Postmodernity

>I know some of you out there have studied this stuff.

Or perhaps not

>>1682968
I don't know enough about postmodernism but if it's anything close to modernism it can fuck off.

>>1682974
>I don't know anything about cars but if they're anything like horses they can fuck off

It's simple - those in power are doing all they can to secure and consolidate their positions of power. Anything that may threaten their undisputed rule is an enemy; Nations, identities, cultures, movements, basically anything that can be used as a solid rallying point against the hidden global elite ruling from behind the curtains is despised and actively campaigned against (not in an open warfare kind of way but subversively). When the people don't have an allegiance, when they don't have a leader to rally behind, no cause to fight for, no God to worship, no tradition to follow, no deities to invoke, no rituals to enact, when the people swear their loyalty only to personal pleasure and fulfillment of base needs, then they will be like pets, like lap dogs to those who hold the power in the world. The people will have had their entire history erased, they won't know who they are any longer because history has been re-written, and for all they know there is nothing to do in the world other than work and consume. Fortunately though, current events don't seem to be going according to the plans of the current ruling elite.

>>1682395
"Postmodernity" and "postmodernism" are quite different things.

"Postmodernity" supposedly describes an era in history following modernity, generally thought to begin in the 1970s or 80s, which is characterized by the twin trends of 1) globalization and 2) increased fragmentation and atomization of society, as individuals increasingly turn inwards and focus on their own personal pursuits rather and those of society. These are seemingly contradictory, but work together in that they undermine older forms of community like the nation-state.

"Postmodernism" doesn't necessarily support "postmodernity" (just as the modernists didn't necessarily support modernity). It means an opposition to grand narratives or ideologies that try to explain everything, and generally rejects the idea of absolute or universal truth. It's mainly an epistemological standpoint, without any real normative dimension. Various postmodernists have various political beliefs.

"Think locally, act globally" is just a slogan of various environmentalist and leftist groups, some of which are postmodernists, some of which are not.

Somebody recently described Britain's decision to leave the EU to me as being "an intelligent postmodern decision" - because it came down to the population ignoring the grand narrative of multiculturalism in favour of the pragmatic choice. They didn't want to hear all the liberal idealism anymore and decided to vote for a tighter immigration policy based on merit.

>>1683049
Right - but what i'm poking at here is, if postmodernism eschews the grand narrative and group axiology, doesn't that make that society weak when confronted by less inclined societies? Ones which still have strong religious or political ideas?

I wonder if a type of Postmodernism led to the fall of Rome... That is to say, no one cared about the Empire anymore, or faith in their leaders, so they just let it all collapse without defence.

>>1683124
Doing something as big as leaving EU only because immigration would be emotional and ideologic decision not an "intelligent and pragmatic" one.

sauce: Less than 1/2 of immigrants come from EU and less then 1/3 come from E8 and E2 countries

>>1683148
Not really. Postmodernism could easily be consistent with nationalism, for instance. It rejects universalist ideologies, but is quite consistent with particularist group identities.

>>1683124
>in favour of the pragmatic choice.
The pragmatic choice would've been staying, as basically all economic and legal institutes all over the country and the world said that this will lead to immense pragmatic problems, such as getting into a recession, such as having to renegotiate trade policies with countries all over the world while having less negotiation power, such as losing the important financial sector, such as (despite leaving) having to accept EU standards while losing the possibility to participate in deciding them, such as getting worsened relations with the EU and USA for decades to come, such as giving uncertainty to millions of Britis working abroad, such as rekindling butthurt in Northern Ireland and Scottland.
If anything, it was an idealistic nationalistic choice, but definitely not a pragmatic one.

Most UK immigrants are actually Commonwealth immigrants, by the way. Leaving won't impact them at all.