Discover more from Polemics
How Modernity Contextualizes Itself
"The Party's Over." - Missing Foundation
Imagine “The School of Athens.”
What does it show?
I guess we see Plato, Aristotle, Diogenes, Zoroaster, Alcibiades, and…
Hold on, wait!
I don’t know where Waldo is in this picture.
We know Waldo is somewhere in this picture, but where is he in the context of history?
Modernity can be described as “an era or world, where the ideas and attitudes associated with modernism.” Modernity is “socio-cultural norms, attitudes, and practices that arose in the wake of the Renaissance—in the "Age of Reason" of 17th-century thought and the 18th-century "Enlightenment." In other words, modernity helped develop liberalism as a global ethos. Liberalism assumes we are all equal individuals with unique interests and philosophies of the world.
The rise of modernity meant the creation of higher education. Some still assume we are in an era of “postmodernity,” but this is a misnomer. Postmodernity is still modernity. The difference is that education, information, and intellectualism are equally distributed to the masses, and not to an elite few.
However, modernity sees itself as a rational project, doubting any supernatural or skeptical forces. It projects a global egalitarianism upon the world, assuming history is a progressive, linear story of trial and error.
Think about Christianity.
What exactly happened at “The Last Supper.”
See for yourself:
In Leonardo da Vinci’s interpretation, Jesus proclaims his destiny in front of his followers. In this rare instance, everyone is in the same room with him, but one is a traitor.
The Last Supper is not a tragedy. It’s a superimposed image of modernity itself. The painting presents the history, philosophy, associates, and meaning of “logos” all in one picture. It is supposedly a sacred image one cannot criticize, as this would incite betrayal against the ethics of modernity (itself representing itself here as Christianity).
…Where is Waldo in this picture? You got me.
Judas Iscariot may be the anti-modernist, threatening “the Western canon.”
Suppose modernity did without religion, the concept of “logos,” and continued further rationalizing itself. Modernity is against the supernatural, yet ironically worships Christianity as a mere subjective “belief system” rather than truth. Philosophers like René Girard, Alvin Plantinga, E. Michael Jones, and Albert Borgmann can go so far as to acknowledge “god is real,” and affirm that they are Christian. However, all the rhetoric and rational talk only legitimizes modernity’s edge to be atheistic.
What we have is Hegelianism, or “Hegelian Dialectic,” where there is a constant swing of back-and-forth historical battles. Think of it as “an interpretive method in which the contradiction between a proposition and its antithesis is resolved at a higher level of truth.” Modernity does not acknowledge god, as Nietzsche would argue that “God is dead.” Humanity killed god, but at the expense of humanity will create their image of god through nihilism. This becomes, ideally, the Promethean goal.
Ad Astra! …Or, to reach the stars!
Humanity hasn’t colonized space yet. They are still fighting wars over social issues. Marxism became an extension of Hegelianism, leading to the creation of communism.
And in the legacy of practical communism, we see the same congregation found in The Last Supper. We see the same celebration in The School of Athens.
I see Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao… but wait!
I don’t see Waldo anywhere. Waldo does not belong in this Hegelian dialectic. Waldo didn’t contribute anything to the transformation of capitalism towards communism. He is an outsider, and modernity shunned him.
Here, modernity contextualizes itself through the celebration of history and its ideology of egalitarianism and liberalism. “Free speech” is practiced by those who fight for “freedom,” an ideology, not an action. The history of modernity remembers those who contribute towards a linear history, progressing towards an endgame of transhumanist post-scarcity and infinite pleasures of eternal bliss.
Waldo isn’t found in any of these pictures because he is a reactionary, or someone who wants to go back to an older system, preventing modernity from rationalizing the entire world.
Modernity frames itself as a group of people, as a fake force of paternalism, or as a highly regarded Illuminati, or Freemasonry.
Think about what the snobbish elite think of Jesus, Plato, or Marx. They think highly of all three in modernity.
Look at the book cover of Harold Bloom’s The Western Canon. Do you see something familiar?:
…Exactly. Where the fuck is Waldo??
Bloom constantly celebrates the life of William Shakespeare, Plato, or whoever it may be in the picture, all at the expense they are loved for making our society… our “civilization,” as an intellectual utopia of liberalism.
Waldo was never invited because he is considered crass and insignificant towards the interest of modernity.
I guess postmodernity would accept Waldo as an important figure.
But you know who would accept Waldo?
Take a look at the album cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and tell me, is it the same as The School of Athens, The Last Supper, or any form of Hegelian-communist propaganda?:
Postmodernity is modernity. Because of so, modernity contextualizes itself as a party. It is a syllabus about “the Western canon” and what liberal white people think is cool and artsy.
Right in this picture we have Karl Marx (of course), Aleister Crowley, Lenny Bruce, Karlheinz Stockhausen (the man who invented electronic music!!), Carl Jung, Edgar Allan Poe, Fred Astaire, Bob Dylan, Aubrey Beardsley, Aldous Huxley, Marilyn Monroe, William Burroughs, HG Wells, Marlon Brandon, Oscar Wilde, Larry Bell, Stephen Crane, George Bernard Shaw, Lewis Carroll, Albert Einstein, …and the list goes on!
What The Beatles presents us is an avatar of modernity and who belongs in its canon. That being said, everyone in this picture has, in some way, advocated for liberalism and egalitarianism.
Of course, I’m jumping to conclusions. But this is what it means to be a modernist. It relies on the arrogance of David Foster Wallace’s “New Sincerity” that promises to break away from “postmodern irony,” but rather celebrates the potential of what can be described AS modernist.
