Thursday, September 23, 2010

The Obama: the Marxist, Anti-Colonial African Colonial - Update

L.E. Ikenga is hot on the trail of D'Souza's wanting analysis in "The Obama Agenda and the New Global Elite". The Left were quick to categorize the article as "highbrow birtherism" (their assault themes are really getting quite worn at this stage). Ikenga deals with it without throwing around labels ad hominem:

Mr. D'Souza fails to understand is that post-colonialism ceased being a cantankerous "cause" or a "crusade" a long time ago. Instead, it now identifies a new way of thinking about the world in global terms. Post-colonialists have long since stopped attending "Reparations Now!" rallies and academic "roundtables" on race and politics. They are now the heads of liberally backed NGOs, Ivy League Institutes, or countries like the United States. (...) >>>
Read it all ...

September 14, 2010

Dinesh D'Souza is once again doing what he does best: narrowly missing at target practice. He gets the general drift and then dashes off after some red herring.

In an analysis on Forbes, "How Omaba thinks" he's bringing up a number of flabbergasting policy decisions by the Obama administration and concludes on that basis: "The President isn't exactly a socialist" and "Obama is a socialist--not an out-and-out Marxist, but something of a European-style socialist" to finally conclude Obama is actually an anti-colonialist.

D'Souza could do with a few courses Objectivism or perhaps study a tome on non-contradictory thought.

All Obama's policy decisions are perfectly explained by the Marxist narrative, which to a more or lesser degree and intensity follows the same simplistic, dialectical world view, broadly reading as follows:
The world is made up of two groups of humans: oppressors and oppressed. The battle is to entice away as much value as possible from the oppressors and hand it over to the oppressed. Since this is serious warfare and the ethical goal outweighs any other consideration, the end justifies the means.
The battle has been raging for almost two centuries.

In turn Marxism rests on the false theories of the German Idealist thinkers, notably Immanuel Kant and his follower Hegel who pushed the fallacy that the outside world - reality - for its existence is somehow dependent on man's mind (thought creates reality, or subjectivism). This is the basis of Progressivist thought.

While others have noted that Obama doesn't share the 'slave blood' of African Americans, the notion that Obama's background should be seen against the light of a black African, was first laid out in June of last year in an article on American Thinker by Nigerian born L.E. Ikenga. In the article the author explains the mental makeup of the typical African colonialist.

Ikenga's 'African colonials' have adopted a Western consciousness and took colonial thought and ideologies in order to advance the anti-colonial agenda, usually to the detriment of the former colony. All Obama is doing, is projecting the anti-colonial Dreams From His African colonial Father.

The same is true of Obama's 'Christianity'. On the basis of Islamic doctrine the case could be made Obama is formally a Muslim. But the fact remains, he's been sitting for over twenty years in the pews of the fire and brimstone emitting Reverend Wright, a typical exponent of Black Liberation Theology.

The tenets of postmodern Liberation Theology are in fact nothing more than a slightly Christianized version of the Marxist dialectic based on the Frantz Fanon's anti-colonial Sorelian myth, "The Wretched of the Earth".

Any doubts of Obama's Marxist root could be laid to rest by his early political exploits in the Marxist New Party (photos also here and do read all the Obama files on New Zeal).

That ultimately brought Obama to the highest office, where he's been redistributing value from his own quintessential 'oppressive' country - the USA - to those nations that share the Marxist dialectical world view, to wit Iran and its proxies, Brazil and a number of other Neo Marxist caudillo countries, the Chicoms, autocratic Russia, and the rest of the laundry list of beneficiaries, of allies thus far thrown "Under the Obama Bus".


