Deconstruction for The Androsphere


Now that I’ve briefly introduced postmodernism, I thought I’d go a bit deeper into Derrida’s method, if only because it’s constantly cited by people who seem to have never read his work. The details of deconstruction are laid out in a series of essays, which have been compiled in English as Writing and Difference. The entire book is available free on the internet here. What I am outlining here is Derrida’s most famous paper, entitled “Structure, Sign and Play in The Discourse of The Human Sciences.” This essay was originally penned in French, in the mid 1960s. It begins on page 351.

The work opens with a quote from Montaigne about hermeneutics, and that’s useful, because deconstruction can simultaneously claim to be a method or science of interpretation, and also the negation of the possibility of interpretation itself.


Derrida does two interesting things at the outset. In the first place, he immediately moves into an allusion to event ontology, which is meaningful. I first became familiar with event ontology by reading Alfred North Whitehead’s Process and Reality and Bertrand Russell’s Introduction to Logical Atomism. What philosophers and scientists mean by event ontology is the reduction of all metaphysical claims into temporal slices of reality. We don’t usually think of events as things, but at the basic level of the universe, there is a case to be made that events are the foundational atoms that construct everything we sense and experience.

The second interesting thing Derrida does at the outset is announce his attack on structuralists. By structuralists I mean guys like Claude Lévi-Strauss, and Michel Foucault. These were thinkers who were trying to get at the hidden meaning behind everyday reality, and as we’ll see in this essay, postmodernists hold that even if there is some hidden meaning behind our phenomenological filter, we are hopelessly incapable of divining it.

Derrida declares that there is no longer a central ontological repository through which human beings can interpret the world uniformly. What does this mean? As near as I can tell, he is looking back at a linguistic golden age, in which human beings learned a single word to describe a single state-of-affairs. If such a golden age existed, it doesn’t exist now. Sloterdijk’s recent work takes off on this quite well, and in some places he alludes to colonization as a factor. In a short period of time, Europeans started to be exposed to all sorts of strange, unimaginable objects: feathery Indian headdresses, digeridoos, Amazon parrots… The language couldn’t keep up, and people were confused not only about naming all these new things, but classifying them generally. Derrida doesn’t take the historical position Sloterdijk does, but he alludes to the loss of the concept of God as an ontological center, and in doing so, he’s touching on the same process. God was once the ultimate underwriter of all systems of interpretation, but God has quit that job, at this point. After God, the modernists abstracted away theology and fixed meaning with Cartesian ideas like objectivity and deductive logic. That passed away too. The signifiers and signifieds became, in that event, no longer fixed. Signifiers are free, to some extent, to point toward an infinitude of meanings.

The absence of fixed meaning allows for the analysis of a fault-line within the text. What Derrida wants to analyze, beginning on 357, is Lévi-Strauss’ work The Raw and The Cooked, which is one of the greatest works on structuralism.


The posit of a difference between nature and culture is, for Lévi-Strauss, evidence of a structural fault-line, and Derrida proceeds to analyze the incest taboo within that text to see exactly what the differentiation might be. “There is no scandal,” writes Derrida, “except within a system of concepts which accredits the difference between nature and culture. By commencing his work with the factum of the incest prohibition, Lévi-Strauss thus places himself at the point at which this difference, which has always been assumed to be self-evident, finds itself erased or questioned” (358).

With this example, Derrida sets up a methodology which will soon be generalized and used on all manner of discursive events –and not strictly texts– including sculpture, mathematical proofs, and

Finally, Derrida criticizes Lévi-Strauss as remaining “faithful to this double intention: to preserve as an instrument something whose truth-value he criticizes” (359). One might apply this to deconstructionism itself, which preserves the text as an instrument even as the deconstructionist attempts to prove it undefinable in the process.

An Introduction to Postmodernism

derridaIt is impossible for me to write about this topic without disclosing my own biases. My philosophical interests in school centered on the analytics, and when I studied history I delved pretty deeply into Marx and his ideological descendants. It’s thus fair to say that I have only a surface appreciation of postmodernism, inasmuch as it comes out of the continental tradition, which I’m really not qualified to talk about. Sadly enough, despite the fact that I recognize this lacuna, I’m probably the most qualified to talk about it in the manosphere. One reason that this is unfortunate is the fact that critics like Dalrock seem to be instinctively aware of the dangers of falling into the postmodern trap, without really knowing enough about it to effectively negate its appeal.

