The trend of postmodernism in academia has reached critical mass

The trend of postmodernism in academia has reached critical mass.
For those who don't follow the latest fads in "scholarly" circles, postmodernism is a cultural movement that furthers the rejection of objectivity and certainty that was started by the, you guessed it, modernists. Modernism itself superseded the Enlightenment era, modernism being the rejection of Enlightenment ideals. Enlightenment ideals being those of writers like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and John Locke. Therefore a layman's definition of the postmodern movement, is the extreme skepticism and rejection of the values on which the American Revolution was fought. Not enough attention is brought to this fact in contemporary circles and especially within our educational institutions.
On the contrary, in colleges and universities across America the ideals that led to our Great Nation are dismissed as baseless and even absurd. What education is to be gained from being told that the way of your ancestors was simply a passing fad and that there is no value behind one's values? How can these educators and academics even cling to this movement when it flies in the face of their profession. Do they need to be reminded of the Scholastic tradition that gave birth to our modern idea of universities? The values of the enlightenment were not a new fad that happened to be in vogue during one civilization's golden age. Enlightenment values are the core philosophies on which Western civilization were built. There is a common thread through the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment Era. Each age was more wildly successful in many ways than the last, and each held at its core certain values that stayed constant. No amount of skepticism can deny that societies that value freedom, honor, justice, and tradition are better to live in than societies that value ever-changing winds.
As Americans (and more generally as Westerners) we owe much of our current prosperity to what was left for us, and if America is to have a future we must return that favor to our offspring. One such thing that was so graciously given to me by right of birth was the United States Constitution. Postmodernists have even attacked this sacred document (1), but on what grounds? The Constitution of this Union was not a passing fad that was made at the whim of aristocrats and Freemasons that controlled the proletariat. Our Constitution is built on top of other political documents that stretch back to the beginning of history. Each society that the West would claim its own had to fight for the basic principles that our Constitution espouses, these values are ancient, and every society that follows them seems to be granted with relative peace and prosperity. How long will academics of the West continue the study of this postmodern ruse to the detriment of themselves and their community?
Any group of people whose philosophies rely on a postmodern crutch, please examine yourselves. Though no, I cannot prove the objective value of anything, I can prove the pragmatic value of Freedom. To what end will our academics continue to reject the foundations that made academia possible? While it may be interesting to examine Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights through a postmodernist lens, people should remain aware of the consequences of their words and actions. Socrates was sent to his death on the false charge of "corrupting the youth" when he asked his students to question what they believed in order to better understand the truth. Postmodernists seem to think they are doing the same thing, except they tell their students that there is no truth.

Ironically, today's fascism is based upon post-modernism.

Postmodernism is moral subjectivity taken to the extreme. It is not a surprise that people who subscribe to such an ideology would commit atrocities.

Stop bullying Dugin-san.

as an academic myself, i sympathize with you however some of your feelings here are a bit reactionary. there is definitely a post-truth sentiment to some parts of modern american academia, however among the humanities departments i'm involved in it isn't really a complete consensus; philosophy departments for example don't have an unquestioning embrace of postmodernism. the problem is that for the social sciences e.g. anthropology and religious studies (the field i have the most experience in) postmodern concepts, particularly cultural relativism, are absolutely necessary to get any serious academic field work done. coming from a secular/christian-heavy culture, it's difficult to argue that i wouldn't have to set what my culture deems to be true aside in order to properly study Devi worship in provincial india, you know what i mean? of course this has larger philosophical implications, however i'm willing to accept that my own views on truth/reality are indeed cultural in origin, while also believing that it is possible (and in a few cases explicit) that other cultures have reached similar conclusions via different means.

basically i get that postmodernism is annoying, but in certain areas it is an extremely useful tool for study.

Stop being an anti-intellectual. The debate between relativism and objective truth has been going on since Plato's Gorgias. It's not going to stop today or tomorrow, because there aren't definitive answers to these huge philosophical problems.

Can't you, instead of employing subjective reality and claiming that everyone is right, say that nobody knows what is right or that, more likely, everyone is just wrong? Beliefs don't need to be respected tbh.

Socrates also claimed to know nothing and was more subversive than most post modernists ever will be. The Rennaisance was a rediscovering of ancient thought and mathematical understanding, not a natural progression from the times of antiquity. The Enlightenment lacked all do the artistic grace and majesty of architecture that characterized the Renaissance. Literature was better than at any point since antiquity, but art itself degraded immensely from 1570-1890 as these hyper consistent concepts like realism and neoclassical aesthetics were stressed beyond reason. The traditions of these cultures were mostly ones of social violence. The people who fought for them were usually either slaves, conscripted serfs (slaves), military caste members whose livelihood was war or the ruling classes (Kings). The Magna Carta and various Papal Bulls along with English common law and Roman Imperial Law (British Imperial Law) are the basis of our constitution. None of these were the people's will, even common law is decided by the landowning classes who are never the clear cut majority in any society, meaning most people have never had a say in our laws in western civilization. tradition should be put to the torch.

Your assessment is unconvincing and impotent. There is no reason to believe the tradition of these talismanic names you list off is worth our time and energy.

This kills the postmodernist

So many spooks in this thread.

But respecting beliefs is stupid, why should I be forced to respect someone for unquestioningly believing something incompatible with science. Religion can go jump in a ditch and die for all I care, I certainly won't view someone highly because they willingly reject reality.
The ones that I respect most are those atheists that broke through the illusions in areas where religion is strong, they deserve a pat on the back, not their mad parents.

basically the internet in a nutshell

also this is an international website

you have no idea what you are talking about
no liberalism (even college liberals) is all about universalism, although a little confused (embracing particularism for minorities)

what idiot claims traditionalism is universalist, and the rejection of tradition is anti-universalist
it's literally the opposite

So colleges will soon stop pumping out SJWs? Well, I guess they served their perpose for porky.

Basically negativistic science in a nutshell. Everyone is wrong but we can rule out the most wrong things so we can then be less wrong.

Not related to the discussion at hand, but what sort of art is in your pic, OP? I'm fond of the aesthetics of it.

Academics will meet the fate of the kulaks. They make up the majority of the resistance to change and must be removed.

How do you read postmodernism and come to the conclusion that its moral relativism?

Post modernism has a place. Deconstruction of sacred cows can be very beneficial to creating new ideas and understanding limitations of existing ones. In many ways I am a nihilist and objectivity is questionable when we have such limitations as humans.
But the way that academia has gone full retard by throwing the baby out with the bathwater has made it dangerous - in a very bad way. Some will make obnoxious arguments like "only those in power have anything to fear" - I totally reject this. If there is no objectivity to hold ourselves to, even if we have no basis such as a god in which to point to as its source - we veey easily find things such as fascism a perfectly viable option to solve the worlds problems. Without human decency, the obscenities of extreme romanticism can take hold of the disillusioned spirit and destroy us. We already see contradictory arguments coming from post modernism - but to a post modernist, this is in no way excellent. They embrace the hypocritical because they don't hold themselves to an objective standard. While this may be all well and good for an inner city young professional, the uneducated masses struggling under the oppressive heel of free market capitalism cannot find any meaning in the world from such an empty sentiment. Quite frankly, postmodernism is the intellectual equivalent of ether for the well to do who have never experienced material hardships.

this fucking post