Print this post Print this post

Postmodernism on the Right:
A Case for Adopting Deconstructing as a Tool

Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt School speaking to student protesters in Berlin in 1967.

4,918 words

One of the realities that must be recognized by the Dissident Right, particularly in the Anglophone world, is that that those modes of thought and analysis broadly encapsulated by terms like postmodernism, critical theory, or the Frankfurt School are not inherently “Left-wing.” Collectively and individually, they are not inherently anything other than a means to an end. It was a success on the part of those who deployed these framing techniques that they convinced so many that they were actual philosophical positions. This sleight-of-hand duped several generations of Western society into believing that deployers of “critique” were arguing in good faith. Postmodernism and its cognate modes of thought and analysis could never amount to an end in themselves because they are by definition null space. Postmodernism is the analytic imperative to stand nowhere at no time, and critical theory is an injunction to critique and deconstruct from outside a value structure, not to imagine or construct one. That is not to say, however, that these intellectual currents belong to those with no values of their own.

The “ends” of deconstruction were conceived through an entirely separate mode of discourse to deconstruction itself. The Left-wing innovators of critical theory and postmodernism imagined replacing the foundational and time-tested cultural frameworks that their timeless and valueless intellectual techniques would destroy, with social constructs built on Left-wing values. These Left-wing values did not emerge from, nor were they explicitly present in, the instrumentalized nihilism of deconstruction. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is no secret that the values which animate Leftist thinkers derive from Enlightenment thought. Enlightenment streams of thought positively moralize on universal terms. They do so from initial constructs of sacred meaning that tend to be less internally challenged by the community adhering to them than were the moral precepts of the Catholic Church. The base of Leftist thought is thus anything but the hyper-self-aware and indiscriminately critical frame of nihilism that defines deconstruction.

Therefore, rather than “Leftist” schools of thought, the tools of deconstruction are better understood as weapons which may have proved more powerful than even their own progenitors thought they ever would be. I need not belabor this point. Most of you have undoubtedly encountered the logical shutdowns and bouts of indignant fury caused by simply and honestly considering the possibility that peoples of European descent may have their own collective history and that it may be legitimate for those who share that history, and its subsets, to preserve their biological heritage or act in their own interests. As many before me have pointed out, this is the net effect of deconstruction. In two generations, it rendered the most powerful family of peoples in human history a demographic nonentity struggling to even justify their own continued existence as recognizable peoples in their own homelands.

It is unsurprising, considering its net effect, that those who wish for peoples of European descent to have group autonomy/autonomies, and to continue existing in any recognizable way, consider deconstruction to be a pure and unmitigated evil. However, as I mentioned earlier, it is only a tool. This remains true regardless of whether or not it was a tool first used by those whose ideal future involves everything you find most sacred, including what you call your own people, ceasing to exist as you believe it to be doing now. Consequently, like any tool, you can use it yourself if you can figure out how it works.

Science is only your friend if you make it that way

I am aware that many who are right of center will contend that they do not need such beguiling linguistic contrivances, because they have “science” on their side. Surely it is only the Left that needs to make reality appear a certain way, because it is only the Left who adhere to a worldview that runs counter to objective truth? Perhaps this is true, but regardless of whether it is, “objective truth” is not synonymous with “science.” To assume such a thing is to mistakenly conflate non-human-created realities, and empirical evidence collected about the nature of those realities, with a set of social practices. This social dimension includes the conventions that define different scientific disciplines, as well as the role that science plays as a regulator of mainstream society. If it were true that all these phenomena constituted an indissoluble entity called “science,” and that the definition of this entity was coextensive with that of objective truth, then the Dissident Right would need to make some undesired concessions.

Among such concessions would be that it is unscientific to form a research community around sociobiology, or to explore the possibility that the individual selection model of evolution may not capture all aspects of natural selection, and that group-level fitness may play a role. After all, this remains the official view of mainstream science, which is a testament to the success of the Left-wing Sociobiological Study Group. This scientific research community arose in response to E. O. Wilson’s Harvard-based sociobiological research circle, and it functioned with the sole purpose of preventing sociobiology ever becoming a scientific discipline.[1] Another necessary concession would be that it is not “scientific” to form a research community focused on population genetics and intelligence, as the recent “investigations” of such a community by the managers of institutional science at University College London have indicated.[2] Finally, if the social practices and institutions of “science” are coextensive with objective truth, the Dissident Right would have to accept that the categories of male and female “have no basis in science,” and thus whatever social customs have been organized around that binary system are illegitimate. This revelation is, after all, the official position of what is surely the uncontested apogee of scientific knowledge and authority: the journal Nature.[3] If the official position of the editors of Nature does not constitute authoritative scientific truth, then what else could?

