I will just say, to preface this little article, that I ask the reader to forgive the awkward way in which I’ve merged two quite different topics together. I did consider creating two separate posts, but for matters of having to flesh-out those two respective posts to make up for their short-ish length, I decided to leave the way this piece of writing flowed out of my mind intact.
I’ve been told by a number of people that I am extremely perceptive and can often see things obscured to others. My knowledge of history is not hugely deep, and yet I can draw a lot from the most trivial source. Perhaps it’s just how I am as a person? Perhaps I am just naturally quite intuitive and can get a grasp of complex topics in a simple manner as it is just a part of my nature? This is very likely the case, but I do think an element of this can be learned.
In almost every sociology-esque class today, students are taught a method of analysing texts and sources called “deconstructionism,” which I’m sure most of the people reading this are familiar with. For those who aren’t, it’s almost what a Marxist would dub “critical theory,” where you constantly break a topic down to get to the source of every aspect of it. For example, if one was to deconstruct this website, West Coast Reactionaries, you would begin by pinpointing the source of the name, each word; and then the purpose of colour scheme; and then the purpose of the layout; and then the backgrounds and perceived agendas on the authors, and then each post; et cetera.
To speak of just the title: “West Coast Reactionaries…” ponders the deconstructor, “…well, the title is obviously attempting to be informal and relaxed via the words ‘West’ and ‘Coast’ which are associated with a sort of laid-back slang which originates in African-American gang culture in the United States. Not to mention ‘coast’ is another word for ‘beach’ which is where people go to relax. Furthermore…” continues the deconstructor, “…’Reactionaries’ is obviously a very interesting word because it exposes the political extremism of the site which is obscured – perhaps intentionally – by the first two words of the title. Maybe the people who decided to use this title were trying to push their reactionary – which was a word used to describe those who opposed the Great Revolution – politics which are antiliberal and antidemocratic, and therefore, by association, tied with a mindset of racism, hatred, bigotry, sexism, patriarchy, capitalism, toxic masculinity, whiteness and the oppression of people of colour throughout history.”
To deconstruct is to break-down. Obviously, when someone is of a liberal mindset, they will deconstruct oppositionally, using their “normal” ethics and morality as the thing to compare the material to deconstruct with. Hence if what they’re deconstructing is something antiliberal, then it is automatically bad as it is not of their worldview; it is “wrong,” “extreme,” “problematic,” and so on. The key is that deconstruction relies on certain presuppositions, and it is always done oppositionally; aggressively.
Critical theory is a Marxian variant, essentially, of deconstruction. It it what it says on the tin: you criticize. That isn’t to say you do not analyse, but you analyse in an often derogatory fashion which is even more reliant on presuppositions than deconstruction is (and, in fact, the only reason deconstruction relies on any presuppositions is due to the eminence of Marxism throughout all Western academia in the last several decades).
A Marxist begins with, of course, a dialectic. One begins with a thesis (egalitarianism, for example), then you suppose an antithesis (capitalism, which is unegalitarian via the preconceived dialectic between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat), which forms a synthesis: the overcoming of the thesis and antithesis (which in this case is the destruction of capitalism and the overcoming of all differences between people and thus all oppression in society). Then, when you’re inevitably incorrect in what you theorized the synthesis to be, you critically deconstruct reality to explain why you were incorrect. The work of the Frankfurt school really excelled here, developing identity politics and moving their dialectic out of strictly class-relations, and into cultural-relations.
A Marxist, to critically analyse the above deconstruction of “West Coast Reactionaries,” would say that “…in regard to the use of ‘West Coast,’ it’s obvious that the architects are actually appropriating the culture and vernacular of people of colour – further oppressing them and trivializing their existence. The use of the word ‘West’ suggests that the website is not only reactionary (as most Western people are indirectly via their privilege) but supremacist, because it is used in a white fashion to steal the phrase ‘West Coast’ and dominate it with white notions of superiority.” The Marxist would then go into “Reactionaries”: “Of course, that these villains are reactionary in their political understanding (or lack thereof) is not surprising because, as presumably white, straight males they are naturally inclined to be so, as I’ve already mentioned. But digging deeper, what are they reacting against? The modern world? A world of love? Acceptance? Tolerance? Inclusion? Human rights? Humanity itself? I’m off to call the authorities before these wicked creatures commit any more micro-aggressions.”
