Ten Things About Postmodernism: Know Thy Enemy

 

Welcome to my blog/vodcast entitled, "The things the Postmodern Left never does", and face it, there are many things they refuse to consider! For the purposes of argument, I will define the left as broadly referring to all collectivist ideologies such as Fascism, Nazism, Democratic Socialism, Communism, Postmodernism, Cultural Marxism and its Critical Theory and Islam which share sufficient collectivist DNA that I will delve into the ten things they all share in common. This with the one exception of Islam which claims it is a religious ideology while in fact it places creating an Islamic caliphate in the place which belongs to God alone. This is why Islam cooperates with Marxism to foment revolution.

For my first observation I'll remind you of this. You cannot manage what you do not measure. Leftists deliberately ignore any real data collected so that they can continue stealing from the public purse. Any data that disproves the successes of their agendas must be rejected in favour of maintaining the rhetoric that supports their failing programs. The solution to all failure is to waste more resources as opposed to actually reducing waste, cost, and variation.

I know. I've watched what happens to senior bureaucrats who dare to defy the left's delusional ideation!

Leftists measuring their actual successes accurately are as rare as real conservatives believing in metastasizing bureaucracy!

For my second observation:

In this observation I'm forced to confront an aspect of social collectivism which many don't often consider. Leftism is essentially materialistic. It defines life as a material struggle between haves and have nots, between oppressor and oppressed. In the case of Fascists, they prefer to be the oppressor whereas with the Neo-Marxists they prefer to pretend to bat for groups they deem to be, “intersectionally oppressed by the patriarchy”.

Both are fundamentally reductionist views of existence which of necessity must eliminate the spiritual since to the left (yes Fascism is a phenomenon of the left) there is nothing but matter and energy in an unending and constant struggle between chaos and order. This is why they refer to the "revolution" as ongoing, utopia always remains a distant point on the unending struggle to eliminate the spiritual nature of mankind. This reveals why socialism cannot be either democratic or voluntary. It reduces man to the level of a beast in an eternal struggle for survival in a material world devoid of any spiritual meaning.

So now you know why the Postmodern left seeks to traduce Judaism and Christianity since these belief systems pose an existential threat to the Dialectical Materialism of Marxism and indeed Fascist ideologies. Leftists not only refuse to consider the spiritual, to them it is anathema! Religion of necessity must be labelled "the opiate of the people". And look at how successful they've been in creating this current godless age where the real struggle is to find meaning in a material world devoid of spiritual connection.

Which is why we must know our enemy by studying what they actually believe.

For my third observation:

Collectivists never consider the consequences of their own actions, EVER! Then appear to be shocked when their plans fail catastrophically. Which is why Maduro just plead, “Not Guilty” for being a narco-terrorist. lol! So, here’s a clear, evidence‑grounded overview of some chief reasons often cited for why collectivist systems fail, backed by the sources surfaced in my search. I’ve summarized the recurring structural, economic, and political failure modes that appear across historical analyses and academic commentary.

Chief Reasons Social Collectivism Fails

1. Concentration of Power and Emergence of a New Ruling Class

Even when collectivism abolishes private property, someone must still operate the state machinery that owns and allocates all resources. This creates a “political elite” that effectively becomes a new ruling class, wielding disproportionate authority over production and distribution. This undermines the stated goals of equality and often leads to “lack of accountability, abuses of power, and authoritarianism”.  https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/impossibility-collectivism

2. Collectivist Production Requires Hierarchical, Non‑Democratic Administration

Theoretical and historical critiques argue that “collectivist production is unworkable in a democratic environment” because coordinating an entire national economy centrally demands strict administrative hierarchy. This results in systems that are “rigid, bureaucratic, and incompatible with liberty or equality”, defeating collectivism’s intended values.    https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/impossibility-collectivism

3. Inability to Transition from Extensive to Intensive Economic Growth

Collectivist states often perform adequately at early stages by mobilizing resources through central planning—particularly for industrialization.  However, as economies grow more complex, they struggle to support innovation, technological advancement, and productivity improvements. The coordination demands exceed what central planning can handle, leading to stagnation.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/658019

4. Weak Incentive Structures for Productivity and Innovation

According to group‑solidarity theory, collectivist structures rely heavily on “obligatory contributions” to the common good rather than compensation-based incentives. This creates chronic motivation and productivity problems because:

·       People are not rewarded proportionally to their efforts

·       Innovation and excellence receive weak reinforcement

·       Free‑riding becomes more common

The result is declining output and inefficiencies.    https://www.jstor.org/stable/658019