What these unfortunate situations have hopefully made clear is that “science” has proven to be no more capable of preventing itself from being deconstructed into the narrative of social justice than even the most “airy fairy” of humanities departments. This is because scientific disciplines are social practices, and always have been. The institutions carrying scientific authority over mainstream Western ontology are clearly not interested in revealing “objective truth,” but in shaping society in accordance with the cultural Left’s interpretation of “Enlightenment” principles. The reason for this is that the most powerful institutions of science have already been convinced that either “objective truth” does not exist, or at least that it is less meaningful than the pursuit of “progress.” Even the ever-unstable “scientific method,” purported to unite the work of all those disciplines bearing the name “science,” is the formulation of philosophers or scientists acting as philosophers, and not a revelation of objective truth made by science itself. The most recent iteration of the “scientific method,” generally described as “falsifiability,” is the work of Karl Popper, a scientifically uninitiated philosopher whose work and general worldview inspired the machinations of none other than George Soros.[4]

My intention is not to argue that science is only shaped by social forces, and never provides access to objective truth, or at least the nearest thing to it. I don’t think that is true. Hilary Putnam’s “No Miracles” argument, which generally asserts that “scientific realism” is the only way to explain the success of scientifically-derived technology without resorting to miracles, indicates that science can indeed do more than simply reflect social arrangements.[5] However, regardless of whether or not science offers a route to objective truth, it should not be treated as a monolith. The practices that define scientific disciplines, and those which delineate the wider community whose members are recognized as practitioners of “science,” are mediated through social forces. The Right’s refusal to accept that science is, at least to some degree, social and political in both its inner and outer workings has allowed its enemies to go unchallenged in consolidating their influence over “science” as an institution of public authority. If “science” alone could not prevent itself from being deconstructed into a puppet of Leftist progressivism, on what grounds should anyone believe that appealing to “science” would help in a culture war against the Left? “Science” is powerfully influenced by social values in the areas that matter most, and the cultural Left are the only ones who have worked to insert any such values among scientific communities. The Right must deconstruct scientific practice to remove these values, before reinserting their own.

To be clear, I am not arguing against objective truth. I think there are perfectly good reasons to believe that it exists, and that it is the most sensible position to assume that it exists. All I wish to argue is that the highly diffuse agglomeration of institutions, social conventions, material objects, and historically contingent practices which now happen to be labeled under the term “science” should be scrutinized independently of each other. “Science” should not be considered the single best route to truth at all times, in the same way that such may be true of thinking in a way that tries to avoid internal contradictions to explain something with all available evidence. High degrees of accuracy in physics does not imply that geneticists were pursuing an objective truth in targeting the genetic evidence for Cheddar Man’s skin color, nor that their findings reflect any such objective truth.

Deconstruction as rhetoric for the academy

The discourse of deconstruction loosely referred to as postmodernism is particularly valuable to the Dissident Right. This is because it allows one to think creatively outside the modernist set of rails which emerged from the conditions that obtained of nineteenth- and twentieth-century Western Europe and America. Riding through history on these rails has resulted in European-derived peoples finding themselves where they are now. As such, it would make sense for those who find the present condition unacceptable, and who wish to move those of European descent toward an alternative, to value a socially acceptable way to think outside the mode of thought that got them to where they currently are. Fróði Midjord and others have already pointed to the importance of the Dissident Right coming to understand and use postmodernism’s discovery of “hyper-realism.” He has described how this can be done by deconstructing the political baggage carried by most products of Western media. This is, of course, absolutely correct, and its importance can’t be overstated. However, I am referring to the reengineering of another one of postmodernism’s capacities. This capacity has more to do with brute rhetoric than with the self-aware deconstructive reflection that Mr. Midjord proposes. The following anecdote will hopefully demonstrate what this rhetorical capacity looks like when properly deployed.

Having recently gone to a seminar in my department, I noted an interesting phenomenon. There were a number of faces there which I had not seen before. One was a faculty member I had encountered once or twice, and the others were clearly four of her Ph.D. students. The seminar concerned a new way to approach species demarcation, a question that inevitably involves the application of a normative standard to define a biological population. After the talk came the questions I have heard so many times before, and they revealed the reason these new faces were here: “What provision does your model make for variations between individuals?”, “Isn’t a normative value system exclusionary?”, “How is your idea different from rhetorical tools that enlist scientific authority to pathologize and exclude ‘the other’?”, and so on.

It became clear at this point what was going on and why I had never seen these people at other seminars. It was because they only appear at seminars which are not directly related to their “field,” when they believe the content of that seminar either weakens their deontic framework, or is classed as morally objectionable by it. It is in these cases that they not only attend, but attend in force to dominate the question period with their “critique.” Evidently, one full-time staff hire had become a vector for an army of received morality enforcers, whose complete academic energies are dedicated to reinforcing their ideology and deploying it as the only lens through which they ever encounter other ideas. This was a social justice wolfpack.

Unsurprisingly, the speaker, like nearly all modern academics, had never interrogated his own deontic frame, making his implicit value system generally consistent with that symbolized by the “NPC” meme. He was not a social justice inquisitor himself, which was why he was applying his academic energy to an entirely separate subject. Nonetheless, he presumed tropes like “inclusion,” “diversity,” and “tolerance” to be moral imperatives, without ever considering what these words mean either in absolute terms or in different contexts. As such, the social justice enforcers didn’t have to locate any internal weaknesses in his argument to assault it. In fact, they didn’t have to engage with the logic or evidence he presented at all. All they had to do was point out where the supporting evidence and framework of logic, which undoubtedly took him months to compile and build, didn’t align with their own conceptual framework. Being that the speaker unquestioningly presumed the foundational axioms of this framework (which the wolfpack simply took to their logical extremes), all he could do was sheepishly accept their “critique” as revealing genuine flaws in his argument, apologize for these errors, and gradually retreat from nearly all the interesting points he had made. It took them seconds to use a set of ideas, that they acquired in hours, to defeat the framework of logic and evidence that took him months or years to construct.

