Written by Christian Mutzel, Germany, Author, on 3 november 2022, on 3 November 2022
It is certainly not the first time that parts of the left spectrum have complained about too much freedom of expression. Be it calls to sanction climate change denial or to ban views from public discourse that take a critical look at the corona measures. At the moment it is the perennial favorite „Hass und Hetze“ that has once again become the focus of self-appointed guardians of democracy, who are now complaining that a single person is said to determine the scope and permissibility of opinions – mostly people who had no problem with it, that although there was previously a board of directors at Twitter, this obviously did not seek an in-depth examination of the enforcement of company house law and the deletion policy, but rather supported ideologically shaped arbitrary deletions. The best way to illustrate it is that Jordan Peterson, who never threatened or insulted anyone but at best only hurt fragile feelings, was banned, while the Iranian regime is allowed to happily continue to tweet in the context of the current protests. If, then, the return of Donald Trump inspires more fear than a rogue state with a proven track record of promoting terror and inciting violence (through death fatwen) around the world, then this does not indicate a will to preserve democracy, but rather this perverted perspective shows narrow-mindedness and ideological small-mindedness. The interesting thing is that the political left’s fear of an open and free discourse is not a modern fringe phenomenon. It feeds directly on the philosophy of postmodernism. that Jordan Peterson, who never threatened or insulted anyone, but at best only hurt fragile feelings, was banned, while the Iranian regime is allowed to happily continue to tweet in the context of the current protests. If, then, the return of Donald Trump inspires more fear than a rogue state with a proven track record of promoting terror and inciting violence (through death fatwen) around the world, then this does not indicate a will to preserve democracy, but rather this perverted perspective shows narrow-mindedness and ideological small-mindedness. The interesting thing is that the political left’s fear of an open and free discourse is not a modern fringe phenomenon. It feeds directly on the philosophy of postmodernism. that Jordan Peterson, who never threatened or insulted anyone, but at best only hurt fragile feelings, was banned, while the Iranian regime is allowed to happily continue to tweet in the context of the current protests. If, then, the return of Donald Trump inspires more fear than a rogue state with a proven track record of promoting terror and inciting violence (through death fatwen) around the world, then this does not indicate a will to preserve democracy, but rather this perverted perspective shows narrow-mindedness and ideological small-mindedness. The interesting thing is that the political left’s fear of an open and free discourse is not a modern fringe phenomenon. It feeds directly on the philosophy of postmodernism. but at best only hurt fragile feelings, while the Iranian regime is allowed to happily continue to tweet in the context of the current protests. If, then, the return of Donald Trump inspires more fear than a rogue state with a proven track record of promoting terror and inciting violence (through death fatwen) around the world, then this does not indicate a will to preserve democracy, but rather this perverted perspective shows narrow-mindedness and ideological small-mindedness. The interesting thing is that the political left’s fear of an open and free discourse is not a modern fringe phenomenon. It feeds directly on the philosophy of postmodernism. but at best only hurt fragile feelings, while the Iranian regime is allowed to happily continue to tweet in the context of the current protests. If, then, the return of Donald Trump inspires more fear than a rogue state with a proven track record of promoting terror and inciting violence (through death fatwen) around the world, then this does not indicate a will to preserve democracy, but rather this perverted perspective shows narrow-mindedness and ideological small-mindedness. The interesting thing is that the political left’s fear of an open and free discourse is not a modern fringe phenomenon. It feeds directly on the philosophy of postmodernism. If, then, the return of Donald Trump inspires more fear than a rogue state with a proven track record of promoting terror and inciting violence (through death fatwen) around the world, then this does not indicate a will to preserve democracy, but rather this perverted perspective shows narrow-mindedness and ideological small-mindedness. The interesting thing is that the political left’s fear of an open and free discourse is not a modern fringe phenomenon. It feeds directly on the philosophy of postmodernism. If, then, the return of Donald Trump inspires more fear than a rogue state with a proven track record of promoting terror and inciting violence (through death fatwen) around the world, then this does not indicate a will to preserve democracy, but rather this perverted perspective shows narrow-mindedness and ideological small-mindedness. The interesting thing is that the political left’s fear of an open and free discourse is not a modern fringe phenomenon. It feeds directly on the philosophy of postmodernism. The political left’s fear of open and free discourse is not a modern fringe phenomenon. It feeds directly on the philosophy of postmodernism. The political left’s fear of open and free discourse is not a modern fringe phenomenon. It feeds directly on the philosophy of postmodernism.
