02/28/23

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “…Dimensions of Dugin’s Populism” (Part 1 of 9)

0001 In late 2022, Americans loathe the Russian civilization because the Soviet Union was a existential enemy during the Third Battle Among the Enlightenment Gods: The Cold War Among Materialist Ideologies (1945-1989 AD).

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, not much has been done to alter Americans’ fears, even though lots of water has passed beneath the bridge of history. Indeed, much has been done expressly to conceal those waters, full of greed, ambition, illusion and delusion. The modern intelligensia is guilty of sins of omission.

0002 Here is a brief remediation of that sin, which, unfortunately, may itself be a transgression.

When the Cold War ends in 1989, many difficult to comprehend events follow. Boris Yeltsin supervises a firesale of Russian state property. Maybe, “firesale” is not the right word. “A mind-bending transfer of ownership” may be better. Soon, oligarchs corral entire industries and markets. Russian GDP falls like no tomorrow.

Then, before the wholesale transfer of Russian commodity wealth is fully consummated, Vladimir Putin steps from under the wings of Yeltsin’s weakness and corruption. Following a series of explosive events, Putin manages to secure leadership of the listing ship of the Russian State. He rights the boat, sending many overboard (so to speak).

The predatory wolves of the American Empire do not forget. They lick their wounds. They plan their revenge.

0003 Oh, so that is the reason why nearly every mouthpiece of the American Regime denounces Russia, as if it is still the Soviet Union of old. When the Americans win, they want total surrender. So, the American citizen remains informed that the Cold War never really came to a conclusion.

Just as America once looked to the East and saw an “iron curtain”, Russia now looks West and experiences a “word curtain”.

0004 Of course, this brief transgression into history is required to introduce the tragic philosopher, Alexander Dugin. From 1989 on, Dugin formulates and proposes new ideas concerning the fact that Russia did not totally surrender to America’s empire religion. His struggles culminate in a book that finally breaks through the Western word-curtain about how bad Russia is. That book is titled, The Fourth Political Theory. First published in Russian, an English translation comes out in 2012.

Three years later, Razie Mah electronically publishes Comments On Alexander Dugin’s Book (2012) The Fourth Political Theory. This commentary is available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

0005 Simultaneously, as well as more amazingly, Michael Millerman decides to make the philosophical work of Alexander Dugin the topic of his doctorate in philosophy. Oh, that does not go well. How dare this young intellect challenge the current narrative. Dugin should go into a box. He is a fascist. Or rather, a communist. Or something similarly unsavory, like a Eurasianist. Yes, that box should never be opened.

0006 Michael Millerman, like Pandora, opens the box. And the last monstrosity to emerge is hope.

He actually graduates with his doctorate.

The subsequently blacklisted Millerman starts his own school. The cancelled Millerman publishes the book that I currently examine: Inside Putin’s Brain: The Political Philosophy of Alexander Dugin (2022: Millerman School). Yes, Millerman starts a school. Look and see.

0007 In these blogs, I comment on chapter two, titled, “The Ethnosociological and Existential Dimensions of Dugin’s Populism”. This chapter is originally published in Telos (Winter, 2020).

In order for the reader gain an acquaintance with the Greimas square, I recommend blogs appearing at www.raziemah.com for January 2023. These blogs include Looking atAlex Jones’s Book (2022) The Great Reset and Notes on Daniel Esterlin’s Book (2020) 2045 Global Projects At War.

02/16/23

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “…Dimensions of Dugin’s Populism” (Part 9 of 9)

0050 Eden, the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, is where we, in our current Lebenswelt, come from, but cannot return to. The myth of Adam and Eve says it all.

The ethnos is where the narod comes from and cannot return to.

0051 The implications weave together psychology, sociology and biology.

How can the ethnos (D), the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, serve as the transit between the narod, emerging in our current Lebenswelt (C), and the person as objectified subject (B)?

Does each -ism appeal to our innate imaginations by offering an explicit abstraction, a forbidden fruit, that is desirous to the eyes, tastes sweet, and is desired to make one wise?

Does a narod (C) accepts the Luciferian suggestions (B) in the process of becoming a people (A)?

0052 Dugin proposes his fourth political theory in a world broken by our appetites for explicit abstractions. We have been sold tickets (B) back to Eden (D). Where do our travels bring us? Our travels meet a flaming sword that turns in all directions. A cherubim blocks the way.

Dugin speaks to the people.

His proposal has ethnosociological and existential dimensions.