Beginning some five years ago, I began being accused of postmodernist tendencies myself. This is one example:

Screen Shot 2018-05-28 at 16.44.11

It is fair to say that I’m a fan of (many of) the Frankfurters: Marcuse, Adorno, Benjamin and the like. It is not accurate to posit the existence of “Frankfurter Deconstructionists,” because deconstructionism is a tool of postmodernism, and the Frankfurters are, to the last, the most vicious critics of postmodernism available. Frankfurters mock the notion of deconstruction, they don’t use it to prove their points. Derrida was not a member of the Frankfurt School. In fact, all his favorite ideas were cut to pieces for sport by a Franfurter named Jürgen Habermas. The fact that GBFM doesn’t know this is both funny and sad, but that sort of ignorance is not at all uncommon in the androsphere.

I take postmodernism as a reaction to enlightenment theses, generally. What does this mean? We start with Kant’s work on enlightenment: Was ist Aufklärung? This essay begins by describing enlightenment as “the emergence of the human being from his own self-imposed tutelage.” Historically, the individual has seen his standard-of-living rise, and he has thus seen a corresponding increase in the proportion of leisure time. What this has led to is an increase in real freedom: intellectual, political, academic and scientific, as history progressed. Enlightenment, for Kant, was at least partly a function of economic prosperity. The fear of starvation and exposure often kept people timid and pliable. Once enough surplus wealth began circulating, people became less insecure, which led to individuals being able to make more decisions for themselves.

Fast forward a bit, and we find that the results of enlightenment freedoms have led to some truly bizarre scientific theories. We can revisit Frege and look at the difference between sense and reference. We can then get technical and look at quantum field theory. In both cases, there seems to be a surface level of reality, mediated by our senses, which gives us a picture of objects in the everyday world. This surface level is deceptively difficult to reconcile with the deep structures that seem to make up what actually happens in reality. Bertrand Russell talked about this general notion in the first chapter of his Problems of Philosophy.

The difference between phenomenology and metaphysics has grown much more significant with the advent of enlightenment thinking. The postmodernist universalizes the difference, and generalizes the study of deep structure, to the detriment of everything else. Derrida’s famous line: “everything is text,” is an example of the sort of broad paintbrushing that postmodernists love to take to any edifice which has yet to be sufficiently tagged. By this token, the postmodernists have upended enlightenment thinking, and have used its own fruits in an attempt to negate or minimize its successes. Here is the primary postmodernist thesis, as I understand it:

There are two basic levels of reality.

The first level of reality is the phenomenological, corresponding to the data we get from our senses. This is an illusion.

The second level of reality is metaphysical, corresponding to things we will never be able to understand. The best we can hope for is to work out mathematically what happens in reality; but even then, the best we can do is predict isolated incidents. We really don’t know what is going on.

There is no single postmodernist answer to the postmetaphysical thesis they defend. Derrida attempts to formulate a philosophical method which is called deconstructionism. Vattimo (who would angrily decry his place in the postmodernist canon) sets up a competing method based on Gadamer’s hermeneutics.

Here is one of the more enticing and dangerous logical entailments of the postmodernist thesis:

At the surface level, we think our actions are rational, but at the deep level, they are not.

It’s important to disambiguate here, because lots of non-postmodernists will say similar things. Marcuse, for example, was a Frankfurter, and he made what seemed to be similar statements in Eros and Civilization and One-Dimensional Man. In fact, examining the difference between a post-Marxist like Marcuse, and a postmodernist like Derrida, can give us a clearer view of what postmodernism actually is. Marcuse’s argument hinged upon psychological and economic devices to lull us to sleep. Derrida’s argument is founded upon the idea that it is impossible to really understand what motivates us to do anything. For a post-Marxist, human beings are redeemable by their evacuation to a more authentic, non-ideological environment. For a postmodernist, all is for naught.