5. Coercive Enforcement Produces Resistance, Sabotage, and Human Suffering

Historical collectivization campaigns—especially in the Soviet context—show that forced restructuring of agriculture and labour often leads to:

·       Active resistance (e.g., peasants destroying crops/livestock)

·       Mass discontent and refusal to work

·       Repression, exile, and mass deaths

·       Severe famines due to mismanagement and forced quotas

This combination of coercion and inefficiency contributes to systemic collapse.  https://www.elucidate.org.au/content/successes-and-failures-of-collectivisation

6. Misalignment Between Ideology and Real Cultural/Social Dynamics

Collectivism assumes that people naturally behave cooperatively for group benefit, but psychological and cross‑cultural research shows:

·       People may *not* self‑report—or actually demonstrate—consistent collectivist behavior

·       Collectivist norms can **mask real differences**, producing false uniformity

·       These mismatches can hinder performance in groups that require diverse expertise rather than uniform cohesion

Thus, collectivism often fails because real human social behavior conflicts with ideological assumptions.   https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/why-your-understanding-of-collectivism-is-probably-wrong , https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/chatman/papers/Blurred%20Lines%20Final.pdf

7. Poor Fit Between Collectivism and Task‑Type or Group Structure

Research on group performance shows that collectivism:

·       Helps when tasks require cohesion and the group’s weakest member determines success (conjunctive tasks)

·       Harms when tasks require recognizing and leveraging individual expertise (disjunctive tasks)

Collectivist norms can “blur important differences”, reducing performance in tasks that require specialization or individual excellence.    https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/chatman/papers/Blurred%20Lines%20Final.pdf

# “Summary”

Across historical experience and academic theory, the main reasons collectivism fails include:

·       Structural power concentration and authoritarian drift

·       Rigid, non‑democratic economic administration

·       Inability to support sophisticated, innovative, or technology‑intensive economies

·       Incentive failures that depress productivity

·       Widespread resistance to coercive collectivization

·       Mismatch between collectivist assumptions and actual human behavior

·       Poor performance in settings requiring specialization or individual differentiation

For my fourth observation:

For my fourth installment I have the following observations. Leftists never question the sanctioned narrative to assess whether or not there are logical alternative reasons which might demonstrate that their faith in the socialist collective might be misplaced.

I don't as a rule of thumb go onto other people's profiles to condemn their opinions. But what is truly remarkable, others come onto mine to tell me why my distaste for social collectivism is unacceptable while also informing me that my beliefs are “all in my head”. But wait, when I offered cited sources for how I arrived at my conclusions providing verifiable researched evidence this only resulted in a renewed attack on a personal level. In my rebuttals I avoided all such personal smears. I chose to reason with my interlocutor using ethics, epistemology, and ontology nevertheless this merely resulted in them renewing their hyper-emotional rant.

The left hides under a guise of empathy for the weak and downtrodden, but their kindness is always a mere veneer to hide the narcissism and nastiness underneath! The chief characteristic of social collectivism is its demand for ideological conformity and devotion to the sanctity of the officially accepted narrative. So pathetic. Add to this the fact they think themselves to be enlightened is a rejection of the very liberalism they claim to embrace!

For my fifth observation”:

Those infected by “group think” refuse to acknowledge the immutability of human nature, rather they insist that people are “blank slates”. By the force of their sheer will they believe they can rewrite evolutionary biology. They treat human nature as though it were a computer program which can be reprogrammed into becoming the Übermensch, that being that rejects all that has gone before. This is the great collectivist delusion used to create a future Utopia by remaking mankind over in their unnatural image.

It is largely young women of voting age who are responsible for two things, the queering of politics and supporting mass Islamic immigration. These young women have ideologically categorized LGBTQIA2S+ and Muslims as victims. We are witnessing our daughters being converted into radical Postmodern Cultural Relativists even as they abandon their natural function as wives and mothers. These sad aspects of modern life are poorly understood but I suspect they're the result of fathers abandoning their proper role in the developmental stages of their daughters' lives. This is where WOKE MARXISM has gained a stranglehold over the prevailing Zeitgeist in the West. Sadly, I've seen its effects up close and personal. God save our girls if our culture is to survive!

I must add, the idea to become WOKE did not originate with our young women but rather with their "educators" who have used our schools and universities where the prime task has been to indoctrinate rather than educate. Postmodernism cannot succeed without first undermining the nuclear family and the traditional roles of each family member which have evolved naturally due to humanity’s evolutionary biological nature. Human nature is not a blank slate and only radical social collectivists who deny evolutionary biology would think that our natural instincts are not the result of natural selection! No wonder so many young women appear to be so unhappy and unfulfilled!