We are more than individuals, class members, citizens and role-bearers.

We are a narod, on a quest to find who we are supposed to be.

Who do you say that we are?

0053 My thanks to Michael Millerman for his excellent summary of these two dimensions of Alexander Dugin’s political philosophy.

02/3/23

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “…On Strauss and Dugin” (Part 10 of 10)

0128 Millerman’s essay would make Leo Strauss proud.

Millerman’s argument is exoteric. Strauss and Dugin share an interest in Heidegger. That is not the only feature that they have in common. Therefore, a Straussian should not dismiss Dugin’s political philosophy out of hand.

0129 The centerpiece turns out to be a translation, by Millerman, of a list of what needs to be done, according to Dugin, in order to establish the possibility of a Russian philosophy.

0130 The three tasks involve…

…dismantling Russian archeomodernity. Ironically, for Americans and western Europeans, the task is precisely the opposite. For western Europe, the archeomodern groove is a receptor. For Russia, the archeomodern groove is a trap.

…correctly comprehending the West. Ironically, the West may not be comprehending itself. The modern West is all about science. But, what is science? Is science a purely relational structure composed of the Positivist’s and empirio-schematic judgments? Plus, is there something vulnerable within this relational structure? Does phenomenology exploit that vulnerability? Does Heidegger’s Sein correspond to the noumenon? What happens to the West if noumena take on lives of their own?

….elaborating a philosophy of chaos. The narod harbors cautionary wisdom that is ignored by modern political movements, who imitate the practices of the empirio-schematic judgment. Chaos is not necessarily the absence of order. Chaos may be the order that cannot be situated by sovereign power.

0131 The placement of Millerman’s translation, along with its surprising content, offers an esoteric message.

Recognize the possibility.

02/2/23

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “Heidegger, Left and Right” (Part 1 of 2)

0132 All the blogs for February 2023 at www.raziemah.com examine selected chapters from Michael Millerman’s book (2022) Inside “Putin’s Brain”: The Political Philosophy of Alexander Dugin. Millerman has been studying Dugin’s works for over a decade. If there is to be a truly philosophical underpinning to Eurasianism, then Dugin begins the quest.

As for this reviewer, my first endeavor to read Dugin, Comments on Alexander Dugin (2012) Fourth Political Theory, may be found at smashwords and other e-book venues. I ask the question, “If I were to say what Dugin is saying, using triadic relations, then how would that work?” The answer intrigues.

Obviously, I am not interested in whatever box the literati of modern political philosophy want to put Dugin in. I am interested in the purely relational structures that Dugin reveals.

0133 So far, I reviewed chapters two and six. In this blog, I will briefly touch on chapter nine. Well, less that that. I see a Greimas square in the seventh section of chapter nine. Its title is “Theologico-Political Implications”.

In this section, Millerman hones down on the difference between the Heideggerian Left (HL) and Heideggerian Right (HR) in regards to the theological-political issue of the returning of the religious and the receding of the secular.

0134 Recall, Dugin’s formulation of “the people” associates to the following Greimas square.

0135 A is the focal term, “the people”. What is the political expression of the people? In America, the Declaration of Independence starts with “we, the people”. So the answer is involved. Suffice to say that, until recently, the political expression is the democratically elected representative. Until recently? Mailing out unsolicited ballots is unconstitutional. It makes me wonder, what do modern intellectuals mean when they say the word, “democracy”.

B contrasts with A. Here, the three political theories (of liberalism (1), communism (3), fascism (2) and big government (il)liberalism (1, again)) model phenomena of a prepolitical world in terms of the individual (1, 1-again), class membership (3) and citizenship and noncitizenship (2).

C contradicts B and implicates A. Dugin uses the Russian word, “narod”, for prepolitical people that various schools of modern political philosophy regard as noumenon. The people (A) are political. The narod (C) is the people before being objectified by explicit political theories. For me, the narod (C) is humanity in our current Lebenswelt.

D contrasts with C, contradicts A and implicates B. Dugin uses the Russian word, “ethnos“. The narod (C) comes out of the ethnos (D) and cannot return. To me, the ethnos (D) is us in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. Our current Lebenswelt (narod (C)) is not the same as the Lebenswelt that we evolved in (ethnos (D)). The hypothesis of the fist singularity contributes an evolutionary dimension that complements Dugin’s theologico-political analysis.

