Liberation Means Subservience To Progressive-Approved Identities

The starter kit memes are a staple of social media. The memes identify a target group, and the four accompanying pictures as part of the meme show an individual, an opinion slogan, a consumer good, and a clothing item associated with the group. People chuckle and move on through their feeds. The meme itself reveals a truth of the contemporary world, namely that capitalism and progressivism have effectively captured the question of Being for their purposes, which is a culmination of moves dating back hundreds of years.

In the modern world, the beginning moves began as the feudal way of European society and Christianity’s hold on European society broke down in the 19th century. There were enough philosophers wondering if God was dead and how they would replace God in their daily lives and reorganize society. Answers came, but those answers satisfied progressive paradigms and large-scale capital. New technologies allowed for new channels into the mindspace of the masses.

The mechanism behind switches of these kinds is that for progressivism, the old or current manner of aggregating an identity must be deconstructed and obliterated for new possibilities to be presented and believably sold as superior. This fits with the progressive attack on local institutions, old identities, and relationships formerly rooted in community, family, church, etc. Context gives meaning not just for words, but individuals.

Martin Heidegger’s idea of Being focused on mood, and who we are in the context of our surroundings. To drive towards the truth, to be unconcealed, was to be free. This might appear to dovetail with the contemporary progressive pitch of liberation. Liberation now means to free up women to become empowered free of the patriarchy and traditional female roles. Liberation now means for gays to be contemporary gays as defined by progressive media, not a person who happens to have homosexual inclinations properly managed and muted by ritual and solemnity.

These progressive pitches are not true revelations of what it is to be free, but are rather what Heidegger would classify as distortions. The liberation pitched by progressives to trap individuals brings gayness, femininity, and blackness to the surface and subsequently makes it their primary definition of who they are, albeit in progressive-defined ways. This further separates the targeted individual from their community and makes them a member of team progressive.

Even the often celebrated liberation of women combats the idea of freedom as being the essence of truth or the true self. A woman’s liberation does not mean the freedom of being the self and woman she is meant to be in her particular historic environment and community. A woman’s proper liberation in the progressive predetermined library is the hard-charging corporate drone, the sexual tigress, or the butt-kicking babe. These are not liberations but highly manicured, limited pathways for the needs of the progressives and big capital.

As such, Lesbian Jane does not fit within her community with a slightly different sexual orientation as, say, a nun. Lesbian Jane is a progressive foot soldier, an advocate, an apostle. All identities are stripped of traditional, deep community context and become instead pre-packaged identities with progressive-issued norms, mores, and political opinions.

This pre-packaging dovetails with large capital’s prepackaging of consumer identities to move product. Associating consumer identities with small niche identities makes advertising and marketing both easier and cheaper. To be a good man, black, gay, etc., means consumption of designated consumer goods. There is a widely used phrase in our culture of the “man card.” The concept of man card entails that there is a set of basic qualifications to be a man.

Capital has captured this concept. According to capital, what it means to be a man is not proper action or behavior. It is not even being a reliable worker, wise man, father, husband, or protector in the context of community. Rather, to be a man is an identity that is A-B market tested and opinion polled. This is an extension of the odd abdication of judgment and decision-making by moderns to outside authority, any authority. People have deferred to any authority, including capital, because the old bonds and institutions have been destroyed.

The rituals and acts one performs within these new identities are for progressive and central capital’s ends. The validation of the elite’s desired policies and system is offered as a vote or a consumer purchase. Love Wins or Love Is Love are vague slogans for a progressive vote or mitzvah to earn status points. Those slogans are also easy to adapt to capitalist needs to cheaply market to subgroups for microtargeting ads for broad goods of mediocre quality.

There is something deeper at play at the individual level. The concept of Being is in the hands of progressives and the marketing/product development teams of large corporations that often have progressives at chokepoints. The idea of the self becomes how one identifies with a constantly rotating selection of goods. This means the self becomes a blank screen for the latest fads to be projected upon by superiors in progressive control.

Under this system, there is no thought, but simply “I buy and do as they say” as the new Descartes foundationalism.

As all becomes politicized, the leftward drift places a primacy of quicker adoption of new ideas spewed from the leftist media-academia complex. An identity that accrues high status does not simply come with adopting the newest progressive ideas but in the speed with which they are adopted. With each development with telecommunications, the spread of ideas becomes wider and the speed of transmission increases. The value of being in the know and on the edge for news or opinions means there is value in paying attention to said sources of information.

