• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Decinstructing deconstruction

Gusy

Member
This has been circulating on X this past few days. Its from @brivael. I think everyone should read it.

"Today I deconstruct deconstruction.

Deconstruction is the most effective mental virus ever devised against a civilization. It was manufactured in France between 1966 and 1980 by three men: Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. It was exported to the United States, hybridized with American racial puritanism, and returned thirty years later under the name of wokism to paralyze the entire West. Here's how it works, and why it must be destroyed.

The thesis is simple. Every truth is nothing but a disguised power relation. Every sacred text, every law, every science, every norm, every hierarchy, every identity, every institution actually conceals a domination. To deconstruct is to reveal the power dynamic beneath the veneer of truth. It's to tear off the mask. It's to "unmask."

Formulated like that, it seems harmless. Even useful. Who doesn't like a bit of critical thinking? That's the trap. Deconstruction presents itself as a method. It is in reality an ontology. It doesn't just say "let's question norms"; it says "there is only power relations." The difference is civilizational.

A society that questions its norms remains standing. A society that believes its norms are nothing but domination collapses. Because it can no longer defend anything. No more borders, no more laws, no more science, no more language, no more history, no more biology, no more family. Everything becomes suspect. Everything becomes negotiable. Everything becomes "constructed therefore deconstructible."

That's the first reason it's a virus. It self-replicates. Once inoculated, it turns everything it touches into a target. Science is patriarchal, so let's deconstruct it. Language is colonial, so let's reinvent it. Meritocracy is racist, so let's abolish it. Sex is a construction, so let's choose it. There is no more bedrock. Everything is sand.

Second reason. The virus is non-falsifiable. If you defend a norm, it's because you're the oppressor. If you deny being an oppressor, that's proof of your unconscious privilege. If you cite facts, your facts are contaminated by the power that produced them. If you cite reason, reason itself is white, male, Western. There is no possible exit. The system is designed to make any objection inadmissible by definition.

That's exactly the structure of a cult. And that's exactly what has taken hold in universities, HR departments, media, administrations, and corporate boards for the past twenty years.

Third reason. The virus self-refutes but does not self-destruct. If every truth is power, then the sentence "every truth is power" is itself power, therefore worthless. Logically, deconstruction bites its own tail from the first sentence. But it doesn't care. Because it has never sought coherence. It seeks political effectiveness. And its political effectiveness is immense. It disarms its enemies and arms its militants. It paralyzes the defender and frees the attacker. It's a perfect asymmetric weapon.

Fourth reason. The virus produces diminished humans. An entire generation has learned to deconstruct and never learned to build. It knows how to suspect, never to admire. It sees power everywhere and beauty nowhere. It can produce a thousand pages on the oppressive nature of Shakespeare and zero lines worth reading in a hundred years. It has confused critical intelligence with critical posturing. It is sterile by construction. A mind fed on deconstruction is a mind that no longer knows how to build anything.

Fifth reason, the gravest. A civilization stands on three pillars. The belief that a truth is accessible to reason. The belief that a good can be distinguished from an evil. The belief that an inheritance deserves to be passed on. Deconstruction has methodically dynamited all three. Not out of malice. Out of intellectual play, fascination with suspicion, hatred of the bourgeoisie that nurtured its prophets. But the result is there. A civilization that no longer believes in its truth, nor in its good, nor in its inheritance does not defend itself. It apologizes while awaiting the end.

That's what we've done. That's what must be named.

The good news is that a mental virus only survives as long as we cede it authority over discourse. It dies the moment we stop playing its game. The moment we quietly reaffirm that there exists a truth, a beauty, a good, an inheritance. The moment we stop asking permission from the deconstructors to build. The moment we remake. The moment we pass on. The moment we create.

Builders have always had the last word over commentators. Always. Because in the end, what remains is what has been built, and nothing of what has been deconstructed.

So today I deconstruct deconstruction. And tomorrow I build."

Would love to read your thoughts.

