The True Counterculture

By: Jonathan Seidel 

Reimagining Lyotard: “postmodernity” as a continuation of modernity from WWI (sexuality, corporatism, universalism, anti-religious) to post-post-modernism of rejecting the narratives of modernity by reclaiming conservatism through trumpism, religiosity and anti-corporatism 

Lyotard famously argued that postmodernism was a rejection of meta-narratives. This was claimed back in the 60s. This claim in spite of the recent revolution in 2016 seems to be the real postmodernism or the peak of post-post-modernism. Whatever the description one uses the real pushback on modernity was 2016 a century after modernity began.

Postmodernism was defined as a rejection of meta-narratives. A path away from modernity. The narratives of modernity had failed and a new model had to be deployed. The social constructionism, deconstruction and relativism were among the claims. Claims against religion and science were the brunt of the postmodern force. Postmodernism challenged existing archetypes and fashioned a profound path forward. The French thinkers promoted their vision as a rebellion against the old. Modernity had failed and postmodernity would salvage. A crucial point in history about to come true. Yet it’s worth questioning whether Lyotard’s assessment was true of its time? Did the world become anti-science? Did relativism seep into society? Is the world more benign than in 1960? It is true that counterculture became rampant but was that a revolution or continuation? 

The major claim is the acceptance of these failed gifts that modernity promised. Yet it is seemingly confusing which he discussing. Liberalism persisted through the decades, anti-traditionalism continued to rise and sexuality became more open, the government gained more power and globalisation reached an all time high with technological assistance. It is hard to see how a counterculture blasted onto the scene. If anything, these were just continued promises of modernity. France may have been different, so this is purely subjective to English countries but the same ideas that permeated Eastern Europe and grassroots since the end of the First World War became ever more dominant as the century continued. WWII had brief pause but buttressed many of modernities ideals straight into effect. Modernity was the era of progress. Women’s rights, sexual exploration and consumerism. Urbanisation only enabled these features to develop further. LGBT rights weren’t attained until post-sexual revolution but it was a long time coming. It was part of the process. Underage sexuality became more popular in the late 70s. All counter culture did was speed up change. It wasn't counterculture but continued culture. 

It sought to revolutionise the inevitable effects ever faster. Instead of society gradually adopting these new norms, youngsters inscribed these visionary ideals as a political voice. The youth spoke up and demanded their voice be heard. They followed their idols in the art of the damned. An age of public exploration. It wasn’t so much that religious voices were so anti-drug use but that it was publicised so sternly. It was an open secret and one that could not be wiped away. Lewd actions were now exposed as the cool thing to do. Cigarettes were something at one point a cool thing for adult to do. Drugs and alcohol was normative as teenage actions took on a new rebellious stage. These were promoted by their favourite rockstars. Trying to experiment just like they were. It was an epidemic of just do everything. No lines nor rules. This culture existed but exploded into try everything and do what you like. This long held secret done under wraps now is a common phenomenon among the youth following the footsteps of their idols. 

There was some changes but not a counterculture just a publicising culture. To some extent it differed from its predecessor but it was a part of the continued evolution. To some extent it was procedural. It skipped a few steps. Animated youth may have been somewhat down the road but it wasn’t too out there. Liberalism’s eventual stop would have reached in the 90s, then again it was the time for it. Both world wars had caused different groups to be noticed, Vietnam killed so many youth they had to speak out. Without Vietnam it may have taken a little longer but it was along the lines. Many youth lost their lives in subsequent affairs. It was an inevitable part of the process. It was progress mutating a little too quickly. Yet Vietnam was the catalyst for much of this derangement. It was an avid call for the end of dead children. Yet while children did gain a voice nothing else really changed. Corporatism, sexuality, globalisation and anti-religionists persisted into the twenty-first century. Children gaining a voice was similar to minorities entering congress. Different faces some nuance but the same rodeo. 

In contrast, 2016 was the big change. Trump’s election shook the entire globe. The rise of nationalism after Afghanistan and sufficient religious polemics spawned a new response. A powerful conservative trend that has more independent motifs than republican connections. Republicans have continued to lose elections but the independent conservative-ish voice has gained speed. The irony is in such socio-cultural pushback. Trump gained so many voters. If not for the pandemic he probably would’ve won in a landslide. The witch-hunt wasn’t sticking and exposed. January 6th horrors have only hurt those running on his campaign. Despite their numbers dropping, his numbers are climbing. Whether or not Trump wins is irrelevant to the populace. Trumpism has taken on its own theology unforeseen by many countercultural individuals. Anti-establishment, anti-war, anti-globalists can no longer be properly represented because of the religious lacing of Trumpers. The libertarian party gained one percept of voters with independent podcasters outdoing mainstream media. Trump was the first big sign but the growth of podcasts from Jimmy Dore, The Hill and Breaking Points has fuelled this movement. It is a movement that breeches corporatism. 

Independent innovations have challenged the traditional models. Younger people constantly on social media have found these alternative routes. They are the main feeder of these podcasts. Joe Rogan is the biggest podcast in the world. Lex Friedman’s show is another growing channel. Much of their content opposes the mainstream. They work outside the classic binary. Attempting to facilitate a third path. While that rarely occurs, their honesty and anti-corporate agenda is sufficient for people. They’d rather not deal with talking heads. You can oppose aid to Ukraine on economic grounds instead of being called a racist. Making solid arguments for helping American citizenry before Ukrainians. That money could stop poverty and house everyone. Taxpayer money being used for unregulated unmediated wars abroad. People are fed up and these podcasters fill that void. They respond to their concerns. This is the real pushback. This is the true postmodern shift. When the ideas of modernity finally fall flat on their face. When the high prized governmental apparatus that saved people from the evil tycoons and destitute depression finally showed its devilish face. It was in on it the entire time. Betraying the citizenry in secret.