These identities are a revolt against nature. Even simply being an informed progressive is against nature, as one has an unnatural adherence and focus on opinions, ideas, and events far away outside of one’s true environmental existence. These identities are manufactured to progressive or consumerist ends. The key is to identify who benefits, to notice the adherence to abstract ideas for progressive ends, and to see the farce behind liberation. The concept of identity should be re-localized. The advertisement or popular media fantasy paths and roles should be recognized for what they are: fantasies supporting the regime’s desired goals.

The contemporary Westerner is miserable because he is free.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

9 Comments

  1. Reads like a cultural Marxist hit piece. I prefer analysis to declarations of war, but I prefer open declarations of war to indirect incitement.

    I thought were reactionaries, not the alt-right. Let’s leave incitement to those who are good at it, and focus on the importance of philosophy and virtue, and more importantly how those can be used to gain power.

    Reply

    1. ConantheContrarian July 31, 2017 at 9:29 am

      Joseph and I seem to be reading two different articles. I thought that the analysis was quite clear. Two points were very interesting: earning status points and keeping status by adopting the right ideas and the speed at which they are adopted.

      Reply

      1. Hadley Bishop July 31, 2017 at 9:32 am

        This. I see no declaration of war anywhere.

        Reply

  2. Good essay and an example of how subtle postmodernist themes can be adopted by the ‘right’.

    This pre-packaging dovetails with large capital’s prepackaging of consumer identities to move product. Associating consumer identities with small niche identities makes advertising and marketing both easier and cheaper. To be a good man, black, gay, etc., means consumption of designated consumer goods. There is a widely used phrase in our culture of the “man card.” The concept of man card entails that there is a set of basic qualifications to be a man.

    Hmm…but consumerism predates modern liberalism. Consumerism and advertising is about trying to promote an ideal (like those Charles Atlas ads in in the 50’s marketed to skinny guys who hoped to attain the ideal of masculinity). The problem may be that consumerism today is about promoting the wrong type of ideals. But the prob;em may not be consumerism, but the non-profit sectors and NGOs, which don’t have to adhere to the same free market principles that companies do, so they can push liberalism with impunity due to limitless funding, whereas in a free market such ideas would fail. You can see that on YouTube, for example, how pro-SJW videos get tons of downvotes and negative comments.

    Reply

    1. Everything you wrote is wrong. “Modern liberalism” does not exist. It’s simply liberalism and its natural dialectical process.

      Reply

  3. Libertarian: A liberal who understand economics and own firearms.

    Boom, I did it in 8 words.

    Reply

  4. Absolutely true, and this type of refutation of New Left ideology must be made absolutely clear for every rightist who wants to accomplish something. People today don’t believe prog nonsense because they have become critically-thinking individuals, but because those in charge today have taken over by subverting old ideas and ways of life and establishing new ones for the masses to follow.

    A good piece of evidence that there aren’t any substantial societal benefits from 1960s civil liberties – in terms of creating “free” and “independent” individuals – is to look at people and observe that conformism in opinion is still predominant in Western populations. Once an idea is formulated and spread, it becomes a possible “cultural institution” for the majority of people who are neither capable of nor interested in formulating their own ideas. It just needs resources to spread it and make it more appealing and competitive.

    The anti-authority ethical principle of the New Left and anarchist (“libertaire”) ideologies is key to making useful idiots out of young people. According to the principle, it is unethical for a group to enforce a set of beliefs and behaviours on the individual, because it violates his dignity. In reality, authority is absolutely necessary for morality: you take away the authority of fathers, priests, rulers, and others, and you destroy the checks on the individual that (micro- or macro-) societies use to make sure he obeys its moral rules and norms. Behind the anti-authority principle, you (the leftist puppet master) make sure that your partisans fight exactly for the right to spread *your* set of new ideas, that will legitimize *you* to be in charge.
    The portrayal of the anti-authority principle as an ethical one gains it a lot of appeal – it is clear that for many people, when you discuss it, an explicit denial of this principle amounts to denying human dignity to humans.
    I suppose the simplest piece of evidence to give in response is this: ever since its adoption, people have come to behave with *less* dignity than before – one of the reasons being that the crippled post-emancipation societal mechanisms put less checks on people, thus people have less incentives to be good. People don’t need a coherent philosophical argument against New Left and anarchist principles, they need definitions and examples of things they cherish – like dignity, morality and society – that make them evidently incompatible with what the Left advocates.

    Reply

  5. Correct about progressivism, not so much about capitalism. The market is simply a collection of processes. Its combination with progressivism is what results in the garbage in, garbage out dynamic that explains so much of what we observe. Combine the market with something better and conditions will greatly improve.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *