Criticism of “Postmodernism Debate: Russell v. Rectenwald” on the (excellent) Tom Woods Show Ep. 1784


The conversation degenerated. Here are answers to the not-big questions that were not answered. 😉

1) THE COMMON THREAD: The Marxists, Neo-Marxist(Frankfurt), Postmodernists, Feminists, HBD-Denialists, PC Woke sequence is a revolt against the Darwinian explanation for the success of western civilization’s long history of soft eugenics given the pervasive scarcity and limited availability of incentives with which to prevent the spread of the decline of the ancient (Semitic) world. That’s the causality behind the long history of revolt in order to restore a parasitic priesthood that sedates the people.

This revolt relies on a set of lies and a set of movements to advance those lies. Those movements are nothing more than the pseudoscientific equivalent of the supernatural revolt in the ancient world by Judaism Christianity and Islam creating the dark ages and destroying the arts, letters, institutions, and genetics of five great civilizations of the ancient world,

The Left depends on selling three great lies:
… i – Endless growth: ending scarcity, markets.
… ii – Nature of man: ending amorality, reciprocity, and ethnocentrism
… iii – Malleability of man: ending genetic determinism, inequality, regression to the mean, and dysgenia.
All of these are simply revolts against Darwinism – and Darwin’s explanation for the disproportionate success of western civilization.

2) Regarding Postmodernism
… 2.11) Yes the source of cultural warfare is the frankfurt school
… 2.2) But: The postmodern movement builds upon that school with an attack on truth and reason.
… 2.3) The postmodern tenets are:
… … (a) reality is not perceived by the human mind (false)
… … (b) the scientific revolution is ‘evil’ (for the reasons stated above)
… … (c) race, sex, etc are state dogma not fact – (False: to limit freedom rather than to suppress dysgenia.)
… … (d) Postmodernists insist that all, or nearly all, aspects of human psychology are completely socially determined, and we know this (scientifically) to be false. What we do use is training as all animals train young, for the perpetuation (natural selection).
… … (e) there is no truth, no appeal to facts, no personal, social, POLITICAL DECIDABILITY for the good and bad – no means of CONTINUING NATURAL SELECTION by market adversarialism in association/disassociation, cooperation, production, reproduction, the production of commons (govt), polities (states) and war (intergroup conflict).

3) Science isn’t systemic (false). Science is the process of producing court testimony. that’s what empiricism means: testifiable. Science evolved in the west because we extended our court to all subjects of debate. That is the causal origin of the uniqueness of the west – we normalized testimony (truth before face) and no other people did.

4) Science has NOT changed its position, scientists produce a market and that market has progressed by trial and error, by verisimilitude, toward a most parsimonious universal explanation for the entirety of all disciplines.

5) Science doesn’t have to produce truth it needs to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, the fictionalisms frauds, and deceits. Science claims only to incrementally eliminate error leaving truth candidates standing. (Africans are in fact biologically inferior as a set, not all Africans are biologically inferior. We are in the process of refuting the pseudoscience of the Marxists.)

6) We do evolve closer and closer correspondence with the most parsimonious truth because … (this guy’s is a moron)… language isn’t closed. It’s infinite (Chomsky, Godel et al). All language is a measurement. It has to be. Our measurements increase in precision. Most other civilizations failed because they didn’t pay the cost of testimonial truth in all aspects of l ife. So that’s why we evolve faster than all other civilizations combined.

(I would eat your guest alive. You need stronger thinkers on the grand subjects.)

6) Yes our beliefs about people change because it is a reproductive, social, economic, and political necessity to construct norms – especially those norms that continue natural selection. And we cannot escape regression to the mean. That’s the problem for ALL civilizations. The big crime wasn’t the world wars, but the false promise of freedom from the laws of nature, in particular the regression to the mean, and the necessary relationship between the mean, the norms, commons, politics and ECONOMY that are possible. Genetic load is THE problem of social orders, NOT political or economic model. Political and economic models are a deterministic result of genetic load. (Go ahead and try to falsify that).

7) Mises half solved the problem and Rothbard ruined his legacy. Mises discovered operationalism (intuitionism) in economics, as did Brouwer in math and Bridgman in physics, Ruring in logic, and Chomsky in grammar. Hoppe half-corrected rothbard, but was stuck in that ridiculous sophistry of kantian and marxist rationalism. He solve the problem of commensurability and demonstrated it but then justified it with nonsense.

8) The entire series consists of the extension of the female intuition due to the female instinct to defend her children regardless of cost to the commons or value to the commons, the lower female cognitive agency over her impulses, and higher incidence of female magical thinking because of it -all evolutionary necessities – it’s an appeal to non-discipline, non-correspondence, inconsistency, of the formal (logical), physical, natural(cooperative), and evolutionary laws of the universe. In other words, it’s a set of frauds to perpetuate a theft from the commons, and through the state, upon the people OF merit.

9) The only solution is separation into micro states as the founders intended, as the holy roman empire demonstrated, as the entirety of the world practiced throughout history – that created markets for genetic differences.

The postmodern apologist is simply the same as a Christian or Muslim using pseudoscience and sophistry. This is not worth the audience’s time.

At this point, the conversation is just nonsense. Roughly thirty years behind.

Leave a Reply