For my sixth observation:

Collectivists appear unwilling to delve into the history of "Progressivism" to study their own ideological origins, its consequences and outcomes. Accompanying this is not only an ignorance of their own ideological DNA, but they also have a complete lack of knowledge as to what their philosophical doppelgangers think. This is quite telling since the resultant oversimplification of all socioeconomic ills creates neat little packages of one size fits all solutions which when applied and in turn measured for success consistently prove that the diametric opposite outcome of what was desired has been achieved.

But it gets worse. Many who claim to be conservative are doing the same thing. In this both the WOKE right and the WOKE left are sharing the same gross intellectual failures.

Therefore I have created an equation which will assist you in determining where those who resist reason sit on a scale of measurable, “Assholiness".

“Assholiness” is a factor (f) of stupidity times (*) belief in simple answers to multivariate complex problems divided (/) by curiosity where ten is high and one is low

Example: Jane hardly reads anything about what she claims to believe (giving her a stupidity factor of 9 out of 10) this is multiplied by her belief that since she acts as a metaphorical hammer that every problem must be a nail (so she gets 10 out of 10 for not knowing that her solution wasn’t addressing the issue which she had hoped to resolve) which is divided by her almost total lack of curiosity (obviously a factor of 1 since she already thinks she knows it all).

The result from this equation is therefore 9 times 10 divided by 1 giving us 90 out of a possible 100 as to where Jane falls on the scale of being a total asshole!

You will thank me for this, but probably not today! But you must admit, Jane is 90% asshole!

For my seventh observation:

Social collectivism cannot operate without weaponizing emotions by hijacking healthy emotional responses to turn them into tools by which the weaponizers can use to fulfill their political agenda. The leftist leaders do such since they fully realize that they cannot make a rational pitch based upon objective reality for their socioeconomic revolution.

Social collectivists never consider that their ideology has hijacked their emotional system to weaponize it against them. Picture this: evolution wired our brains for survival through razor-sharp emotions—fear to dodge predators, disgust to avoid rot, anger to crush threats. Brilliant design, right? But the postmodern left, those virtue-signaling apostles of relativism, slither in like cultural vampires. They've hijacked these instincts, twisting them into self-sabotaging weapons against our own species' triumphs. Start with disgust: once a shield against disease, now weaponized to brand oppressors as moral filth—think cultural appropriation panics or cancel culture's ritual purity tests. We end up policing our tongues, fearing a misstep that summons the mob's righteous vomit. Fear? Primed for saber-tooths, but redirected at microaggressions and patriarchy. Universities breed paranoia factories where safe spaces coddle us from ideas sharper than words. Result? A generation paralyzed, too scared to debate, letting echo chambers rot our spines. Anger, that righteous fuel, gets perverted into perpetual grievance—intersectional victimhood where every identity stacks grievances like Jenga. Instead of channeling it productively, we implode, tearing down statues, traditions, even biology itself in the name of equity. It's evolutionary suicide: turning adaptive drives inward, eroding the very hierarchies that built civilization.

Wake up, folks—these parasites aren't just ruining discourse; they're reprogramming our hardware to hate our progress. Reclaim your instincts, or they'll leave us whimpering in the ashes of our own virtue. Yet they label this as “being progressive”!

For my eighth observation:

The Postmodern left cares nothing for objective reality, only for the officially sanctioned narrative which supports their tyrannical hold over mainstream media and the state sanctioned narrative in the name of the "welfare of the many" when in fact it supports the rape of mankind by the few!

For this installment I will provide a “Petersonian Critique” of the Postmodernism and Social Collectivist Left:

Jordan B. Peterson, a clinical psychologist and public intellectual, has extensively critiqued what he terms the "postmodern left" or "postmodern neo-Marxism" in lectures, interviews, and writings. From his standpoint, this ideology represents a dangerous fusion of philosophical skepticism and ideological resentment, prioritizing power dynamics over objective truth, and ultimately serving as a tool for societal control rather than genuine human flourishing. Peterson argues that it emerged in the late 20th century as a rebranded form of Marxism after the catastrophic failures of communist regimes became undeniable, shifting from economic class warfare to identity-based oppressor-oppressed narratives. This perspective, he contends, cares little for empirical reality or individual merit, instead enforcing "officially sanctioned" stories that justify authoritarianism under the guise of collective welfare.

