Postmodern Cultural Neo-Marxism; When The SIFT Method Goes BRRR

“What we are seeing right now in the era of increasing polarization is the consequence of a serious war of ideas that has been going on for, I suppose, one hundred and fifty years.” [1]

“There really was an attempt on the part of the Postmodernists, and this is allied I think with their fundamental Marxism, to demolish the idea of the autonomous individual [...] You have to be in the judeo-christian Enlightenment tradition to believe in free speech because to believe in free-speech you have to believe in autonomous individuals.” [2]

“Postmodernism presents a threat not only to liberal democracy but to modernity itself. That may sound like a bold or even hyperbolic claim, but the reality is that the cluster of ideas and values at the root of postmodernism have broken the bounds of academia and gained great cultural power in western society.” [3]

“The failure of epistemology made postmodernism possible, and the failure of socialism made postmodernism necessary.” [4]

“And they mean core conceptions [speaking of postmodernists’ targets], it is not just social, it’s linguistic, philosophical and attitudinal. It [Western society] should be broken down, wiped out, and restructured from the bottom up and they mean that [...] I am not speaking made-up words generated by postmodern neo-marxists because I despise everything they stand for.” [5]

WACK!

Stop! And breathe.

I am not here to debunk the postmodern cultural neo-marxist schtick propagated by right-wing chuds. Some people have already done that much better than I could ever do [e.g. 6]. Meanwhile, the chuds will keep on chudding: trying too happily to dig the crusade against judeo-bolshevism back up from its Stalingrad permafrost tomb. So, eh, sorry for the click-bait title. Postmodern cultural neo-marxism or PCNM will just be the base for the main point of this blog. But for people who want a refresher on PCNM, I will be quick (see links in the comments):

French theory and cultural marxism are two distinguished and fragmented schools of thought that have grappled with the consequences of the two world wars that rocked the 20th century. 
For the latter, it is a departure from scientific marxism to study how capitalist societies reproduce themselves and persist, notably via cultural means. Cultural marxists shift away from the economic, towards the social [e.g. 7]. For the former, it is interested in grappling with how knowledge is attained, and for instance whether what we would first flag as axioms of reason would, in fact, be ideology [e.g. 8]. 
It is not a conspiracy theory. It is not a grand design attempting to destroy the West. Heck, Marxism is part of the Western canon and is a resultant of the Enlightenment. People defending those conspiracies stifle thought and any critique of the status-quo. Also, traditional marxists disliked postmodernism from its inception [9]. 
Further links on this: [10] [11] [12] [13]

Now with this out of the way, here is the core of this blog: To follow up with my previous blog on mental hygiene, I wanted to present you the SIFT method.

STOP, INVESTIGATE, FIND, TRACE

If you recall the “Data aren’t facts” bit from another of my blogs, this fits right in the situation we’re living in: a post-truth political world [14]. People peddle data like they’re swinging baseball bats, expecting people to crook over under the sheer impact of the statistical blows, only to accept the swinger’s politics.

But the point is, numbers are shiny enough they can be used to hide context, and often underlying, systemic issues. The facts. “An ethnic neighbourhood has a high crime rate,” one says. “Maybe they should reinforce the already strong policing there. Those pesky minorities.”

What about the issue of generational poverty, lack of access to healthcare, and compounding experiences of discrimination? Radio. Silence. Numbers are tools. Words are tools. And you ought to be critical about what you’re being fed. Thus, the SIFT method.

SIFT is first and foremost a student vibe check of sources they cite in their paper, but nowadays, it can easily be used to spot fake news, or people trying to swindle your opinion. 

STOP
You don’t have to listen and nod to what people tell you. Don’t be passive. Ask yourself whether or not there might be an angle that has been obfuscated, unconsciously or not, in what you’re being told. What are the sources? What is the reputation of the claim?

Example: Have you heard about PCNM from Stephen Hicks’ mouth? Well, who is Hick? He’s a teacher of course, but did you know he is also part of the Atlas Society [15], an American 501 nonprofit organization that "promotes open Objectivism: the philosophy of reason, individualism, achievement, and freedom originated by Ayn Rand." This lad might not be a great source on anything marxism, don’t you think?

INVESTIGATE
Don’t take people at their words. That’s how you get persisting myths like carrots help with eyesight. Research when you have the time, but foremost be skeptical. You can always ask people to clarify their point, to provide more proof and sources. Especially more diverse ones.

Example: Did you know Hicks falsified one of his so-called proofs that nazis were socialists? Indeed, he reports an interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, in the page 3 of the Appendix 2 [16] “Quotations on Nazi socialism and Fascism” of his book “Nietzsche and the Nazis,” published in 2010. Did you know that interview is considered a hoax since the 1980s [17]? Indeed, after investigation, Hicks might really not be the best person to quote with regards to PCNM. Heck, so is Jordan Peterson for instance, since he relies on Hicks [18].