There are a number of important ethical questions that spring from an acceptance of the postmodernist thesis. For example, if we are not, and can never be, free, then we can never be responsible for our own virtues or our cruelties. Secondly, if the enlightenment ideal of objectivity is impossible, then it is also impossible for us to obtain any epistemic credence in things like justice, fairness or right. Postmodernists generally conclude that we have no epistemic confidence in anything, even in the Cartesian notion that we, ourselves, exist.

The appeal of postmodernism is obvious: It promises a reversion to infantile excuses for our bad behavior, and allows for the cultivation of an unexamined life. After all, if knowledge, decency and understanding is impossible, then we can’t be blamed for not trying.

The Disgusting Life of Rachel Dolezal…

Screen Shot 2018-05-26 at 13.41.15

Nkechi a/k/a Dolezal, first became a race huckster after being accepted to study at Howard University. Howard is a predominantly and historically black university, which has particularly high standards. (Imagine something on the order of Stanford or Cornell – only started and run by Black intellectuals.)

Dolezal, a totally unqualified White slut, was given an affirmative action scholarship, lavished with all sorts of help (unavailable to her more intelligent Black colleagues), and showered with free money for rent and books. Despite all these advantages, she failed, time and again, to achieve anything noteworthy. To repay this generosity, she filed a series of frivolous lawsuits against her alma mater. One of the things she accused the university of was “racial discrimination.” My understanding is that most of these were dismissed, and the one that eventually went to trial was easily won by Howard.

So, what’s an aspiring race huckster to do? She had a race-change operation… Not serious plastic surgery, the likes of which Michael Jackson accomplished. I mean something closer to getting out the shoe polish, Al Jolson style. She moved back to her home – Cascadia, where there are almost no actual Black people to compare, and became the head of the Spokane NAACP. In a series of embarrassing public interviews, it was established in mid 2015 that Dolezal was actually the White ho’ who had sued Howard, maintaining that the school had discriminated against her for being a White bitch.

A number of unconfirmed reports began to circulate all those years ago. It was alleged that in her classroom, at Eastern Washington University’s black studies department, she referred (at least once) to a student she disliked as “that nigger.” Another student came forward alleging that Dolezal had (at least once) gone on looney, shouting tirades in class, berating light-skinned black kids for their “light skin privilege.” (Fuck’n lol – I guess she wanted everyone else to join her in picking up the spray tan.) True or not, EWU dismissed her immediately.

Another story alleged that she would abuse her husband (an actual black dude) because she felt he “did not act black enough…” The caricature of blackness is much more important to this White cunt than, ya know, actually being an African-American. In any case, it is confirmed that she ran at least one man through the anti-male divorce courts, before settling on her career as a racial grievance hustler.

Fast forward to today, the bitch has book and movie deals, and has gone on extensive world speaking tours. Despite pulling in six-figures, she continued to milk America’s social welfare system.

Screen Shot 2018-05-26 at 13.42.18

Dolezal is truly a sad case of what’s wrong with this society. She is a complete embarrassment to her family, her people, her colleagues, and herself. Until we check these corrosive wimminz, we’ll surely have more of this sort of destruction.

Much more at: NYT

Clownworld News: 22 May 2018


Starting that magic countdown until Harry hit with frivolous criminal accusation of rape or sexual harassment.


Eagerly awaiting the new merit badges for fisting and anal sex.

BTW: For those who don’t believe this, you aren’t alone. I had to go get the source. It’s legit. It has also been policy for two years, so I’m not sure why it is only now getting airplay.

Screen Shot 2018-05-22 at 09.06.40

NAWALT and Other Scams


Someone calling himself Jeff Strand has recently been trolling Dalrock’s comment section. His schtick is old, though he is a bit better at it than most of those who have come before. The argument goes something like:

  1. There are divorced men on Dalrock.
  2. I married well, and I am not divorced.
  3. Therefore, the divorced men on Dalrock did not marry well.

