Wednesday, July 29, 2020


"For instance, if a novice asks 'What is the Idea?', in the hope of receiving a satisfactory answer, the dilemma of the dialectician will then be either to give an answer in one single proposition, deforming more than informing, in the following terms : 'The Idea is a twofold movement of subjectivation and objectivation' ; or to repeat the whole Logic, the latter playing the part of the required definition. At the beginning, then, the novice cannot obtain satisfaction for the 'short way' is too vague, and the 'long way' too complex." Problems of the Hegelian Dialectic, Menahem Rosen pg.151

This comes from a text that purports to critique dialectic, but this criticism is so pathetic. The objection amounts to the fact that a dialectical answer insults, and confuses, the natural disposition, which seeks to primitively navigate reality in terms of static images. But the dialectician does not merely invent his answer for the sake of sophistication! His answer is dictated by the nature of the object, by the dynamic process of reality itself!

The only one attempting to dictate reality, in this case, is the critic. Not content with nature's dynamic process, the critic demands regression to a method that is more palatable to the natural disposition. (Never mind whether or not, this more comfortable way of approaching the diversity of objects, actually distorts the essence of objects). That is not the concern of the critic. The concern of the critic is the psychological satisfaction of the inquiring novice.

Distortion of reality is always a danger with psychological subjectivity. This is as true for the novice as it is for the seasoned thinker. 



"If dialectic intends to be a science in any sense whatsoever, it has to reject that peculiar subjectivity constituted by pure poetic language, despite its attractive richness and depth. For the thinker cannot confine himself to the spontaneous but non critical, creative intuition, however interesting it may be. Entirely turned towards the universal, in principle he has to talk a non poetic universal language, the sensual image being, at best, able to constitute a moment of the representation in its way up to the level of the concept-which is the specific element of philosophy." Ibid. pg.139

This is an interesting approach to the subject, but entirely dogmatic, and as it seems to me, upon critical examination, not thought out.

The demand that dialectic must speak in a universal symbolism of objectivity would seem to be a dogmatic fiction. Is there any language like this in the world? How can dialectic be judged on the basis of such a fantastic standard? Nevertheless, the question of language and dialectic is interesting, but one must be exceedingly careful at this point, lest they fall into analytical obscurity.

Dialectic, like every science, makes use of common symbolic structures. The only problem is when these structures fail in terms of explanation. The question should not be the certainty of the symbolic structure, but the concrete progress that can be made with it. According to this standard, dialectic is nothing short of revolutionary.


Tuesday, July 28, 2020


In striving against the premises of fascism it seems we are forced to curb the intellectual, precisely because the thematic emphasis of fascism is itself a regression. The fascist intellectual (which is a contradiction in terms) is constantly demanding a reply to shallow, authoritarian premises. An analysis and refutation of these premises forces us to depart from intelligence. This is ultimately a loss to society because it allows the stupidity of fascism to control the intellectual emphasis. (When it comes to fascism even the act of refutation amounts to a form of regression).

This is the tragedy of fascism: that its ontology is entirely made up of the primitive, but more importantly, that it never escapes this domain; ontologically fascism is the antithesis of intelligence. Any intelligence it claims to uphold, is itself a caricature of intelligence. What does this mean? It means the intelligence of fascism is merely a form of resignation to the categories of violence. It aims to solve the political and social problems of the world through brute force. It is precisely this commitment to violence, as resolution, that demarcates fascism as an ideology of unintelligence. Hence, a shallow man like Mussolini, "It is blood which moves the wheels of history." Speech in Parma (13 December 1914) quoted in Foreign Affairs, May 1924, p 234 

Such a belief manifests an unfalsifiable metaphysical commitment to violence as the ultimate agent of transformation. But such authoritarian platitudes are mistaken: history is a process of value emphasis! Progress is the result of human cooperation, whether directly or indirectly, it is the grand agent that moves the wheels of history. Further, the psychological preconditions necessary for qualitative cooperation, are the result of civil social structures through which individuals pass. 


There is truth to the notion of violence as a vehicle for control. But it would be an error to mistake control for social progress. The violence of fascism is a form of violence, which is entirely lacking intelligence! (This is perhaps one of the most devastating facts against the internal integrity of fascism). This is because, within the realm of its own assumptions, it means fascism cannot justify itself in the sphere of violence. In other words, among the ideologies of violence, it stands at the bottom of its own category. Fascism is the antithesis of intelligence!

