To say “I am the father of my children” is important to me. That I and I alone am the father of my son and daughter is the hill I will die on.
But, what if the proposition “I am the father of my children” can be proven to be false? Or to put it more simply, what if “sons and daughters have fathers” is false? What if they never do? What if the words “father” “daughter” and “son” can be redefined to mean something they didn’t use to mean? If you are reading this you should know, as preposterous as it seems, everything required to make this a reality has already happened.
The fall of meaning
For meaning to fall, the following needed to have taken place:
The complete failing of epistemological philosophy.
This commenced with David Hume in 1748 but was completed by Willard Quine in 1951. An antidote of sorts was delivered in 1953 in the form of Philosophical Investigations by Ludwig Wittgenstein but it has failed to be administered to the population.
Replacement of reason with madness
Within the smoking ruins of Western epistemology, a replacement theory that could change meaning needed to develop. This occurred in the 1960s in France. Lyotard, Derrida, and Foucault put forth their theories of micro-narratives, deconstructionists, and alternative knowledge, respectively, during this time. These theories collectively get called Postmodernism. None of these theories can allow for the continuation of the Western way of life and thus are useful for those looking to end it. Initially, Postmodernism died out due to the complete inability to construct anything. It has been revived of late.
The replacement theory needed a delivery system
This was accomplished in the ’80s and 90’s by the infestation of our universities with Marxists. The rise of the new cultural and media studies courses offered at university necessitated new course materials and because the first great undertaking to understand how globalist and corporate wealth was controlling the culture was performed by The Frankfurt School (a.k.a. Neo-Marxists), the materials used by universities are Marxist.
Reasons for students to learn Cultural and Media Studies course
Everyone from Locke to Dr. King Jr declared the virtues of equality of opportunity. When equality of opportunity failed to provide an equality of outcome, some people went looking for outside interference to explain why. Feminists and minorities wanted to understand why their own numbers were not coming into power at a rate equal to everyone else. The proposed answer was outside interference from corporations and globalists. They went to university to learn more about it. Here they received a Marxist education;
A new revolutionary class
Marxism requires revolution. A combination of liberal universities and baby boomer parents allow students the freedom from responsibility and access to youth (a.k.a. hot heads) that created a new leisure class that has had their minds filled with what every true believer needs; a belief in a better world that can only be brought about by non-traditional means.
Re-emergence of Postmodernism
The problem with capitalism is that it works really well. The problem with masculinity is that it wins and wins and wins. The problem with Christianity is that it provides a great way of living well. The problem with the family is it is incorruptible. These are the four great redoubts that resist Marxism. Postmodernism is a package deal. It deconstructs everything. This deal is worth it to those looking to deconstruct everything. The deal has been made. The redoubts are being deconstructed.
Bringing Marxism to Bear
The small number of Marxists, indoctrinated with Postmodernist ideas, needed to be able to create a large disruption. By focusing on the plight of certain groups of people with a bona fide claim to historical injustices, attention could be monopolised and a narrative, backed by Postmodernist dissolution of truth, could be disseminated by appeal to compassion rather than reason. The minorities with legitimate claims are seduced by the promise of moving up the chain by moving white males down the chain via Postmodernist deconstruction and the Marxist revolution waged specifically against White Males. With reason slogging through the mire of deconstructionism and emotivism burning through the thick dry brush of social media, it’s getting dire.
Within the disruption, there must be a mechanism that took power from the status quo and bestowed it back upon the disruptors. This was done by positing that meaning was only possible within a certain context. If there are many contexts, there are many meanings. By stressing that all contexts were culturally and historically significant, the disruptors could destroy the contexts that they disliked by rendering them immoral.
This was done by ignoring certain historical and cultural contexts in which certain choices were made. That females couldn’t vote a thousand years ago might not have been immoral at the time, but now it’s considered obviously oppressive. Thus defining women within the context of political oppression (a.k.a. 100% of all of history) was wrong. They should only be defined when they are equals. Equality hasn’t happened yet. Therefore, women don’t exist (or at least have no definition yet).