02/1/23

Looking at Michael Millerman’s Chapter (2022) “Heidegger, Left and Right” (Part 2 of 2)

0136 Dugin is an example of the Heideggerian Right (HR). HR philosophers are few in number and for good reason. They are considered to be the enemies of the Heideggerian Left (HL), who want to co-opt Heidegger for their theological-political convictions.

Millerman poses this question (more or less), “How does the HL view the theological-political issue of receding secularism and returning religiosity?”

0137 Here is how I associate the discussion to the Greimas square.

0138 According to the HL, A, democracy is under threat because…

0139 …B, democracy must be secular.

Even though secular is an adjective and democracy is a noun and therefore B contrasts with A, secular is a necessary qualifier. A democracy cannot be a democracy unless it is secular. Hence, when HL-friendly pundits on public-private partner television say the word, “democracy”, they actually mean “secular democracy”.

0140 C contradicts B and complements A. C is religious. Non-secular means religious, just as secular means “not religious”. But, this too is wordplay, since religions are not “non-secular”, they are believers in an ultimate foundation, D. However, from the HL Greimas square, C is nonsecular.

At this point, secular institutions take on a scientific glow. The secular (B) use theoretical disciplinary languages to model observations and measurements of social phenomena. Naturally, these models end up defining the options available for ballots in… um… a democracy (A). Thus, the ultimate foundation (D) complements the secular (B) because it (D) does not exist.

0141 D contrasts with C, contradicts A and complements B. Already, I know how D complements B. The fact that an ultimate foundation fills the slot for (D) yet does not exist, according to HL, reveals the nature of the way the ultimate foundation (D) is its own lacking.

Surely, this sounds like a contradiction in terms. But, that is the way HL rolls.

There is no God. There is no ethnos. The possibility that these statements (D) are wrong contradict (A), “democracy”, which, according to HL, must be godless (B). If these statements are incorrect, then the political system would not be a “democracy”, but a “theocracy”.

0142 Okay, HL is into wordplay.

The Heideggerian Right takes the Heideggerian Left’s wordplay at face value, producing the following remake of the HL Greimas square.

0143 As before, A, the focal word, is “democracy”.

0144 B contrasts with A, in the way that an adjective contrasts with a noun. The secret handshake allows HL pundits to indicate a secular democracy when they use the word, “democracy”, and use the word, “theocracy”, when religious folk take to the ballot box.

0145 C contradicts B because the word, “radical” (C), means “rooted”, and “secular” (B) means not religious. This implies that the radical (C) adheres to emptiness (D) with the same conviction that the religious, er… non-secular (C) adheres to an ultimate foundation (D). No wonder the radical (C) strives to eradicate the ontological and theological facets (phenomena) of the narod. The radical (C) creates conditions where other social phenomena (such as the individual, class membership, the roles of citizen and noncitizen) can be observed and measured by modern scientifically minded theoreticians (B).

0146 Emptiness (D) entails the absence of (1) an ultimate foundation encompassing both God and humans, (2) the ethnos, (3) what we evolved to be and (4) the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

D contrasts with C, contradicts A and complements B.

Emptiness (D) contrasts with radical (C) because it (C) is rooted in ‘something’ (however ephemeral, such as an act of will).

Emptiness (D) contradicts democracy (A) because the implementation of secular policies (B) reveals the root (C) to be a pure act of will, rather than a product of say… philosophical inquiry.

Emptiness (D) complements the secular (B) because the secular knows that its politics will undermine whatever traditions that they are rooted in (C).

0147 In sum, the HL diagram celebrates democracy (A) and the secular (B) while denying the religious (C) and the possibility of an ultimate foundation (D). The HR view of the HL diagram positively labels the negative attitude towards religion as “radical” (C) and the denial of an ultimate foundation (D) as “emptiness”.

0148 To me, the Greimas square for the HL and for what the HR thinks of the HL’s views must be regarded as funny. Perhaps, hilarious.

How so?

The ethnos is where our sense of humor evolves. The narod is where people formulate jokes. The secular is where people lose their sense of humor . Democracy is where the comedy of the humorless plays out on the world stage.

0149 I do not know whether Heidegger’s “fourfold” or “das Geviert” can be re-articulated as a Greimas square. It might be worth trying. Perhaps, use of the Greimas square will allow the HL to take themselves less seriously and the HR to chuckle under their beards. The problem, of course, is that Dugin is no longer laughing, because the ones who take themselves seriously have designated him, not as a philosopher, but as a threat.

Pray for the soul of Alexander Dugin’s daughter.