The philosophical roots of woken totalitarianism: Foucault’s theory of discourse
„Power is everywhere,“ said the French philosopher Michele Foucault. The core of his discourse theory could also be summarized with exactly this sentence. Every human being exercises power. Every word, every gesture, every emotion is a form of influence on other people, who in turn exert an influence through their habitus. Inherent in every human interaction is an interplay of power that ultimately shapes and alters discourse as individuals shape, vary, realign, and perhaps even question their store of experiences through interactions with fellow human beings. With new knowledge, people change their minds and then exert a different influence, which in turn leads to renewed rethinking. In this way, the discourse is always in a state of natural flux. In Nietzsche’s sense, power also means.
The fatal lessons of postmodernism
While Foucault wanted his theory of power to be understood in a more descriptive way, it was the representatives of postmodernism who seamlessly followed his theses, but who learned that power relations had to be broken and torn down. The pioneer of this erroneous path was the sociologist Herbert Marcuse, who coined the term „repressive tolerance“. This is exactly the thought that sparked the furor that Elon Musk is now facing. Repressive tolerance is based on the assumption that free discourse always favors existing power relations and oppresses others. This is precisely why certain opinions must be banned and pushed out of the discourse. Marcuse also put forward the thesis that the discourse should always only be conducted in the sense of progress – i.e., that only progressive views should have weight and those that are, or are characterized as, regressive should not enjoy protective value. With this basis, the discourse should no longer be viewed as a volatile object that can always develop in different directions and thus also question new things and their justification. No! He may only follow one direction of the supposed progression.
Starting point for left identity politics
On this basis, the modern left-wing identity politics rests with all its ideological battle terms like „cultural appropriation“, „white fragility“ or „white tears“ and other crude ideas that people like Robin di Angelo and other epigones of postmodernism come up with in their schools of ideas, to start a power struggle. However, the power to be exercised no longer takes place between individuals, but in the collective: patriarchy vs. feminism, white vs. black, CIS people vs. trans people. There is always one group that has power and one that has to submit to it. The conclusion in the sense of Herbert Marcuse: The group that holds power must be deprived of it through active measures in order to give the supposedly inferior group the chance to evade the influence. The individual deserves no attention here. There are no longer any people with individual personalities, people are degraded to being puppets on the strings of power, puppets who have to be guided in such a way that the spectacle unfolds exactly as it is written in the script of the postmodern world of thought.
The contempt of the tolerant of tolerance
Exactly this mentality comes to light when Elon Musk now hits blind anger. Freedom of expression is the new fascism, as is personal responsibility in times of Corona. Too much freedom supposedly gives too much power to the wrong groups, which is why it needs to be restricted. When Elon Musk comes along and announces that he will stand up for free discourse, then the concern of the woken angry citizen is not that real crimes now enjoy the freedom of fools, but rather those who oppose the victory of the allegedly progressive. Jordan Peterson, Boris Reitschuster, Alice Schwarzer, JK Rowling, Kathleen Stock, Hamed Abdel Samad, Henryk M. Broder, Nena, the collective around #allesdichtmachen – if we get a rough overview of who, in the eyes of progressive justice, no longer has a stage should receive it can be clearly seen that this is a community of people that is as diverse as it is heterogeneous. There are neither fascists here, nor anti-democrats. If the spectrum that implements this practice of demonization on a large scale is outraged by freedom of expression, then it is highly doubtful that they are thinking that there could be a boom in relativizing the Holocaust on Twitter. Rather, the concept of hate speech is reinterpreted to mean that it is speech that is to be hated and what is to be hated, defined by whether an opinion still fits into the ideological corset or threatens to break it. The new epigones of postmodernism speak of tolerance, but demand unwavering acceptance and refuse to be tolerant in the slightest. They also like to refer to Karl Popper’s „tolerance paradox“ in order to justify their own intolerance and without realizing that they themselves resemble the real enemies of freedom, as Popper described them. The goal is clear: Germany should not become a free society, but a panopticon, that social construct as described by Foucault in his work „Monitoring and Punishment“ and in which everyone disciplines themselves out of fear of the invisible guardian of morality. I have what the Panopticon is all about Germany should not become a free society, but a panopticon, that social construct as described by Foucault in his work „Monitoring and Punishment“ and in which everyone disciplines themselves out of fear of the invisible guardian of morality. I have what the Panopticon is all about Germany should not become a free society, but a panopticon, that social construct as described by Foucault in his work „Monitoring and Punishment“ and in which everyone disciplines themselves out of fear of the invisible guardian of morality. I have what the Panopticon is all aboutdescribed in more detail here . To put it briefly: It is not about justice and justice, but solely about power and the will to control. Something that Musk is now accused of.
Title-Image by: blog.crazyegg.com
a-bigger-bang 
Ein Kommentar zu “Hatred and agitation against Elon Musk – The totalitarian legacy of postmodernism –”