The Great Debate: Should We Continue to Believe Modernism?

Everything must be reduced in size—including Homo sapiens. Instead,  modernism is set upon a path of eternal expansion. The endgame of  modernism is a proliferation—until an inevitable collapse of earth’s  resources. How long should we continue to believe in modernism? 

Should we continue to believe what modernism tells us about  the human condition? Do we really believe that the entire history of  the Homo sapiens was waiting to have its brain chemicals “balanced”  by new patented industrial pharmaceuticals? The following is the  false information propagated by modernism: Since our DNA was  always defective—the human brain chemicals were always imbalanced— pharmaceutical corporations have solved the imbalance of the human mind  with their industrial medicines. Should we continue to believe? Yet this is  the modernist narrative. 

Are we really only free and vital when we possess the latest plastic  consumer items—and take our information from devices only able to  celebrate, replicate, or detect modern linguistic forms of life? Modernism  chastens us for our scientific ignorance—demanding that we become more  scientific—and then science reverses its oracles in the next decade. The end  game of modernism is a continual stream of false information of human  life. Modernism in, modernism out. 

What is the message of modernism? Homo sapiens are scheduled  to be replaced. The modern human is the product of an insidious  marketing campaign—a linguistic reconstruction of the human genome.  Modernism teaches that the idiomatic species that created modernism— 

that is, Eurocentric males—are criminals of the earth—and must now be  dispossessed of their world—exactly the same world they created.

What should we believe in the place of modernism? Story Theory, in  contradistinction, accuses the modern interpretation of the human. Story  Theory begins with the honest thesis that no human can account for his  consciousness—and thus, is only able to make a story of his consciousness.  That is, the human, when he attempts to explain his life, even in the first  syllables, already transitions to story. This is Story Theory. It describes how  the human mind operates. It is new. 

Story Theory is a philosophy mature enough to take the long count of  the human genome. Story Theory proves that modernism is a toxic agenda  driven by a totalitarian ideology. In fact, we are not in desperate need of  new means of food production for a human population that has long ago  surpassed all hope of futurity, maturity, or decency. We do not require  new energy sources to continue the (already) unstoppable proliferation of  modern industrialism and sprawling mega-cities. We need the opposite of  all these measures. 

Modernism does not have the courage to even whisper the logical  solution. Stunned in its own self-referent progressivism, modernism  merely continues to proliferate hopeless populations, exploit ever new  modernist marketing strategies, and eradicate any remaining non-modern  societies. Modernism—despite its absurd internal contradictions—still  dares to tell us 24/7 what to eat, what new medicines to accept, what  speech and morality are allowed—and how to live under total surveillance.  Never before did a state exist with tentacles of all-encompassing power— as the modern state. It is a danger here-to-fore never experienced by the  human genome. Modernism is a war against the human soul. The end  game of modernism is the eradication of Homo sapiens. 

Modernism insists that we are free—but, in reality, it only ensures  our eternal adolescence and dependency on the modernist superstructure.  What is human life? The state will define the manners and mores of life.  What is the universe? The state supported universities will define the  material composition of the universe. What are the good and the beautiful?  That is only good and beautiful that a liberal media advocates. The media  makes no apology for exclusively reflecting liberal idealism. Its liberal,  modernist bias is justified by insisting that it, alone, has the best interest  of society. Modernism is thus a totalitarian ideology. It may advocate only  the interest of modernist regimes. The anti-liberal rogue genius is excluded  from this totalitarian utopia. 

The salient point to be made is this: anything linguistics  may construct (as modernism is a linguistic construct) a strong counter-linguistics can subsequently tear down. This is the necessity for  a new theory of poetry—and the strong poet. To the surprised reader—a  practicing, purchasing, and fully mortgaged modernist—this has to be  explained with some competence. 

What is needed is a new conception of the human condition that will  eradicate modernism—and make a new advance with the human genome.  The goal is to locate modernism into a position of a wounded morality— just like Christian priesthoods, Stalinism, Fascism, and paganism are today  wounded moralities—no longer worthy of belief. Is liberalism fascist? We  can test this. Liberalism has destroyed every previous human ideology.  Liberalism, in its race for supremacy, has even mimicked the Christian  virtues—empathy, brotherhood, equality—insidiously, only ensuring that  the citizen has no rational cause to further seek human virtue in any other  ideology—including any previously hegemonic religion. Every culture  that comes into contact with modernism is eradicated. This includes the  eradication of China, Japan, and India as separate cultures. 