Christian contexts were guilty of a range of sins, as were patriarchal, western, traditional, capitalists, and European contexts. For example, the Crusades are spoken of with reference to the fact that Charles “The Hammer” Martel had just driven Muslims out of southern France, and Constantinople was under imminent threat. Capitalism is spoken of without reference to the fact that it has effectively ended world hunger. Masculinity is spoken of without reference to the fact that every man has been the defender of his family for 99% of human history and this required certain brutality on his behalf. American slavery is spoken of only in the context of its existence, never its abolition. The list goes on.
Once those contexts have been disgraced, newer, cleaner contexts can be produced and therefore new meanings. For example, women are not baby makers and carers. This was only true in the old context. Now we have an alternative knowledge that gives women an alternative meaning within a different context. Women are now (and all at once) male, female, non-binary, stunning, brave, oppressed, empowered, victims, liberators, etc. Finally, by making the decision to find the objective truth that we can pick and choose which context within which to find out alternative meanings, postmodernism can construct. And it constructs for you what you prefer, not what is true.
Now, all we need is for someone to prefer for fathers to not exist. Postmodernism will deliver this alternative knowledge if you are prepared to surrender your reason.
New World Order
Without a shot being fired, meaning can not only be changed (this has been possible since the 1960’s) but the mechanisms of doing so can be taught to our children and we pay for the pleasure of it. Those that have learnt the new madness can monopolise the attention of social justice initiatives by legitimate claims of injustice, infused with Marxism. Once the attention is garnered, all resources are expended to;
- highlight the wrongs undertaken by the proceeding paradigm of power (straight, white, christian males);
- deconstruct the existing meaning of words by framing them in different cultural contexts;
- use small circles of intellectuals and elites to carefully recreate new meanings for words (toxic males and stunning and brave females);
- monopolise media attention and use it to
- push the new meanings of words
- demonise anyone that resists
So what’s wrong with this new world order? Only the following.
It is dysfunctional
Western, patriarchal Christians did not call a hammer “a hammer” to oppress minorities. They called it “a hammer” because that was its use, its telios, its function. It hammered. When language is defined in use, it makes sense (it also fails to answer any significant philosophical argument but that is worth the price for usefulness). But right now language is being misused to satisfy the lust for power of a small group of on-campus Marxists.
That is why labeling males as toxic has not caught on among the common people yet. The commons don’t speak words until they use them. There is little cause to refer to males as toxic in using the word “male” and so we the people don’t refer to them as toxic. But SJW’s don’t speak words until they deploy them as agents of disruption. A language cannot function when it is subject to endless and careful considerations of a group of politically motivated elites. It must flow naturally and is best tested by trial by fire in the furnace of everyday functional life.
It is immoral to use a person as a means to your own end
The manipulation of language is immoral. Language is a public good. No one owns it. When one group claims to know it better than others and makes false claims that some members (specified because of their race and gender) are using it to do harm to others, knowing full well no such intention exists, they use these members as a means to their own end. The members that are presently labeled hateful are straight white males. The ends they are being demonised towards are those of a Marxist revolution.
The post modernist system is bound to collapse
Central to the postmodernist outlook is the idea that there is no one truth, no one knowledge, and no objective point of view. However, in order to make any truthful claims, truth must be permissible, one knowledge must exclude all others and the notion of objectivity must exist. Postmodernism allows for the dissolution of truth but it’s a package deal. All truths, even the Postmodernist’s own, are dissolved. Therefore, the following claim that Western norms are the wrong context within which to define things can never be upheld within the Postmodernist framework. The use of an alternative context as the rightful context within which to define can never be upheld. The whole process is an idiot’s paradox.
We are creating dysfunctional humans
The Postmodernist notions of binary language, value-laden terms, and words being defined by other words are all false. Worse than that, they are wrong ideas that seem right at first. By the time you work out they are wrong, you’ve already become political. It’s hard to be humble and admit you are politically wrong, especially when the ideas are so ridiculous and therefore embarrassing. We are creating humans that don’t believe what they say. They are stuck in a political war that they can only win by doubling and tripling down on falsehoods which they no longer believe in. These humans will be hollow and riddled with doubt and guilt.
And of course, we don’t know who controls this deliberate attempt to force change upon us. If it is a real attempt by “the people”, so be it. If it is a manipulation by powerful elites, we should resist until they show themselves and make their intentions clear.
How do you resist on your own?
Have families and raise children. This is done best with masculine men and feminine women. Anything beyond that is a risk and that’s on you. To raise children they’ll need to respect you. Once they respect you, they will do what you do, not necessarily what you say. Acta Non Verba.
