[PODCAST] #492: Above the Snowflakes – Series Introduction


Today, many young people are looking for personal liberation in all the wrong places.

- Thaddeus vs. Jordan Peterson: common ground?
- letting go of a conspiracy theory
- over-corrective responses to to Enlightenment problems
- The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory
- Postmodernism and identity politics
- redeeming Marx from the horrifying political consequences
- making a better world: the top-down and individual-up approaches
- the consequences of biological determinism
- the benefits of identity politics
- the trap of identity politics (essentialism)
- how people accidentally make themselves political pawns
- subjectivity and its philosophical problems
- my unfortunate history prioritizing group identity over my self (knowledge and improvement)

Get Your Tickets!

Please Support School Sucks

Our Amazon Wish List
Donate With Bitcoin
Or Join the A/V Club
Support Us On Patreon
Shop With Us At Amazon

Your continued support keeps the show going and growing, which keeps us at the top of the options for education podcasts and leads to new people discovering this message. This subscription also grants you access to the A/V Club, a bonus content section with 200+ hours of exclusive audio and video.

If you are a regular consumer of our media, please consider making a monthly commitment by selecting the best option for you...

A/V Club - Basic Access - $8.00/Month AP Club - "Advanced" Access - $12.00/Month Sigma Sigma Pi - Full Access - $16.00/Month


Check Also

The Cruel Prejudices of Inclusive Marketing – With Nathan Fraser [PODCAST #708]

(Emotional Manipulators For Hire, Episode 7) Friend, copywriter, marketer, and Facebook World Champion Nathan Fraser ...


  1. Honestly, Brett, it’s a good thing you changed your karma a few years ago, gained self-knowledge, found the Trivium (X3), self-esteem (X6) and NVC (X4) (QED = 72), and didn’t weaponize or proselytize them to others before integrating them in yourself in multi-part series, calling out your peers, like another libertarian religion! Que sera sera! That was then this is now. What is dead will never die! What empty, recycled slogans will you preach next in place of education? Censor and denigrate critics at your own risk, but reflective thinkers with real intellectual self-defense spotted the self-hypocrisy long ago. Shame on you and your audience for ignoring basic grammar even while preaching grammar first to others! Roots lie beneath the surface, not above. (Unless you’re a self-actualized Buddha floating in Nirvana, which you’re clearly not, regardless of your propagandistic rhetoric). Self-aggrandizement prior to self-knowledge outside your rewarded identity is the quality that you and Thad, progressive snowflakes and monocultural conservatives, share. And that lesson’s worth at least $1.

  2. Constructive? Hmmm…lemme think. How about visiting your free local library and reading the primary sources to understand the deeper grammar of ‘postmodernist’ ideas BEFORE criticizing them? Or maybe interviewing someone who had, without slanting the conversation toward your own prior conclusions? Wouldn’t that be the first thing a self-reliant autodidact would do? Sound familiar enough? Can I get my $1 now?

    • Based on the first two discussions in the series, what are you concerned that I might be overlooking?
      Granted, Postmodernism is a huge subject and it’s likely I’m overlooking a lot, but what are the glaring errors or omissions that are upsetting you so much?

      • That’s better, a question rather than threatening censorship. My main concern is that you are presenting a second-hand version of postmodernism. Postmodernism through Rand’s eyes or postmodernism through Jordan Peterson’s eyes, and I don’t think either one of these second-hand views accurately represents the depth and objective science of postmodernist theory. Sooner or later you’ll have to dig into Foucault, Derrida, and Lacan if you want to really understand the primary sources, but after 7 years of criticizing ‘postmodernism’, you and most libertarians/an-caps still haven’t done much of their grammar homework, so I don’t have much hope of that happening. It’s ironic, because most of your criticisms of postmodernism are rooted in postmodern theory; i.e., uncovering multiple layers of analysis rather than seeking black and white, monolithic answers. I also think Niko’s reference to the Austrian economists’ Objective Value Theory was one of the most hilarious Freudian slips I’ve heard in years. This is just to say I’m not upset so much as I am deeply intrigued by the unconscious hypocrisy and lack of attention to grammar and rhetoric, overemphasis on logic (logocentricism), despite years and hundreds of episodes hectoring people about that very topic. But that may be a reflection of how my subjective research values and interests differ from yours. Namaste, snowflake, please don’t censor free speech even if critical of your special in-group. In my mind, you now owe me $2, but I’m willing to forgive the debt, if in the next episode you can cite and summarize the key points of any one of the Postmodern philosophy primary sources you claim to be “above”.

        • The next show is partly about Derrida, with a Philosophy professor from U of Texas. Hopefully after that my outstanding balance will only be $1.

          • Oh, sorry, I didn’t realize that it was the UT prof and not yourself that was putting out this series, calling for donations, and making the claim of being “above” the postmodernists’ philosophy. With such a title and your name at the top of the bill, I figured surely you’ve read enough of Derrida yourself to at least challenge this academic on Derrida’s philosophical shortcomings rather than just appeal to his/her authority? Just in case he/she , being an academic, presents any false conclusions or hypocritical misrepresentations? *Wink, wink.* So let’s call it $1.90 for now, and I’ll throw in a pat on the back and an NVC-like ‘atta boy’ for the attempt to at least dig into Derrida on an Objectivist-leaning podcast. P.S.: I know Brett’s read it, *wink, wink* but in case his audience hasn’t: Derrida’s Of Grammatology is a logical place to start. (weblink not included out of respect for my new postmodern bff whose rhetoric is entirely sincere because it’s now based on pure grammar collection rather than monetary considerations from a niche audience appreciative of free speech even when bluntly critical of it).

  3. Hi, Brett (my new rhetorical bff), with your approval, I’d like to cash in any credits I’ve earned for your on-air answer to these 2 questions (which I’ve thought a lot about and subjectively valued your answers to at .95 each). I’ve stayed within the theme of postmodernism in hopes it may generate your more immediate consideration:

    1) Up-to-date, and to the best of your knowledge, as an historical scholar, what happened on 9/11?
    2) Why did you stop talking (or talked mockingly) about this seemingly external topic, and thus far, has your conscious elision been more effective or ineffective in achieving your long-term goals?

    With love, heartfelt gratitude, and a deep sense of humanity, your smug, degenerate, selfsame troll

Leave a Reply