Much of the counterculture 60s had begun in the 20s. WWI ushered in all sorts of untraditional behaviour. Teenagers were experimenting, women received rights and consumerism. The socio-cultural elements were gradually modifying from impure to taboo to normal. Dress began to evolve little by little. Marilyn Monroe preceded the counterculture. WWII, television and rock fuelled the taboo but encouraged behaviour to be normalised. Socio-politically, the formally isolationist nation became embroiled in every event. A brief stint of shady isolation following WWI didn’t last long as Wilson’s presidential power grab extended to FDR. Once the depression and the war ended, the people were in the country’s debt. Whatever they said they would do. Go off to Korea no worries. Communism is like Nazism. Both really bad. It was only in the 70s that questions started being raised due to the incalculable teenage deaths. This hippie style didn’t last long as few voices actually opposed Iraq and Afghanistan. Anti-war was only when your life was on the line. When it seemed a little too ridiculous. Yet the endless war on terrorism or on drugs had its deviants but many of those who participated in this counterculture have yet to repeal these laws. 

That is by far the biggest point. So they grew older and more conservative. Yet there are many politicians who not only have present corruption issues but were screwing around and buried in drugs during their youth. Showing up to rallies to stop the wars and prioritise the American citizen. Now they are in office making a profit off American deaths. Why make changes when there is money to be made. Why make changes if it never really meant anything. They were young. It was stupid and fun. Cracking down on the contemporary youth despite their own hypocrisy. Counterculture occurs when it is actually followed through. All those ex-hippies have apparently grown up and seen the light of modernity. They are not postmodernists nor are they relativists. They live by post-war ideals. They have yet to actually make a difference. Since WWI the country has progressively moved more liberal. There was a strong leftist group in the 60s and there is one now. The group is larger as their liberal concerns have finally centred on meeting the social the economic and the political. They have reached marxism. Like their Russian brethren before them the American liberal has evolved. Each generation adding a new group. Inclusivity to the absolute degree.

The youth today are still modernists. They still believe in a single truth and a globalised world order. Standing up for human rights abroad and protesting to ensure people get in line. Whether for sexual orientation, expression or nature, the liberal truth is that which continues to expand. The youth today are more progressive than the youth of the postwar era but only a few doors down. They are the outgrowth of their grandparent's generation. It has been building up to 2016. Vietnam only procured more protections for the youth. It wasn't an attempt to undo the ways of old but add more institutional defences. To ensure more people were protected. From women to blacks to gays to teenagers now to transgenders. The identity metric has become more openly accepted. That is a motto of modernity not postmodernity. Modernity also flourished with more global interference since WWI. The youth are still fighting for American participation. Even those anti-colonialists do so in regards to specific adversaries and even if no military involvement they do believe in fervent protest. The protestors also engage in ecological warfare. Marching and defending the environment against sinister corporatism. The youth also promote more governmental assistance. Student loan forgiveness is of the most recent interjections. More government the better which fits will in the socialist thinking. None of this is postmodern.  

This generation of podcasters attacks all foreign wars whether Ukraine or Israel. While some do it on moral grounds others do so on isolationist grounds. America needs to stop funding wars abroad. Some have even recognised the weaponisation of NATO. America needs to focus on its citizens. This neo-nationalism is not a white power move but a national cohesive matrix. Focusing more on the people. Irate at the nonsense socio-cultural phenomenon. Whether it is intersectionality, corporatism or governmental corruption. It is the breath of extremes that need to be tamed. Everyone does it in their own way. Some believe the government ought to take care of it but many others cynically believe entrepreneurs ought to do so. Technology and not government will be the way forward. Some are sceptical of the corporate ladder but others are merely finding new ways. Growing climate change “deniers” yell at protestors for their annoyance. They have yet to buy meat, use their cars or wear child tortured clothing. They walk around high and mighty for a cause they do not believe in. They live by ideology. For every one tree cut build five new trees but this is ideology not science. This may be bad for the ecosystem. Oh no forrest fires. Yet they are a part of nature. Their dangerous breath may be due to either fraudulent protection or building projects in the middle of the ecosystem. Advocates know little of what they are actually fighting for. 

A fervent cynicism has finally bellowed at the dubious nature. There are problems and they can be fixed but stop trying to overcorrect. Stop trying to critique others. Not only will it not help but it also comes from a place of deep ignorance and pure arrogance. Parading in the street as saviours when in reality they are contributing more to the problem than the average person. Most of these problems are on the state level. Egg their house or maybe don’t vote for them. Stop blaming everyone else. The situation is overblown and the media only furthers the drama. The media is cinema, it exasperates the problem. It overemphasises the issue when most couldn’t give a crap. People are tired of this nonsense. Disillusioned and exhausted. Sceptical and raging. Snowden and Assange are right for what they did. The media vilifying them and adding false storylines ought not to be believed. Innocent till proven guilty.  The government is a scary devil do not trust them. Elected officials have gotten away with corruption for too long. Finally people are waking up and pushing back. Yet will it stick?

A counterculture may arise in different eras but the postmodern aspect is something very integral to the contemporary arc. Lyotard’s critique was merely exposing the secretive taboo that the elders didn’t like. The elders in their youth engaged in this type of experimenting and grew conservative. The socio-cultural aspects progressively grew liberal with the 70s but again those pro-drugs in the 70s are still pushing against. This younger generation is trying reform. Their anti-war sentiment was contextual not absolute. 2016 was the culmination of rejecting all the progressive ideas. All the more reliance on government and cultural imposition. Many liberals are pro-Ukraine. Those anti-Ukraine are generally anti-war and anti-military industrial complex. There are extremes in anti-west and colonialist lacings. The modest rejection is a middle ground that desires capitalist innovations, less intervention and public homeostasis. The government ought to protect the people but stay out of the people’s business. Own up when they mistake and resign from corruption. Seeing past the culture war for its media frenzy that it is. The rejection of meta-narratives does contain a conservative strain of traditionalism with minorities voting republican but the profound polemic is not reversal of progressive accomplishments but balancing them. 

