Lately, so-called ‘progressives’, who are really a bunch of Decadents, have waged a Culture War on Essentialism, by which a person is defined by his birth, sex, race, cultural background, religion, and/or nationality. According to Decadents, Essentialism is unjust in predetermining a person’s identity instead of allowing him or her to formulate, choose, and decide what he or she REALLY is.
This is obviously a vulgarization and degeneration of a philosophical debate between essentialism and existentialism. According to existentialism, a individual should accept his freedom, learn to think on his own, and arrive at his own meaning of life. It had more to do with credo than ethnos or any identity.
An existentialist’s primary concern is man's cultivation of ethics and ideology. Instead of just receiving and obeying what is foisted upon him by the established system, he should question everything, learn as much as he can, think about his place in the larger world, and gradually arrive at a set of values and course of action based on his free will.
Whatever one thinks of existentialism, it has been part and parcel of modernity. And men like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus didn’t so much invent as illustrate the modernist way of thinking and reacting in a rapidly shifting world where certainties could no longer be taken for granted. At the very least, this kind of existentialism was meant to be rigorous, and it encouraged, indeed compelled, people to be well-educated, well-read, well-conversed, and always questioning and seeking. After all, if people are to be free individuals is search of their own meanings and values, their moral reasoning has to grounded in erudition and sharpened by experience, the trials and errors of life.
But as higher education has grown more democratic and ‘inclusive’, Ph.D’s came to be handed out like flyers, and second-rate and third-rate academics now fill the minds of dimwit or neurotic students with all sorts of silly ideas appealing to the stupid who are incapable of thinking or soul-searching. Just like Modern Art degenerated into Pop Art, Modern Education degenerated into Pop Education. Thus, even philosophical concepts have been turned into pop fads for easy consumption by shallow dolts whose main cultural mode is ‘celebrity’.
So, what had been intended as an arduous journey of self-discovery and attainment of personal truth based on experience, learning, & logic has degenerated into a vehicle of fast & easy self-promotion as a darling freak. It’s been made especially easy by turning the focus away from philosophy to identity(as opposed to inheritance that is rooted and received than invented on a whim). Right or wrong, wise or foolish, every school of philosophy requires lots of reading, reasoning, and contemplation. One cannot declare oneself to be part of any school of thought just by making noise or hoisting a banner. One has to read essays and tomes on the idea and formulate one’s own interpretation of those ideas. One also has to be acquainted with alternative & opposing schools of thought and logically argue why he believes his chosen ideas are superior or more useful than other ones. Or, one must come up with a new school of thought by rejecting or radically reformulating previous ideas. Such an endeavor would require real devotion to scholarship, as well as tremendous discipline and diligence of mind. And of course, such thinkers still do exist.
But how can masses of shallow idiots(addicted to trashy pop culture) be persuaded to embark on such a challenging, though ultimately rewarding, path? Also, given that so many professors are idiot ideologues than true thinkers themselves, their main objective is to amass or at least FEEL the power. It’d be difficult for a professor to FEEL the power if he or she must devote so much of his/her energies toward turning students into real thinkers. For one thing, if students do learn to think freely, they might think differently from the professor. So, in order for the professor to OWN his/her students, they must be fed PC nonsense whose emotional appeal isn’t much different from the childish Little Red Book or Quotations of Chairman Mao. After all, Mao’s main obsession was power, and he had no use for real intellectuals and philosophers who might disagree with him, better him in debates, and even see him as stupid and crazy.
Whatever one thinks of Marxism, it was the product of much research and intellectual labor. Even though Marx was full of contempt and intolerance for those who disagreed with him, he did embark on a formidable intellectual journey to understand and explain how history really works and where it is headed. And he wanted others to understand and respect his elaborate and ‘deep’ ideas. In this sense, Marx was a true thinker who abhorred the idea of compromising his intellectual vigor with easy opportunism.
In contrast, second-rate thinkers like Mao(though a first-rate strategist in his path to power) couldn’t hold a candle next to real intellectuals and philosophers. He couldn’t even win debates against the cleverer colleagues in the Communist Party. So, his way of regaining absolute power in the 1960s was to appeal to the masses of young dolts who would be his Red Guards intoxicated with fortune cookie radicalism of the Little Red Book, a kind of Communism for Morons. If Marx was spectacularly wrong but intellectually profound, Maoism was just spectacularly and profoundly retarded. But the, stupidity is always far more appealing to the masses. It’s like people understand astrology better than astronomy. This is why 'progressivism' has degenerated into winning hearts-and-minds with new STAR WARS movies as SJW fantasies.