Take personal responsibility for your children’s education. I’m not saying you have to homeschool but talk to them daily about what they are learning at school. Most importantly, be the first to teach them about politics and philosophy. You cannot stop the elites from speaking to them, but you can make sure they don’t get to your kids first. If they do, that’s on you. Be centrist. Your goal is not to make them walk exactly in your footsteps, rather keep them from being duped into the far right or left.
Learn the errors with the following philosophical concepts and pass them on down to your children;
- The distinction between matters of fact and relations of ideas from Hume. Trace that forward to Kant’s version of them, analytic a priori and synthetic a posteriori;
- Limitation of language by understanding the logical positivists and analytical philosophers. Focus on Russell’s Barber paradox and sets of all things that don’t include themselves. Make an attempt at reading The Tractatus and at least understand Proposition 7;
- How Quine’s Two Dogmas of Empiricism ended the hard line between the analytic a priori and synthetic a posteriori and effectively ended any simple way of saying there can be true or untrue propositions;
- Get across Derrida’s deconstructionism and why it is wrong. It’s hard because Derrida spread his work over approximately 80 books. Chapter 5 of my book, Battlefields, will help as a summary; and
- Get across neo-Marxism, why it doesn’t work, and what its true intentions are. Chapter 4 of my book will help.
When your children start to become political, undertake a family project to read a simple text together, like White Fragility, and discuss the text with your kids. Point out the flaws in Postmodernism and neo-Marxism as you find them. Teach your children why both ideologies fail. Commence a life long dialogue with the most important people you’ll ever know, your children, and keep it politically neutral. That way, no matter which way they swing, you’ll be able to talk with them about these matters.
How do we resist as a culture
Freedom of speech is all-important, especially on campus. Arguments can be made against that which afflicts us, so long as they may be made.
The universities need their liberal arts degrees defunded. You can get a cultural and media studies degree if you want, but you’ve got to pay for it out of your own pocket. No more hiding at university in a safe space. This needs to be the major thrust of our political endeavors.
The mainstream media is okay. They are a business and have to earn a profit. We are the customers and it appears that we buy more outrage than truth. But we need to understand that it is not the only source of news and facts. We are all very educated now and have access to the internet. There are no oracles. There are only sales people. Do your research before you buy. None of this is anyone’s fault but ours, the people’s.
There is no such thing as collective guilt. You may bring an accusation against another person. You cannot bring one against a culture. Women have no case to prosecute against men. One race has no case against another. If there is a victim there must be a perpetrator.
Name your perpetrator, by individual name, and then we will investigate them. If you were not individually harmed by another individual, you were not harmed. This means if you want to want to have compassion for something, make it an individual. Know their name, research the facts of their case, understand what happened. Exactly what happened. Be rigorous. Likewise, know the perpetrator. Given them their day in court.
When justice is done, it is done. This way compassion has an end. It’s not a sprawling, endless campaign of condemnation against men or white people or Catholicism, etc, forever and ever. Generational, rolling complaints are inaccurate and have no facts. They have narratives. People with an interest just don’t want the party to end. There are no narratives against Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein, there are cases. There are no cases against white people or men, there are only narratives. Narratives can never be verified. Cases can. Let’s deal in cases. It’s the only way we’ll have the truth.
Words do not have universal meaning. Language changes all the time. But, it does not change to suit someone’s purpose. It changes to be more useful to the populace at large. The term “women” might include biological males, it might not. That is for the people to decide. It depends upon the context and the community. Used in good faith on Cornell University Campus, it probably includes males. Shouted as a weapon against a conservative politician during a protest, it probably doesn’t. Language is in no one’s control but everyone’s. It requires a consensus, not a Bill C16 from The Ontario Human Rights Commission.
Equality of outcome is a hellish nightmare. Inequality is predicated within Freedom. Find a way to deal with inequality and have freedom. Inequality can be dealt with by judging a person by the choices they make, not the position they were born in life. It is not the outcome, it is the journey.
Charlie Delto is an Australian father, husband, business owner, and philosopher. He has a site at charliedelto.com, on twitter at @charliedelto and on youtube here. He can be found within the walls of the Fraternity of Excellence.
For those that would like to support Barbarian Rhetoric, click here SUPPORT