The pandemic only heightened these issues. People have lost trust in their formally indestructible institutions. Scepticism is so high. Relativism is so apparent in this post-truth society. Who is telling the truth Trump or the dems. Russiagate was a fraud, Hunter Biden was true, Fauci lied, Epstein was assassinated and recently January 6th was an inside job. Nobody knows who to trust. The establishment says Trump was a Russian agent and Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian hoax. Both proved to be false. Both proved to be hit campaigns wasting millions of taxpayers dollars on a lie. Trump opposed masks and said it came from a lab but Fauci said otherwise. He was from the CDC he wouldn’t lie. Rand Paul is a racist pig. Yet it has been proven that it did come from a lab that Fauci funded against American law. Epstein Island was revealed to be a trafficking ring that hosted the likes of Clinton, Trump, Chomsky and Dershowitz. Did they know? Did they participate? Did he really commit suicide? No investigation. Of course the attack on democracy on January 6th. The Gretchen Whitmer case was exposed as an FBI ruse. With the history of the CIA and FBI tactics it is not a forgone conclusion. Ray Epps has yet to be charged, video evidence and alleged destroying evidence furthers the fed plot. Is the latest event a fed orchestration, maybe not but it sure looks like one. Without full transparency, people will continue to ask questions and cynically distrust the establishment. 

Obama’s reputation took a nosedive when classified intelligence was leaked that he had indiscriminately bombed civilian populations (whether this created ISIS is of little importance. What is important is how much it contributed to growing hostility and increased terrorist activity). Nicknamed Obamer, it has only been whitewashed by the media. He even received a Nobel peace prize. Snowden showed how the government had illegally spied and many rushed to defend the government. This is the continuation of modernity. The reliance of government post-WWI through the economic programs of FDR to the social programs of LBJ. The welfare state has eclipsed the most notorious dependency program. Trump’s platform was anti-establishment. Do not trust them, trust me. A populist with grand charisma. Vilified he still won people’s hearts. Caesar reinvigorated. Yet people forget why Caesar was so popular. He was a man of the people in the face of governmental corruption. He wasn’t a celebrity that was chosen instead of the more qualified individuals. He was chosen because people were sick and tired of the Senate’s erroneous behaviour. The search for a populist is in place of a rogue foreign governmental apparatus. Trumpism may have gone too far but it was built on legitimate concerns that were being ignored. A Caesar to save them from corruption. He was better than the Senate just as Trump was better than the government. 

Post-truth was applied to Trump’s fake news. People didn’t like him because his rhetoric didn’t capture their hearts. Yet his policies brokered deals and raised people out of poverty. So he was a dick. He had his faults but he aided the country that had been forgotten under the thumb of previous groups both democrats and republicans. Trump’s use of fake news was at times very true. He vindicated himself. In the end as Caesar himself he ended up corrupt. Power corrupts and government is corrupt. Not even a populist can outdo his own greed. That is not to say he is worse than others. Post-truth and fake news has little to do with Trump and more to do with the state of affairs. The aptitude of transparency provided by the government. The issues mentioned in the previous paragraph highlight this dreadful issue. What to believe? People still hold to the wrongful Russiagate and Hunter Biden laptop. Was Russia’s invasion of Ukraine based on western expansion or reviving the Soviet Union? There is little debate nor critical thinking. The media proposes their agenda and that is the answer. Fauci has yet to apologise or relent to his lies. He keeps appearing on programs to defend himself despite the evidence otherwise. No anchor has actually pushed back on him. They twiddle their thumbs and demand the audience accept him. The audience of the few who still trust their devilish narcissism. 

Conspiracy theorists are longer fringe extremists. The polemics of old have finally rung true. No ideology nor agenda. 9/11 wasn’t an inside job but miscommunication and CIA trained operatives committing the genocidal acts seems to be a backfired plan that could’ve easily been prevented. While not every conspiracy is true it does outline the fishy circumstances surrounding JFK. Even if Oswald acted alone on his own volition it doesn’t undermine other conspiracies. Russiagate was a conspiracy but his other lawsuits may not be. Not everything is wrong but absent transparency nothing can be trusted. The conspiracists are the sceptical commoners. The average folk cynicism is represented in questionable internalisation. To be sceptical is becoming the norm. Relativism is the inability to discern fact from fiction. When the elites and the people see the world in a different way. The media posits a story and the audience says false. Fragmented plot lines that have no cohesive uniform. Various echo chambers spouting gibberish with charismatic intensity. The cynic mocks the dubious attempt. He sees the truth. Yet it is relative to the mainstream narrative. Conspiracists are outcasts. How dare you challenge. Governmental cover ups and illegal activity are apologetically defended while the brazen few challenge. Progressive positivism is losing its edge to crazy nuts.        

People are stuck in a relativistic bind. Uncertain of the real truth. Instead they ponder the information posed. Yet have closer inkling to either bias. People are stuck in their ways. Media is correct they wouldn’t lie. Naive to the end of insanity for the sake of their narrative. It is the few bold who have looked elsewhere. Finding smaller platforms to teach the real truth. Hoping for the transparency the mainstream will never provide. The disillusionment is baked into the relativism. It is not moral relativism but rather a contextual art of genuine trust. Who is worthy of this. Choosing carefully and remaining sceptical. It is not a full blown refutation but a scepticism that cares for reconstruction and reapplication. It isn’t to tear down the institution but to repair it. It is a rebellion not a revolution. The so-called sexual revolution altered perception through exposure but it didn’t change the socio-political makeup. This contemporary rebellion is pushing back not overturning. Change needs to be made and we’re holding you to it. No more youthful bursts of visionary abstractions but concise concrete polemics that need solving immediately. This isn’t a rogue attempt but a mature chutzpah response. 

Lyotard’s claim ought to be reevaluated in light of the progressive halt. Meta-narratives are failing. The modern notions of faith and reliance have lost their charm. It is time to question the narrative. It is time to stand up and inquire. 2016 was the start it has only grown, let’s hope it persists.   

Ir(religious) Reform

By: Jonathan Seidel

How religious is modern democracy? Religious ideals in hellenist archetype (Agamben, 66)

Many conservatives claim that democracy is based on Judaeo-Christian ethics. Obviously, they’re aspects that clearly contradict. The blasphemy laws opposing the right to freedom of speech is one such example. 