To be a fascist one merely has to appeal to physical force as a solution for social contradictions.


The ontology of society will always be that of the problem of reconciling unity within diversity. This means society always comes in the form of a problem, society is itself a problem, it presents mankind with paradoxes needing resolution. Fascism attempts to solve these problems by reverting to barbarism: physical force against those who present opposition (resolving contradiction by the illusion of its elimination). The problem (among other things) is that this is not an actual solution to the tensions of society. Such a solution amounts to the negation of diversity, which is the most vital component of social quality. (It is well known among social psychologists that diversity outperforms individual talent). 

To eliminate tension through violence, will not solve the actuality of a contradiction that requires intelligent innovation and dialectical comprehension. In reality it merely produces the illusion of resolution. This is the utter weakness and incompetence of fascism; it is merely trying to convince itself of strength, to create the illusion of stability, intelligence and control. (Here the paradox is that it seeks to realize stability through impulse and chaos). It is totally lacking in higher abstract capacity.

To be a fascist one must begin with metaphysical assumptions about human nature. One must assume that all men are born corrupt. But this is false. Human beings are the historical product of their culture and environment. At the basis of all human action stands the reality of cultural values, moral beliefs that influence the movement of bodies.

It is interesting to note that the two dominant religions of the world (Christianity and Islam) both share fascism's superstitious metaphysical assumptions regarding the nature of man. (Here the premise of man's spiritual corruption leads to the conclusion that man must be controlled). Hence, brute force as justified by the ideology of laws that derive from the erroneous metaphysical claim that man is wicked. Hence, human nature is something to be tamed as opposed to nourished. Behold the tragic error that stands at the root of human destruction! This fatal presupposition poisons the well against mankind's flourishing, it serves the purpose of creating much unnecessary misery and confusion.


At the root of fascism there is fear. It can be said that fascism is an ideology entirely driven by fear. And yet the paradox is that fascism creates a greater hell for man than the one it projects as needing to be escaped. The danger of fascism is that it cannot see itself; it has no awareness of its contradiction or hypocrisy. This is because fascism is the antithesis of intelligence. Intelligence is that substance which continually searches out and becomes aware of its own defect (a kind of metacognition). This conscious discipline is totally lacking in fascism. In this sense fascism is pure impulse, it acts, it doesn't question. In order to consider human activity it must enter the domain of intelligence, instead of the primitive, animal impulse, which it is as a philosophy of pure reaction... reaction to the imaginary, hypothetical projection created from the insecurity of its own fear.

To be a fascist is to be an enemy of civility, which inevitably puts one directly against the possibility of society itself.


The strength of fascism is a false image produced by the application of propaganda. It's important to remember this when it comes to public fascists; their strength is not really strength, but a propagated image of strength. Should this image be put to the test of proving itself against substance, against real strength, it would immediately manifest itself as weakness. This is why intellectuals who care about the quality of culture, must have the courage to go after the public image of fascism.* Essentially, this is how fascism is defeated. It's a matter of showing that the strong man is really weak, which simply means confronting the public image with real intellectual strength. There is more: one must not only confront, but one must repeatedly emphasize the evasion, weakness and overall intellectual incompetence of the fascist. In other words, if a fascist runs away from debate, this evasion must be embellished and pointed out over and over again. The reason is because it exposes the lie of the public image, thereby disillusioning the public of the fascist's strength.



*It should be noted that one does not have to be on the front lines. Not everyone is intellectually prepared to engage fascism in public. And doing so without being prepared, on the basis of pure ego, can actually help to propagate the strength of the fascist's public image. For those who want to defeat fascism, but lack the capacity, the answer is simply to point out the fascist's evasions and failures within the domain of the public sphere. This reinforces and assists in the continued shattering of the public image. Simply point out, and reference over and over again, the actual facts that contradict the propagation of the public image. For example, if Ben Shapiro was challenged to a debate by Glenn Greenwald on the topic of Palestine and Israel, but he completely evaded the challenge, this evasion should be exploited, pointed out over and over again within the public sphere. Ben Shapiro should be repeatedly confronted with it in public.


Tuesday, July 7, 2020


"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it." Karl Marx

The critical theorists have merely analyzed the world, but the point is to interact with it, to use theory as a guide to help us intercede intelligently on behalf of the quality of life. The purpose of intellectual mediation is direct action toward the realization and attainment of quality.

