deconstruct the foundations of science itself and thereby free mankind, so to speak, from the primeval strictures of an unlettered mind—a mind chained to the primitive theory that truth may be discovered through the objective devices of reason, hypothesis, experimentation and discovery. Indeed, for the post- modernist,

There is no single scientific method… and therefore—here comes quite a leap—scientific results are no more trustworthy than those obtained through any other procedure. Such arguments often began by trying to celebrate the prescientific beliefs of indigenous peoples, but soon ripened into attacks on science and logic so sweeping as to destroy the grounds on which the post-modernists themselves could critique any system of thought whatsoever. Real science needed to be replaced by a ‘particularist, self-aware’ science that would yield different answers depending on who—a woman, say or a Sufi, or an Aborigine—was asking the questions.[3]

Post-modern thought is dangerous because it is the irrational refuge of the pseudo-intellectual sycophant, the politician who coins new words so as to deceive, teachers who dump into the minds of their students prurient academic waste, and scoundrels who, in the savaging of plain words pretend an intelligence they do not own, take what it not theirs, and enter covenants they do not for a moment intend to keep.

Postmodernism’s lasting legacy—aside from having misled millions of students and made a laughingstock of the academic left—was its call to ‘democratize’ science. This sounds nice, but in paratactic usually means wielding the power of the state to restrict scientific research….

In essence, deconstruction demands that the knowing reader tease out the meaning of texts by discerning the hidden social currents behind their words, emerging with such revelations as that Milton was a sexist, Jefferson a slave driver and Newton a capitalist toady.[4]

How did American government and academia embrace such post-modern tripe?

Part of the answer may be that universities generally, and humanities departments in particular, are more backward than is universally recognized. … It was twentieth-century humanities professors who, confronted with the glories of modern science and the triumphs of the liberal democracies over totalitarianism, responded by denigrating virtually every political philosophy except totalitarianism Campus enthusiasm for authoritarian rule today is predominantly leftist….[5]

When examined from a post-modern perspective Americans may see the aberrant logic in a President who embraces fiscal conservatism as he squanders, without moral right, American wealth that is not his, denies that he has compromised missile defense although an American/Russian treaty specifically provides, in plain language, for the reduction of missile defense, who insists that the new health care plan will bend the cost curve downward, when he knows, as in fact everyone knows, that its costs will push America to the brink of bankruptcy, who promised transparency even as the President and his administration engage in the politics of stealth and deceit.

As Americans look upon the gaudy works of the President and his administration, from the prism of reason, ethics and rationality, they are remorselessly repudiating the tactics of a post-modern President and Democrat administration shrived of honor and integrity, common decency and truth. Really, Americans need not take up the study of post-modern philosophy so as to understand its cadent chicanery. Abraham Lincoln explained it best.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.[6]



[1] Victor Davis Hanson, A postmodern presidency April 2010.

[2] Timothy Ferris, The Science of Liberty, Democracy, Reason, and the Laws of Nature. (An Imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers, 2010).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Abraham Lincoln, (attributed) 16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

No comments:

Post a Comment