0150 My thanks to Millerman for his excellent book. Please check out the Millerman School and dugin.com.

09/9/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 1)

0001 Yoram Hazony publishes a six part opinion piece, concerning the relation between Enlightenment traditions and Marxism. on August 16, 2020, in the Quillette website (http://vlt.tc/41uo). The essay is eye-catching for its portrayal of the capture of liberal institutions by marxists (now, with a small “m”) during the past three-score years. Marx is back in a big way.

0002 In the prior blog, discussing the Be Little Men movement, two actualities come to the fore. The first is a slogan_2a, based on righteousness_1a, that addresses the mirror of the world_3a. The second is an organizational objective_2b, telling what the slogan means to the marxist_3b. This object^org_2b arises from the possibility of submission_1b. Submission_1bvirtually situates (and emerges from) marxist righteousness_1a.

0003 Here is a picture of the two-level interscope, composed of two nested forms, following the style in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form.

0004 According to Hazony, marxists have infiltrated American media companies, universities, government bureaucracies, courts, so-called profits, so-called non-profits and churches. Classical liberals have lost control of their own institutions. Classical liberals do not have the intellectual or spiritual resources to combat the threat.

09/8/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 2)

0005 How should I define the righteousness of the classical liberal?

The classical liberal entertains a perspective_c that occludes the foundational world of Christianity. The classical liberal extols_3c equality, freedom and fraternity_2c. These_2c are the means to human fulfillment_1c.

The American Bill of Rights declares life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Equality is the right to life and justice. Freedom is the liberty to make one’s own choices. Fraternity involves private property. One must own the possessions that one shares with family, friends, teammates and other social circles. Otherwise, one usurps.

0006 The classic liberal perspective-level nested form looks like this.

0007 Surely, this perspective_c level does not contextualize marxist content_a and situation_b levels.

Why?

Hazony speaks of two steps. In the first step, the Enlightenment covers up Christianity. In the second step, Marxism occludes the Enlightenment.

So, let me start at the first step.

Christian social virtues describe what God reveals about human sociality. Saint Paul discusses equality in his letters. Christ frees humans from the chains of original sin. The body of Christ, the Church, possesses an object that brings all into relation. Finally, all these actualities emerge from the potential that a human can attain eternal life with God, the ultimate fulfillment.

The Enlightenment makes these virtues immanent.

0008 What does this immanence entail?

How does the Enlightenment perspective play into situation and content levels?

0009 First, let me simply slide the normal contexts of the situation_b and content_a levels of the marxist sensible construction underneath the Enlightenment perspective_c level. Here is the resulting three-level interscope, a relational structure discussed in A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

0010 Second, I fill in the blanks.

The content level actuality_2a turns extols_3c into a dream_2a, an object associating with an individual’s future, choices and companions. The individual’s dream_2a arises from talents and dispositions_1a.

What possibility_1b situates the individual’s dream_2a?

Of course, there must be opportunity_1b.

Then, with hard work and luck, one realizes_2b that dream_2a.

0011 This sounds so American. Here is the interscope.

0012 The French Enlightenment, on the other hand, rots as it ripens. Unlike eighteenth-century America, France is loaded with god-defying intellectuals, salon-attending little royals and cunning lawyers, who dream of running political affairs without the burden of king and church. They have talents and dispositions_1a toward promoting organizational objectives_2bbased on reason_1b. Reason_1b gives opportunity to righteousness_1a. As such, their dreams_2b,2a are tautological.

The Marxist frame, perceptively delineated by Hazony, develops in situ within French Enlightenment civilization. The sarcastic godless intellectuals, self-absorbed gossip-bearing little nobles and the reason-worshipping lawyers consider themselves to oppressed by the oppressors, king and church. King and church express a false consciousness. The system works for them, not everyone else, especially the discontented. Revolution will reconstitute society and the inherent ironies of the present regime will disappear.

0013 Here is a diagram.

09/7/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 3)

0014 Part 3 concerns the attractions and power of marxism.

The individual is attracted to classical liberalism.

The discontented are attracted to marxist (il)liberalism.

The current iteration of marxist religion is Big Government (il)Liberalism (BG(il)L).

0015 What do marxists have that liberals do not?

Here is a picture of the marxist’s sensible construction

0016 Where is the perspective level_c?

Is it too horrible to view?

The Enlightenment perspective-level actuality (equality, freedom and fraternity_2c) addresses three important aspects of human sociality in our current Lebenswelt.

0017 According to Marx, these are not sufficient.

What else is required?