- Forbes: "How Obama Thinks", by Dinesh D'Souza
- American Thinker: "Obama, the African Colonial", by L.E. Ikenga
- Key Wiki
- Discover the Networks

Related dossiers

- "The Dialectics"
- "The Pomo Presidency"
- "Under the Bus"
- "Ruled by the Mob"
"The Obama Civil Defense Force"
"Stop The Obama Constitutional Crisis"
"Obama's Radical Connections"
"Postmodern Ravages"
"The Pomo White House"

Thursday, September 9, 2010

No Closure For the Victims of 911

Thank the 'religion of peace' and their Leftist accessories for that.

Proponents of the Ground Zero mega Mosque project are defending it on the basis of the freedoms of expression and religion. But neither liberty guarantees the erection of prayer houses at will.

These grounds are simply false. The freedom of religion is in the good hands of New York's 999 other Mosques. No one is denying them their liberty in that respect.

The question rather is, if your objective is the building of bridges, as imam Rauf alleges, is lifting your middle finger to 3,000 mourning families and 67 percent of Americans, the way to go? Of course not.

- Caption: proximity of the Cordoba project to human remains recovered - Hat tip: Ground Zero Mosque News -

Perhaps it should be clarified what kind of 'bridges' imam Rauf has in mind? Maybe our interpretation of bridging the gap between the Muslim and the Western world is a wrong assumption. If on the other hand he has an Islamic beachhead in the heart of the Dar-al-Harb in mind, this would explain his intransigence.

This event exposes the true objectives of the Cordoba Project, a name - now ditched - not chosen by accident. It has everything to do with power over infidels. No mistake, this building around the corner of Ground Zero is a trophy.

On the other hand pastor Terry Jones has had his website closed down and the full weight of the Obama administration coming down on him like a ton of bricks. Never mind his liberties.

As in many other places in the world, time and again the freedom of expression has been subordinated to public safety and national security considerations endangered by threats of Muslim rioting and terrorism. It has long become a pattern. Muslim intolerance is going to cost us our freedom as we become the constant subject of blackmail.

In a recent CNN interview with Soledad O'Brian imam Rauf - on grounds best known to himself - argued that moving the project to another location would be construed by Muslims as an attack on Islam. As usual national security was used as a crowbar. It was a thinly veiled threat.

Again: at issue is not if imam Rauf may build his Cordoba Project, but this specific location near hallowed ground. Why not move it to another location where it doesn't upset the victims of the 911 attack? The Muslim community would gain respect tremendously by such a gesture. But no.

Apparently only Muslims are allowed to take offence; it's just their feelings that must be spared. Hurting them would be Islamophobia. The sensitivities of the families of 911 and 67 percent of Americans are immaterial.

Making matters worse, some of the proponents are very well aware they are trampling on the feelings of the victims: a vigil was held on Friday instead of Saturday "out of respect for victims and families of the 911 attacks". Yes, but we're still going to shove a 13 story Islamic Center down your throat!

The issue - and that is before the stand off with pastor Terry Jones - is indicative of the bad faith of the Muslim elite in the West and the moral bankruptcy of the Left that is aiding and abetting their advances.

The stand off with pastor Terry Jones is quiet revealing. Jones was claiming yesterday an accomodation was reached with the Muslim clerics: his bonfires against the Mosque's relocation.

A spokesman for the Cordoba project is rejecting Jones' claim. He would, of course.

Jones meanwhile is shocked, shocked: "We are just really shocked," Jones said. "He clearly, clearly lied to us."

What's so shocking about Muslims exercising their birthright to lie to infidels (taqqiyah)?

They already launched the false equation of "their radicals" versus "our radicals" - as if a book burning pastor is on moral par with murderous terrorists?! But of course they do not look upon "their" terrorists as radicals. That epithet is reserved for those who go against the letter of Islam. There are no radicals on his side. Sharia law is taking care of that!

If there's one thing worse than a Swiss army knife wielding jihadist, it's a double tongued, duplicitous Muslim version of Grima Wormtongue. We've seen the type before in the person of Tariq Ramadan. There are many more who are using a toxic brew of traditional Muslim deception and Western postmodern sophistry against us.

