This article benefitted from the contributions of Lin Yu-han.

To liberals, almost everything everything is a social construct. Such people assume that things smply revolve around the given social environment rather than their inherent natures. This allows for the liberal pseudo-intellectuals to engage in social engineering. After all, if these things are simply social constructs created by human beings than all you have to do is change the social construct and then you will have a new environment.

This is the type of ‘logic’ that liberals use on a daily basis and it is naturally irrational. The history of this ‘logic’ was first utilized in the 70’s when the cultural left infiltrated Western academia. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, was the first to propose that the Left should focus on social, rather than economic, change. This is why, since the 60s, many Western leftists abandoned the working class in favor of the political partisanism and social issues of their favorite minority groups (gays, women, non-Whites, etc). Unlike the Old Left, which advocated the rights of the Proletariat, the New Left has its basis in the intellectual output of an academia which has been infiltrated and hijacked by the petty bourgeois.

Postmodernism is simply one of the many insidious manifestations of New Left. It includes the Frankfurt School’s critical theory, post-structuralist deconstruction, as well as Third Wave Feminism and Freudo-Marxism. Such ideas are not concerned with developing nations as a whole; they do not mobilize the people in a way to display the revolutionary spirit of self-reliance, and hence cannot solve its problems. In fact, the concerns of the New Left are not the concerns of most of the working class people around the world. Those in the first world, in fact, feel the effects of mass immigration of Third World migrants into their nations, which is promoted by the liberalism, while those in the Third World become the targets of economic exploitation.

The seemingly irrational character of this form of cultural ideology can be seen in the ways that leftists debate their opponents through what is called ‘deconstruction’. This form of argument holds that no ideas or words can be seen as objective truths since all ideas are simply social constructs used by a dominant culture to impose its will on those who are dominated. Hence, claim the postmodernists, these ‘truths’ have no legitimacy beyond the dominant culture, and are not true at all. By doing this, leftists cannot only avoid the debate by calling out their opponents as being part of this illegitimate dominant culture, they themselves need not even articulate an alternative to this because if there is no such thing as truth.

Wikiality Syndrome: Since nobody’s truth is inherently more accurate than anybody else’s, truth is made by consensus – but only if you’re part of the elite



For all this sense of nihilism that Postmodernism conjures up, it remains a heap of nonsense. Postmodernism and the other ideas promoted by the cultural left are not just false alternatives to the current decay of society, but rather a part and parcel of it. For one reason or another, these ideas fit perfectly into the globalist framework of multinational corporations, big banks, and other forms of internationalism. Why? For one, multiculturalism is no longer a thing of the Left but promoted across the entire spectrum of contemporary society and also by large corporations (think of affirmative action) or by public schools with their curriculum of anti-racism and equality. In fact, its quite compatible to the marketplace considering that traditional cultures from across the world (other than one’s own) have become a commodity to appropriate and trivialize through its commercialization (New Age should come to mind when one thinks of these things).

The term ‘postmodern’ of postmodernism is actually rather misleading: a truly postmodern age would be one after modernity itself has ended. Today, we are nowhere close to these conditions since the mass psychosis and uncertainties inherent to modernity are still ongoing. Postmodernism only makes these uncertainties and this psychotic episode even worse and for this reason, cannot be considered to be a sufficient alternative to it, indeed, postmodernism itself is a product of modernism and this point should be emphasized.

The only authentic alternative is to take a Revolutionary Conservative path which is strongly grounded with Traditionalism, and which refutation of all the aspects of modernity and its products. If sometime in the future we can make this alternative viable, then and only then will we finally have a real alternative to the mass psychosis of contemporary society.

Until then, we simply have to weather this crisis.