First (A), people form cohesive classes or groups. May I call them, “institutions”? Second (B) these classes or groups invariably oppress and exploit one another, culminating in one (the state) enforcing order. Third (C), the state eventually functions as an instrument of the oppressing class.

0018 Weirdly, Marx’s insight is captured in the chapter on presence in the masterwork, How To Define The Word, “Religion”. The three elements appear in the institution (content) and sovereign (situation) levels of the society_C tier.

0019 In theory, Enlightenment liberalism achieves order_1b, while using the fewest official acts and decrees_2b. It cultivates personal commitments_2a to life (equality), liberty (freedom) and the pursuit of happiness (fraternity)_2c. Civic culture consists of various fraternal institutions_3a, some Christian (“religious”) and some not Christian (“not religious”)_1a, pursuing diverse objectives_2a.

Righteousness_1a does not arise from within Enlightenment liberalism. Rather, Enlightenment liberalism is conducive to a wide variety of inspirations. Liberal righteousness_1a demands that each individual pursues opportunities_1b offered by competing civic institutions_3a according to their talents and dispositions_1a.

0020 In contrast, the Marxist vision proposes that a number of otherwise civic institutions_3a (A) will pursue organizational objectives_2a (B) that require official acts and decrees_2b for their implementation_1b (C).

0021 Hazony offers examples.

Ideally, public education should be implemented through a general decree stating that all individuals over a certain age must pass a civic exam in order to gain citizenship. The exam would be offered by (not one but) a suite of competing voluntary institutions, each operating with transparency due to competition. Education may be subsidized by vouchers to parents.

In practice, modern education engages unionized teachers (A) who demand a monopoly over “public” instruction and examination, as well as a host of other organizational objectives (B), that require state enforcement through official decrees (C).

In sum, Big Government (il)Liberal education exemplifies the Marxist vision.

0022 Hazony offers other examples. But, the point is clear. Marxist righteousness_1a sensibly constructs organizational objectives_2b, that, on one hand, arise from directly from the potential of submission by a target (individuals or institutions)_1b, and, on the other hand, are virtually situated by official acts and decrees_2b in the sensible construction of society_C.

0023 One reason why Marxist ideas are so attractive is that they promote a righteousness_1a that both demands submission from others_1b and entangles sovereign power_3b.

The task of identifying like-minded individuals is relatively easy, since conservatives, Christians, nationalists and (above all) enlightened liberals espouse other styles of righteousness_1a. All institutions in a modern civic society are vulnerable to infiltration by marxists.

In sum, marxists can easily identify one another, selectively promote one another, and humiliate perceived competition within each institution. Those who are not marxist within each institution are increasingly expected to toe the party line and to promote entanglements with sovereign power.

0024 Amazingly, Enlightenment liberals find themselves dispossessed by the very institutions that they built.

Does this imply that the marxists hold a perspective-level actuality_2c that (if you will excuse the pun) trumps equality, freedom and fraternity_2c?

Hazony does not directly raise this question.

He does so, indirectly.

He discusses the flaws that make marxism fatal.

09/5/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 4)

0025 Hazony points to the obvious. Humans evolve in social circles where there are many relationships between a more powerful individual and a less powerful one, starting with mom, dad and their children. The organizational structure of this foundational institution is discussed in A Primer on the Family.

0026 The family starts in the Lebenswelt that we evolved in. So, there is more.

We must add the unconstrained social and labor specializations that characterize our current Lebenswelt.

Our current Lebenswelt is not the Lebenswelt that we evolved in.

0027 The organizational structures of civilization_B is a topic worthy of consideration. The institution_aC and sovereign_bClevels of the society tier_C contextualize the organization tier_B. The organization tier_B encompasses production_aB, exchange_bB and assessment_cB. The organization tier_B emerges from (and situates) the individual in community_A.

Too bad inquiry into the organization tier_B is yet to be initiated.

Advancements are blocked by marxist theory, in its various guises. Marxist theory offers a “scientific” model that forecloses intellectual exploration of the organizations tier_B.

0028 The model goes like this:

The diverse relations between more powerful and less powerful individuals in the organization tier_B are equivalent to the relation between oppressors and oppressed.

The two are more than equivalent. They are contiguous.

0029 What does contiguity imply?

Peirce’s category of secondness consists of two contiguous real elements. The contiguity is not a real element, it is the substance that causally binds the two real elements. The marxist substance carries the character of equivalence, but that is not enough. Ask any marxist. The causality is systemic.