For all his lack of sophistication and enlightenment, Jones is the only one standing up to the threats and the blackmail. At least what he's got in return were bargaining chips and Rauf et al. showing their true intentions.

As for the argument that "Muslims died on 911 too", I'm sure so did at least one Japanese. I can't recall the Japanese calling for a Shinto temple, either near Ground Zero or overlooking Pearl Harbor.

The double standard that transpires the entire event is a typical example of the postmodern dialectic. This is precisely how the mechanism of the redistribution of rights is worked. Ignore it at your peril.

The "Project" - the cultural take-over of the Western world - is right on course.


- PJM: "Truths About Political Left Revealed by GZM Debate", by Dennis Mitzner
- NRO: "The Two Faces of Feisal Rauf - What’s wrong with What’s Right With Islam", by Ibn Warraq

Part I - Part II


- Website of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) (Europe: SIOE)
- Website of Ground Zero Mosque News
- Website of American Islamic Forum for Democracy


- Looking at the Left: "Stop the Mosque at Ground Zero Rally – Part I" - Part II
- PVV: "Geert Wilders' speech at the occasion of SIOA 911 rally"
- Politeia: "History of Islam and how they build victory mosques", by Pamela Kafir Liner
- Wall Street Journal: "Questions for Imam Rauf From an American Muslim", by Zuhdi Jasser
- The Daily Caller: "8 questions with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy", by Caroline May
- Human Events: "Bonfire of the Insanities", by Ann Coulter
- Politeia: "Why Islam is an Ideology", by Dr Sam Holliday

Related dossiers

- "The Dialectics"
- "The Jihad Project"

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Postmodern Education in the United States

by Dr. Sam Holliday

Many people do not understand how drastically education has been transformed in the United States since the 1960s. Most people trust the professional educators; after all they are the experts. However, if we take another look at the transformation that has taken place in both K-12 and in higher education during the past fifty years the impact of postmodern thought is obvious.

Ordinary citizens and parents have been concerned about the education of our youth. But they have focused on the practical: reading, writing, arithmetic, job skill training, and morality/character development being replaced by multicultural indoctrination, concerns for self-esteem, sex education, increased costs and more administrators.

On the other hand, the professional educators have focus on the theoretical and their own self-interests: how to make a paradigm shift from traditional American education to the development of a more progressive society and how to get paid more for less work.

Which is more important: the theoretical or the practical? Although some people like to focus on one or the other, separation is an error. They are two parts of the same whole, and neither should be considered more important than the other.

To illustrate the connection of the theoretical with the practical, consider education. Surely there is nothing more practical than the education of children—as parents have always thought. However, what has happened to education in this country since the 1960s is the result of a theory: postmodern thought. This is true whether you agree or disagree with the transformation that has taken place during the past fifty years in the name of progress.

The objective of traditional American education was to produce intelligent, resourceful, moral individuals capable of thinking and making decisions based on their own judgments. Such individuals were expected to have free will and an inner compass that gave them character and morality compatible with the principles and ideals upon which America was founded.

How this traditional American education has been transformed is clearly presented by Antony C. Sutton in America's Secret Establishment. Today professional educators see their task as a socialization process; their goal is to mold students into being parts of collectives (factions), and to generate politically correct behaviors in accordance with postmodern thought.

The metaphor is no longer a melting pot, but a salad bowl. This is not a better way to do things--it is only a better way to serve the purposes of some collective, or someone.