Strand continues by insisting that had these idiot men merely done what he had done, they would be having no problems. When asked pointed questions, however, his testimony collapses. At one point, Strand breaks down and admits:

[My slut wife] was not a virgin [when I met her]. However, she was pretty sexually inexperienced. I met her right as she was turning 25, and I believe she lost her V card at around age 21…which is pretty darn good for today (or even 20 years ago) when most girls lose it in high school. It’s tough to make it to 25 still a virgin. Also, she never had a serious, long-term boyfriend before me…so it was nice for me not having to deal within the shadow of an ex-bf.


Point no. 1: Any man using the feminist term “V-card” is confirmed as a faggot.

Point no. 2: It doesn’t matter whether I’m right, in assuming that Mrs. Strand was turned out as a teenager, and had spent a full decade worshipping cock of many colors, before finally settling on this chump. It may be that I’m wrong, and that Strand is right in assuming that his whore only serviced a few dicks in adulthood, belonging to steady eddies and a couple of hookups when she was drunk and drugged. If you’re into fetishizing virginity, then who cares? The only salient point is that she failed this weird test.

In any case, Strand doesn’t deviate from his basic point. Wimminz choosing to betray their families is always the fault of the men involved. If the losers on Dalrock were as manly as Strand, then their wimminz would be nice and obedient, like the reformed slut Mrs. Strand supposedly is.

It is hardly surprising that one of the people Strand hates most is Scott, a qualified psychoanalyst, who did marry a single mom, and was quite open about raising her son. He has done a good job by anyone’s standards. Scott writes, about meeting his wife Mychael:

Still basically like that when I met Mychael, I have, through much trial and error reverted back to much of my former high school jock behaviors within the context of marriage as well as simply reading around here. And I am on much more stable ground in my marriage. I don’t pretend she is NAWALT. Or that either one of us are made up of some material that rest of you losers are. I move forward with knowledge I did not have before and I am basically happy with married life.


It is as though we must approach wimminz as we approach the Dao: He who claims to understand NAWALT does not understand NAWALT, but he who claims he can not understand NAWALT is approaching an understanding.

Scott claims his wife is not NAWALT because she is, in fact, NAWALT. Anyone who has read their posts, seen their photos, and interacted with them honestly will attest to this. Unlike Strand, Scott has given mountains of good advice to all the other men who took the “man up and marry a slut” advice to heart. It is possible to reform a ho’, because he has done it. Now, I don’t think it’s worth the time, effort and headache to do this; but, if you’re already deep in that hole, you might find it easier to follow Scott’s advice than to divorce your bitch wife, pay through the nose, and start all over in my lifestyle. Strand’s wife is not NAWALT because, in the first place, he has admitted that she was a skank-ho slut when he met her. In the second, and most importantly, she is not NAWALT because he claims she is NAWALT.

Ask yourself if an honest-to-god NAWALT would settle for being with a dope who spends all his life trolling internet comment sections that almost nobody reads.

Now ask yourself why Strand has so much traction, while Scott has next to none…

NAWALT is a ready-made scam, because so many men want it to be true. In that regard, it falls neatly into a wider set of scams, that start out with “nine out of ten doctors recommend…” rhetoric.

Men will believe the NAWALT scam for precisely similar reasons they will believe that buying a certain brand of toothpaste will cure their dental problems, and that buying a new sports car will cure their wimminz problems, and that fat girls make better wives, and that single moms make better lovers. Specifically, they believe these scams because they want to believe them. These scams contain artifacts that appeal to certain inborn, abstract, moods in the male primate: justice, fairness, right. Feminists like Strand peddle them to men on Dalrock, and the men on Dalrock lap them up, because it’s easier to believe that there are easy answers to their problems than to take advice from men like Scott, who will tell them the truth: namely, that you have to work hard and exercise discipline if you want a functional relationship.


The Wisdom of Robert Mugabe


I was bored today, so I took a half-hour and made some Robert Mugabe memes. Spread some of these around, if you think they’re poignant or amusing. Just don’t tell anyone where they came from.


Bad women? Bob hasn’t got the memo. There are no such things, just bad husbands, fathers and other rapists.


Whatever else you might say about the man, he enjoyed tweaking the tails of the feminists.


My brother, don’t kill yourself…