Of all the malignant concepts spawned and promulgated through our so-called higher education institutions – things such as loathsome Corbusier-style concrete box architecture, modern so-called art which depends more on the manifesto accompanying the paint splatter or pile of trash, the managerial transferability of MBA-degree holders between any industry at all – I believe the worst and most damaging of all is the concept of oppressor/oppressed. In every dyad, one party is the oppressor and deserving of every action inflicted on them, and the other is the oppressed, who is totally justified in any action lashing back against the oppressor.
Nothing else matters; decency, a sense of fairness, any consideration of the actual and specific facts of the matter, the inarguable reality of the situation, even the rules of warfare as generally designated by the Geneva Convention. All those considerations fly out the window, when it’s a matter of the designated oppressed getting the drop on the perceived oppressor. The designated oppressor or any single representative of the oppressing class gets deserved vengeance visited on them by any member of the designated oppressed. The rights and wrongs of the specific situation have nothing to do with it. The comparative wealth or connection to privilege, social standing – these disparities are insignificant, once the parties are sorted into oppressed or oppressor. It may be that wealth, privilege and high social position is held by the party designated as oppressed, and the party of the so-called oppressor is poor, unconnected and working-class. That doesn’t matter; nothing else matters in this construction. The oppressor is always in the wrong, the oppressed is always justified in whatever action they have taken.
Any complaint from an aggrieved victim is dismissed with a contemptuous response of “You deserved it, you despicable, deplorable bullying member of the designated oppressor class; maybe you aren’t personally responsible for perpetuating the oppression, but the people like you are!”
It makes it all simple, when it comes down to deciding the rights and wrongs between individuals and groups. No confusion, no distraction with inconvenient facts, or horrific, brutal deeds. It’s the moral morons’ way out of having to make difficult decisions about right and wrong, given actions by an individual against another, or of one group against another. Just figure out who is the oppressed, or the representative thereof, and who is the oppressor (or representative) and hey, presto – problem sorted. White people bad, black or brown always good, Israelis always bad because they are white (not really, but that’s what the moral morons insist), Palestinians are poor hapless, helpless brown victims justified in committing any savagery, economic migrants and benefits scroungers from Africa are always and forever innocent, it’s just too bad if ethnically white English girls have been gang-raped and sex-trafficked for decades by Pakistani men, and black American hood rats can shoot, rob and burn their way across the urban American landscape, but Trump voters are guilty and never a chance of proven innocent.
I’d uncork a few more words about the disgusting display of raw Jew-hate displayed by performers and the audience at the Glastonbury music festival – broadcast live by the Muslim-lovers at the BBC, but I think Melanie Phillips said it best in describing it as Nuremburg at Glastonbury.
Comment as you wish.
A couple I see occasionally seem to be reasonable people, but for the last three weeks one of them has worn a “Free Luigi” t-shirt (or some variation of that message: “Deny, Deflect, Delay” etc.) At first I just thought it was typical white liberal woman hotness for the “badboy” but this week it was the husband. WTF?
I’m waiting to get my T-shirt that says “Globalize the Reconquista!” I want to see progressive heads explode.
Does that make me a bad person?
thats something I could get behind,
its a very byzantine architecture, they have constructed,
Stephen Hicks has written that most of non-STEM fields in academia have given way to postmodernism, a philosophy that states that an external reality either doesn’t exist or is inaccessible to human reason. That approach leads to one place nihilism, as there only can be individual truths, asserted by those individuals as a matter of will.
Hicks states that in the absence of external realities or truths, the only solution that the postmodernists can come up with is a watered-down cultural Marxism which posits societies built on the oppressor/oppressed model and provides meaning by calling on people to overthrow oppressors. That’s why you see a seamless transition between Climate Change to other philosophies and the rapid transformation of flags at protests from Pride to Palestinian to Mexican and now Iranian. The only thing that unites any of these movements is that they are transgressive
Of course the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy is a relative one, not only for Marxist theory but as a matter of logic – it’s simply a matter of who is kicking who at a given moment. As a white, heteronormative, cisgender male am I an oppressor? On the other hand simply by my immutable characteristics, which postmodern theory states are mine alone to define, I have been deprived of hundreds of thousands of dollars due being passed over for promotions and job opportunities
All pretty arbitrary right? Not only that but it falls into self-contradiction
mind arson is the way one commenter at the invisible collar blog,
”The designated oppressor or any single representative of the oppressing class gets deserved vengeance visited on them by any member of the designated oppressed. The rights and wrongs of the specific situation have nothing to do with it.”
That is exactly correct, and it goes back to Vladimir Lenin who famously asked “Who/whom?” That is, in the age-old question of “Who did what to whom?” the “what” is completely immaterial. Only the “who” and “whom” are relevant.
If you hang around leftist circles long enough you will see them ask this question among themselves even today. They will be having a conversation about the event of the day, and people will be talking about the what and debating what side to take. Then someone will say the words “who/whom?”, and everyone will know to drop the conversation and get on the proper side.
That is why showing leftists photographs of the atrocities of 9/11 or 10/7 has no effect on them. It’s a what. They literally don’t care. Nor does pointing out the innocence of the victims, because it’s not about individuals. Individuals don’t matter to them — only the class or group of the who and whom. That is how in their minds a rapist can be the victim and the woman raped can be the criminal. “Who/whom?” is a question of groups.
It’s one of the many ways leftists and conservatives can witness the same events and draw exact opposite conclusions from them. They just think differently, and it goes back a long way.
https://litter.catbox.moe/qb5n1sh1v8vu86ss.jpg
All one realy needs to remember is that the slave never wants equality with the master; the slave wants to be the master.
In Marfa TX this week. West Texas Mecca of pretentious nonsense. Pride flags and walls of fraud-art created by elitist, eccentric schmucks.
“Globalize the Reconquista!” I’m stealing that.
Oh, there are perhaps serious problems with Post-modernism in STEM as well.
One of my major takeaways is that engineering professional schools do not have to be at universities, and that universities do not have to have professional schools of engineering. It may be the engienering faculty are actually playing the university office politics well enough to preserve the quality of their own programs, but it is not clear that there is any way to know that without being engineering faculty and also accessing the inside baseball.
And, fundamentally, faculty have to work with the quality of students they have available from primary and secondary schools, which pretty much no STEM faculty directly controls.
Lots and lots of academics seem to have seriously thought that the Harris campaign was the best advertisement that they could front for making the political case for utility of academia. Which either means that those degreed are genuinely profoundly stupid, or that they are simply too personally confident in magical thinking about group consensus and group theater.
If Harris was the whole product of academic training, then the tertiary schools should be shut down with prejudice. The only reason to think that anything could be salvaged from modern tertiary schools and modern advanced degree holders is direct observation of masters and PhD folks who are not actually Harris ignorant nor Harris stupid, and were not rooting for Harris or for cadaver man the chicom asset.