The National Education Association produced a program for the 1976 Bicentennial entitled "A Declaration Of Interdependence: Education For A Global Community" which was pure progressivism, or postmodernism.  On page 6 of this document we find:
"We are committed to the idea of Education for Global Community. You are invited to help turn the commitment into action and mobilizing world education for development of a world community."
This is an objective straight out of Hegel’s philosophy. It is explained in Self Knowledge And Social Action by Obadiah Silas Harris, Associate Professor of Educational Management and Development, New Mexico State University:
"When community educators say that community education takes into consideration the total individual and his total environment, they mean precisely this: the field of community education includes the individual in his total psycho-physical structure and his entire ecological climate with all its ramifications - social, political, economical, cultural, spiritual, etc. It seeks to integrate the individual within himself [sic] and within his community until the individual becomes a cosmic soul and the community the world."
And on page 84 of the same book:
"The Cosmic soul ... the whole human race is going to evolve an effective soul of its own - the cosmic soul of the race. That is the future of human evolution. As a result of the emergence of the universal soul, there will be a great unification of the entire human race, ushering into existence a new era, a new dawn of unique world power."
This last quote sounds more like a German in 1933 than any American. It has the same blend of the occult and absolutism.

All of this is theory, but does in have practical outcomes? The transformation of American education by postmodern thought is evidence that it does.

Compare the objective of progressive education with our Constitution, the basic theory under which the United States was to be governed. Our Constitution makes the individual supreme, i.e. the government exists only to serve individuals and government has no power except by express permission of the people. Of course, progressives (postmodernists) do not agree with this view of our Constitution. They think in terms of collectives (factions), not of the individual. This is why they consider our Constitution a "living document"; this allows changes through interpretations, rather than having to actually change the Constitution.

Nevertheless, Amendments IX and X of the Constitution guarantee the supremacy of the individual. Amendment IX reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People." Note, the "retained". And, Amendment X reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

- Caption: The origins of Postmodernism: the German Idealists of the Counter Enlightenment: Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, and Ernst Moritz Arndt (undated Woodcut) - 

Therefore, the theory and proposals of John Dewey and his followers (who gave us progressive education) violate our Constitution., Since it is impossible to bring a legal case against a theory or proposals, the constitutionality of this theory has never been challenged. Nevertheless progressives, shaped by postmodern theory, are those who have made the practical applications in the classrooms, schools, colleges and universities since the 1960s.

Who is behind this transformation of education in the United States? Who established the vision, which shaped what students need to know and how they should behave? The answer: those who established the theory for postmodern thought as a way to have a paradigm shift from traditional American education. They took to heart the words of Thomas Kuhn who in 1970 defined a paradigm as “a constellation of values, beliefs, and methodological assumptions, whether tacit or explicit, inscribed in a larger world view.

This group orientation is common to all socialist collectives, be they of the left (communism) or of the right (fascism). Its aim is not to produce intelligent, capable individuals who can think and make decisions based on their own judgments. Its goal is a Utopia in which there is no war, crime, poverty or injustice. Of course there is nothing wrong with this goal.

But the way to achieve it is to create intelligent, capable, aware, responsible and decent individuals, who will then go out to built a better nation, and also a better world. No community organization, no social plan, no political system and no politically correct agenda will ever do it as well, because these always ignore and suppress the individual. They centralize power in the hands of an elite--which thinks it knows best.
All government should exist for the security, economic success, and happiness of individuals. However, postmodern educators, politicians, community organizers, and social planners see it the other way around.
We must look clearly at the lessons of history. Government cannot insure happiness or equality of outcomes. No collective can enjoy freedom? Morality depends on the inner compass of individuals. Only individuals feel and experience anything. Those who think in terms of governments or collectives are playing with words and metaphors--which is a hallmark of postmodernism, since language is the centerpiece of its epistemology.

Postmodernists attribute individual human equalities to collectives. Also for them interpretation and investigation never end with reality, since truth or falsity is not the issue; what matters primarily is the language’s effectiveness. They have turned education up side down through the clever use of words. The lessons of history are clear: return to the reality of traditional American education.

Once again the objective should be the development of intelligent, resourceful, moral individuals capable of thinking and making decisions based on their own judgments. Their education should offer them the opportunity to develop character and morality compatible with the principles and ideals upon which America was founded.

Copyright © 2010 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319.
Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at

An online printable version of "Postmodern Education in the United States" is available here.

