What brings a society onto the path of cultural nihilism when it was once founded in transcendent objectivism? There is a causal term that seems quite fitting for such a decline: soft totalitarianism. Soft totalitarianism is that which isn’t directly inflicted by a state, necessarily, but that which is implemented by a vast network of independent subgroups who may have interdependent goals, but usually tend to operate impersonally from each other. The aim of such groups, arguably, is to continue the post modern catastrophe of anti-objectiveness, though, and ever ironically, often resulting in a narrow stranglehold over the historical narrative. Hence, the power to redirect, or better said, rewrite all conversations of cultural memory in true absolute fashion. 

Like most soft totalitarian movements they start with decent intentions, seemingly, but often careen off the tracks of unilateral benefit due to an obsessive need to control the narrative within a very narrow spectrum of interpretation. Which is, again, ironic, because the foundational claim of the pedagogical post modernists is that there are infinite possibilities of interpretation, and yet, this contradicting irony often fails to be recognized by those who obviously crave restrictive control over our collective memories. It can be fairly stated that the youth participating in the current white washing of history may not understand what post modernism claims, and that would make sense, as they often wade into a swamp of transcendent neo-Marxism, while at the same time emaciating themselves with the post modern dinosaurs that still exist within the muck of our higher academies. 

Once tradition, or better said, historical memory, is rewritten in the form of in-the-moment animus subjectivity, a society’s transcendent aim will undoubtedly be threatened. Couple this with a loss of traditional worth, the obliteration of sexual restraint, and the unrelenting nature of material consumerism, and you have a recipe for rapid social disintegration. Within this current landscape it’s no surprise that the most sacred repositories for historical transcendence are being brutally attacked: the family, and religion. As once these societal structures are unraveled, our youth, and more so, society writ large, have almost zero chance of maintaining cultural cohesion. 

If we were going to try and pinpoint where most of these ever dehumanizing subgroups emanate from, we’d argue that they acquire their emergent electro shocks from within the humanity and sociology departments of academia; summed to what many so aptly describe as: “grievance studies” (e.g., intersectionality, critical racial theory, bias theory, gender studies, cultural studies, or just about anything that has “studies” in the course title). Now, we must give the devil his due, as they say, as admittedly, we’re painting with a fairly broad brush regarding the overall totality of these departments, as many of these “studies” are, or at least were, rooted in legitimate concern and undeniable disparity. But now many of these courses have themselves transcended their immediate goals of unilateral, socially beneficial solution seeking to what can only be seen as a reversal of historical injustice by way of retributive revenge packaged in the guise of “social justice”.

What is truly frightening is that so often the result of those who now study and even teach this history often become the very thing that they were looking to prevent: demagogic totalitarians. Those who are now educated in academia about legitimate victimhood often exhibit a puzzling character: the urge to become the vengeful offspring of the legitimately oppressed, exhibiting behavior that is no better than the actions of the original oppressors. This raises a tough question: At what length or, in what responsible capacity, should historical victimhood be studied if some of the newly educated now feel the need to exact direct or indirect violence on behalf of those who largely had no opportunity of self defense, and more so, largely never asked for such futuristic violence to be carried out on their behalf? There’s a difference between studying atrocious history so we as a society can learn to never repeat it, and studying it to acquire ammunition for monomaniacal revenge. At this point, maybe the coined term “grievance studies” should be replaced with the term “retribution studies”. Something needs to change the focus of these studies rapidly for not only the oppressed, our students and faculty, but for society as a whole if we what to survive these next few years. 

There may not be a better example of such one-sided learning than the progress deniers that now exist within the cult of perpetual racism, that which has permeated so much of not only the academy, but now many of our major corporate institutions. For example, if one studies racial theory, implicit bias theory, cultural appropriation theory, etc., it becomes overtly apparent that institutionalized racism and individual ignorance have obviously existed, but more so– and this is where we begin the careen off the tracks of reasonable logic– that it still exists throughout society in every capacity, in complete totality, and that this existence has had no part in any form of social progress. The now pedagogic conclusion of the worst purporters of this slanted view claim that racism is ALL pervasive (i.e., systemic) throughout our institutions, and further, throughout everyone’s thinking and everyday actions. And if one cannot see this claim in their everyday existence then this is certifiable “evidence” that one is, without question, a racist. As according to those who perpetuate this skewed worldview there are only racists and self-confessed racists. If you are of the latter description you now genuflectingly qualify as an anti-racist “ally” to the forever oppressed. And yet, even though such is now deemed an “ally”, such will still possess their truly un-purgeable biases that are rooted in inheritable racism.

And that’s it folks, there are no other options for one to reside in, as one cannot, no matter how hard they try, genuinely be anti-racist in the truest meaning of the word, even if such cannot pinpoint a single past moment of their inherited bigotry. Even stating such a conclusion is, again, supposed “proof” of one’s racism in this self perpetuating paradigm of endlessly inflicted oppression. And further, the most socially incorrect part of this denigrating worldview is that a “person of color” can never be a racist, and if such behavior can be detected then it’s inarguably justifiable based on historical oppression. Now, this position may be understandable to a degree, but it still falls outside the realm of reasonable logic when addressing society’s attempt to eliminate systemic racism. It seems that those in such accusatory positions of racial esteem can have a clean slate of faultlessness while at the same time identify everyone else’s faults with piercing precision. 