Even if these rights were not the exact calibre as modern formations they were the basis for the democratic bedrock. The flow of hellenistic writings made their way into renaissance Europe. Finding a home in Italy and then in France. The humanism of the renaissance paraded on these works. Incorporating platonic ideals into society. The cultural shift was desirable in the inclusion of such nuance. For so long, the religious authorities had held sway over the group and now they were halted, impeded by the new human-centred ideas. Harking back to the proto-humanist movements in the sixth century at the onset of Western democracy. Institutional fervour was to be expended. Democracies sprouted in the Italian peninsula and capitalism began subsequently. A new ideal for a new age. The new world was revolutionary against the backdrop of feudalistic oppression. The technological advancements. The great mathematicians and inventors hailed from Italy. So profound and so important for the radical shift to modernity. The ancient books were seminal in altering the playing field. 

Trade was the core of the shift. Italy positioned between the west and the east provided a necessary middle for adaption. A centre between the clash of diversification. The Christians in the west, the muslims in the east and the Chinese in the far east. The Mediterranean acted as a seaport for nations in the Middle East and North Africa. Italy had its Roman origins and subsequently was a profound centre of trade and distribution. As a centre for trade, it was inevitable ideas would accompany the materials. The muslims in the west were preoccupied with philosophy in Andalusia. Crusaders had brought back these ideas. An area rich in philosophical history took up the mantle as a trade centre. Crusaders enjoined the byzantine and islamic areas binding ideas into realisation. Urbanisation overtook the feudal static lifestyle. Towns flourished and one-time peasants were enriching. While the republics were run by wealthy capitalists, the service of trade acknowledged more humanistic ideals. The urban panorama expanded individuality and prompted self worth. As a crossroads for trade, cultural ideas swooned and invigorated the public. The republican notations became increasingly familiar.

Classical greek ideas flooded into the Italian stratosphere. Yet they didn’t replace the religious ethos. The Vatican was minutes away. Humanism was an attempt to synthesise classics and christianity. Similar to the eastern ideals of Avicenna and Al-Farabi centuries prior. Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews present the most telling illustration. The Spanish Jews from Saadya to Maimonides were well versed in Plato and Aristotle while the French Jews from Rashi to Rabbenu Tam were less acquainted. There was even a controversy over philosophical learning amongst Jews. Many Italian Jews lived prior to the Temple’s destruction but the major change came with the Treaty of Venice's redirection of control to local rulers and the Pope instead of the Emperor who the French Jews were subservient. The expulsion of Jews from various parts of Italy enabled the refugees from Iberia to bring their ideas. The reenforcement of Spanish methodology brought in a new fervour to the Italian community. A community that was highly ashkenazi entrenched in talmud study inserted various styles of learning that reshaped the area before eventual persecutions and expulsions. Refugees, crusaders and merchants each brought more popularity to the age old phenomena. 

Christianity has but voided questions of philosophy and the immersion in material craft whether paintings or sculptures. The rediscovery of classical architecture and scientific thinking promoted all types of inventions and innovations. The Mona Lisa, the statute of Moses and of course the Sistine Chapel. The architecture of the latter only furthered the church’s alignment with the new change. Freedom of speech didn’t emerge in the Renaissance. Humanism was religious hellenism. It wasn’t secular nor was it humanistic. The humanism was a more liberal attitude towards otherness. Permitting the reading of the heretical greeks. Humanism in its basic definition was an exposure to the classics. A movement with little enlightened identity. Synthesising the classics with catholicism only sought to strengthen the legitimacy of the creed. Yet at the same time applying classical methods to religion differed from the church’s education. These humanists weren’t polemicists. They retroactively justified in the name of the church. Though whether critical or not, the investments in literature and architecture paved a way for individuality to rise. Machiavelli and Montaigne both of varying beliefs and yet proceeded alongside the individualist persona. 

It is growing individuality, enrichment and elevation that empowered Luther to publicise the known evils of the church. The reformation was a culmination in the spread of the renaissance across Western Europe. The promise of individualistic expression and invention birthed the printing press and accessibility for all. The classical revival was amongst the wealthy and scholarship. The printing press provided access to laymen for cheap. No longer was literate power in the institutions. More books meant more reading and more empowerment. Combined with the aspiration of Roman glory and overcoming the despotic reality, change would come. Increased reading only furthered polemical vestiges. The reformation sealed this with a publication that was spread throughout Europe. Luther’s theses did more in their dissemination than in stapling to the cathedral. His grievances were shared by many who believed that change was necessary. What else to change than elevating man. In a trend similar to the buddhist construction, protestantism emerged to raise the individual at the expense of catholicism. Just as buddhism restored man against hinduism so did the reformation. Calvin joined the ride with his own take on the christian alternative belief. 

While classical thought itself played a role, it was improvement upon and technological advancements against institutionalism that altered the trajectory. The reformation nor the renaissance brought in the classical ideas with the exception of the scientific prescriptions. The science was aligned with the religious motif. Even Galileo interpreted his findings in line with the bible. It wasn’t religion that was the catalyst for enlightenment. What follows the reformation is more war and the counter-reformation for stricter catholic theology. This pushed the pilgrims to the new world. Puritans weren’t the first settlers in the new world but demonstrated a symbolic freedom to practice freely though forcibly amongst the group itself. The renaissance made its way through Western Europe but it wasn’t religion that set off the enlightenment nor was it anti-religion that set it off. The enlightenment was headed by religious thinkers but with strong classic ideas embellishing their traditional theology. Newton though not a famed member of the enlightenment, was not only a prolific physicist but a committed hebraist. Very engaged in philosophy and theology. What shifted the balance was the governmental apparatus. The institutional overhaul was too grave.

The debates emerging amongst the enlightenment thinkers concerned the shift from feudalism to absolutism. Whether a monarch was the correct motto, Hobbes definitely believed so while Locke disagreed. Hamilton was for an elected monarchy and Jefferson a limited candidate. The spurious differential clouded the political atmosphere. Beginning in the mid-seventieth century, the king's role was incrementally reduced to the head of state that he is today. The grievances of the colonists were not aimed at the king insomuch as they were at parliament. England was poised to removing their leader from his political role while still championing the legacy of the family (no wonder the English royal family is still relevant as a spectacle). The role of classical thought undermined the archaic hierarchical status of old. The new model sought to endow its citizens with more rights. Debates of enlightenment concerned the role of the political. Though ethical in nature, the source was the political framework that displaced British citizenry from their own equality. Italy was the first democratic society in the Middle Ages, it soon reverted into a monarchy. Britain changed and it stayed that way with a few hiccups here and there. Yet it seems the disruption was over the new elevated citizenry against the overbearing monarch. 