* I f*cked the title. Can a mod help fixing it? "Deconstructing deconstruction"
 
Last edited:
Sorry but that was really stupid. Deconstruction isn't inherently woke, and it's from long before the current political climate. It can be used by people on both the left and the right. This is like saying that because a hammer can be used to murder people we should get rid of all hammers. In this case anyway, the problem isn't the tool, it's the way it's being used by certain people to obscure their poor reasoning.
 
Sorry but that was really stupid. Deconstruction isn't inherently woke, and it's from long before the current political climate. It can be used by people on both the left and the right. This is like saying that because a hammer can be used to murder people we should get rid of all hammers. In this case anyway, the problem isn't the tool, it's the way it's being used by certain people to obscure their poor reasoning.
That's an interesting take on it. I wouldn't discard the whole argument as stupid though. Thanks for the input.

* I f*cked the title. Can a mod help fixing it? "Deconstructing deconstruction"
 
Last edited:
imo the writer of Wicked, for instance, uses deconstruction about on this tier. Those books are retarded
EgnARpGU4AAvn4t.png
 
Last edited:
This has been circulating on X this past few days. Its from @brivael. I think everyone should read it.

"Today I deconstruct deconstruction.

Deconstruction is the most effective mental virus ever devised against a civilization. It was manufactured in France between 1966 and 1980 by three men: Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. It was exported to the United States, hybridized with American racial puritanism, and returned thirty years later under the name of wokism to paralyze the entire West. Here's how it works, and why it must be destroyed.

The thesis is simple. Every truth is nothing but a disguised power relation. Every sacred text, every law, every science, every norm, every hierarchy, every identity, every institution actually conceals a domination. To deconstruct is to reveal the power dynamic beneath the veneer of truth. It's to tear off the mask. It's to "unmask."

Formulated like that, it seems harmless. Even useful. Who doesn't like a bit of critical thinking? That's the trap. Deconstruction presents itself as a method. It is in reality an ontology. It doesn't just say "let's question norms"; it says "there is only power relations." The difference is civilizational.

A society that questions its norms remains standing. A society that believes its norms are nothing but domination collapses. Because it can no longer defend anything. No more borders, no more laws, no more science, no more language, no more history, no more biology, no more family. Everything becomes suspect. Everything becomes negotiable. Everything becomes "constructed therefore deconstructible."

That's the first reason it's a virus. It self-replicates. Once inoculated, it turns everything it touches into a target. Science is patriarchal, so let's deconstruct it. Language is colonial, so let's reinvent it. Meritocracy is racist, so let's abolish it. Sex is a construction, so let's choose it. There is no more bedrock. Everything is sand.

Second reason. The virus is non-falsifiable. If you defend a norm, it's because you're the oppressor. If you deny being an oppressor, that's proof of your unconscious privilege. If you cite facts, your facts are contaminated by the power that produced them. If you cite reason, reason itself is white, male, Western. There is no possible exit. The system is designed to make any objection inadmissible by definition.

That's exactly the structure of a cult. And that's exactly what has taken hold in universities, HR departments, media, administrations, and corporate boards for the past twenty years.

Third reason. The virus self-refutes but does not self-destruct. If every truth is power, then the sentence "every truth is power" is itself power, therefore worthless. Logically, deconstruction bites its own tail from the first sentence. But it doesn't care. Because it has never sought coherence. It seeks political effectiveness. And its political effectiveness is immense. It disarms its enemies and arms its militants. It paralyzes the defender and frees the attacker. It's a perfect asymmetric weapon.

Fourth reason. The virus produces diminished humans. An entire generation has learned to deconstruct and never learned to build. It knows how to suspect, never to admire. It sees power everywhere and beauty nowhere. It can produce a thousand pages on the oppressive nature of Shakespeare and zero lines worth reading in a hundred years. It has confused critical intelligence with critical posturing. It is sterile by construction. A mind fed on deconstruction is a mind that no longer knows how to build anything.