One point illustrated by this anecdote is that the universities are not inherently impenetrable to a system of thought or analysis operating outside a non-Leftist frame. If they were, then there would be no need for Leftist wolfpacks to patrol conferences or workshops. Their critique of this man’s ideas were “correct,” to a degree. Many mainstream academics regularly, and unintentionally, introduce new ideas that lend themselves to strengthening the normative axioms from which the Dissident Right views the world, or at least could be repurposed that way with minimal effort. However, the second, and seemingly contradictory, point to take away from my anecdote is that the universities, at their deepest level of social convention, are not as free as the “Alt Lite” or “intellectual darkweb” presume that they are. The now-ubiquitous whining about “the SJWs!” emerging from “radical” publications like Quillete paint a picture of a few totalitarian puritans somehow perverting an otherwise completely free and functional domain of academic discourse. However, it is clearly the mainstream social rules of academic discourse themselves that grant such unholy power to the social justice priesthood. These rules mean that enforcers of social justice need only one “knockout” argument to defeat every idea from every other field, with near-zero intellectual energy expenditure. This universally effective tool is actually no argument at all, but a formula for merely identifying where any new ideas may come at the cost of their own unquestionable mandates for “inclusion,” “diversity,” or “tolerance.”

It is clear that any families of thought, such as the Dissident Right, which are genuinely dedicated to creatively exploring new ways to approach fundamental perspectives on the world simply do not have the ability to counteract the ideology of social justice, while its adherents win every argument by simply “deconstructing” everything into their own frame, while closing that frame to critique. This cannot be solved by only “deconstructing” the weaponized messages they dispatch in your direction. This is simply defense. It is their frame that needs to be challenged. However, because this frame is morally charged, it needs to be challenged by deconstruction from a different frame, whose adherents must hold it, whether explicitly or implicitly, to be morally self-evident. This is not the realm of positive discourse and dialectic, but that of rhetoric. Vox Day has made some sound observations on this point.

Rhetorically speaking, I will concede to my critics that introducing discourse from outside the conceptual rails which the Left derisively calls “bourgeois” values may appear absurd, obscurantist, or downright hostile by the bulk of Westerners who tend toward Right-wing thinking. My personal bias tells me that this is a signal that the structure of social conventions which ascribe meaning to the sacred values that the Dissident Right is trying to protect are worth protecting. To have a negative gut response to something that manifests nothingness and nowhere, as does postmodernism, is healthy. Considering that postmodernism was introduced into the academy only to destroy, it is also healthy to intuitively oppose it for that reason. I wouldn’t personally value a community who worship nuclear weapons for being engines of destruction. However, if you have any desire at all of gaining a foothold in the universities, which have proven to be an extremely powerful piece on the culture-war chessboard, deconstruction is not only a potentially effective strategy to adopt, but is, in my estimation, singularly necessary.

Some possible attack vectors in the universities

As I mentioned earlier, the Left’s worldview is not itself a product of deconstruction. This makes it vulnerable to the latter. Yet as things stand, academic agents of social justice remain spared from justifying what might be called the “opportunity cost” of universalizing their system of thought. This means that those applying Leftist “critique” are free to presume that something which comes at the cost of what they call “social justice” is necessarily an intellectual and moral hindrance to their opponent’s argument. Thus, whenever an agent of social justice begins a debate with the target of his “critique,” the entirety of his intellectual energy may be spent on positively pursuing his rhetorical objectives (which are coextensive with his moral objectives). He never has to defensively justify those objectives or the metaphysical presumptions upon which they are founded. By contrast, when all other actors in Western societies, academic or otherwise, encounter agents of social justice, they must split their energies between justifying why their objectives are worthwhile in positive terms, and then explaining how their objectives do not conflict with the ends of social justice. This leaves those subjected to a social justice critique only minimal intellectual energy to actually make their own arguments. It is this asymmetrical freedom to conserve their intellectual and rhetorical resources which converted shrieking harpies of usually moderate-to-low intelligence into feared academic arbiters to whom even the most brilliant professors defer in a debate.

A vocabulary needs to be developed which does to the initial axioms presumed by social justice what it did to the initial axioms of the paradigms that it was used to destroy. The ends of social justice themselves need to be found to be potentially “problematic” through another critical lens. This weaponized vocabulary must be built on a moral framework which presumes that, even if social justice were effectively executed, it would come at the cost of other things which are of greater value. This will allow for a rhetorically effective way to simply bypass having to defend an idea from a social justice critique, while simultaneously putting the deployer of that critique on the defensive. They will then have to waste time and energy finding ways to justify their own normative assumptions, with each attempt making them appear more linguistically deceptive and morally suspect.

This task is slow and difficult, but not impossible. It also gets easier as more absurd Leftist assumptions are identified and left out in the open. For instance, Leftist critiques nearly always assume that “inclusion” is a positive thing. They see inclusion as synonymous with “progress” and “equality,” and this predicates their strategy of doubting the grounds for which any category they don’t like excludes things. However, inclusion can just as easily be synonymous with regression and destruction. The existence of a hospital building, for instance, is predicated on the assumption that exclusion can be a good and constructive thing, which in turn presumes that universal inclusion relative to hospital buildings is a bad and destructive thing. If every possible thing were forced to be included in a hospital building, the category would be meaningless, and what might have been a hospital building would simply be a pile of rubble. Yet, every hospital building embodies the notion that some things belong and others do not. This embodiment presumes both differences between things, as well as an implicit hierarchy relative to what is “good” for the category “hospital building.”