Critical theorists have interpreted Marx in such a way that they merely shift the content of philosophy in the direction of society, but this procedure still remains within the morass of analysis. Critical theorists have not escaped theory, they have simply refined it. To them, "changing the world," means analyzing the world with a different emphasis.

To examine critical theory critically is to discover that it's a discipline void of praxis. The praxis of theory is taken to be the activity of theory itself. While theory does contain a necessary revolutionary element, in itself, without direct activity, it remains a mere abstraction. The power of theory doesn't actually begin until theory is realized in social action.   

When we speak of direct activity we are not talking about street protests, we are talking about polemics: direct intellectual engagement with the intelligentsia. We are talking about attacking error, about holding the values of the liberal line from a position of offense, a kind of preventative strike. This strike is not an act of physical violence but an act of intellectual force. If one has not murdered error, then one has not engaged in the direct activity of polemics.

To what end does the thinker think? Merely to produce aesthetic abstraction? Surely not, oppressed life doesn't have the luxury of suspending itself in a matrix of concepts, quite the contrary, life is at every moment confronted with resistance to its essence, assaulted by that which tries to negate its quality. If life wants to thrive it must learn how to fight, and in the intellectual realm, this inevitably drives one in the direction of polemics.

The theorist has begun to occupy the place of the priest in culture; pontificating against revolutionary action in the name of the authority of theory itself. In this regard much is explained by class structure. Most people try to justify the activity of their class, they lack the objectivity of a higher, social context. A good thinker must have the ability to transcend the valuations of culture, where this is lacking the thinker merely replicates what he is taught and what he observes. Uncritical replication is the opposite of thought. Without the capacity to think against culturation one's view of the world is made up of constructs as opposed to reality.  

One must analyze the world before they can change it, but one should not assume that analysis comprises revolutionary totality. While thought is, and must be the axiom of all qualitative revolution, thought must also make contact with the real world. Revolutionary consciousness is that which realizes, not only its oppression, but also the conditions that spawn and sustain its oppression. Revolutionary consciousness comes to comprehend the impulsive nature of human action as it concocts a senseless and disorganized existence of production that ultimately detracts from the well being of society, thus sabotaging the quality of the individual. Thought seeks to rectify this stupidity by mediating with intelligence. Conscious being uses thought to transform reality in the direction of quality. This is the highest purpose of philosophy; a philosophy liberated from the confusions of idealism. The question then becomes, how can we make use of the tool of thought to transcend the mindless impulse of human action? (This is what a proper philosophical question looks like.)

For those of us who are intellectuals, bonafide thinkers, this drives us into the realm of polemics. Polemics, when done vigorously, constitute an authentic form of praxis, a place where theory becomes concrete. It must be noted that it's not enough to engage in theory, theory without polemics would be akin to the knowledge of medicine without doctors to administer it. Though we can treat and cure many diseases, though we may have solved many medical problems, without doctors to bridge the gap between theory and practice, medical science would remain an abstraction, isolated to the pages of academic text books and journals.

If we truly want to transform the world, as intellectuals, then we must acquire the skill of polemics, and more importantly, we must actually practice polemics against the preachers of error and misinformation. There is no way around this conclusion. Truth demands its replication against the falsity which tries to claim the throne of its authority.

We have been specific about the content of revolutionary activity, expounding the concrete side of what it means to change the world. For intellectuals this means engaging in polemic activity. It means going after the purveyors of deception. It means criticism, debate and refutation, the power of argument, it also means attacking error. Polemics are not passive, they work best when they strike out in the offensive. We must not wait until propagandists have captured the world, and only then proceed to refute their error, because then it's too late. Revolutionary intellectuals must go after them the moment they make an appearance on the public stage. The best way to stop a cult is before it even begins. Once a cult obtains a collection of followers those followers are often irrationally committed unto the point of death.

Polemics is a discipline of foresight, it is also a method of reclamation. Polemics seek to defend and prevent the tragic destruction of the non-violent procedures of democratic communication. 

Critical theorists and philosophers have merely analyzed the world in different ways, thereby allowing it to be captured by those who sought to exploit it. By forsaking the practical side of things, critical theorists and philosophers have merely retreated from the world into abstract, idealistic realms, they have failed to make contact with reality, and thereby lost the world to those who sought to exploit it through the practical domain.

The point of thought is to guide action in the direction of intelligence for the purpose of quality. All life that deviates from this objective has deviated from the authority and clarity of itself within the context of the universe. In short, it has begun to act in the service of its own negation.