Filed on Articles in "
The Armiger Cromwell Center"

Related dossiers

- "Postmodern Ravages"
- "Pomo Lingo"
- "Education"

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Why Islam is an Ideology

Several Western countries are struggling with the notion that Islam is a totalitarian  ideology masquerading as a religion. Most are in a firm state of denial.

The last few weeks we saw the Christian-Democratic Party (CDA) in the Netherlands tearing itself literally to pieces over Geert Wilders' claim that answers the question in the affirmative. A great number of Islam scholars agree with him.

The party was engaged in government coalition talks with Geert Wilders' Freedom Party. Wilders broke off negotitions last Friday, fearing endless dissent in the Christian-Democrat camp, that views Islam as a slightly more militant version of Christianity.

The claim touches fundamental, Constitutional rights on the freedoms of expression, religion, and education, causing some even to express fears if the rule of law would remain in responsible hands. On the one hand such fears are caused by a corruption and a misunderstanding of these rights; but it is also not well grasped what precisely constitutes a religion.

The following essay answers the question from an American perspective.

While there is an argument to be made, as Dr Holliday does, that religion is something separate from political ideology, on the broad philosophical scale of things all religions belong to the family tree of ideas, viz. ideologies.

Earlier articles and essays from the pen of Sam Halliday posted on Politeia, are available on the Articles file of the Armiger Cromwell Center, a non-profit organization aiming to contribute to more effective and efficient policies in international relations.

First published on 5 September 2010 under the title "Shari’a Makes Islam an Ideology"

by Dr. Sam Holliday

The First Amendment of the US Constitution grants freedom of religion. But what did the Founders mean by religion? Surely they did not mean for any behavior to be justified by the claim of religious freedom. Freedom of belief, yes; freedom of worship, yes; but not freedom of behavior.

Religion to the Founders meant a belief system compatible with morality. In the United States any belief system that contradicts morality—as understood by the Founders--should be considered a legal/political ideology, rather than a religion. Shari’a contradicts such morality and thus Americans should not consider Islam a religion protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution.

- Caption: "Battle of Lepanto or Naupaktos" which ultimately inspired the Greek War of Independence against Ottoman oppression - 

Religion and American Morality
The American nation is unique. Most nations are based on shared history, ethnicity, language, culture, or religion. Not so the United States with a diversity of people with nothing in common but principles and ideals upon which to have a better life for themselves and their descendents. Even those who did not come of their own free will now have the same opportunity if they are willing to seize it. It is an error to refer to all of those living in this country as Americans. Americans are those individuals willing to accept the risks and rewards offered by freedom, and willing to seek their dreams through hard work.

America is indeed “out of many one” symbolized as a melting pot. If “We the people” is to mean anything it is the American nation of self-governing people, free from the arbitrary edicts of centralized Secular Authority. With such diversity, what provides a common identity to form an American nation? It can only be the principles and ideals upon with the United States was founded. Without this shared identity there is no American nation—and no Americans. There could be many people living in the territory governed by the United States of America, but no American nation. This fact should not be obscured by demands for rights, equality and governmental largess.

There are many definitions of morality, religion, ethics, belief, and faith; what they define is fundamental to a way of life. Together they define Sacred Authority, and they shape the inner compass of individuals; they determine what individuals consider right, good and virtuous. The American nation depends on all Americans sharing a Sacred Authority, i.e. specific principles and ideals. It is suggested that these be those of the Founders of this country.
In order to gain acceptance of a Sacred Authority for America these definitions are suggested:
Morality contains: (1) beliefs about the nature of man, (2) beliefs about ideals, and about what is right, good and virtuous, (3) rules of what ought to be done, and what ought not be done, and (4) motives which are right, good and virtuous.
Religion, according to the U.S. Constitution, is any belief system that supports the morality expressed by the principles and ideals of the Founders.
Religion, according to philosophy, includes (1) belief in supernatural powers, (2) appropriate sacred attitudes and emotions which create a sense of reverence, and (3) ceremonies, rituals, and duties.