How the Collective has Rejected Objective Reality in Favour of Power Narratives:

At the core of Peterson's argument is postmodernism's denial of objective reality. Influenced by thinkers like Jacques Derrida, Postmodernism posits that there are no grand narratives or universal truths—everything is interpretation, and interpretations are infinite. However, Peterson sees this as selective skepticism: while it dismantles traditional structures like logic, reason, and Enlightenment individualism, it smuggles in its own meta-narrative of power struggles between groups defined by race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. In this view, social hierarchies are not based on competence or voluntary cooperation but on arbitrary power grabs, where the "oppressed" must overthrow the "oppressors" to achieve equity. Peterson warns that this reduces all human interactions to a "Hobbesian nightmare" of enmity, where dialogue, negotiation, and consensus are illusions masking domination

Objective reality—facts verifiable through evidence, science, or shared human experience—is dismissed as a construct of the powerful. For instance, he points out that postmodernists privilege certain identity dimensions while ignoring others, like intelligence or personality traits, leading to incoherent applications like intersectionality that paradoxically highlight individuality but weaponize group grievances. This, he argues, is not truth-seeking but a strategic narrative designed to accumulate power, as "everything to the Postmodernist is about power."

The Tyrannical Hold Over the Common Person:

From Peterson's perspective, this ideology enables a tyrannical grip on society by infiltrating institutions—universities, bureaucracies, governments, and media—through mid-to-upper-level positions. He describes it as a "slight of hand" by disillusioned Marxists who, after the horrors of Stalin's gulags and Mao's famines (which he estimates killed over 100 million people), could no longer defend class-based communism openly. Instead, they pivoted to Postmodernism, which maintains the oppressor-oppressed binary but applies it broadly, fostering division and control.

Peterson draws on historical examples, such as the Soviet Union's Ukrainian famine and Nazi Germany's propaganda, to illustrate how such narratives degenerate into tyranny. Totalitarian systems, he says, are upheld not by a single dictator but by a web of lies where everyone participates in deception, silencing dissent through censorship or social pressure. The "common person" becomes collateral in this power game, coerced into conformity via guilt-tripping tactics that exploit Western conscientiousness—framing individualism, capitalism, or traditional values as inherently oppressive. This leads to polarization and chaos, as hierarchies based on competence (essential for stable societies) are vilified as tyrannical, ignoring evidence from biology and history that arbitrary power is unstable and often overthrown.

The Facade of "Welfare of the Many" resulting in the "Rape of Mankind":

Peterson asserts that the postmodern left's rhetoric of "welfare for the many"—promises of equality, emancipation, and care for the oppressed—is a mask for resentment and hatred, not genuine compassion. Drawing from George Orwell's observations in “The Road to Wigan Pier”, he argues that socialist intellectuals are often motivated by disdain for the successful rather than love for the poor, leading to policies that entangle societies in dependency and undefined "needs." Slogans like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" sound benevolent but justify coercive redistribution and control, echoing the utopian claims of Marxism that ended in genocide and starvation. In Peterson's view, this ideology "supports the rape of mankind" metaphorically by violating human dignity and potential—demolishing the foundational structures of Western civilization, such as individual responsibility, free speech, and merit-based hierarchies, in favour of group-based coercion. He contrasts this with Judeo-Christian narratives that view suffering as intrinsic to human vulnerability, not merely sociological oppression, urging personal truth-telling and moral courage as antidotes (e.g., referencing dissidents like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn). Ultimately, Peterson calls for resistance through principled conservatism, emphasizing that viable societies require finite, reality-bound interpretations, not infinite power plays.

For my ninth observation:

I will examine how the Postmodern Left refuse to use ethics, epistemology, and ontology in favour of using language as a tool of wielding power over others. So, I’ve prepared a “critical essay” expanding on this with references to some key thinkers:

# Power Narratives and the Postmodern Left: A Critical Analysis

 Introduction:

The postmodern left is often accused of abandoning traditional philosophical domains—epistemology, ethics, and ontology—in favour of power-centred narratives. This critique stems from the intellectual legacy of Postmodernism, which emerged as a reaction against Enlightenment rationality and universalist claims. Thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Jean-François Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida reconfigured the foundations of knowledge, morality, and being, placing power at the heart of social analysis. This essay explores how these shifts occurred and evaluates their implications.

Epistemology: From Truth to Power:

Classical epistemology seeks objective foundations for knowledge. Postmodernism, however, dismantles this ambition:

*   **Foucault’s Power-Knowledge Nexus**: Foucault argues that knowledge is never neutral; it is produced within regimes of power that determine what counts as truth. Scientific discourse, legal systems, and even psychiatry are seen as instruments of governance rather than pure inquiry.