The bill of rights is a political channel to limit governmental sovereignty. Yet this individuality is new. The rights afforded for the individual do not adhere to any governmental belief. Even the McCarthyist polemics were exceedingly unconstitutional. The idea of these god-given rights was that the individual could act as desired in the confines of civic law.  This was a far cry from the institutional restrictions of earlier nations. Secularism was the pinnacle of permissive individuality. John Locke is usually perceived as the father of natural rights, but the enlightenment origin began with Jean Gerson in 1402. It is with these motifs that Luther pushed for theological autonomy though Luther’s anti-semitic remarks towards the end of his life demonstrate an exclusivist autonomy for Christians. It is difficult to assume whether the ancients were providing extensive autonomy to the masses or certain privileged groups. Cyrus and the stoics seem to provide a methodology for all men but the communitarian mindset may absolve the Lockean doctrine. The counterreformation and religious naturism was based in spiritual escalation. 

Natural rights became more relevant in the tyrannical oppression of the citizenry. The first so-called secularists were conversos who despising the coercive inquisition resigned from all religious behaviour for a new idea. Spinoza was heir to a Dutch community filled with cynics. Spinoza’s secularist ideals were an attack on the religious invasion away from the protestant dogma. The political turmoil of the Middle Ages gradually opened the door for more equality. Volunteerism and extended legal compromises provided nuanced opportunities for individualistic growth. Monarchies were a way around the lord's power over the citizenry. The incremental growth was muddled by religious dominion. The inquisition was a dangerous institutional synthesis. The reformation which was intended to be a liberation that reduced to warfare. The rise of natural rights was amongst   believers and sceptics in unison. The issue of the changing landscape and monarchical supremacy reassessed. Wars, dogma and sovereignty caused excessive questioning. Monarchs had procured immense power and reluctant citizenry pushed back though with their own self concerns in mind. Locke and Voltaire both spouted natural rights but were still for a constitutional monarchy.  

The enlightenment thinkers weren’t equally distributive. Voltaire was a rabid anti-semite and Locke was at most tolerant of Jews. A fascination amongst many of the enlightenment. Emancipation was selective and provided a caveat. The first democracy was restricted to white landowners. Napoleon was the first to emancipate Jews to which the Germans quickly rescinded after his defeat. Natural rights were provided to all men but not the political arena. The political arena was decided by certain privileged folk and the rest were left to suffer under the thumb of the elected anchor. Natural rights could not be impeded but that doesn’t mean that corruption wasn’t destined to occur. Unequal justice and obstructive progress. Seeking to ensure a monistic paradigm. One race to win it all. Only one deserves the privileges. The new aristocrats without regal attitudes. Wishing to be the rulers of society. The religious inclination prompted a superiority complex though it is unclear if Voltaire’s insistence was strictly on religious grounds. He and Diderot weren’t seeking to place deism as the core of national religiosity. Instead the religio-political apparatus was to deny certain groups emancipation. First it was catholics then protestants and finally Jews. Other groups received their belated political power in time. Toleration was permissible but political access was strongly denied. 

Toleration merely meant to live civilly with others. No love required nor companionship. The social and political over the legal and ontological. Social alienation and political denial over the legal permission and ontological reverence. Toleration unveiled a single layer promising every group instilled respect but that did not mean that institutional activity would follow. Religion played a role in assuming the power of a certain matrix that required protesting to ensure political rights were provided. Even when the law was on the books the social apparatus didn’t care too lightly for the diverse candidates. Others can have their rights as long as they stay quiet and let the true rulers reign. While there was a religious component in some countries other times the religious identity was translated ethnically into generalised aspects that divided ethnic groups. Any other was a problem but the other at times was condensed into tribal persecution. Race became a bigger factor and immigration was hounded. People were technically protected by the law but it didn’t mean it was enforced nor that it provided the sufficient protection. Blacks were provided the rights of whites and yet due to social and political reasons they were ousted and subdued. The law was at times against them. Corruption and discrimination stole the inalienable rights provided. Human rights were minute in the face of socio-political investment. Toleration was the most plausible with little remedy. 

Democracy was a product of hellenised conduct infused with religious discrimination. Religion may have been the origin for secularist thinking but it was the absolutist experience that prompted citizenry defences. The monarchy’s reign was too great and with the urban surge the citizenry believed they could do it themselves. Slowly, regal ideals reduced to mockery. Revolutions replaced traditional sovereignty. The former appeased commoners were now in charge. They placed not their family but their ethnicity at the helm. Brand new patricians. Patricians so quickly abusing the plebeians. Some patricians had sympathy for other ethnicities. The American revolution had some more innovations in mind. With leaders who were more empathetic than the European philosophers. Leaders who believed in ethnic symmetry alongside Washington, Jefferson and Hamilton. While imperfect they were more advanced than their European counterparts who supported institutional hierarchies. While fringe groups and institutional oppression were advanced against slaves and ex-slaves, the anti-religious flavour of the American revolution was its salvation. The christianised outlooks of Locke and his contemporaries deluded other ethnicities. Those who fought against the traditional polis were successful when religion remained away from the discussion.

The Judaeo-christian perspective is flatly ignorant and disingenuous. Modernity did emerge from Christian Europe. The enlightenment thinkers were religious. Democracy was antagonistic to monarchical rule. Yet to assume that it was due to christianised ideas is to misinterpret history. The first liberalists were running from christian institutionalism. Enlightenment thinkers were selective in their push for full-length democracy and absolute rule was assisted by the church. Inalienable rights is very irreligious. Rights began in Athens in response to tyrannical rule with little religious impression. Thinkers were religious because many people were. Secularism had not made its dent yet. The religious pact sought to delimit access for other ethnicities. Natural rights and civilian policy were established by Alfonso XI in Portugal by way of reign not religion. The role of liberal thinkers sought to release their kind whether catholics or protestants from regal rule for their own elevation. They wished to replace but on their terms not for others. Notwithstanding the blatant contradiction between inalienable rights and religious obligations, there is an even more undeniable dissimilar relation. It was the political leaders whether Alfonso, Napoleon, Washington or Lenin that guided the search for the political empowerment of otherness. 