So, if ‘radical’ professors with chips on their shoulders(especially in second-rate colleges) want to FEEL the power and want to play at Little Mao, what better way than to dispense Pop Ideas to their none-too-bright or neurotic students? Appropriate certain ideas from philosophy & past ideologies and vulgarize & popularize them into bite-size cliches and slogans that especially pander to the students’ sense of celebrity.
Celebrity is about idols and icons than about ideas. Most celebrities are famous for their ‘star’ quality in sports, music, movies, humor, and etc. As it turns out, most people don’t have the talent to succeed in the ‘cool’ fields. Then, how can everyone earn their 15 minutes of fame/celebrity? By imitating the most vain and narcissistic group in the world, the so-called LGBTQ community filled a self-promoting self-worshipers. And so, the Culture War on Essentialism is now centered on the issue of gender.
Gender Wars say that LGBTQ people are holy, magical, noble, saintly, wonderful, and glamorous. The home team has to win the Superbowl or World Series to have a parade in its name. Musicians have to make hits to win awards. Actors must do good work in movies to win the Oscar. But, people just need to be homos or trannies to be showered with love and adulation every year in massive homomaniacal parades and festivals. Due to influence of the Jew-run media, the widely shared assumption is that LGBTQ = Celebrity & Glamour. Indeed, a bunch of homos or trannies need not accomplish anything in life. Homos are cool and holy simply because they are homo and do fecal penetration, a behavior that is now consecrated with ‘rainbow’ colors.
And Bruce Jenner only needed to put on wig and dress to be showered with praise as ‘woman of the year’. Just like just being Obama got him the Nobel Peace Prize, just the fact of being ‘gay’ or ‘trans’ makes a person a cut above the rest. To be homo in our world is like being born an aristocrat in the pre-modern world.
This is why so many young people gravitate to LGBTQ worship and gender wars. As they grew up in a celebrity-saturated culture, they also want to be or be associated with celebrities. But most people just don’t have the talent to be good in music, sports, acting, comedy, and etc. Also, most of them have no access to famous people.
So, what are they to do? Should they pretend to be ‘gay’, lesbian, or tranny? Some non-homos do gravitate in that direction because people are naturally emulative of what is considered prestigious or respectable. It’s like all those Chinese women got their feet bound because it was deemed the privileged and noble thing to do in pre-modern China. As most people are unoriginal, weak in individuality, and sheep-like, they are followers than leaders or rebels. Even their acts of ‘rebellion’ are usually just imitations of others who lead the way. Most hippies were just imitating the trend-setters of Counterculture.
So, it’s not surprising that non-homos and non-trannies are now eager to be homo-like or experiment with being tranny. Even so, most non-homos can’t play that game for long. Non-homo guys will not want to experience fecal penetration. And most non-tranny guys will not want to get their penises and testes removed.
Still, so many straight men and women want to be associated with the ‘gay’ community and themes because mainstream media and pop culture have conflated LGBTQ stuff with glamour and even spirituality. Besides, while it’s difficult for a normie to come face-to-face with a famous star, he or she has a good chance of rubbing shoulders with a genuine fruitkin.
Still, because it’s too much for straight people to become homo or lesbian, the Gender Wars has made available something like 50 genders to choose from. Now, most of these ‘genders’ are just variations of homo or straight, but words are funny things. Words can create the impression of ‘fluidity’ even in things that are essentially fixed. If the only categories were homosexual, trans-gender, and straight, then 97% people would realize they are straight, and that’s that. Thus, they would have less reason to dilly-dally with the LGBT community. But if there are 50 genders, maybe all those straight people are not really straight but one of the many alternative ‘genders’, like the many ways of 'walking' in DEAD POETS SOCIETY. (Conformism is a problem when people are forced to consent to something stupid, retarded, or evil, like forcing young one to conform to PC. But, normal people doing what comes naturally is not 'conformism' but 'confirmism' of what they really are and are prone to do. So, the scene in DEAD POETS SOCIETY is a stupid lesson on 'conformism'. There is nothing wrong with people walking normally and properly because it comes naturally to them. If anything, willful non-conformism by walking like idiots is the real stupidity. If a society were pressure women to conform to foot-binding, that would be bad. But if women walk normally in a natural way, they are merely confirming their true selves, and there's nothing wrong with that. PC and Pop Culture pathologize what is healthy and normal while applying pressure to conform to what is deviant, demented, and degenerate, like getting body piercings, tattoos, and green-colored hair as false emblems of freedom and 'empowerment'.)