A Leftist critique would point out that there are no objective grounds to support the implicit hierarchy that gives the normative category “hospital building” any meaning. From this, they would contend that your “hospital building” category is arbitrary, since they assume that any subjective values and hierarchies apart from their own are “arbitrary” by definition. This in turn allows them to imply that what is “true” could not be what motivates anyone to police the category “hospital building.” This leaves only the possibility that the category “hospital building,” which the victim of the critique chooses to police, is an imposition on the world, which could only be motivated by a desire to separate things, exclude things, and make some things inferior to other things. This is the essential nature of their notion of “oppression” which, as I have shown, could be used against literally anything they take issue with, for whatever reason. That is how agile and adaptable the Left’s rhetorical tools are. One who values hospital buildings may even be shown to be “xenophobic,” as their subjective category would “arbitrarily” exclude black people from comprising a part of hospital buildings. After all, the inclusion of black people in the superstructure of hospital buildings would be deemed to be something negative by anyone who values the structural integrity of hospital buildings.  Yet we have already shown that anyone who believes in the oppressive social construct “hospital buildings” could only ever be motivated by the love of “division,” “judgment,” and ultimately, “hate.”

The Left’s academic strategy rests on the hope that the opponent will forget that their categories have, or may have, implicit value. If one points this out, and argues from the assumption that, for instance, the category of “hospital building” has implicit value, it can easily be shown that the “inclusion,” which the Left presumes to be a universal good, is in fact destructive.  However, it cannot always be known if a category has value, and in some cases that value may only be knowable by those within the category. This is one of the foundations of the postmodern critique.

Academics sympathetic to the Dissident Right, or simply to challenging the status quo, should be asking their hecklers what the expense of forced “inclusion” might be, and what makes the Leftist heckler in question believe they have the moral legitimacy to enforce it. Another question that should be asked is if “inclusion” and “diversity” are necessarily desirable at all levels of everything, at all times? If so, why? One does not need to know the answers to these questions to effectively deploy them against proponents of social justice, if that deployment occurs with an equivalent degree of moral indignation. Fortunately, that indignation can be justified.

The great irony of social justice, as I see many on the Dissident Right are already aware, is that universal “diversity” at every level and at all times destroys the requisite particularities of “diversity”, because each discrete category becomes homogenized. The imposition of a universally distributed degree of “diversity” in a class of categories makes all the categories exactly the same, thus rendering them meaningless. Yet in social terms, within each category may exist an identity, way of life, or normative framework from which humans moralize and act. Forced “inclusion” and “diversity” thus destroys all categories everywhere at all times, and these impositions also come at the cost of other normative frameworks, from which people may derive meaning and purpose. Among such frameworks, one might include the “indigenous ways of knowing” of the Tiwi people, but also the foundational value structure of the Dissident Right. By pointing out what is being unthinkingly destroyed, the moral presumptions of universalist social justice can be framed as destructive, mindless, homogenizing impositions emerging from centers of power, which would strip the Left’s “critique” of its radical facade.

Another effective approach would be to “historicize” social justice. Social justice scholars never have to consider the historical contingency of their own analytical frame, despite regularly using this historicizing imperative as a blunt instrument against every other mode of discourse, e.g. “science studies.” This is because, up until now, they were the only ones comfortable arguing in such abominably bad faith. However, it would be both appropriate and effective for modern scholarship to ask “under what conditions of privilege did the homogenizing imperative of ‘social justice’ emerge?”, and “To what extent are the supposed standards of social justice merely historically contingent obsessions of powerful actors trying to forcibly shape the world in their image?” Courses that emerge one day may include “social justice in context,” in which the “aggressive triumphalism” of social justice is explored as a product of the toxic climate of “implicit oikophobia” which prevailed in the mid- to late-twentieth century. This would provide a non-resource intensive way to pathologize social justice within a prearranged narrative that could be easily transported to multiple sites.

Another key function of the historical approach is to depict social justice as being contingent on forces apart from itself, which diffuses the implicit assumption that it was “inevitable.” This is important, because something can only be considered “progress” that internally presumes the inevitability of historical movement toward its own endpoint. Take that away, and social justice simply becomes one cluster of reasoning from which humans derive meaning, among many. It ceases to be the truth and becomes a convention, which thus could only exist where it was imposed by agents with power trying to pursue more power. This technique is what the Left calls “parochializing,” and it proved deadly effective in destroying the Western Canon, leading to a generation of Europeans with no binding sense of a past, future, or present culture.

Conclusion

So what is the takeaway message from all of this? The Dissident Right and those sympathetic to its cause rest the legitimacy and meaning of their ideas on a set of values. This it shares with the Left, despite its initial values being different. However, what the Dissident Right does not share with the Left is the ability to “deconstruct” its opponent’s set of values. Academic enforcers of social justice have mastered the art of “deconstructing” all neutral parties whose discourse is in good faith, but they have no weapons against those whose discourse may be in bad faith. They know how to manipulate language, but not how to respond to their language being manipulated. To frame their analysis as morally suspect rhetoric and to demand that they justify it, is to force the social justice enforcer back into the realm of dialectic, a discourse in which they are generally incompetent. However, getting them there is not within the domain of dialectic itself.

A rhetorical strategy must be designed and agreed upon by a small community of people, who will need to train others to be dedicated to the task of “deconstructing” the deconstructors, if there is to be any hope for your side of the culture war to have a fair hearing in the academy. As such, I advise undercover academics to resist putting their energies toward positive arguments that support the worldview of the Dissident Right, at least at this point in time. Rather, they should make contact with each other and begin formulating a way to plausibly sell moral disgust at the most basic assumptions made by agents of social justice, and thus corrupt the moral firmware on which it runs. This may sound ridiculous, but it has already been accomplished with the tools of postmodernism.

The postmodernists of yesteryear conditioned an entire generation of white Westerners to be disgusted by the core moral axiom that once underwrote the “progressive” activities of their white Western predecessors. This axiom was the belief in the moral imperative to “civilize” the non-Western world. It underwrote the morality that justified the imperial march of “progress” as foundationally as “inclusion” and “diversity” underwrite the “progressive” activities of modern Leftists. The fact that mainstream discourse puts the word “civilize” in quotation marks today is a testament to the success of the postmodernists in deconstructing away an entire moral framework. It can be your success, too, and must be. Before any honest work can be done by anyone toward building anything new in academia, we must remove the cultural Left’s ability to destroy without consequence. This will involve identifying and deconstructing the platform from which they do it. This will need to occur with the same singlemindedness and cynicism that accompanied the rhetorical brilliance of Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer, and later Foucault, Lacan, and Latour.

Notes

[1] Ullica Segerstrale, Defenders of The Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond (Great Clarendon Street Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 406.

[2] UCL, “UCL Statement on The London Conference on Intelligence,” January 13, 2018.

[3] “Anatomy does not define gender,” Nature 563, no. 5 (2018).

[4] George Soros, Soros on Soros: Staying Ahead of the Curve (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995), p. 33.

[5] Hilary Putnam, Philosophical Papers, vol. 1, Mathematics Matter and Method (Trumpington Street Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), p. 73.

29 Comments

  1. Gnome Chompsky
    Posted February 2, 2019 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    The critical theories against Jewish-sparked ‘critical theory’ are already often published here, Kevin MacDonald has also written masterpieces.

    There are many more examples.

    The tools (as ideas and explanations) are there already.

    I won’t repeat my slight words of earlier posts, but they seem tactically suitable.

    As for deconstructing the deconstructors, that has already happened. The questions seem more of dissemination and others propaganda action.

    Twenty to thirty years ago, popular music was still accomplishing it to an extent, some of Gabber techno, ambiguosly, Laibach, and for the harder (or more stupid and destructive, in the case of the USA) factions, nationalist skinhead punk.

    Now, music and lyrics are not so central to pop culture.

    I will leave my thoughts there, expression unfinished, but having said enough.

    • Eumaios
      Posted February 8, 2019 at 4:29 am | Permalink

      Your objections remain invalid, a reality which is betrayed by the fact that I must again point out that in the article I defined post-modernism as “rhetoric”. “Propaganda” is a vehicle of rhetoric. You still can’t seem to distinguish the act of searching for and communicating what is true from the act of using language to create a social reality that you desire, a reality whose raison d’etre may or may not be based on what is true.

      So, let us walk through this again. Post-modernism is only rhetoric, which is why it happens to be the most powerful tool of the left, and why its power stands unchecked in the academy by those who oppose it, like yourself. This power exists because those who oppose postmodernism, like yourself, also seem incapable of conceiving of a discourse outside of dialectic. If you could conceive of such a discourse, you would see the meaninglessness of your argument that the deconstructors have “already” been deconstructed, and thus the only tasks now required are those of dissemination and propaganda. This is a meaningless argument because post-modernism IS THE ACT of both propaganda and dissemination, which are both functions of rhetoric.

      Post-modern “Deconstruction”, as it is used by the left, is not revealing a truth that must then be propagandized. It IS the propaganda, and this is so precisely because of the fact that the apparently logical contentions of leftist deconstruction are morally charged. Leftist deconstruction confers the ability to defeat a superior dialectical argument with a moral accusation, which draws legitimacy from a tacit moral framework. My argument is that it is imperative to impose an inverse moral framework, through sustained post-modern propaganda, and that this will require trained academics who are solely engaged with this task. This post-modern propaganda is functionally indistinguishable from “deconstruction” as it is employed by the left in the academy. This is because it is the act of changing moral intuitions, NOT convincing genuinely free-thinking parties of what is or is not true.

  2. John
    Posted January 29, 2019 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    Fantastic article. It is one of the best out of anything that I have read on Counter-currents. Thank You very much.

    • Eumaios
      Posted January 30, 2019 at 1:24 am | Permalink

      Thanks John! I appreciate your compliment.

  3. rhondda
    Posted January 29, 2019 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    Now a days even identical twins do not get identical results. Oops!

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/dna-ancestry-kits-twins-marketplace-1.4980976

  4. Frederik Jürgen
    Posted January 29, 2019 at 2:02 am | Permalink

    I have only read the first quarter of the piece right now and cannot help but need to comment right now.

    I am FLABBERGASTED as to how massively UNDERSTATED the case here is.

    Every deed of science is motivated by and coming from a totally unscientific and subjective case, best case being an emotional state of curiosity but more often than not financial or ideological motives.

    As someone who has advanced knowledge in the field of “hard” (ha!) medicinal science and study design, I can tell you that right from the start in the design phase of a study, at the stage of framing the question to be studies the possibilities of manipulation are endless.

    The choosing of the question to study itself is already ideologically and philosophically tainted. This is obvious for most of us (I hope) when opening Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality, but it also affects “dull” fields such as functional relations of the jaws in dentistry.

    I am shocked by the notion that there are members of the right who believe in science. Apparently there are. Wow.

    • Djuka
      Posted January 29, 2019 at 7:08 am | Permalink

      Yeah… You would think that communities like ours would be the last ones to champion the myths of objective atomic facts, blank slate and the glorious unprejudiced independent Reason floating in the mid air somewhere. Enlightement is a damn hard illness to cure.

