By Alex Kierkegaard / February 14, 2011
Another important "third-party" essay posted on the frontpage, another subtle point that I am obliged to clarify in order to help the less intelligent readers avoid being misled by it.
"Nietzsche's philosophy cannot be understood without taking his essential pluralism into account. And, in fact, pluralism (otherwise known as empiricism) is almost indistinguishable from philosophy itself. Pluralism is the properly philosophical way of thinking, the one invented by philosophy..." (Gilles Deleuze, "Sense")
It should be obvious why I need to address this point immediately, even if briefly: because the subhumans will straight away latch on to it and attempt to turn it around against me: that I write "in absolutes", that I am not "a pluralist", that I don't "accept any views except my own", and so on and so forth. Of course all this is merely yet another easy solution which they adopt because it suits their purpose (i.e. to avoid facing my arguments), all the while holding on to their own arguments WITH A FUCKING DEATHGRIP — which arguments, incidentally, my own arguments have in the meantime utterly demolished.
Basically, the problem here is again the same I recently highlighted with Plank and Baudrillard: that they often use a single word to designate different, and in some cases even antithetical concepts. So, on the one hand, what Deleuze refers to above as "pluralism" is precisely the opposite to what the subhumans mean when they use this word, whilst, on the other hand, later on in the book he goes on to use pluralism in precisely the subhuman manner (without, of course, bothering to notify anyone of this reversal):
"Pluralism sometimes appears to be dialectical — but it is its most ferocious enemy, its only profound enemy."(Gilles Deleuze, "Against the Dialectic")
This basically says that the pluralism of subhumans is the most ferocious enemy of the pluralism of humans — which is the only true pluralism. Let's try to understand why this is so.
When a subhuman plays the "pluralism" card (or the "subjectivity" card; they are the same card), what he wants to do with it is TO QUASH AN UNDESIRABLE VIEWPOINT. Because the very FACT of discussion PRESUPPOSES pluralism — the fact that I am sitting down to talk to you, or even simply to address your views in an essay, means that I ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR VIEWPOINT. If I did not acknowledge it I would not even bother bringing it up — it would not even exist for me. But I am bringing it up and going to all this trouble to analyze it PRECISELY BECAUSE I acknowledge it. So the question of the plurality of viewpoints (or of the plurality of subjects: subjectivity) is never on the table of discussion (or of analytical essay-writing); rather, the table itself is sitting on the concepts of subjectivity and pluralism.
The point of discussion therefore, and even more the point of the analysis carried out by an essayist, is to attempt to find THE VIEWPOINT THAT MOST EFFECTIVELY ADDRESSES THE QUESTION CURRENTLY ON THE TABLE. In other words, TO PICK ONE VIEWPOINT. What the subhumans are therefore doing with their imbecilic bleating of "subjectivity waaaaah", "pluralism waaaaah", "absolutes waaaaah", etc. is TO PREVENT US FROM PICKING THE FUCKING VIEWPOINT — something that becomes blatantly obvious when one realizes that the bleating begins PRECISELY ONCE WE'VE PICKED ONE. During the discussion no one bothers with the trick because everyone is more or less happy that his ignorant, imbecilic little abortion of a viewpoint has not yet been entirely swept off the table and thrown on the tremendous and ever-growing rubbish heap of absurd and contemptible ideas, along WITH ALL THE OTHER trillions of imbecilities that have been cooked up inside the brains of homo sapiens throughout his countless millennia of evolution:
Nietzsche: "Origin of the logical. — Whence did logic come into existence in the human head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm must initially have been tremendous. Originally a chaos of ideas. The ideas that were consistent with one another remained, the greater number perished — and are perishing."
It is, then, in order to avoid seeing their illogical ideas perish that the subhumans stoop to this shameless, pathetic and pitiable little trick. After all, if they COULD defend their viewpoints with arguments, or attack those of their adversaries, that's precisely what they'd be doing — for simply sitting around and pointing out like a fucking spastic child over and over AND OVER again that there are many viewpoints is certainly not going to get you any closer to defending your viewpoint or attacking anyone else's, all it's going to do is get the others so fed up with you and your fucking noise, that they'll decide to exclude you from all future discussion. So: the words "pluralism" and "subjectivity" in the mouth of a subhuman bear no relation whatsoever to what these terms really mean — i.e. to what they mean in the mouths of the human philosophers who invented them. In the mouths of subhumans these words merely mean:
"I have nothing more to say and concede defeat."