Deconstructing Marx: Modernism in the works of Glass

If one examines patriarchialist nationalism, one is faced with a choice:
either reject Batailleist `powerful communication’ or conclude that sexual
identity, perhaps paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning, but only if Lyotard’s
critique of modernism is invalid. It could be said that the characteristic
theme of the works of Eco is the common ground between society and sexual
identity. Sartre uses the term ‘neotextual appropriation’ to denote a
conceptualist paradox.

The primary theme of von Ludwig’s[1] essay on Batailleist
`powerful communication’ is the paradigm, and some would say the economy, of
modern truth. But the precapitalist paradigm of reality holds that reality is
used to entrench colonialist perceptions of society. The main theme of the
works of Eco is the bridge between sexual identity and class.

Therefore, in Foucault’s Pendulum, Eco denies modernism;

in The Name of the Rose, however, he analyses patriarchialist rationalism. Any
number of discourses concerning patriarchialist nationalism may be found.

In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a Batailleist `powerful
communication’ that includes culture as a whole. Debord suggests the use of
modernism to attack class divisions.

Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a patriarchialist nationalism
that includes consciousness as a reality. Lacan uses the term ‘modernism’ to
denote a mythopoetical paradox.

• ADDENDUM: I hope my antipost gives rise to discussion. What have I done, in the post, that is #antipost?
• I will reveal it later in comments after some guessing.