      • Eumaios
        Posted February 16, 2019 at 3:50 am | Permalink

        This post clarified my thinking in several important ways. Thank you.

  5. Rhodok
    Posted January 28, 2019 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

    I don’t think that the (hard) left uses logic in the way the right does. They don’t even use speech in the way the right does. They seem to use words to convey emotions and the actual communication takes place in these emotions, not by way of the words used. As such I do not believe there is a vocal way to reach them. The only thing they will accept is (enforced) limits on behaviour.

  6. Posted January 28, 2019 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    This article is great, thanks so very much. I’ve been trying for a long time to make up my mind on whether one should use such “evil” tactics against them. Doesn’t it drag me down to their level? Now I understand.

    In a happier times one learned language first, to think correctly second and third, how to persuade. Grammar. Logic (we are stuck here). Ruthless Rhetoric is what we need now.

    Make postmodernism great again.

  7. Jay
    Posted January 28, 2019 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps, even if you think the postmodern and critical theory assault on truth is not a good thing in general, and its current application inappropriate for a healthy society, it still can be a useful weapon for our purposes. Fighting fire with fire, as it were.

  8. Aidan Moore
    Posted January 28, 2019 at 3:19 pm | Permalink

    I have been reading a good deal of postmodern theory myself, lately. I’ve found it useful just for trying to understand the world we live in now. The postmodern condition is so essential, more than ever before: the death of historical metanarratives (including more recently the American spread of liberal democracy to the four corners of the globe), the confusion of signs and signifiers creating a world of simulacra (the way people reenact/recreate what they see on TV or in music and movies, despite these things being fictional marketing images themselves). Being able to understand what is now occurring in greater depth than “people are dumb” and “everything’s fucked”is crucial.

  9. Gnome Chompsy
    Posted January 28, 2019 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    All of the ‘Critical Theory is great’ and ‘this is a great article’ posters may try to think a little more.

    Having read all of the cited authors, those ideas are completely invalid.

    I must compliment our host on recent publication of a review on Unz.com.

    That is funny.

    I would also recommend to anyone the Futurist Manifesto of Theatre (and some of the plays, like Luce, several others, too). Crazy and wonderful.     

    • Eumaios
      Posted January 28, 2019 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

      I would ask you, sir, to “think a little more” about the differences between rhetoric and logic as well as between ends and means.

      My article’s objective is explain why a particular METHOD may prove beneficial toward wresting rhetorical power from the left in the Western academy. I base my argument on the obvious successes the left has achieved in this regard.

      Could you please elaborate on where my article fails to achieve its objective?

      • Gnome Chompsky
        Posted February 6, 2019 at 11:02 am | Permalink

        Thanks for the reasoned reply. My somewhat rambling replies to it, valid but too scattered.

        i. Deconstucting deconstruction is difficult except on an ad hominen level, for example, as I was saying, by attacking Foucault”s love of homosexual toilet sex. It is easy to attack his brain-farts on higher levels, too, and ‘brain-fart” is an apt characterisation of the total output from Frankfurt School, to Foucault, and whichever moron becomes the next fashion.

        ii. It is impossible, by definition, to deconstruct deconstructionism. The only tactics are to use Futurist-Situtationist and similar techniques to make their foolish and false nature clear, they are easily enraged, and to enrage them is a good goal.

        Most of the active will become even worse (muh self-righteous), but vague supporters will become fewer.

        The other, and more important, is to clarify that in many cases, what they wish to destroy has a deep value.

        I swear, on reading of the modern western left, it seems they would even despise western music.

        Closing on a light note, one supermarket I shop at on average weekly, lately has the overture of Rossini’s ‘La Gazza Ladra’ (sp.?) on heavy rotation, since it means ‘The thieving magpie’, the irony is enjoyable, not that it makes me want to steal things, it just makes me laugh.

  10. Viv
    Posted January 28, 2019 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    You know whose work needs to be deconstructed? Judith Butler’s. The woman who convinced the world that gender is “performative” seems to be embracing her Jewishness more intensely with each passing year when it comes to her critique of Israel. I have always wanted to ask her why her Jewishness isn’t “performative” like gender is. I think we need to deconstruct Jewishness, frankly.

    • Gnome Chompsky
      Posted February 3, 2019 at 8:34 am | Permalink

      ‘Performative’ indeed has gained a place in the lexicon of stupid leftists, and I note that I read many conplaints about it.

      In terms of language, though, it is not what they would like it to be. It is a useful description of a certain part of language.

      ‘I now pronounce you man and wife.’ and ‘You are guilty as charged.’ or ‘I find you innocent on all charges.’ are all very good examples of performative language, the first being the best, because it impiies a state-change, without requiring force.

      ‘Arise,, sir …’ is in the same territory, that is, of performative language.

  11. Gnome Chompsy
    Posted January 28, 2019 at 8:54 am | Permalink

    Rhetorical brilliance? None of the names you list displayed any, and I have read examples in each case.

    Foucault died over a toilet seat, infested by SIDS (since he was French, will use their acronym), after the last bout of his favourite activity. I will not spell it out.

    Lacan, what a moron, but probably the writer most responsible for re-importing the stupidity of Freud (totally rejected by science and medicine, except in his little cult of psychoanalysis, the only believers are wealthy Jews and a few of their goy associates) into political theory.

    It is such rubbish.

    By coincidence, I was posting a comment on one movement of what is seen as the left from which one may gain some useful ideas. It is not Foucault, Lacan, Christeva (sp.?, I will admit I never read any of her crap, beyond a sentence or two), Baudrillard, etc.