Anway, by feeling so preciously ‘different’ by adopting one of the 50 genders, maybe even people who formerly thought of themselves as 'straight' have far more in common with homos, lesbians, and trannies than with lame and boring cis-gender types. Cis are the new sissies.
Such nonsensical logic is the gist of the Culture War on Essentialism. It rejects the notion that straight people are essentially straight. It says each straight person should seek out ‘his’ or ‘her’ own gender-identity among the 50 or maybe 500 genders. Or maybe an individual isn’t a ‘he’ or a ‘she’ but a ‘they’.
And this game is especially appealing to young idiots because there is nothing easier than gender politics. It’s all a game of genitals and pronouns. ‘Muh dick’, ‘muh pussy’, ‘muh dick is a pussy’, ‘muh pussy is a dick’, ‘muh dick is a dick and a pussy’, ‘muh pussy is a pussy and a dick’, ‘muh dick has been replaced by a pussy’, ‘muh pussy has been replaced by a dick’, and etc. It’s really on the level of Beavis and Butthead but in bogus intellectual packaging.
But then, this Culture War on Essentialism has huge contradictions. If indeed straight people are not essentially straight but must seek out their ‘true’ genders, why does the LGBTQ community argue that homos were born homo, lesbians were born lesbian, and trannies were born tranny and THERE’S NOTHING THEY OR WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. Sounds pretty essentialist on a biological and inborn level.
A key contradiction in the Cultural War on Essentialism stems from the positing of gender as both biological and anti-biological. Decadent ‘progressives’ prefer to use the term ‘gender’ than ‘sex’ because the latter denotes biologically determined differences that demarcate males and females. Now, both terms can have merit in this sense: While the biological sexes of male and female do exist in reality, sexual identity is very complicated because cultures define masculinity and femininity differently. So, in some cultures, it is manly to cry, whereas other cultures see crying as essentially a feminine trait. So, even if there are only two sexes and even if the notion of masculinity and femininity is generally sound, different cultures have their own ways of defining norms in the male domain and female domain. However, that is not how those in the Gender Studies Departments approach the matter. They tend to argue that the concept of sex must be discarded entirely and be replaced by gender theories that argue that all ‘sexual’ identities and norms are ‘social constructs’. (And yet, these same people argue that some boys are born homo and want to play with dolls because they are genetically predisposed to do so. So, while there is no female nature among girls that prefers to play with dolls than with guns, that nature suddenly exists when manifested in young homo boys who prefer dolls over toy guns.) But despite all the efforts of gender theorists, the fact is gender theory cannot be understood apart from the reality of sex. After all, if we were to imagine a sci-fi clone world where everyone is a copy of Hulk Hogan, could ‘gender theory’ even exist? How could there be femininity in a world where all the people are macho Hulk Hogans? And which members of this Hulk Hogan community would suddenly want to act ‘gay’ or girlish? No, gender theories are possible because biological sexual differences are real, and these differences go way beyond different genitals. Emotionally and cerebrally, men and women are different, and homos and trannies are different from straights due to biochemical factors related to hormones.
So, the entire field of Gender Theory that wages war on Essentialism is one big contradiction. On the one hand, it encourages young people to put aside ideology & credo as the core source of their identity and instead focus on their biology and genitals. Instead of "I think, therefore I am", go with "Muh dick, therefore I’m man" and "Muh pussy, therefore I’m woman." So, your core sense of self should be more about what’s between your legs than what’s in your brains. Biology over Ideology, or Biology is ideology. But then, as if Gender Theory realized its mistake of Essentialism(rooted in birth or biology), it argues that gender identity isn’t biological but ‘creative’ or ‘constructed’. It’s a strange kind of game where you tell some kid, "What’s inside your mind is secondary to what’s between your legs. If you got a ding dong, you are a male chauvinist pig and evil patriarch, and you can’t do anything about it(unless you’re a homo, in which case you’re excused)... but then, never mind, because having a ding dong doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a man because you might want to put on a wig and dress, in which case, you’re a ‘woman’ and suddenly have more pokemon points than real women..."