We may detect the hypocrisy of hostile liberal dialectics. Though an  “enlightened,” rationalist, liberalism is hostile towards any religion, we  may observe the liberalist state going out of its way to protect, advocate,  and apologize for the Islamic faith. This is not so much to perpetuate the  idea of a faith in god—rather it is to deconstruct any remnant of Christian  privilege, prestige, or prominence in Western societies. When all faiths are  exactly the same, and seen as equally anti-modern, they may all the more  easily be eradicated. The proof? Most second or third generation Muslim  person (or Catholic, Confucist, or Hindu) born in the West is seldom  a continued adherent of the original faith. But they are always strong  believers in modernism. This confirms the thesis. Modernism is set to  replace all other human faiths. 

The first liberalist assault of modernism, the secular French  Revolution, also attempted a similar linguistic stratagem. The leaders  of the French Revolution used the linguistic genius of “liberty, equality,  brotherhood.” Yet their goal was actually only the destruction of a  previous political hegemony. The result? When they got into power,  executions began—of all—the poor, the good, the free, the equal, and  the beautiful. Any dialectic, any strong linguistic ideology has only one  objective. It seeks to eradicate all other dialectics in a race for supremacy.  As with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Communism, Maoism, and now,  modernism—there is no exception to this rule.

The danger of liberalism (as any self-referent dialectic) is that it  considers itself unable to sin. Modern democracies export free food and  democracy to Africa, only to double their starvation and social chaos—all  in the name of modernism. No good is done—how may the proliferation  of life in permanent deserts and killing fields be a solution? Moderns do  not see their sin of proliferation—for the sake of proliferation. 

Modernism operates as if it is the last and final idiom of the human  mind. The liberal, scientific state has no self-doubt—it dictates the total  arena of human virtues, mores, and manners. There is currently no  strong linguistic structure that can compete with a supreme modernism.  This is the dangerous place where the modern human is positioned.  There is no appeal to a separate non-modernist body to check and verify  the health, soundness, or futurity of modernist human civilization. This  totalitarianism is what a strong theory of poetry must oppose. This is the  honest rage in Kosmoautikon. 

Technology is so far developed that any organized government cannot  avoid creeping to total surveillance over the citizen. There is no half-way  house to any technological application. There is only a ruthless march to  the final maturity of any technological innovation. No technology can be  artificially restrained. As any idiom of human speech, technology likewise  demands an empire of its own image—and will achieve empire of its  idiom at any cost. There is no protocol for de-escalation of any human  idiom (as technology). Modernism is the most ruthless empire ever built. 

No modern state can thus avoid total surveillance and control of  the intimate thoughts of the citizenry. Governments were formed for  protection of citizens—not intimate control of citizens. So we must escape  all forms of modern ideology—or be prepared to be replicated in a pattern  of ruthless sameness. The final logic of socialist ideology is a ruthless  sameness. Kosmoautikon illustrates the final logic of the modernism state.  Replicants replace Homo sapiens. 

Kosmoautikon tells the story of what happens when Western  liberalism, as hegemonic modernism, is unable to reform or detect new  information outside of a dangerously self-referent linguistic system. 

The human mind is not free—until it is linguistically free from its  own self- referent etymological patterns. Admittedly, since language is  seamlessly affixed to our mindscape, the toxicity of our own linguistic  patterns is hard to detect. Why? Because what other language should we  speak but the modernism we were deeply trained and indoctrinated to cherish and celebrate? The malady is deep. The solution is an alternate  linguistics. The requirement is for a strong poet. Or is modernism the  final human interpretation of life? Should we continue to believe? What  would the rogue male say? 

No. We know that modernism is not the final station of human  consciousness. Thus there is Kosmoautikon. The poet must enchant with  his ferocity. He must stumble upon his own righteous speech. Slowly, a  war of good and evil comes into focus.