Pomo the Pomo

Postmodernism is extraordinarily vulnerable to postmodernism. You have probably heard of the nutty professor who is talking about how Yoga is nothing but "cisheteropatriarchy" because... Yoga is somehow male oppression of the world? OK, fine. Simple counter, where we deconstruct this deconstruction: maybe the nutty professor has internalized patriarchy so that she resents the success of the female dominated Yoga instruction industry. Yes, I think that will do quite well, thank you very much:

Of course I had no choice left but for my "contact website" to link to:  http://bfgalbraith.blogspot.com/2017/03/one-boy-at-time.html

I am into feminism, I think it is awesome. Please pass me some Oprah 2020, thank you very much. However I have a problem-from-hell with postmodernism. The opposite-of-knowledge is not knowledge, it is that simple. Postmodernism amounts to little more than intellectual laziness combined with wide-eyed rants about personal pet peeves.

But the left his hardly the owner of postmodern idiocy.  What pomo typically looks like on the right is:

1. Have a REALLY strong opinion, but bring NO evidence to support it, aside from 1st and 2nd hand anecdotes. 
2. When people say "hey hold on a second, what's this based on..." you then resort to one of two options: 
3. A) accuse them of being condescending elitists (almost exactly same thing as "The Patriarchy"), or
4.  B) tell them "why don't you do your own research", aka do NOT rely on outside sources, because you know, personal experience trumps all, just like with 3rd Wave pomo.

Example:

1. You: "I think welfare recipients should be drug tested."
2. Me: "don't you know that is a huge waste of tax payer money because drugs are expensive and welfare recipients are poor... and some of the conservative politicians pushing this line of thinking have conflicts of interest on this subject... here's a link to an article on the subject:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2015/02/17/the-sham-of-drug-testing-walker-scott-and-political-pandering/#15bd34e559be ."
3. You: Now you can say "you so-called progressives are very condescending. You think you can win a common sense argument by linking to a politically biased news source? Sorry, but your so-called research doesn't trump common sense!"
4. You: OR you can say "I had a friend on food stamps. While he was waiting in line, he saw people drive up in sports cars, who had gold watches on, who were dealing drugs and making huge money, and still applying for food stamps. I know him well, he wouldn't lie about this. And that's just one welfare office, imagine what could be going on in others. Why don't you go do your own research instead of just reading left biased media?"

But the fact is opinions are not equal to facts. "Cisheteropatriarchy" is an interesting word, but since postmodernists don't like to stick to specific definitions, it may as well mean "surgical penis enlargement" as my brother recently pointed out. And no, it's a huge waste of tax payer money to drug test welfare recipients, because dude, drugs are expensive. 

Pomo-the-Pomo Example:

1. You: "I think welfare recipients should be drug tested."
2. Me: "No, we should drug test rich people instead. Most drug dealers are rich people."
3. You: "But lots of people on welfare use drugs! We shouldn't have to pay for it!"
4. Me: "Sorry my friend, but drugs are a moral evil and bad for all, rich and poor alike, and rich people have more money more often to buy drugs more often, drug test the 1%! Being rich doesn't make you right, something you should keep in mind before talking down to everyone."
5. Me: OR I can say "My friend was at a party with rich people. Lots of coke. More drugs than she has seen at all the parties she's been at with poor people combined. An entire welfare office of food stamp recipients wouldn't be able to pay for the drugs it took to keep one of the debutantes at this party satisfied for the evening. Why don't you go do your own research instead of reading right-wing conspiracy all the time?"

My counter argument here is not rational, it's pomo. It is deconstructing the deconstruction. Pomo the pomo! Maybe we can get them to resort to using facts and actual substantial arguments that have meaning. Because unlike Yoga, postmodernism is a form of oppression:

Shapiro 2020

What Ben Shapiro wants to do is strip the influence of the White House down to its bare constitutional bones. This will force congress to legislate where they haven't legislated before, and the implications of Shapiro's view is that the White House has been co-dependently supporting a dysfunctional congress for generations. He would give congress tough love by scaling back the executive branch and forcing them to do their jobs.

Obviously this means Shapiro is states-rights on steroids, with rabies, from hell. He is perfectly willing to cut off that West Coast money from fly-over states until those states are abandoned ghost towns... until their uneducated, inbred, mutated decedents are too illiterate to even figure out what a voting booth is. I have two relevant views in regards to this:

1. The electoral college is source of all the world's problems
2. I am anti-state government

Shapiro's ideas about the executive branch is the conservative way of dealing with the electoral college problem. The president is not supposed to be  God-Emperor, it should not matter THAT MUCH who is or is not president! He's the commander and chief, but how often is military strategic ability considered in presidential elections? He's the head of state, but international diplomacy barely came up at all in 2016. If we can't get rid of the electoral college, burn down the white house, problem solved: Shapiro 2020. He'll loose against Oprah, completely sabotage Trump's reelection, probably carry Arizona, Utah, and Idaho, and for the first time in my life we'll have a real 3rd party to choose from in the USA. 

"State" and "Nation" are synonyms. In the USA we struggle with many levels of government: City, County, State, and Federal. I am here to tell you that the CAN ONLY be TWO levels of government, and that THEREFORE there ARE ONLY TWO levels of government. Those levels of government are Municipal and State. Municipal is whatever you and your neighbors are paying taxes to locally, to support laws that help shape your local community. State is what keeps the municipalities in check, stands up for human rights, prevents environmental and social catastrophes, protect us from foreign invasions, etc.

We don't have room for both federal and state government, even in the English language these two things are redundant. For example federal enforcement of cannabis laws in states where cannabis has been legalized is laughable. Some token scare-tactic efforts have been made, but in states where its legalized people smoke away whenever they feel like, typically with stuff bought at shop that openly sells it. IF the Federal government is to survive, it will have to crush the individual state governments, starting with the Electoral College, and I pray they succeed. However, I don't find that likely.

The last time our federal government did something significant was in World War 2. Almost all of our international diplomacy since has been one catastrophe after another. I suggest this is a lack of federal leadership - because federal leadership is itself largely imaginary. This means our "great nation" has ALREADY disintegrated. There's very little need for us to be contributing taxes to military spending, nuclear arsenals, etc. Progress may look like this: States Rights leads to Utopian progressive States, and the conservative backwater fly-over states get the deregulated hell-holes they have always wanted, until no one wants to live there any more, or the subhumans left behind are completely irrelevant. Problem solved.