This is why tranny business is so essential to the anti-essentialists. After all, even homo men are still male, and homo women are still female. So, even homos uphold the essentialist template of the reality of sexual differences. Homos may have different orientations than straight men, but Gore Vidal was clearly a man, and Susan Sontag was clearly a woman. It is only with trannies and theories of 50 genders that the essential notions of sexuality are really subverted. So, if a man puts on a wig and dress, he is a ‘woman’ and even feminists better accept ‘her’ as such or else they are the essnentialist ‘bigots’. Ridiculous, eh?
There is also the Political War on Essentialism, and this has to do with mass colonization of the West by hordes-of-color. Again, this has nothing to do with ideas or philosophy. It’s all a game of labels and brands. In order for globalists to realize their radical agenda of turning all the world into one big mass of interchangeable consumerist units, all racial-cultural-national identities must be subverted, undermined, and eradicated. So, any essentialist definition of a culture and people must be denounced and discredited. So, there are no Real Hungarians, no Real Poles, no Real Russians, no Real Japanese, and etc. All national identities must be ‘Americanized’, especially as the meaning of American is no longer essentially European or Western. Even up to the 1980s, an American was quintessentially a person of European heritage due to history, culture, and demographics, but the massive rise of non-white numbers has effectively redefined ‘American’ as whoever wants to come to America. Thus, Future might-be-Americans are more ‘American’ than Americans with deep roots in America or racial ties with those with deep roots. After all, if the meaning of ‘American’ must be anti-essentialist and ‘inclusive’ of anyone, any notion of American identity based on history, culture, and roots must be rejected because it will imply that those with deeper roots in America are more American or have more claim to America than those just off the boat or those who have yet to get on the boat.
This is one reason why the globalists have lost all interest in American Indians. If people were to feel that American Indians have a special claim to America because of their deep roots, then it also follows that whites also have a special claim to America since they have deeper roots than most recently arrived non-white groups who have historically contributed little to America.
Also, if indeed the main narrative of America is "whites took land from Indians", then the main moral obligation of white people should be to make amends to the American Indians, and surely massive colonization by non-whites is NOT any way to help the Indians. The result will be Indians losing their lands not only to whites but hordes of non-whites who can’t even make the claim of having founded and developed America as a modern nation.
But what do globalists care about real justice? Real justice is about a people owing something to the people they’d wronged. On this basis, one could argue that white Americans do owe something to the Red Man(who lost their lands) and blacks(who were brought over to work as slaves). But what do whites owe to the whole world when white Americans didn’t do them any wrong? Only demented globalist logic argues that white Americans(and white Europeans too) exist only to make life better for non-whites and Jews all over the world.
But even the Political War on Essentialism has its contradictions. After all, if indeed no race-culture-nation has any essentialist claims, why do Jews insist that Jewishness and Jewish nationhood cannot be negotiated? We are to believe that Jewishness exists as a fact, identity, culture, and history, and of course, Israel has a RIGHT TO EXIST as a Jewish state.
Another contradiction is the cult of White Guilt. If there is no essentialist history, culture, race, or identity, why can’t whites wash themselves of the social construct of the ‘original sin’ of ‘white guilt’? And why must ALL white people atone for the ‘sins’ of other whites? Why must Poles and Hungarians pay the price for what the Germans did? After all, if the argument is German people must commit national suicide for their crimes in WWII, why does this apply to other Europeans who were victimized or bullied by Germans? And why are Russians being compared with Nazis by Jewish globalists when more Russians were killed by Nazi Germany than any other people? And why are all white people in America made to feel ‘guilty’ about slavery when most whites never owned slaves and many came to America after the Civil War? And why does ‘white privilege’ essential-istially apply to ALL whites, even to generations of poor white folks who worked in coal mines or factories? In contrast, even the richest Jew whose ancestors had it so good get to flaunt his ‘essentialist’ identity as a member of the Holocaust Tribe.
It’s obvious there are no principles or consistency in the Cultural and Political War on Essentialism. Like most things pushed by Jews, the goal posts are changed ever so often to suit the agendas of people like George Soros and the loathsome Pritzkers. If one thing is for sure, Jewish Power is essentially hideous and vile.
No comments:
Post a Comment