Harold Bloom and David Foster Wallace cooperate with liberalism and seek to destroy and censor those who are viciously anti-liberal, and ultimately, ignore the anti-modernist. They both want to downplay anti-American speech in favor of pseudo-conservative liberalism, akin to what Dennis Prager argues at his Republican party think tank, Prager U. Both Bloom and Wallace are considered to be center-right, as a reaction against “the synthetic left,” but cater to the self-destructive traits of race denial, egalitarianism, pretentious intellectualism, and condescending liberalism. Both Bloom and Wallace can only scold the synthetic left, but never will they rebuke it, as they quietly celebrate the American state. Bloom is a caricature of Dave Rubin, hosting a Jewish “conservative-friendly show” featuring a “debate” between two “right-leaning” opponents: a trans woman and a whitewashed black woman. You can’t say anything bad about Jews, blacks, or trans people now, simply because they are defending the Western canon!
The modernist is a pretentious and arrogant narcissist. They can’t believe Waldo can be added to the Western canon, but ok with the thought of adding Toni Morrison. They give postmodernity (or modernist honor) to Dom DeLillo, Cormac McCarthy, Thomas Pynchon, and others who flirt with lowbrow, materialistic eclecticism. “Postmodern irony” is like ridiculing those who are uneducated, like the meaning behind “satire.” The Canterbury Tales isn’t so much a witty and historical account of the past, but a tool of class ridicule, under the name of “satire” to shame and shun those who are not with the king. “How could you be so sincere? It’s in our culture to ridicule and shame those who are sincere and act a certain way!” This is a witch hunt, accusing those who are witches simply because of unorthodox or pagan beliefs against the state. “Satire” is even more insidious, because it celebrates being pretentious as a moral right, and thus an advocation of liberalism and the individual council of being altogether at “The School of Athens.” That “school” itself is like any other bullshit “safe space” that the liberal oligarchy defends. All of it is a form of modernity.
Furthermore, “white nationalism” itself can be described as a movement of modernity. Rather, white nationalism is a form of “reactionary modernism.” But still, white nationalism ultimately advocates whiteness, and the creed to be liberal, just without any non-whites participating in their “Where’s Waldo” game. Liberalism is a natural parasite among white people. It’s safe to say the celebration of The Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare, or English literature is indeed a safe advocation of white nationalism. Liberalism is a byproduct of white nationalism. When the rainbow flags fly, or when the accusation that “Dr. Frankenstein is gay” becomes commonplace, white nationalists have taken control of the state.
Bloom cries about how bad multiculturalism, feminism, Marxism, and any other “school of resentment” is, but sees nothing wrong with them if these schools incorporate and celebrate Shakespeare in their curriculum.
But what if Shakespeare is not real? Would that destroy the ideology of individualism? Would it make liberalism look foolish? But let us assume that non-whites do worship and follow Bloom. Well, that is already happening. Right now, there is a CIA propaganda attempt to put non-white actors in pop culture, all to subvert and promote the liberal and egalitarian agenda of modernity. Bloom is only working on behalf of the CIA and “black little mermaids” by fighting for a multicultural Shakespeare. He claims he’s against it, but gladly would choose a black professor teaching Shakespeare over the white guy because of “meritocracy.”
Bloom talks about how much Jacques Derrida is destroying “the Western canon,” but gladly, on Richard Rorty's terms, let Derrida do his “social justice.” Derrida belongs to the same modernity Bloom is arguing for. Bloom, the landlord, is only asking the noisy teenager to “keep it down.”
And fuck David Foster Wallace too. Wallace wanted to uphold modernity in the context that students and academics can be sincere about being ironic.
Also, fuck Jacques Derrida. Derrida is exactly like Bloom. The only difference is, “Waldo can be in The Last Supper if you want him to be. The issue is that he can’t be a fascist!”
Going back to what modernity is, modernity ultimately is a party of fake gods, of a high school reunion party forced upon everyone else in the neighborhood. I don’t want to be a part of modernity. I would like to see a swift end to it. I am an anti-modernist, and an egoist looking out for myself.
Modernity can be contextualized as a Where’s Waldo book. The equivalent of an “undergraduate” white girl putting Marvel movie stickers on her laptop, celebrating Toni Morrison just as “good as Plato.” The undergraduate school teaches her “how to be a good teacher,” or “this is how you work front desk at the library,” only for her to follow mimetic desire, emulating what all the other NPCs do to keep the bourgeois system going.
Anti-capitalism is a form of anti-modernity. Race realism, and acknowledging the difference between men and women, is a form of anti-modernity. Being against transhumanism is a form of anti-modernity. Heideggerianism to Aleksandr Duginist “multipolarity” is a form of anti-modernity. Hell, even Max Stirner is an anti-modernist.
This does not mean Marxism, feminism, and multiculturalism are opposed to modernity. I see these schools encouraging and adapting to anti-modernity.
Modernity contextualizes itself as liberalism, or egalitarianism, as a single picture.
They invite others if you agree with the party’s lines. They are exactly like a gaggle of fucking stupid white girls at a woman’s college in Main Line Pennsylvania. Once the revolution starts, whiteness will be eradicated.
Well, how do we stop this party?
There is a classic blooper on Jeopardy that explains how:
And to quote further,
“That's for damned sure! Barbed wire is barbed wire! I know what I'm up against... No rose without a thorn!... And the last thing I'll stand for is ideas to get the better of me! I know that rubbish from '18 ..., fraternity, equality, ..., freedom ..., beauty and dignity! You gotta use the right bait to hook 'em. And then, you're right in the middle of a parley and they say: Hands up! You're disarmed..., you republican voting swine!—No, let 'em keep their good distance with their whole ideological kettle of fish ... I shoot with live ammunition! When I hear the word culture ..., I release the safety on my Browning!” - Hanns Johst