How feelings came to dominate political discourse

There has been a tremendous pushback in recent years against what are broadly known as “grievance studies”; a loose collection of academic disciplines characterized by their emphasis on oppressive social and political institutions and the marginalized identities they victimize. The philosophical outlook underpinning these disciplines tend to be portrayed in a less ambiguous manner: it is typically described as some combination of Marxist politics with postmodern skepticism, and has been variously termed “cultural Marxism,” postmodern neo-Marxism, the New Left, and so on.

In his book Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism From Rousseau to Foucault, the philosopher Stephen Hicks argues that post-Kantian thinking gradually led to the adoption of ever more skeptical epistemologies. At the same time, a growing number of intellectuals came to align with Marxist and socialist political perspectives. This leads Hicks to the claim that postmodern philosophy is the perpetuation of Marxist politics through other philosophical means. He argues that there is a clear through line where the scientific pretensions of classical Marxism gradually gave way to the irrationalist critiques of the cultural Marxists, and finally converged with the overtly skeptical epistemologies of the postmodernists. Specifically, postmodern skepticism was adopted as a philosophical backdoor to justifying socialism along largely emotive lines. To paraphrase a memorable quote in Hicks’s book, postmodern Leftists came to say feelings were all that mattered and their feelings demanded socialism. Hicks goes on to argue that this epistemological skepticism and cultural Marxist/Socialist politics is the philosophical wellspring of the various identity politics movements ascendant today.

This is the toxic ideology which dominates CBC and the Canadian government. These institutions have become apologists for dangerous anti-liberalism in order to advance their never ending need for Cultural Revolution.

It's extremely amusing to read the many attempts to deny what to the vast majority has become obvious. Yes it is and no it isn't arguments do not offer us a debate based upon ethics, epistemology, and ontology. Public discourse, particularly on social media, has degenerated into a badly produced Monty Python skit.

It is time to join the counter revolution. Reactionary comments labelling us detestable things does nothing to detract from who and what we actually are, namely the counter-revolution who are fed up watching our sacred institutions corrupted by an elite Postmodern political class who aim on confiscating our wealth while having the temerity to call this, "building back better".

For those who may wonder about my personal convictions, I'm not a conservative. I'm a Classical Liberal in the English sense as well as a man of faith. Many live in a manner seeking to deconstruct and deny reality itself while I choose to realize that facts trump the feelings and ideology of others. Join me in the counter-revolution! This won't end until we put an end to it!