The Death of the Author

This one concept may be single-handedly responsible for destroying the foundational institutions of the Western World.

When it comes to the drift towards far-left progressivism in the halls of power, it’s important to understand that we are being ruled by ideas originating in academia.

Even when these ideas lack any empirical evidence, internal consistency or basic logic, “progressive academia” has become a means of providing a ‘legitimacy cover.’ With the veneer of academic legitimacy, these concepts are then deployed from academia as cognitive weapons into our institutions, targeting them at a deep, philosophical level.

Colin Wright@SwipeWright

The war against biology is far from over. A new peer-reviewed paper claims that teaching students "accurate" biology about sex is more inclusive and makes students enjoy class more. But what they call "accurate" biology is actually pseudoscience. These papers matter because

8:45 PM · Apr 14, 2026 · 53.2K Views

110 Replies · 473 Reposts · 2.43K Likes

Foundational to this Neo-Marxist, long march through our institutions is what’s known as critical theory.

Critical theory is a way of studying society that claims to spot hidden power imbalances and fight to fix allegedly unfair systems.

The most important part to remember here is that it’s a way of studying.

In other words, it’s just one lens we can put on to explore the world and human behaviour.

It is not a rigorous scientific system of uncovering hidden evidence. It’s a temporary way of seeing that can help us decide where to look for evidence. In this way, it can help us find new forms of evidence we didn’t know to look for.

Critical theory can be a useful tool when empirical evidence is required to support its conclusions, especially those impacting infrastructure and institutional frameworks.

For example, we often hear about the deaths of murdered and missing indigenous women in Canada. Modern critical theory activists often use this as evidence of white supremacy. However according to statistics Canada:

“In most cases, the person accused of their homicide was also Indigenous (86%).”

The lens helped us find a specific group that is suffering. Indigenous women are being murdered disproportionately to other women, but in this case, the lens itself is being passed around as evidence.

In the face of this evidence, the cope from the ‘critical lens crew’ was that the issue of indigenous men murdering indigenous women is born from colonialism and intergenerational trauma. Here, what’s known in critical theory as “the death of the author technique” is applied to the indigenous man on trial for murder. His intent, explicit motivations, or observable context are all sacrificed so that he can be framed as a martyr.

Philosophically, this is the death of free will. Everything he has done is suddenly part of a giant racist Rube Goldberg machine completely outside of his control. He is no longer the author of his own life.

Shouldn’t Critical Race Theorists, and subsequently the government, use this lens to discover novel places to look for evidence, while also accepting what the evidence says?

Instead, critical theory was adopted by the Canadian government and all of our institutions, not as a lens for finding evidence, but as a mandatory way of experiencing life itself.

Enter THE DEATH OF THE AUTHOR technique, born in the halls of academia, now being woven into our social contract as Canadians.

Let’s hear from the theorists themselves on what this means. This is from Critical Theory Today:

“In the early decades of the twentieth century… our task was to examine the author’s life in order to discover what the author meant to communicate… which is called authorial intention. Our focus has changed… the author is no longer considered… meaningful. We focus, instead, on the reader… or on the culture in which the text was produced, usually without reference to the author. So, for all intents and purposes, the author is “dead,”

Share

Over time, the repetition of this idea in the halls of power ensured that this concept was transferred from literary criticism into a mandatory system of interpretation for all of our public institutions. The erasure of authorial intent is now rampant across our society.

It’s why Barry Neufeld is being fined $750,000: not for what he said, but for the meaning of what he said according to the state. He is not the author of his own words.

The author is dead.

It’s why NDP representative David Eby can comfortably accuse Juno News of promoting “white supremacy.”

If you searched Juno News for articles promoting white supremacy, you would never find any. But because critical theory has given our institutions and radicalized progressive politicians permission to erase authorial intent, a news outlet that is inconvenient for the government’s critical theory metanarrative can easily be accused of promoting white supremacy.

And this is how it spread throughout our institutions, through making critical theory unfalsifiable: you’re either promoting that we live under white patriarchal supremacy or your denial is proof that we live under white patriarchal supremacy. Simply using a critical theory lens makes it all true!

It’s the death of the author.

It’s why leftist Judges like Justice Mirza can use the claim of systemic racism to exclude all evidence to protect violent criminals by ignoring the police’s stated intent, explicit motivations, or observable context.

All of this is sacrificed and subordinated to a reading of hidden systemic meaning which relies on the death of the author.

This is cognitive warfare at its finest, altering the infrastructure of an entire nation at the level of perception.

It’s why the Liberal’s new hate speech bill is so dangerous, because the meaning of what we say is now up to the state.

Leave a comment