Fifth reason, the gravest. A civilization stands on three pillars. The belief that a truth is accessible to reason. The belief that a good can be distinguished from an evil. The belief that an inheritance deserves to be passed on. Deconstruction has methodically dynamited all three. Not out of malice. Out of intellectual play, fascination with suspicion, hatred of the bourgeoisie that nurtured its prophets. But the result is there. A civilization that no longer believes in its truth, nor in its good, nor in its inheritance does not defend itself. It apologizes while awaiting the end.

That's what we've done. That's what must be named.

The good news is that a mental virus only survives as long as we cede it authority over discourse. It dies the moment we stop playing its game. The moment we quietly reaffirm that there exists a truth, a beauty, a good, an inheritance. The moment we stop asking permission from the deconstructors to build. The moment we remake. The moment we pass on. The moment we create.

Builders have always had the last word over commentators. Always. Because in the end, what remains is what has been built, and nothing of what has been deconstructed.

So today I deconstruct deconstruction. And tomorrow I build."

Would love to read your thoughts.
Agree with all of this, particularly the bit about never seeking coherence. Jordan Peterson was warning against this 10 years ago and saying these people never intend to hand back their victim cards, no matter how much power they accrue.
 
On the other hand, Shrek for instance is basically deconstructing fairy tales, and who doesn't like at least the first Shrek movie? It's all about how you use it, and if you use it when it's appropriate.

Same with the Witcher, especially in the books.

The Princess Bride too.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, Shrek for instance is basically deconstructing fairy tales, and who doesn't like at least the first Shrek movie? It's all about how you use it, and if you use it when it's appropriate.

Same with the Witcher, especially in the books.
Ok , I'll bite.

This is not supposed to vilify critical thinking or the the act of deconstructing in itself. It talks about the danger of a deconstructing mindset becoming ontological. That's when you reach the point of "There are no truths".. so nothing matters anymore. In the context of the idea explored by that post, it's totally relevant to examine the mindset and its consequences.
 
Ok , I'll bite.

This is not supposed to vilify critical thinking or the the act of deconstructing in itself. It talks about the danger of a deconstructing mindset becoming ontological. That's when you reach the point of "There are no truths".. so nothing matters anymore. In the context of the idea explored by that post, it's totally relevant to examine the mindset and its consequences.
I agree with what you're saying there, but that's not really what the post is saying, it explicitly says that deconstruction itself must be destroyed, which I think is going too far.
 
I agree with what you're saying there, but that's not really what the post is saying, it explicitly says that deconstruction itself must be destroyed, which I think is going too far.
No. It talks about letting it become a mindset you cant escape from. It talks about what happens when you mix the mindset with culture inherited puritanism, race-guilt and a lot of other things. I think you are being overly reductive about what its said in that text.

But again. Super glad to read your views on it. Thanks
 
Last edited:
I had a long diatribe written out about my personal relationship with academia, but I deleted it. It would've gotten close to doxxing myself if anyone cared to dig into it. And I also realized it was basically a diary entry of me still working through a mix of pride and anger that my most notable accomplishments in life are worthless after becoming disillusioned with academia and along with that, deconstructionism.

Suffice to say: I resent deconstructionism, and it's personal. Deconstructionism was one of the greatest inventions academia ever gave to itself. If you create an ideology where interpretations of literary works are innumerable and unfalsifiable, you just gave yourself job security.

Not to mention you can apply deconstructionism to deconstructionist works themselves. Recursive job security!

And when applied to reality, with it, you can get anyone to believe anything if you make an argument even just barely beyond the reach of their critical thinking. That Calvin and Hobbes comic strip above is the God's-honest truth.

In conclusion, deconstructionism is demolishing a building and making macaroni art with the bricks.
 
I had a long diatribe written out about my personal relationship with academia, but I deleted it. It would've gotten close to doxxing myself if anyone cared to dig into it. And I also realized it was basically a diary entry of me still working through a mix of pride and anger that my most notable accomplishments in life are worthless after becoming disillusioned with academia and along with that, deconstructionism.