*   **Lyotard’s Incredulity Toward Meta-Narratives**: Lyotard famously declared the “end of grand narratives,” rejecting universal theories such as Marxism or liberalism. Knowledge becomes fragmented, local, and contingent.

*   **Implication**: Epistemology shifts from seeking certainty to exposing the political conditions under which truths are constructed.

Ethics: From Universal Norms to Emancipatory Politics:

Traditional ethics relies on universal principles—Kantian duty, utilitarian calculus. Postmodern thought challenges this:

*   **Moral Relativism and Pluralism**: Ethical norms are viewed as historically situated, undermining claims to universality.

*   **Ethics as Resistance**: For Foucault, morality is not about fixed rules but about practices of freedom—resisting domination and creating new forms of subjectivity. In other words, normalizing deviant behaviour and sexual perversion including paedophilia.

*   **Implication**: Ethics becomes politicised, prioritising liberation from oppressive structures rather than adherence to transcendent norms.

Ontology: From Essence to Construction:

Postmodernism destabilises ontological certainties by denying the existence of objective reality:

*   **Anti-Essentialism**: Identities such as gender, race, and sexuality are understood as socially constructed rather than natural givens.

*   **Decentring the Subject**: Derrida’s deconstruction and Foucault’s critique of the autonomous subject reveal individuals as products of discourse and power.

*   **Implication**: Ontology is reframed as an analysis of how categories of being are produced and maintained through language and institutional practices.

Power Narratives as the Organising Principle:

The common thread is the centrality of power:

*   **Power as Constitutive**: Social reality is not merely influenced by power; it is constituted by it.

*   **Politics of Representation**: Narratives about identity, justice, and truth are sites of struggle over meaning and authority.

*   **Critical Project**: The aim is to expose hidden hierarchies and challenge dominant discourses when in fact it creates new hierarchies of radicalized operatives.

Critique and Consequences:

While this reorientation has illuminated mechanisms of domination, critics argue it risks:

*   **Epistemic Paralysis**: If all knowledge is power-laden, can we justify any truth claims?

*   **Ethical Ambiguity**: Without universal norms, how do we adjudicate between competing moral visions?

*   **Ontological Instability**: Radical constructivism may undermine shared realities necessary for collective action.

Conclusion:

The postmodern left has not simply “rejected” epistemology, ethics, and ontology; it has transformed them into tools for interrogating power that does not further the Cultural Marxist Revolution. This shift’s chief goal is to challenge coherence and normativity. We have seen the results of this since it lies at the heart of the Postmodern left’s goal of deconstructing functional socioeconomic order!

For my tenth and final observation of the things the Postmodern left does not do

Essentially the Postmodern Left does not realize that their beliefs are literally mad. I will reference an American-born author, mathematician, and professional troublemaker, Dr. James Lindsay who has written six books spanning a range of subjects including religion, the philosophy of science and Postmodern theory. He is a leading expert on Critical Race Theory, which leads him to reject it completely. He is the founder of New Discourses and is currently promoting his new book "Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody," which is currently being translated into more than fifteen languages.

Why is it that conservatives and classical liberals cannot understand the Postmodern Left? Dr. Lindsay believes that Postmodernism is a Gnostic Cult with an ideology that must be accepted by faith. From Lindsay's lens, the Postmodern left's insanity stems from rejecting objective truth and embracing radical relativism, where language and power dominate everything. It's a Gnostic heresy because it creates an elite enlightened class who claim secret knowledge—think critical race theory or gender ideology—while dismissing reason, science, and tradition as oppressive tools. Most folks can't grasp it since it denies shared reality, demanding constant self-critique and social deconstruction. It's not just confusion; it's a deliberate, cult-like rejection of reality that fuels division and control.

There is therefore no longer any need to wonder why things have gotten so dire under the domination of a cadre of mad kleptocrats who believe in a system which is an utter rejection of everything that has underpinned functional society. A society which evolved naturally out of evolutionary biology and the philosophy of the Christian West. The very reason the scientific method became possible is due to the fact that we believed God had created an orderly universe that could be studied and the principles upon which the world works discovered by hypothesising and testing these hypotheses to see of the outcomes are repeatable.

What we know for certain is that the outcomes of Postmodernism are as predictable and repeatable as Newton’s Theory of Gravity. Postmodernism is a tree where the rotten apples fall in precise proportion to that vile theory being applied.