The Threat of the Third Jihad and Shari’a
The goal of the Third Jihad is the destruction of Western Culture. We must not let the Islamists use our most cherished convictions to achieve their goal. Conspiracy is just as much a threat to America as the planting of an atomic bomb in a city. Much of Shari’a condones what our Founders would consider criminal activities. In accordance with taqiyya Islamists willingly lie to deceive non-believers. To teach or practice such behavior, in the name of any belief system, is not compatible with American morality.

The problem is that Islam contains aspects that are religious, by any definition, and some aspects that do not reflect American morality. In fact, the Founders did not want the state to specify a belief system that required submission. For them belief, worship and behavior were determined by the free will of individuals—not by submission to a doctrine prescribed by an elite. This is what freedom of religion is all about. Shari’a is just what they wanted to prevent.

Some want to reject all of Islam because it contains Shari’a. This would be wrong. Some want to accept all of Islam, including Shari’a, because Islam is a “religion”. This would be wrong. What needs to be done is to welcome those parts of Islam that are compatible with American morality, but to reject other parts of Islam. This is very difficult because all parts of Islam are intermingled.

We must be able to identify those Muslims who want to protect their children from a drug-laden, sexually permissive, and tradition rejecting society, who want a better life for themselves and their children, who reject violence, embrace pluralism, and work to stop terrorism, and who want to exist peacefully with nonbelievers. Also we must be able to identify those Muslims who accept the teachings that promote hatred, discriminatory edicts, Shari’a and conflict between the Islamic nation (umma) and all nonbelievers. Therefore, we need to use our judgment to accept what is moral in accordance with the principles and ideals of our Founders, and to reject any alien legal/political ideology.
In the case of the Ground Zero mosque this will require some way to determine if the outer jihad (a moral struggle which is evil and unconstitutional since it requires the submission or killing of all nonbelievers) will be advocated by that mosque, or if teaching in the mosque will be limited to the inner jihad (the struggle against the baser instincts of an individual, which is constitutional). Limiting teaching to the inner jihad would require the rejection of much of the Qur’an.
The necessary action will be very difficult to do, since it cannot be done solely through politics and peacetime law enforcement activities, i.e. the rule of law (Secular Authority). It requires intelligence gathering and actions beyond those specified in our Constitution. It will require actions appropriate for Irregular Warfare during an ideological struggle. It will require recognition that Feisal Abdul Rauf is typical of the intellectual Islamists of the lead element of the Third Jihad’s penetration into Western Culture. Such Islamists pose as moderates, oppose terrorism, claim that the United States supports terror against Muslims around the world, and use only non-violent means. Such Islamists manipulate our tolerance to advance Shari’a toward the goal of a world wide Caliphate.
Shari’a is about power—neither faith nor making an individual a better person. It is not compatible with American morality. It is totalitarian and inherently unconstitutional and the direct opposite of the American ideal of "religious freedom."
We need to recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Hamas, and other Islamists groups support the Third Jihad. For them Shari’a is a  "tradition of Islam" which dictates what everyone must do regarding their whole life, including marriage, divorce, commercial relations, and personal behavior.

They want to bring Shari’a to the United States. Any Muslims in the United States living according to all of the tradition of Islam violates our Constitution regarding freedom, civil rights, government and way of life.
An appeal for understanding of Islam is a Trojan Horse. The noble idea of mutual respect between the Cross and the Crescent based on overlapping, and shared beliefs are fool’s goal. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” only works among those with shared values and principles. To practice it with those who are evil and seek your end will insure that you are a victim. We are currently engaged in an ideological struggle not unlike those in our past against Fascism, Nazism, and Communism.
What Must be Done?
We need to establish policies, strategies, techniques, and processes that are appropriate for the ideological struggle of Irregular Warfare, i.e. asymmetric conflict between those in authority and those who want to weaken and destroy them. We need to reestablish the means used in the past to obtain compliance with shared morality, i.e. Sacred Authority. We must again be judgmental and discriminate against that which is considered wrong, bad, or sinful. In our current legalistic and politically correct society this will be difficult to achieve.