Suffice to say: I resent deconstructionism, and it's personal. Deconstructionism was one of the greatest inventions academia ever gave to itself. If you create an ideology where interpretations of literary works are innumerable and unfalsifiable, you just gave yourself job security.

Not to mention you can apply deconstructionism to deconstructionist works themselves. Recursive job security!

And when applied to reality, with it, you can get anyone to believe anything if you make an argument even just barely beyond the reach of their critical thinking. That Calvin and Hobbes comic strip above is the God's-honest truth.

In conclusion, deconstructionism is demolishing a building and making macaroni art with the bricks.

Thanks for sharing this
 
That's post structuralism not deconstruction in particular. Often many of these philosopher do want to establish universal truths in order to build a better world. The thing is that many on the "anti woke" side of the argument are post modernists because the best argument against grand narratives like communism came from post modernism.

 
That's post structuralism not deconstruction in particular. Often many of these philosopher do want to establish universal truths in order to build a better world. The thing is that many on the "anti woke" side of the argument are post modernists because the best argument against grand narratives like communism came from post modernism.



I've seen plenty comments taking issue about this particular use of the term "deconstruction". I'm not an expert on the subject by any means but its definitely worth investigating about. I do think that , even if the term "deconstruction" is being misused here, there's a clear idea expressed in the text that's thought provoking.
 
I've seen plenty comments taking issue about this particular use of the term "deconstruction". I'm not an expert on the subject by any means but its definitely worth investigating about. I do think that , even if the term "deconstruction" is being misused here, there's a clear idea expressed in the text that's thought provoking.
Sure, investigate about it, you are free to, and there is plenty of easily to find information. But the question is not who is stopping people from building things or who is tearing down things which are being built. It is who is building things privately and who is able to talk about it, effectively being part of the conversation on what is being built rather than just passively watching and not really understanding much of anything of what is going on.
 
I definitely agree there is a large contention between a modernist worldview vs postmodernist worldview (where postmodernist could be seen as post structuralist or critical-intersectional or pick your sociology favored term here, the concept described in first post as 'deconstruction mindset' is what I personally call a postmodernist mindset), and it happens most obviously in US politics because they thrive on volume (both in sound levels moment to moment and in volume of new controversies to seek).

I think that it is partly a byproduct of everybody being too globalized too quickly, so we are atomized away from cultural homogeneity (both political extremes are tempted with the horseshoe theory dark-sides of adding their own in-group's desired ethnic and religious modifications to what tribal in groups vs out groups can be found by, because humans operate intuitively in a stereotyping manner on our own), and while the internet and later the web has helped us communicate with each other more, it has also meant that everybody ends up with online noise shouting at each other across an infinitely crowded room (the bots recurse and multiply).

People used to say never talk politics and religion in polite society, and now our various media diets have caused us to have dozens of opinions on what polite society is.

Are we doomed? that's popular online, but one thing I can say is that this too will pass on into history, we on the ground can focus on taking care of ourselves, our families, our church (athiests have activism and feel-good-charity volunteering to try to help those spiritual needs), and our communities (work/jobs, neighborhood, voluntary institutional bounds) and try to not walk into the middle of the bazaar of the digital public square (that is secretly someone's private square) as much as we accidentally (and/or were steered by shadowy 'thems' depending on your personal pocket stable of believed conspiracy theories) did in the past.

We need water, or we die painfully of dehydration (but not too much, or we die).

We need protein, without which we don't get amino acids and we die (but not too much, or we die).

We need fats, without which, we die of painful rabbit disease (but not too much, or we die).

We need sunlight exposure, without which, we don't produce vitamin D (but not too much, or we die of exposure)

We need sleep/shelter, without which, we go insane then die (but not too much, or we fall into a coma and die).

We need communication, or we are driven insane in solitary (but not too much, or we are driven insane by the perpetual onlines).

The digital/internet/web channel of communication helps with just one of those...just one! but we pay way too much attention to it for most to be healthy.

Don't believe me? Just look at me, I wrote out this whole screed! I rest my case.
 
Top Bottom