Anyone who disagrees speaks with what Jacques Lacan calls, the master’s discourse. Here is the oppressor.

Anyone who agrees speaks, to me_3b, in discourses that Lacan labels, hysteric (for some) and scientific (for others). For the most part, I find it hard to tell the difference. I suppose the label depends on the slogan_2a. Each slogan_2a addresses the one who asks what does this mean to me_3b.

“Me_3b” is a placeholder, virtually situating the person’s reflection_3b in the marxist mirror of the world_3a.

0030 Oppressed? Or oppressor? Find a location within the abundance of asymmetric relations contained within the organization tier_B.

Here is a diagram of the marxist interscope, as far as this discussion sees.

09/4/20

Comments on Yoram Hazony’s Post (2020) “Challenges of Marxism” (Part 5)

0031 From the masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion“, one finds that there are three tiers to the presence underlying the word, “religion”.

They are the society_C, organization_B and the individual in community_A.

The society tier_C puts the organization tier_B into perspective. The organization tier_B emerges from (and situates) the individual in community_A.

Each tier is diagrammed as a three-level interscope.

0032 So, let me talk business.

When an young individual in community_A enters the organization tier_B, by going to work, “he” engages a number of asymmetric relations.

How does a young person_A navigate these relations_B?

Obviously, the individual in community_A relies on what “he” has been taught.

0033 American classical liberals teach that the individual should have a dream_2a.

French classical liberals instruct the individual with tropes about equality, freedom and human brotherhood_2a. These expectations_2a encourage asymmetric business relations to be “win-win”.

Marxist (il)liberals indoctrinate slogans raising awareness of how asymmetric relations between individuals somehow cause (are contiguous with) systemic oppression_2a.

0034 Liberalism offers a dream. Marxism offers a nightmare. Choose your false consciousness.

0035 Hazony describes the pairing as a dance. In this dance, one party negates the other. Thus, the dance is more like the mating ritual between the male and the female praying mantis. The dance ends when liberalism gets devoured as food for the fertilized egg sacs of marxism. Afterwards, an all-consuming fecund marxism dies from her own contradictions, in the winter of her totalizing reign.

0036 Why do I say this?

Compare the perspective-level actualities_2c for American enlightenment and postmodern marxism.

0037 When the American enlightenment is reflected in the mirror of the world_3a, slogans_2a call for individuation_1b. The asymmetric relations characterizing the organization tier are depicted as opportunities and hazards for fashioning a dream_2a based on one’s talents and dispositions_1a. When confronted with oppressors, the individual should learn how to detect, avoid and escape. When confronted with mentors, the individual should figure ways to flourish.

0038 Indeed, in America, opportunities_1b for success are manifold, ask any movie actress_2b promoted by the notorious Harvey Winerock, who turns out to be a postmodern marxist_2a,b,c.

In contrast, millions of less-promoted actresses now live in movies of their own, the comedies and tragedies of life in the family_2aB, the traditional portal to the organization tier_B. For every one actress who reaches an accommodation_2b with Harvey, by playing through his disgusting game_1b, millions of women discover that the asymmetric relations inherent in the family realize_2b their dreams_2a.

Who should be teaching whom?

Surely, a Hollywood actress stands in asymmetric relation to innumerable mothers, among others.

So, what does she preach?

Marxist slogans_2a?

Why?

In order to attain her dream_2b, she is required to become so oppressed_2c that she cannot recognize herself as an oppressor_2c. She lives out the scientific truth of marxism_2c. She submits_1b and receives both rewards and marxist illumination_2b.

0039 Why are so many civic institutions of American liberalism now controlled by marxists?

The marxist perspective translates the asymmetric relations of the organization tier_B into the languages of oppressor and oppressed. Mirroring this perspective_2c, slogans_2a emerge from a righteousness_1a that demands submission of the oppressors_1b. One party in all asymmetric relations_B is already guilty of oppression_1a on the basis of participation in the system. That party cannot be the marxist, who represents the oppressed.

By definition, the oppressed_2c, such as Harvey Winerock and the Hollywood actress, are exempt because each is a marxist occupying a powerful position in a once civic, now marxist, institution. Each, in his and her own way, is a victim in an asymmetric relation with a more powerful individual.

For the actress, that more powerful individual is Harvey.

For Harvey, that more powerful individual is the one who bought his soul.

An Archaeology of the Fall

A Horror Story by Razie Mah

Tag Archives: liberalism