This is the ever pervasive problem of oppositional dualism that so much of our modern thinking is subjected to on a daily basis by opportunists of the worst caliber. Where nuance is totally eliminated from the discussion, and where one either totally agrees with inarguable conclusions, or face the social wrath of utter annihilation. And what’s even more insidious is that this rhetoric is almost exclusively aimed as white males simply based on the perceived privilege of their skin color, making it ever so apparent to anyone with half a historical brain cell that this thinking is, in fact, racism personified. This incredibly biased conclusion only deepens the wound that we as a society are attempting to heal. 

This is just one tactic of social dehumanization that causes many to detach from reality—the objective truth— and inevitably causes such to fall into the swamp of self-preserving compliance. And if one has no strong spiritual foundation to fall back upon, or further, has no tradition of truth to guide them out of the mires of bad, vengeful thinking, then one is ever so likely to give up their personal sovereignty and be absorbed into the collective of irrational thought. For if one can admit that they are racist when they, in fact, are not, then they can give up just about any piece of their soul to the perverted alter of politically correct genuflection. 

Of course another unspeakable topic to critique, and possibly much more intellectually degrading, is the new war over gender distinction. Despite the fact that up until just a few moments ago we had male and female gamete distinction, let alone, XX, XY chromosomes, and hormones mostly figured out, it seems that we, or better said, science, was completely mistaken. It turns out that according to a fractionated minority of full throated activists that there are now no discernible differences between men and women, or more so, that the terms man and woman are fabricated “social constructs” of historical oppression. Now, of course a debate could be legitimately made disputing the terms mankind verses humanity, as one could pose a decent argument that the term mankind was part of a social construct that was created during a time when men were deemed as superior to women in almost every capacity. This is a winnable argument, certainly. But to take this argument and then attempt to obliterate all sexual distinction, that which is plainly evident within humanity, as well as being clearly evident within 99.99 percent of the plant and animal kingdoms, is a nihilistic step too far.

But because anyone who possesses the most modicum amount of common sense can now haphazardly be labeled a “phobe”, or even, a “brown shirted sexist Nazi”, many look for the convenient way out of a strangely dehumanizing situation: feckless compliance. What’s more, is that within what quickly becomes irrational fits of rage at the sign of any scientific pushback, there is a strange detachment from the nature of precise language. As to be a “phobe” of anything means that you’re literally scared witless from whatever it may be. Now, I’m not sure if I’ve ever come across anyone who is literally terrified of a man who says he’s a women, or vice versa, or even one who states that they are neither a man nor a women— they may be disturbed by such a comment, or better yet, massively intrigued by such a claim, but they are certainly far from running out of the situation in a terrified panic— and yet, the derogatory epithets effortlessly flow from the tongues of soft totalitarians that experience any sort of intellectual pushback. We must state that gender dysphoria can be a legitimate claim, undoubtedly, but often these cases look to be far more nuanced and under articulated than such claim. As many who purport such an internal contradiction are often incredibly young and highly impressionable, have experienced significant trauma within their personal life, possess chemical, situational, or neural imbalances, and so and so on, or in short, are well aware of the social and professional power that can be extracted from the situation, or in the reversal, understand the profound damage that can be inflicted upon any skeptic of such scientific radicalism. Even though gender reassessment can lead to irreversible change, or simply, a future of unforeseen trauma, it can also lead to happiness as well. This is certainly a possibility that we don’t dispute. But the astounding amount of influence that can currently be obtained by such decisions is almost beyond comprehension, and further, seeing how many of these claims come from people under the age of 25, these proclamations may be of such an immense allure for authority that a farsighted view of the damaging repercussions may be beyond one’s immediate ability to foresee or even stomach in the long run.

There is a difference between challenging the norm for personal expression of one’s liberty in a slow calculated way, and forcing everyone around you to immediately acquiesce to the demands of emotional activism. Forcing people to live in what they currently see as a lie is the first major step towards a totalitarian regime, and in the end does nothing to win people over to your side of the argument. Such action only furthers the divide, especially if one is unable to speak openly about the matter. Again, this may be seen as an immediate win for one’s side, but if the change is not done at a reasonable, steady pace of unilateral compromise, the cycle of history always prevails. And no matter how powerful the thought regime may be at the present moment, there always comes a time when the pendulum swings back the other way. Which leads one to ask: How far is a minority willing to rapidly push the majority in the face of what will likely come back as an enraged, anti-Robespierrian response? Long form reasonable discussion is the only way out of today’s unraveling social discourse and our ever destabilizing trajectory. And if one position feels the need to silence other dimensions of the discussion, such positions must be quite weak in their own validity when compared to the greater context.