There are many conflicting metanarratives, but only the metanarrative of oppression is the full and absolute truth, not only about history, but about science, art, and philosophy. All other metanarratives are falsehood, illusion, prejudice, illusions to benefit the oppressor, not truths about things but claims imposed on them by violent ideologues; the metanarrative of oppression, and it alone, reveals the ding an sich. The perspectives of oppressors and oppressed who do not acknowledge their oppression have no truth in them. Such views are to be discredited and suppressed. The purpose of education is to bring all men into the light of faith in the metanarrative of oppression. Only thus enlightened is the soul free of false consciousness, that the holy spirit of critical thinking may dwell therein.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
Throne and Altar 
The doctrine of oppression was first taught as a substitute for the doctrine of original sin. Men did not “fall”; they were kept down and prevented from rising. If the oppressive force holding them down were removed, it was said that they would “rise” to their natural moral and intellectual level, which was pretty darn high. Anyone who denied this was obviously an apologist for oppression. Anyone who affirmed it was exhibiting the critical acumen that followed upon “enlightenment.”
“Criticism exists, it tells us, precisely to go behind the spurious claims to truth, and to discover the power which is seeking to make use of them. By doing that, we show to be artificial what had been previously perceived as natural . . . . Stripped of ideology, the world . . . is ready for change” Roger Scruton, The Philosopher on Dover Beach (1990)
[…] Source: Throne and Altar […]
Kill the poor!
I think JMsmith is onto something. Oppression is often spoken of as a substitute for original sin. But this is surely a product of counter-enlightenment thinking. Some on the hard left have pointed out that this conditioning of oppression as racial and sexual politics removes the struggle from the material, economic plane and places it firmly in an ahistoric aether of irresolvable conflict that might be overcome in some sort of religious epiphany every individual is supposed to experience. They further argue, and I believe with some merit, that it is the product of some portion of the old throne and alter right surviving by appropriating leftist concepts and concerns and recasting them into aristocratic and corporatist beliefs.
Oppression replacing original sin is the premise of the hypostasis of the archon.
Removing something from the material plain of economic relations does not necessarily make it an expression of counter-enlightenment thinking. The enlightenment is shot through with mystical notions and metaphysical claptrap. The doctrine of oppression begins in 17th c. republicanism and the notion that men of merit were being held down by aristocrats. At the time it had some basis in fact, since there were plenty of capable commoners working as cobblers and coopers and plenty of aristocratic ninnies holding high office in the church and the state. The root of the problem was not oppression, however, but the fact that there were not enough high-status jobs to go around. The supply of intelligent men exceeded the demand, and this explosive situation continued into the 19th century.
In our society one has to look very hard to find an oppressed person. What one does find are lots and lots of people who have been promoted beyond their actual ability–not held down, but actually propped up.
I should clarity that the “metanarrative of oppression” is the presumption that structures of oppression are the explanation of everything and that other truths are illusary. That some state of affairs might be oppressive is not what’s new, but being unable to recognize any state of affairs that isn’t.