    I would suppose that my earlier post will be passed later.

    • Paul
      Posted January 28, 2019 at 10:02 am | Permalink

      Scruton often wrote of Foucault with strange amount of warmth, you get this impression that he was an admirer of his at some point. If you’ve read that New Left book of his, you’ll probably remember how he treated Foucault with considerably more care than any other thinker covered in that book.

    • Eumaios
      Posted January 28, 2019 at 11:30 am | Permalink

      Thank you for your comment. I have some counter points.

      Regarding Foucault and his death by Aids, not only does this not discredit his ideas, it strengthens their moral currency. In the leftist world of hyper-reality, narratives, and power, moral currency is synonymous with truth. What to you was an ignominious death on a toilet seat is viewed around the West, the same West that Foucault’s ideas helped shape, as proof that Foucault was a “pioneer” in bringing the suffering of LGBT people to the forefront. With such acute knowledge of the indignities suffered by the marginalized, how could his critique of power structures not be sound?

      With respect to Freud, I think what you are forgetting is that Freud’s “little cult of psychoanalysis” was not ‘rejected by science’ but rather WAS science. “Science” is not what outsiders, or even individual insiders, think it is. Science was, and remains, “little cults” that agree on certain premises and form either into research schools or disciplines. These schools then train adherents in language built on those premises, who espouse what they learn as “settled science”. Such premises may or may not map onto objective reality, and their requirement for doing so depends on the domain of inquiry.

      That Freudians were trained, and had an impact on psychology, is a testament to Freud’s success in the domain of science.

      Finally, with respect to your assertion that “none of the names” that I list display rhetorical brilliance, I would caution against mistaking rhetoric for analytical consistency or genuine explanatory power. Bruno Latour has been recognized several times as the most cited academic in the humanities. Rhetorical success is an empirical question and with that kind of profile it is clear, based on the evidence, that Latour had great rhetorical success. How you or I judge the analytic quality of his reasoning is entirely irrelevant.

      I have already covered Foucault. Regarding the critical theorists, their ideas created the intellectual space for not one, but multiple disciplines. Media Studies (I should have added Jurgen Habermas to my list), Critical Race Theory and Gender Studies ALL exist because of the intellectual currency of the names I mentioned in my article. Again, rhetoric is the skill of convincing as many people as possible of something. I maintain that, in this domain of discourse, these men were brilliant.

      • Gnome Chompsky
        Posted January 31, 2019 at 9:43 am | Permalink

        Freud was by no means working in the domain of science.

        To start with, the medical method, symptom, syndrome, diagnosis, treatment, is completely different from the scientific method, hypothesis, test, correction from test results to refine the hypothesis, etc., until a result that reflects observed reality is obtained.

        Freud didn’t even use the medical method. He just projected his fantasies on his poor patients and wrote feverish domineering prose.

        It is no accident that the only survivors of his bullshit are a tiny number of Freudian psychoanalysts mainly catering to wealthy Jews, and some deconstructionist/post-modern leftists who use bits of his crap in their own crap.

        Seriously, give me an example of how deconstruction or Freudianism can be useful as counter-narratives?

        I think the only useful examples are from early modernist art movements (early Italian Futurism in particular), Situationist theory, some of the hippy and anti-hippy actions in the late 1960s U.S.A., I can think of a few others, but most of those specific to the cold war.

        One may also think of the Vietnamese resistance after the U.S.A. got rid of Diem. Of course, it is also an old example.

  12. Quintilian
    Posted January 28, 2019 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    Thank you very much for a brilliant article. You are really on to something here. Back at the height of the “Theory Wars,” I attended a conference at which a paper was given that was a deconstructivist reading of Derrida’s oeuvre, in which Derrida was “proven” to have been, in reality, a proponent of the white bourgeois patriarchy. The respondent, a prominent Yale postmodernist, replied that Derrida’s works, as founding documents of deconstruction, are exempt from being deconstructed. The academic establishment will always find some way to justify their nonsense, but to persons with an intact sense of logic the hypocrisy of postmodernist thought is obvious. Using deconstruction to deconstruct the leftists is a wonderful approach and is a lot of fun. Nothing beats hoisting the Left on its own petard.

    • Paul
      Posted January 28, 2019 at 9:54 am | Permalink

      Heh, Matt Johnson mentioned, more than once, how in his student days he wrote a paper in which he deconstructed one of Foucault’s works. His professor was less than amused. Turns out that some things are off limits even for deconstruction.

      • Eumaios
        Posted January 28, 2019 at 11:04 am | Permalink

        Thank you for your comment.

        The purpose of what I propose is not to achieve a single “gotcha” moment in a single paper read by a single professor, but rather to organize sustained psychological warfare. The defeatism of your anecdote makes it appear as though you expected that when a perfect argument was presented showing that critical theory and postmodernism are hopelessly inconsistent, the revelation would spread like wildfire and the schools would just crumble from within. That is not how rhetoric works.

        I worry that you are conflating analytical consistency with rhetorical effectiveness; as though your rhetorical success is contingent on whether the left makes it “off limits” for you to do things like deconstruct deconstruction. As though you should expect leftist professors to be consistent in judging different arguments. This is not a mistake that the first innovators of “deconstruction” made.

