![\"\"](\"https:\/\/impeachreno.org\/politicalhat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/06\/6491e6008c8a0680da0a8b59275a5e62.gif\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
It become increasingly obvious to more and more that the seeming double-standard of the Left is actually a single standard of the \u201cheads I win tails you lose variety\u201d. However, it would be to simplistic and unfortunate to chalk it up to mere selfishness. Beneath every double standard is a single standard a person, or at least a person\u2019s chosen ideology, holds to.<\/p>\n
In the case of gender identity, as it is with race or other collectivist identity, it is a dialectical<\/em> one\u2026 of sorts.<\/p>\n Hegelian dialectic<\/a>, as reviled as it may be, was still a method to get to the truth, not a truth itself, let alone a proscriptive or even deductive determiner of the future that it degenerated<\/em> into beginning with Marx and continuing abasement into a faith based belief of being on \u201cthe right side of history\u201d. An example of this can be seen in modern \u201cgender theory\u201d, specifically Critical Gender Theory, from which gender is a social construct and a non-essence that acts like an essence<\/a>.<\/p>\n In the woke dialectic\u2014the 19th<\/sup> Century\u2019s dialectic degenerate decedent\u2014the thesis is the invented social construct of \u201ccis-heteronormativity\u201d sustained by a system of oppression that is imposed on society, thus creating form and effect. \u00a0 The antithesis is the equal and opposite imposition of \u201ctrans-homonormativity\u201d that must be imposed by deconstruction systems of oppression. \u00a0 The synthesis, then is not the prior unknown result of applying antithesis to thesis, but the immanentized eschaton that the antithesis is constructed and thus derived from.<\/p>\n This can be seen in the superficially contradictory approach of \u201cconversion therapy bans<\/a>\u201d that seem to go only in the \u201cqueer\u201d direction, or even the introduction of doubt<\/a> of one\u2019s \u201cstraightness\u201d but never \u201cqueerness\u201d.<\/p>\n Being \u201ccis-gender\u201d is the oppressive thesis and can only be combated, not by the purported synthesis, but by the antithesis of \u201ctrans-genderism\u201d. Indeed, they believe that the synthesis itself is a form of the thesis, similar to how non-racism is considered a form of racism because it isn\u2019t explicitly antiracist<\/a>. This is why conversion therapy bans must<\/em> only ban convincing people that they aren\u2019t \u201ctrans\u201d but really \u201ccis\u201d, since conversion therapy strengthens and supports the \u201ccis-heteronormative\u201d thesis, which is considered the evil. \u00a0 Similarly, grooming and convincing a person that they are really \u201ctransgender\u201d is is necessarily good, not because their transgenderism is an essential trait, but because it serves to destroy the oppressive system and its related superstructure<\/em>, thus making it necessarily good.<\/p>\n Thus, in contrast, a \u201ctransgender\u201d individual, who \u201cde-transitions\u201d must<\/em> necessarily be wrong, if not outright evil, for strengthening the oppressive thesis. \u00a0 Even a straight person being straight or a \u201ccis-gendered\u201d individual being \u201ccis-gendered\u201d is being oppressive because they are not tearing down the systems of oppression, so they must embrace the \u201cqueerness\u201d of not being \u201ccis-gendered\u201d (hence the plethora of invented \u201cgenders\u201d) in order to reject the preemptively determined social construct of \u201ccis-heteronormativity\u201d.<\/p>\n A person who comes out as \u201ctransgender\u201d must then be though of as always<\/em> being \u201ctrans\u201d or \u201cqueer\u201d\u2014and thus not a conversion<\/em>\u2014because otherwise it would be to admit that the desired synthesis to be correct and thus a form of thesis that will prevent the desired synthesis from ever happening, thus rending the antithesis, and thus the entire ideology and world view that accompanies it, not only incorrect, but null and void. Justice, then, is not the synthesis, with is the outcome of antithesis, but the antithesis\u2014and moral good\u2014itself. Synthesis, then is post-justice<\/em>.<\/p>\n Immanentizing the eschaton isn\u2019t about the eschaton, it\u2019s about the immanentizing. Even in a manichean worldview, good does not combat evil in order to achieve a nihlistic utopia. No philosophy or ideology in practice works to negate itself. \u00a0 Justice does not and can not seek its own post-demise aftermath and still be justice.<\/p>\n Rather than clarification by opposition, it is an insertion of certainly into a philosophy that brooks no doubt. As Decartes said that to doubt one\u2019s existence proves that you must exist in order to doubt, this lack of doubt of the veracity of nihlism vis-\u00e0-vis<\/em> the destruction of the thesis by antithesis results in\u2014poof<\/em>\u2014synthesis that itself is a non-thesis<\/em> which does not and can not exist, since the synthesis itself<\/em> is, in this regard, contra-Cartesian<\/em> in it\u2019s existance, being a circular proof, in a way, that this was all a social construct and a complete rejection of any essential aspect whatsoever.<\/p>\n It is a seductive embrace of nothing.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It become increasingly obvious to more and more that the seeming double-standard of the Left is actually a single standard of the \u201cheads I win tails you lose variety\u201d. However, it would be to simplistic and unfortunate to chalk it … Continue reading