We must recognize the extent the Third Jihad has advanced in this ideological struggle--and what it is doing to subvert the West. The Saudis alone have invested at least $2 billion a year over the past 30 years to spread the most radical form of Islam. The response of Europe and America in this ideological struggle has been negligible. In fact much of what has been communicated by our movies and media has worked against us.

We must actively defend Western Culture

  • The first step is to recognize that Islam with Shari’a is not a religion of peace, as our Founders understood religion; it is an alien legal/political ideology designed to control the behavior of everyone and to eliminate anyone who does not submit to the way of Muhammad, as described in the Qur’an.

  • The second step is to recognize that those Muslims who believe in the outer jihad, as taught and practiced by Muhammad, can never be assimilated into America or Europe—the outcome of any such attempt would be the destruction of Western Culture. Such Muslims must be expelled.

  • The third step is to revitalize belief in the principles and ideals upon which America was created.

Copyright © 2010 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319.

Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at

An online printable version of "
Shari’a Makes Islam an Ideology" is available here.

Filed on Articles in "
The Armiger Cromwell Center"


Politeia: "The Power of Ideas

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Maintaining a Sense of Humor in a Two-Dimensional Universe

Having done away with universal truths and moral consciousness, the question is, how does a postmodern Leftist maintain a perspective on things and how does he preserve his mental sanity?

It's quite a burden to look at the universe as essentially absurd, meaningless; a human being as nothing more then a collection of cells and hormonal goo, deprived of free will and true choice.

The flat universe which has become form and form only, behind which is there is more form and ultimately just meaningless waves of nothingness, is quiet a challenge - sanity wise.

Although cynicism is only normal in people with such an outlook on life, this is yet exacerbated by the practical and moral demise of Rightist and Leftist collectivism.

While Rightist collectivism didn't make it past World War II, Leftist collectivism lived another day, causing decades of untold human misery, nevertheless claiming the moral high ground in the face of it.

Enough to make a cynic out of the most misguided idealist ...

In theory postmodernism deals with this absurdist, Heideggerian world view by adopting the "ironic" style: with a wink, "quotation marks" or a smile, tongue firmly in cheek.

This is the theory. But human nature being what it is, tends to look with less favor on nihilism. Indeed, in the last century communists and National Socialists pointed out their view of nothingness by committing mass murder on grandiose scales - without meaning, anything goes!

See how lucky we are in this moment in time they limit themselves today to a bit of obnoxious humor? Yet they seem impervious to the fact that their "ironic" sense of humor comes across as highly unpleasant - bitter and sarcastic, rather than ironic.

Their unwillingness to pass moral judgment even on the most morally depraved may well land some in precarious situations. Take Dutch journablogger Bert Brussen who posted a screen shot on his blog of a tweet excreted by an 'artistic manager', Mohammed Ghabri with the sole comment: "This is how to threaten Geert Wilders".

Ghabri challenged his followers thusly:
"High reward for one who will slit Wilders' throat. Preferably from right to left, but from left to right is also acceptable".
Brussen's lack of moral condemnation was read by the Public Prosecution Service as an endorsement of Ghabri's threat. They are pondering a case. Brussen spent hours of interrogation in a local police precinct.

Commentators are now criticizing the Prosecution Service for having missed Brussen's "ironic" sense of humor.

The "irony" is, that the Justice Department is on the verge of collapse from its infestation with postmodern thought. Nevertheless, they didn't 'get' this particular punchline.

These are the pitfalls of a belief in the flat universe and the cynicism that ensues.


- "Postmodern Ravages"
- "Pomo Lingo"

RatePoint Business Reviews