        The left does not deal in your “racist” “Eurocentric” and “heteronormative” imperatives for logical consistency, as YOU define them, so you can stop wasting energy on that. So, what remains available to you? Plausible moral outrage. If professor Y does not “allow” you to deconstruct deconstruction, this is not a case of ‘unfairness’, it is A MORAL OUTRAGE! Posters must be circulated about how this professor SUPPORTS THE DESTRUCTION OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES! After all, if he will not accept a critique of deconstruction that accuses it of applying a particular set of values, from a particular people to autistically destroy ethnic groups by ignoring any concept of their implicit meaning, HE IS SUPPORTING GENOCIDE AGAINST THE TIWI PEOPLE! Public demands must be made for him to justify his oikophobic violence, and explain why he believes himself to have the authority to dictate to indigenous peoples whether or not their ethnic categories have sufficient value to justify their existence.

        Once he is forced to recognize that he cannot do any such thing and that he supports the right of indigenous peoples to maintain their ethnic integrity, you must slam him on his WHITE SUPREMACY! You must demand that he justify the distinction he draws between ‘white’ people and ‘the other’. After all, this distinction will be implicit in the double standard he will invariably draw between indigenous people who he permits to preserve their ethnic integrity, and white people who to whom he grants no such right. WHAT GIVES HIM THE RIGHT to draw categorical distinctions between different kinds of people like this!? It could only speak to an objective and essentialist view of humans, the same kind of belief that led to COLONIAL OPPRESSION!

        This is what I mean when I say deconstructing the deconstructors.

    • Eumaios
      Posted January 28, 2019 at 11:42 am | Permalink

      Thank you for your compliment! I appreciate that you took the time to read the article. Indeed you are correct that the left will reject the deconstruction of their sacred lenses. However, their rejection must become a moral indictment, which is only possible relative to another plausible structure of morality. One that the right controls. If that can be articulated, all that remains is sustained rhetorical warfare. I am glad that you see that to not be just a single event, but a constant barrage.

  13. Posted January 28, 2019 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    A simple comment, some of the writing and progaganda tactics of the
    Situationists are well worth studying.

    Of course, Internet ‘memes’ are much the same as their idea of detournement. In the few articles and graphics from me that were popular, always from a combo. of Futurist and Situationist ideals, but, really, just how my heart works.

    No doubt most were but for me, I just made disruptive graphics, posters, and the occasional fake event (to assemble a large group, two to three hundred, of Trotskies at a fake event was a great joy), laughing later until I could not stand, such actions and the results can be very enjoyable.

    Of course, the Trot’s reaction was self-righteous rage, but they waited twenty minutes before working it out, by the time one of the Trotskies walked to the podium to denounce the fake lecture with the absent lecturer (theme on the posters: Kill all neo-Nazis: Visiting European activists show how!).

    Even better, I used the name of a Trotsky party and an image of Stalin in combination on the posters.

    Of course, to do such actions now, I guess care of positions of security cams may be needed, but it can be a great tactic to make fools of the fools. Not that it will bring them closer to undestanding what morons they are, perhaps a few will awake, if not, to trip them up IRL is a great thing in itself.

    The well-constructed prank (I did many others, too) still has much power. More a means of ridicule than a way of changing minds, at least of the victims, but people on their social periphery must notice what bufoons the pratfallen are.

  14. Niko
    Posted January 28, 2019 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    Critical Theory is brilliant in a way; Dldevious. It allows you to destroy theories you disagree with- for whatever reason- but without making many claims yourself, so it becomes difficult to make counter-arguments.

    If you get into arguments regarding Marxist theory with a “critical theorist,” you’ll find they purposefully and explicitly have no vision for what a Marxist society will look like. They can only tell you what it is not and they even have arguments for why this is the true Marxist position; Marx once wrote, in an introduction to Capital, that he despised the “cooks who wrote the recipes” for the future communist society- or something similar to that. It must be left to the workers to decide during the process of the revolution.

    They don’t have to take any responsibility for bolshevism, or answer any arguments about why previous attempts at communism don’t work. They always have an explanation for why it wasn’t real communism because it inevitably includes something it shouldn’t have– like the existence of money, or the state, or foreign trade, or labor-time accounting. It’s a very clever system and often debates break down into the meaning of words or the exegesis of Captial, or a manuscript of Marx.

    • Gnome Chompsky
      Posted February 3, 2019 at 8:50 am | Permalink

      ‘Critical theory’ never was, and never will be, of any value.

      Except as (((theIr))) force of destruction.

      I would love it if Eumaios would give one example of where his or her half-witted meanderings have had any success.

      I see none.

    • Gnome Chompsky
      Posted February 4, 2019 at 7:39 am | Permalink

      In my small experience in western lands, fans of ‘critical theory’, at least the lesbian feminists and their scavenger puppy dog-men, don’t really like Marx now.

      They sure don’t read any of his works (I have, and, if nothing else, his wilfull ignorance on the central role of Juifs in the rise of universal usury is all too clear, he says nothing of it, while having a fine eye for other things). So, his writing is all, to that extent, a lie.

      By the way, I like to read old writing. Tonight, reading A Rogue’s Life by Wilkie Collins, never heard of him before, it is even quotable on the JQ. A slight novel, but interesting.

      I wonder to what extent (((they))) were running the coin-clipping (sure, I am logical, must have been minor), but more importantly, the silver and gold values, silver was more highly valued in Japan, many mainly Jewish merchants came here to exploit the differential post-Perry, until the 1880s or very early 90s, when the new govt. worked out what had been happening, and stopped it.

      That it happened is clear, as is that the paper records are gone (I am not certain of that, some likely remain, but secret).

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
 
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
 
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    The World in Flames

    Venus and Her Thugs

    Cynosura

    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics

    Rising

    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Reuben

    The Node

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance