I wasn’t saying it was a joke as a defense. I was saying it was a joke because it was intended to be funny. I do actually believe everything I said in the joke though. I didn’t want to give you the impression that I wasn’t being serious and was trying to pass it off like I was just saying what I did to be an asshole. No, I do actually believe it. I just have an enjoyment for language and saying things in a funny way.
Why does it bother me so much that a fairly well respected “intellectual” seriously, emphatically defended the moral value of sexual child predation on the grounds that all evil, criminality, and madness was an unjustifiable imposition of the Logos on human ‘nature’, with the entire discourse of the logos (Western morality, which tells us things like fucking children isn’t cool) being, to his mind, intellectually bankrupt… why does that bother me? Is that seriously your question to me? The philosophy in which it is possible to seriously defend having sex with children as not morally evil is a philosophy that can produce all other kinds of garbage, do you not realize that? In fact, it is a philosophy that can produce NOTHING BUT garbage.
YA KNOW WHAT, I DON’T KNOW. Why does that bother me? Because it’s the founding motive for the entire Leftist mass-psychosis we’re now living through? Because it’s an intellectual rape of our entire culture inheritance from Greece and the concept of morality itself? Because it’s a defense of fucking kids?
It doesn’t bother you?
Just say it, explicitly then. I don’t need to articulate why that might bother me, besides I already did.
Unfortunately, telling rape victims to ‘get over it’ like you just did, with regard to the woman I mentioned, is not a solution I can find much in. I’d prefer defending the discourse of the Logos those like Foucault tried and continue to try their hardest to decompose. It’s decay is of great consequence.
" K: and how does rejecting thinkers like Foucault and intellectuals, based on ethical
considerations lead us to “enrich consciousness?”"
Well rejecting thinkers like Foucault is only the first step, the second is accepting thinkers like me. I wrote 12 books ya know, didn’t use the word faggot in a single one of them.
"Romantic beliefs… nothing in your post’s suggest any rational thought
or engagement with reason… it is hatred and anger and disgust… how is that
being rational? no, you have reacted to Foucault on a strictly emotional basis…
how does that lead us to an “enrich consciousness?”
No. Just stop right there. I gave you a perfectly rational rationale. His entire basis is deconstructing the conceptual distinction of reason and madness (through the use of a tool called the materialist dialectic of history, which Marx first developed by inverting the Hegelian propaedeutic: I go over that in the three self-excerpts at the end of this post; suffice to say that all Leftists, in one way or another, use this same inverted dialectic to level the field of discourse and make actual dialogue impossible, just as critical race theorists use it to transform the idea of racism into something so nebulous it can be applied to everyone and everything) to the point that neither mean anything anymore and have become entirely ambiguous, and then he formulates the argument that every possible law or moral evaluation amounts to an unjustifiable imposition of logos and reason on human nature. He rejects the idea that there can be any real social function in a law like don’t fuck kids because of how he’s framed this polarity between what he calls madness and reason, and it’s a polarity that no longer makes any sense. It’s like how modern Leftists define racism in such a nebulous way that it allows them to call everyone racist for whatever reason they want, that is what deconstructionism, is. It’s not my problem if you can’t fucking get it, but don’t tell me I didn’t, immediately after leaving my jokes, provide an objective statement about it. This shit is pissing me off, fuck off. Of course, if you accept Foucault’s deconstruction of ‘reason’ as a concept, you can just tell me that anything I possibly say is an irrational imposition of logos on discourse, reducing all dialogue to a mindless game of power.
^ Foucault inherited this from Marx, who did it first. His concept of the species-essence was a deconstruction of the modes of capitalist relation which allowed him to formulate a specious argument in which all division of labor, like that exampled by industrial society, was an arbitrary and therefor unjustifiable imposition of power. I elaborate this at great length in my own books. So here ya’ go dipshit, you want to deal with something lacking in jokes and my more conversational antipathy:
" Marx believed that all men, including all races and genders, contain within themselves a shared, common species-essence. In other words,
human nature is already formed and perfected, but it is forced to express itself in a limited form, with these limited forms tied to specific periods
in our history. This limitation takes the ultimate form of what we understand to be subjugation, slavery,- that is, the inequality that manifests
itself, by purely causal derivation, within the social relations,- within man’s relationship to man. All individuality is thus simply the unconscious
delusion whereby man proclaims his limitation as his individuality,- something Marx calls ‘false-consciousness’. For, if we all share a common
essence that cannot fully express itself materially, then all individuality is a delusion and simply one man proclaiming his limitation as his true
self because he happens to be, presumably, on a privileged side of the social relations at that point in history. The limitation, more precisely, owes
itself to the unstable dialectic of material history,- a dialectic between the modes of production and the social relations of production. Where
Hegel believed the dialectical instability was inherent in Being itself, so that Temporality extracts the latent imperfection of Being as Non-Being,
(thesis-antithesis) and then converts the absence/negative (What Hegel calls negation-of-the-negation) of that Non-being into a presence or a
metaphysical positivity called Becoming, (the synthesis) with the whole process repeating ad infinitum by extracting the new imperfection within
Becoming, etc. etc. leading toward a Totalization of Absolute Spirit, Marx inverts this to say that history, through stabilizing the social relations
and modes, is leading to an ultimate state of equality and freedom- a state of existence in which the species-essence, contained perfectly in all
men, is finally able to express itself without limitation, such that no inequalities (social hierarchies) will appear between men anymore, since all
men will be expressing the exact same essence by the exact same modality. I of course “believe” that individuality is not merely man’s false
affirmation of his distorted limitation as a true self,- of the limited expression of the species-essence within him as his authentic consciousness;
instead, I believe in a genuine creative force by which novel individualities are developed, through processes I defined like mimesis and the
exchange-functions. At any rate, this idea of all individuality being a lie,- of all identity/individuality being simply a limitation of the common
species-essence, which induces those in a favorable position, like slave-masters, to proclaim that limitation as their authentic self, such that all
social hierarchies must be rebuked as similarly grounded in mere distortions of the species-essence,-- at any rate, this is where all forms of
Leftism come from. Leftism is a deconstructive effort to erode these forms of individuality and hierarchy because Leftists believe,- even if they
are not aware themselves of the deep-theory behind it, that is, even if they never read Marx and Hegel,- (indeed 99 out of 100 self-affirming
Leftists not only didn’t read them, they can’t read them) that all forms of individuality are delusional, that individuality itself is a lie and finally,
by obvious implication, that all social hierarchies formalizing differences between individuals must be evil, that is, subjugating and tyrannical.
From National Socialism to Democratic Socialism: this is what Leftism actually “is”. In all its myriad forms, this is the commonality; if you
believe this, no matter what else you add on top of it, you’re a Leftist. This is why it seems like everything is an expression of racism, bigotry,
homophobia, etc. to them: because everything precisely is that, insofar as everything is precisely an expression of the limitation of the human
species-essence induced by dialectical instabilities between the social relations of production and the instrumental modes of production. Because
all individuality is delusional and exists as merely an expression of species-essence in its limitation, concepts like individual rights pre-existing
government, 1 meritocracy, private property, or free-speech, etc.- all that amounts to institutional structures meant to reinforce a hierarchy
favoring white people at the level of the social relations of production, because white people happened to be in power at the time the Declaration
and Constitution were conceived and written, as well as during the proper emergence of the capitalist system, which dominates the
world-economy up to this point."
[i]" … In Marx-Engels, we have the concept of the ‘Social Relations of Production’, which we might read as a more limited conception than that of the
‘normativized individualities’ discussed here, along with their ‘evaluative constraints’, as derived out of the process of mimesis. Similarly, finding
a more limited conception of these restraints, we have a corresponding notion in the ‘Modes of Production’ as defined by the ‘Social Relations of
Production’, whereby surplus-capital is instrumentally distributed in accordance to what Marx calls ‘the law of historical progression’, given the
fact that social relations and the modes of production introduce their own dialectical instability and therefor a materialist force driving a
stabilizing process (the dialectical-materialist reading of History) toward some future. Thus, in Marx, different ‘stages’ of history are simply
different organizations of the distributed surplus-wealth,- organizations of capital formed in accordance with the modes of production which
existed at the time, entirely divorced from any sempiternal metaphysical foundation sub species aeternitatis and determined solely by the ‘social
relations’ under-girding their instrumental realization as human techne- modes that, in turn, modulated man’s expression of his own
species-essence, thereby defining- through limitation, these very social relations. The stabilization of this dialectic, in Marx’s greater system,
drives history toward,- where Hegel would say the Absolute Spirit,- what Marx would call ‘freedom’,- that is, a state of being in which the
dialectic has been perfectly stabilized and man is emancipated from all the tyranny of man, such that the State ceases to exist as we know it,
along with its economic foundations, whereby a new harmony is achieved and the perfection of the species-essence is brought into total
conformation with the social relations, and the social relations in turn with it. Because Marx believes that the species-essence is contained and
perfected, if latently, in all men, the formation of subjectivies through somato-mimetic transfer between individuals (and later, the
exchange-functions) is not accounted for, and, in its place, we have the total brunt of the argument placed upon the limited forms through which
man, as essentially already perfected or ‘formed’, is able to express this perfection,- (a perfection roughly corresponding, if in an inverted form,
to Hegel’s totality) namely in his relationship with other men; a relationship expressed, from out of a state of nature, in an accordingly marred
and utterly limited form,- a form stained by thousands of years of pre-historical subjugation and tyranny concluded in the production of capital,
and tendentially disposed toward greater freedom, progress, equality, etc. insofar as ‘the law of history’ is obeyed,- which we have of course no
option but to do, given the fact that this law is proclaimed a material science by Marx, and a certainty as well-established as any other science.
In so many words, ‘individuality’, ‘identity’, ‘subjectivity’ and so on, constitute merely a limitation of a common essence latently perfected in all
men, for which the social relations and the modes of production pose a dialectical instability visible in our history, in the false-consciousness by
whose unconscious imposition man is led to proclaim this limitation as his delusional ‘individuality’, (to proclaim his slavery as his freedom) and
the oppressive hierarchies by which this ‘essence’ is prevented from completely expressing itself without distortion."
" … Without a way to selectively produce from the available cultural materials a distinct form or ethos, (neglecting of course those
selective mechanisms operated by artificial intelligence, which of course only more thoroughly neutralize the dialogue between the individual and
group) no tribes can emerge around the codification of such distinct forms in the gestural language typifying a group-identity, so that the
population flattens out into a heterogeneous assemblage,- that is, a kind of entropic maxima beyond whose ontological black-hole we are not
prepared to venture any tentative speculation,- a leveling of the individual echoing what Marx had called the ‘species-essence’, that being a
dialectical totalization of human nature with its own underlying material forces, given his premise that every man possesses intrinsically the
entire nature of humanity, and that all men are therefor equally capable of playing the fisherman, of being a poet, a scientist, a composer, a
farmer, etc. so that the specialization of labor induced by capitalism (the secondary-process, as we would prefer to call it) causes an alienation
from that internal totality,- from the species essence,- with Marx further elaborating that this sense of alienation is what, under the delusion of
capitalism, we call our “individuality”, which he reads as a mere symptom of a certain pathological delusion, or again using his own language, a
‘false-consciousness’. The apparent contradiction in the bulk of critical theory, with the individual deconstructively excised from the
primary-process and the subject thus solely elevated to the status of Truth, alongside the conclusion that the individual is programmatically
derived by the secondary through a kind of specialization tacitly grounded in the very marginalization, class-structure, gender disparity, socially
constructed roles, and racism that critical-theory finds its highest task in freeing us from, is not merely an apparent contradiction- it is in fact quite
integral to the world-view in question,- that is, a hard leftism which best serves those who have co-opted and transformed it into a mere
ideological vessel for the secreted transmission of certain economic and political goals, like the mass exportation of labor to foreign nations
passed off as a moral victory and couched upon the ideal of a freer and more inclusive world, or less emphatically said, on open boarders and the
kind of pan-hemispheric markets so beneficial to those states currently enjoying the later stages of tertiary-capitalism, or more properly,- to those
corporations in control of such states. In so many words, this subversion of mimesis is ultimately responsible for the dissolution of the political
into the subpolitical, of morality into bioethics, as well as for the fragmentation of the human subject into unthinking individualism, hedonic
excess, materiality, consumerism, tribalist identity-politics, etc. Liberal-secular humanism, as Dugin explains, designates simply this sub-political
reality of modern politics, insofar as the basic interests of liberal humanism,- or more generally, the most conspicuous subject matter of our
political discourse on both the Left and the Right,- consists in things like the legislation of marijuana, the legality of gay marriage, etc. none of
which are even political subjects in the true sense, but simply the matter of bottom up, state-level legislatures already established theoretically by
the federalists a few hundred years ago and of course injuncted upon or ignored by federal over-reach and those executive agencies spirited along
by corporatocratic neocons and neolibs in the pursuit of their globalist program."[/i]
As Marx’s use of this materialist dialectic deconstructed and rendered illegible all legitimate social hierarchy and division of labor, so Foucault’s renders unreadable all legitimate distinction between immoral and moral acts, even on obvious issues like child predation being evil, just as the feminist use of the materialist dialectic between male-female relations reduces all gender discourse to an omnipresent patriarchy within which it is not possible to say anything at all without being branded a defender of the patriarchy. Do you not see what this “philosophy” has done? It has turned all discourse into a game of power and made philosophy impossible, made moral values impossible to delimit, even on issues we all instinctively know are wrong.
So as Marx applied this inverted dialectic to master-slave distinction, so Foucault to madness-reason, so critical gender theorists to man-woman, etc.-- all to the same end; to the end of making the discourse of the Logos unreadable, thereby reducing all dialogue to a game of power and making it impossible to defend any laws or moral values as anything more than arbitrary impositions of power, even moral values as obvious as ‘sex with kids is wrong’.
^ You wanted some rational arguments instead of jokes, there ya’ go. Deal with that homie. I’ve got about 14,000 pages of it now if you can manage the three paragraphs.
I don’t have any more time than this, to explain to you and everyone else why… It pisses me off when people defend child abuse as morally OK. Fuck this.