There were imperfections in the creation of a perfect state equal in all respects. While the philosophers continued to deny the socio-political nature to the human other, the revolutionaries saw differently. The revolutionaries were empathetic to all struggles though not always to the poor or immigrants. The philosophers and politicians used their ideological charm to undermine the fabric of symmetrical expression. Religious thinkers dogmatically denied further assistance to those under the heel of oppression. The church didn’t help Jews during the Middle Ages nor the holocaust. They also did not stop slavery or promote democracy. Enlightenment intellectuals desired a Neo-aristocratic turf. A newly recognisable elite away from dynastic elites. Instead ethnically synchronic for a selective group. Throughout early modern Europe, Kant and his contemporaries including Fichte and Berkeley weren’t the biggest Jew fans. While they proscribed civil rights they antagonised the people incredulously. Later Hegel and non-christianised Nietzsche were some of the only defences of Judaism. Intellectuals mirrored disaster and monistic agendas. Seemingly destroying the possibility of a neutral angle nor equal society. The revolutionaries on the other hand were quite pro-Jewish and pro-everyone else. At times, stuck in their archaic avenues. Yet way fonder of change than the neo-religious philosophers. 

There are religious themes to be respected and commended. Duties is an important aspect of social cohesion. Rights can become stale and used by degenerates to deny the promised beverage to the starving citizen. The correlation of religious instigation against the embedded separation is akin to illegal activity. Yet the invasion of dogma is keenly associated and unable to redeem the truth from the laced cocktail. Political thinking is the antidote not the bandaid. The failure of religious and philosophical thinking damned the innovation. Though philosophers were caught in their religious spiderweb. It was empaths who saved the downtrodden. Who pushed for reform. It was the political investment that is to share. The secularist thinking of Hellenistic classics that should be praised. While some of the religious spirituality may have modified the Athenian duality it is the bedrock of Athenian collaboration that prided the ideal of equality.

Free Play

By: Jonathan Seidel

Ethnocentric accusations and western thinking: trans-generational dogma or recency bias—the case of gender (Zizek, 103)

Gender is a debatable topic these days. For the liberal side, gender and sex are different aspects of the human condition. The two are separate. One can be born a girl and identify as a guy. One’s birth does not designate their expression in society. The religious side says otherwise. Their dogma inherently cultivating a binary between men and women. What you are born with is what you identify as. It is a fluid extension of the self. Is the biblical record scientific or is it holding back the truth?

Two much of this is falling into a culture war. No one is actually looking at the facts. People claim to identify otherwise and God only believes in man and woman. Reducing the dubious proposals will begin with the strawmannirg episodes. For the gender advocates their proof cannot simply hinge on feeling. While autonomy is provided this does not mean that such individuals are sane. Just as one can claim anything so too on the other side can claim it’s delusional. One can feel their leg broken but that does not mean it is true. The science is not all too hopeful for the latter. Feelings mismatched with facts is lying on the delusional train. Life isn’t fair but that does not mean that edging out with a personal vendetta, is the sole choice. Emotions are not logical but manifestations of expected aspirations. Thus the desire to be otherwise is a rejection of societal implications. A need to be different. A need to spread out. Are these feelings genuine or dangerous? It is too soon to tell but the feelings for personality change do not do justice to the honest inquiry of fact.

On the other hand, the religious appeals to authority are not correct either. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. Not only can it not be used as a historical project, it has little credibility in the realm of gender. The dissatisfaction is the liberal movement away from traditional norms. It goes against their tradition. It goes against their beliefs. Thus, it must be incorrect. The weaning christianised America is now exposed to other forms of human experience. The religious mind is stuck in a dogmatic pale. It cannot accept the possibility of otherness. Religious facts are not scientific facts. They rely on scriptural translation. Translations that are notoriously misaligned with the original Hebrew. Explanations that fit better with archaic societies than the liberal agendas of the day. At odds causes even stronger reactionary rebuttal. The loss of the traditional mantra places the religious in a bind. Having to salvage and protect their heritage. For history there has been two types of people and that it is. A man marries a woman and they procreate. The simplicity of logic may not hold in the scientific community. Despite the obvious logic of the evident private parts. The lack of neurological understanding deviates from such a simplistic assertion with little scrutiny. 

An honest sentiment must first wash away much of the liberal reading into the biblical record. Attempting to override the religious with worrisome tedious explanations. A famous attempt is man’s creation where it says “he created them”. This means Adam and Eve not a third entity. This faulty translation fails to understand the the context. Yet even if their translation is correct that Adam was an a hermaphrodite, his condition did not last long intentionally. It was an imperfect condition. In the talmud, such an individual is unable to fully commit the divine deeds. It also says “male and female he created them”. A binary is created thus there are two ways to be not a hundred ways. The religious mind is void of any of this iteration. That does not refute it scientifically just does so religiously. Though the religious were also against homosexuality despite its prevalence in other cultures. It may have been disgust from outside cultures. Thus their antagonism is the act. Procreation is sacred do not mess around with other men. It is not a natural point but placating against hellenistic art. Other cultures do possess more genders. Monotheism is not the sole authority on gender. 

Mesopotamia and Akkadian myths present extra-gender categories. The issue is many of these are not switching their sexes but isolated for their life choice. The irregularity is an ontological choice for barren women or celibate priestesses. They may have had gender characteristics of both but it is unclear of what this means and if it just means certain energies. Modern scholars who categorise these individuals as eunuchs and hermaphrodites are irregular biological conditions. Ancient greeks believed in a third gender of eunuchs fitting the ontological irregular category with less rights. Indians played into the same identity. Their third gender seemed to play more on masculine versus feminine. Even the hermaphrodite makes another appearance, though with a little more pizzazz. For natives, such an individual was the ideal. The goal is to return to primordial Adam not the split with Eve. Mayans may have been open to more gender and sexual fluidity. Apparently there was less dogmatic structure for where to stand in society. Eastern groups make small reference but similar to the others these are irregular categories of sexual identity. Such people exist but this is less a manifestation of the norm. Nor does it imply a shift in gender. Even with all this data, there is little visualisation of human condition in everyday life. How people acted in plays and costumes worn does not necessarily exhibit the day to day.         

Most agree that there are two sexes. Male and female. One has a penis that produces sperm and the other breasts and a vagina that produces eggs. Some disagree on the dichotomous relationship. Either there are various sexes or there is one sex. In both cases the duality is ridded for more nuances. While these nuances may be genuine, the procreation mechanism as well as boldly structure find sufficient interaction. Whether this be a social constructed history, there is little historical legitimacy for more sexes that do not hinge on physical misgivings. The sex line is consistent to be binary. Brith denotes someone’s play in the machine. Is one a giver or a receiver. Do they possess the magical puff to sprinkle or do they possess the uncreated organisms. Potentiality exists for both sides. There is a mission for both sides. Thereby undercutting the expressive agenda. The goal is to procreate. Gifted these tools use them correctly. Understandably, the neural link may desire something different but such urges are apparently disinterested with the constructed nexus. Although a simplistic argument, it stands beyond the religious claims. This is simple science. A penis entered into the vagina ejaculates sperm fertilising the eggs creating a foetus that forms into a baby. 

Whether people should be compelled to act a certain way does not negate the robotic profession. Then again, the gender split may offer a way out. A way beyond the biochemistry. Anatomy is the root of creation but the way someone acts is their own. The brain need not follow the body. Though one is not one’s brain nor one’s body. One is a soul, that is the most promising guess. The brain and body are detached from the individuals wit. Though the “soul” only survives if the brain and heart work. The soul is the orchestration of neural networks pumped with blood. Seemingly, a brain donation would emerge with the former’s conscious. Yet probably compromised given the bodily differences. A person is more than just their brain. If able to transcend the graft and host dilemma, such a new individual will be overwhelmed with the second body’s personification. While this is mere speculation, there is a high chance the individual is more than just a brain. What makes them whole is the holistic coordination. The brain expresses and reflects. Moving to a new body with different eye and hair colour seems minute but is a big deal. The second body’s memories may pour in. Messages are sent throughout the body and thus part of them remains intact. In such a case where a man’s brain is placed in a woman’s body, it may cause a funky conundrum of mixed energy. The former brain loved woman but now they are in a woman’s body would they be straight or gay? It is possible the brain may be overridden with bodily hormones or vice versa. 

Any ancient data that has been criticised demonstrating relics deploying some transgender or intersex individual must hold up to scrutiny. The apparent reality of a male in a female grave may not mean what the archeologist of the twenty-first century believes. Such an archeologist has not only an agenda but also a perceptual bias. They see men dressed as women thus if some evidence proves in the past, it must be symmetrical. Yet this is considerably ethnocentric. Little knowledge of said culture undermines the validity. Maybe his burial in a female grave was a punishment for throwing like a girl or maybe it was a final wish. The lack of extensive analysis paralyses the cultural backdrop. If anything it is deplorable to make such a claim with no more intake. Archaeologists have field day using their modern visions of society to either manhandle or misconstrue ancient models. This is only the newest step. Is the archaeologist incorrect maybe not, but her position is clearly ideological without more evidence. A commonality may have more to do with that cultural bias than any current cognitive dissonance and ignorance can possess. Even though the religious have no monopoly on truth, there is considerable unity on the latitude of gender. Applying the current transgender model to Mayans is incongruent. Using them as a typical nation must extend sufficiently.

Feminist theories who wish to rid sex and gender all together as arbitrary and constructs seemingly nitpick their examples. There are various body types but the dichotomy remains consistent throughout the world. There are a few exceptions but the social aspect fits more in the gender sphere than the sex sphere. It is not clear what these other physiological orchestrations are. Doctors may decide the sex but most accept the binary. It is not as if doctors are tricking their patients. Patients already buy into this philosophy. Is everyone duped into this binary? Westerners and easterners alike? Apparently so. People have acted quite consistently. There may have been exploration but the structural creations are congruent throughout. Such a grand theory must have evidence backed up prior to any ground norm. The foundation is in the perceptive conclusions of sexual parts. Is that a flawed binary? Potentially but it does categorise humanity. The social and political aspects stand beyond the test of time. Ironically, it is the opposite that may be the case. Are these anti-sex believers motivated by social and political gain? They blame others for their dissonance. Buying into a matrix hindering their autonomy. Yet is there some deep seated reasoning they think humanity is lied to do by the ancestral history going all the way back to Mesopotamia? Where did it all begin and where are these differences?

Gender has more thrust. The brain is independent of the boldly structure. They affect one another. Pain over a bruised area is the brain calling attention to a wounded body part to be treated. It is alerting the conscious soul of the dangers of proceeding forward. Yet the masculine-feminine binary is at times constructed. Boys for blue and girls for pink. Convenience and classification creates a mechanised duality for differentiating the two. There are ingrained aspects, boys play with action figures and girls with dolls. Boys with things and girls with people. The desire for these toys even from the child’s perspective may be from his surrounding desires. He sees girls playing with dolls and says not for me but sees his friend with action figures and says that is for me. Is this psychological in imprinting likes and dislikes on people. A boy sees his father love his mother so he loves his mother/girls. Yet this goes into deeper questions of murder as a social condition or a natural truth. There is an obvious guiding and expectations for the sexes to follow. Men can’t cry and need to provide. Acting tough and being in charge are aspects pf the social condition but what if they are also part of the neural network. If anything the social messaging is attempting to shift the feelings of men. While there is socialising masqueraded as ontology this holds up on the other side of the house. Critical theorists undermine those social norms with their own. Their agenda is symmetrical in attempting to glorify their own vision of the world.

Their reforms are considerably dangerous and problematic. A generous objection is that the dogma has yet to remove itself from the education of man. People choose because they are compelled in that direction. Time to wean off of these for a new order again is replacing one apparent social construct with another. Inducing theirs is somehow superior. Screwing with people’s psyche for their own progressive order. There is not much evidence nor productive tone alleged for their order. If all the metaphysical truths fall then any new order can pass over the old. All older systems are supposedly wrongheaded. They must be cleansed of their erroneous ways. So new policing will commence. Feelings do not reflect science. Not wishing to verge on dysphoria but honest inquiry. The culture war is hot in pushing an agenda that needs to be accepted. People are wishing to live a certain way. They are scrutinised in society. They must be liberated. A feeling of the few does not conclude with the extreme deductions of said theorists. There is an emotional backdrop that is loud. No debate simple acceptance. A new religion on the horizon. Their sanity is at stake. Society has rapidly defended them in the liberal establishment. Individualism is the hallmark in the profiteering business. Comfortability is the garden hope. Comfort from other’s acceptance instead of comfort of shelter.

Masculine and feminine roles are socially ordered. The majority may even wish to live alike but not everyone is a robot. There are differences reflected in genetic and surroundings culture. A male predisposed to motherly love through adolescence may grow to be an empathetic figure. The opposite is true as well. The roles are set to prevail in a harsh society. If things are ordered then people can pass from obstacle to obstacle. Some men are more emotional and others are less athletic. None of this is more masculine or feminine even if cinema depicts as such. Do men possess more aggressive traits? Potentially but that is more trans-generational. A need to be aggressive to survive. Such aggressiveness is still necessary. The scale is one of energies. People do not choose these attributes but are provided with them from birth. Skills can be trained. Aurelius in his famous Meditations discusses perfecting his character. He thanks his family for educating him and then his own experiences for enlightening him. Moulding character is a personal thing. Even if men care more it doesn’t need to be the case. Men can wean off caring and move on. Shame can be subdued with confidence. There are genetic components that cannot easily be turned off but many can be nurtured. Men and women may begin at a fated foundation but that need not last, personal introspection can change that with hard work.

Different energies can explore various options. To some extent imbibing a different style is openly expressing this. For example, cross-dressing is not making a statement insofar as it is magnifying feminine energy. It may be a step to being an outlaw but it also may attempt to convey a certain type of energy. The dress eases the capability to propel such energy. A woman wearing a suit is a sign of pushing masculine energy through authority and grit. Men were dresses for a long time but the female construct psychologically manifests the feminine feeling. The brain oozes with the emotional overhaul of discursive energy. The dress is the vessel to imbue such energy into to manifest. To represent a lucid character different from the norm. A look beyond the regular for an irregular experience. For a piece of nuance walled off in the neural network. Closed off due to social interest. Does the neural extravagance seek difference and uniqueness. Is transgenderism a desire to be something else? Is the neural network screwed up? Potentially not. The neural energy disagrees with the bodily congestion. Yet there is some evident irony in the gender expansion. The transgender individual acknowledges the duality and desires to be of the unassigned. They wish to choose to be the other. Yet if gender is multiple then such a choice is dubious. It is in actuality buying into the dogma. The same goes for gays and bisexuals. Sexual orientation is intertwined with gender identity. The reason to switch is baked into a clear link between the two. A non-binary transgender is an oxymoron. Though it is possible to claim that while sex is binary, gender is not. So having a penis but acting feminine is possible.

There was an interesting character on Boston Legal named Clarence. Clarence was a straight man but was comfortable in female attire. Dressing as a women made him feel more at home, a different person. Able to manifest feminine woes that he could not as a man. His confidence in himself was shattering. Much of his character development hinged on him balancing his masculinity instead of throwing it all away for Clareece. His true self was too ashamed and downtrodden. His new identity was an alarm box. While the show attempted to circumvent this effaced feeling, it is worthwhile to question if it would have been better allowing him to remain Clareece. Clareece made him feel better. He was happy as Clareece, while Clarence brought him shame. A stoic may push the show’s agenda but avoiding pain though instinctive potentially was the correct model. What is wrong with him living as he sees fit? Beyond, the norms and order, happier and not hurting anyone. True, he is covering for a disillusioned self but that may be an over insistent push, an unnecessary desire. While not presiding over the sex-gender debate, the show does provide an interesting case of feminising to be otherwise. A desire to leave the true self for a better falsity. Clarence took it a little more extreme but most people change themselves for others. Hiding or lying for other’s acceptance. Clarence was at least seeking self-approval. 

Modern individualism perpetually permits people to mould their own lives. Live by their own rules as long as they fit within the bounds of the law. Wanna wear a dress go ahead, wanna die your hair purple have fun, cover yourself in tattoos sure thing, marry a man happily (though till recently). Society continues to push the envelope of what is possible. This is not about breaking down religious norms but breaking classical social order. Cultivating never before seen norms. Autonomy beyond all means protected by the government. A liberal miasma certain to give anyone’s grandad a heart attack. They lived in a matrix past. This new order is beyond the matrix. Anything is possible. Pushing the boundaries for all to explore their own desires and cultivate them. A truly free society. A free society that defames agitators. Those who wish to strike down this autonomy. Those who wish to cease the endless assault on traditional norms. Autonomy in absolute terms. The government provides the range of possibility. Catering to every need. The old method of order and classification is tenuously screwed up but people are more comfortable. Homelessness wreaks havoc on the street but feelings are accommodated to the outcasts. Society is well-intentioned and may be in the right. Though their agenda is evident. Freedom for all those shackled. Psychically and now emotionally. Breaking down the walls of Jericho opens the dam to release the flood of freedmen. Finally able to explore without scrutiny. To truly be themselves. 

The question still remains: How much is this historical and how much is this pandering? There is scant data but maybe that shouldn’t matter. The dawn of humanity has avoided the multiplicity factor. Never has there been such gracious autonomy. A first for such exploration. Yet on the other hand, such a slogan must be discussed. People must understand the blowback. There are bad actors and extremists but most wish to understand. (Insert group)splaining to others simply to accept does sound similar to dogmatic ideologies. It is tyrannical and it does express animosity. Such a condition analysed reflects a potential compromise. Instead of allowing the loony bin loose there is some accountability. Does normalising only further the toxicity? It all boils down to the cause and the effect. Are they legitimate? Even if they are should it be encouraged? Should an entire department be constructed to vaguely engage to pressure a political point down people’s throats? More research and more transparency is necessary from both sides.