FIND
Now that you can confidently push back against the drivel someone has told you, you may choose to counterattack, but you’re not obligated to. Don’t burn yourself out. Find trusted coverage. Look for different sources, less fringe ones. You might want to educate yourself on the topic after all. 

Example: You now want to know more about PCNM. Well, you’re in luck, we have interviews with the mad lads over at the French Theory war room [19] [20] [21]. Go to the direct source rather than a third party when you have the opportunity. Forge your own opinion.

TRACE
Beware of context. And beware of people trying to sell you on a conclusion without bringing up a fair description of their target. “Trace claims, quotes, and media back to the original context,” says the SIFT article. It is a good policy.

Example: You now have at hand a list of valuable information to address what happens to be a PCNM conspiracy theory. Don’t waste it. Keep it. It will be useful. You’ve successfully faced a bias actors, and you may have learned something on the way.

So here we go, SIFT through online content when it’s handed over to you like a sweet candy you should instantly munch on. Don’t be afraid to ask for diverse sources, be skeptical of data peddlers, and rock on. As the original SIFT article I linked above says, recontextualize the data, the facts, the opinions, and the agendas of the people you encounter. You don’t have to do it all the time, in all situations, of course. However, political discourse calls for it. 

There are bad actors. Be prepared for them.

Don’t be a dupe. 

---

Signal boost of related blogs, you should give them a look:

• Ether Echoes’ own signal boost: here.
• iisaw’s “Rational Debate Changed My Mind.”
• Uncr3at1ve’s “Right, Wrong, and Humor.”
• Orbiting Kettle’s “Just my little two cents regarding the current issues discussed in the fandom.”
• River Shy’s two part series on “Debunking Freedom of Speech and Expression as an Absolute”: part 1, part 2.
• TheStratovarian’s “We Need To Do Better.”
• Hardcover’s “Nazis Fuck Off."

---

Links, footnotes, and references:

1. “Identity Politics & The Marxist Lie of White Privilege | Dr. Jordan B. Peterson | SNC 2017,” on Sovereign Nations.
2. “Jordan Peterson & Ben Shapiro - Postmodernism, The Leftist Ideology,” on the Dave Rubin Report.
3. ”How French “Intellectuals” Ruined the West: Postmodernism & Its Impact,” by Helen Pluckrose.
4. Thesis of Stephen R. C. Hick’s book: “Explaining Postmodernism,” page 6.
5. ”Jordan Peterson - The Marxist Origins of Postmodernism,” during Sunday January 22, 2017, North York Civic Center Council Chambers debate.
6. “Jordan Peterson doesn't understand postmodernism,” by Cuck Philosophy.
7. “Dialectic of Enlightenment,” by T. Adorno and M. Horkheimer, 1947.
8. ”Archeology of Knowledge,” by M. Foucault, 1969.
9. ”Let’s mention here that, to resolve the issue of ideologies, we have marxism and the dialectic method. Without further exploring a difficult and controversial item — that marxism is itself an ideology and thus a historically relative doctrine —, we will simply recall that the dialectic method is a radical critique of all ideologies [...],” in ‘La Proclamation de la Commune,’ by Henri Lefebvre, 1965. Comment: Here Henri Lefebvre makes mention of new theories, contemporary to him, that put into question Marxism as a meta-narrative. Here think J.F. Lyotard and Michel Foucault. 
10. ”The Frankfurt School: WTF? Horkheimer, Adorno and Critical Theory Explained,” by Tom Nicholas.
11. Philosophize This! Podcast: The Frankfurt School, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7.
12. Philosophize This! Podcast: A Basic Look At Postmodernism.
13. “The Frankfurt School of Critical Theory,” YaleCourses.
14. Post-Truth Politics.
15. Stephen Hicks is a member of the Atlas Society.
16. Appendix 2 of “Nietzsche and the Nazis,” by Stephen Hicks.
17. “Seit den 1980er Jahren hat sich in der Fachforschung weitgehend die Position durchgesetzt, dass die Hitler-Breiting-Interviews eine Fälschung sind.”
18. “Postmodernism: History and Diagnosis....” Interview of S. Hicks by Jordan Peterson
19. ”The Frankfurt School with Herbert Marcuse,” interview with Bryan Magee in 1978.
20. ”Debate Noam Chomsky & Michel Foucault - On human nature,” 1971 debate between Chomsky and Michel Foucault.
21. “Derrida on Invention & Truth,” Cornel University seminar by Jacques Derrida, 1984.

Comments

[Dreamer Deceiver]

If I may misquote Hamilton:

Ev'ryone give it up for FiMFiction's favorite fighting Frenchman!

Also, great blog and stuff. You put more effort and research into these than this website deserves!

[RoMS]

5317057
Thanks for the kind comment.

[R5h]

Aside from the good advice about always checking your sources (and other people's sources), I'm also quite glad you've linked those related blogs. They're very nice!

[iisaw]

Now, this is a magnificent piece of work, thank you!

[RoMS]

5317902

No, you're magnificent. Cuz' you're participating to the good fight!

i.imgur.com/w20NNYa.png

[iisaw]

5317982