Dear reader, I hope you get the picture. Deconstruction and its more extreme Marxian variant, critical theory, are academic tools used to analyse information in a certain way. What I do, however – and what potential others do – could be called “constructionism.”
As should be quite apparent, constructionism is the opposite of deconstructionism. Let’s analyse “West Coast Reactionaries” using constructionism: “‘West’ is a direction, emphasizing the Western world, but also a direction at all. Perhaps it is an urge, a push towards something? Something intentional and focussed; deliberate. ‘Coast’ is clearly used in conjunction with ‘West’ in the way already described by our deconstructing friend; it is used to create – or imply – a casual, laid-back sentiment. There is nothing, however, indicating anything ulterior or oppressive about the phrase. The word ‘Reactionaries’ is as honest as it gets, and it cuts through the casualty of ‘West Coast’ like a razor. The website is a reaction, a reaction coming from people on the ‘West Coast’ of somewhere. A fringe? An isolated area? A reaction originating in a small or specific place against what? Something larger? The rest of the landmass besides purely the ‘West Coast’? The title of the website implies a struggle, a battle, a kick-back against something larger than itself. But a kick-back of a specific temperament, which paints itself to be both casual via the first part of the title, as well as formal via the second part. Perhaps it is masking the seriousness of the battle with the casual language, and attempting to approach the fight with a relaxed method, but with stern, serious tools? Or, is it a process? The fight, the ‘reaction’ is casual, but the end result is far from a laughing matter? There is a profound dualism which looms out of the title which hints at the possible seriousness of what it actually represents, as well as a self-awareness by which it looks at itself and makes itself more approachable.”
Notice how constructionism utilizes nothing but creativity. There is no need to link to real cultural events or happenings, no need to link to history or science or sociology; it is only the expression of a – in my opinion – logical imagination. You build up from the source, instead of breaking it down in relation to the culture of the day. There is an element of “meta” character to constructionism, as one can construct without politics or anything prior except for descriptive language and a decent mind.
Now, let’s not accuse constructionism of a sort of subjectivist character. It’s used commonly, as I’ve done and witnessed in conversation, as a rhetorical device to encourage debate, discussion and the unravelling of truth for all participants to see. Where deconstructionism is tied to a preconceived agenda, and is applied as a tool to justify an end, constructionism is the end in and of itself. This must be kept firmly in mind.
Hopefully, dear reader, you’ve learnt something just now. Or, maybe you already thought about some things in the above-mentioned way, but now you have some fancy piece of jargon to label it with. Constructionism, though, I think, is actually the by-product of something else when it occurs naturally in individuals. I think it’s the by-product of the minds of people of a certain spirit.
I’ve emphasized the importance, in private conversation, of one’s spirit; one’s temperament, character, “style.” I think the only genuine way one can actually be against the forces in motion goes beyond analysing facts. I think a portion of the reaction must come from something subpersonal, irrational, emotional and even something not quite explainable. It must come from a fire inside; a spirit of resistance itself; of rebellion and fervour in their rawest forms. Understanding why various nations exist in pitiable states of decay and degeneration is quite easy to do. In fact, as soon as you reach one fundamental truth, that there is profound difference between people and it is the basis of life, most other pieces of the puzzle come tumbling down into place. This is the hard logic of fact-observing and the exercising of the human capacity to logically associate one thing with another.
There does, however, lack the spark in many people who are able to observe facts which would enable them to go beyond it. This is especially important for those who might be able to work out all the theory of why doing a certain thing is good, but fail to do it themselves physically. I know several individuals in the alternative Right personally who cannot move beyond knowing and into doing, and it’s because these people lack energy; they lack passion; they the lack desire of an almost sexual sort to do, to achieve, to build, to create, to construct – even as men, where the aforementioned urges are strictly masculine and actually define it! Masculinity is being pressed down upon by the forces in motion, of course, but I do not believe any man who is a man of Power – as all men should be – would be dumbed-down to the degree by which they cannot move themselves forward and experience self-overbecoming in even the smallest sense.
Power. Raw, untenable, absolute Power which acts as a force to be directed by the Will into the accumulation of experience which breeds Knowledge that nurtures the Intellect. This is an equation which can be rediscovered, and I believe it must for our groups to survive the future; for ourselves to survive the future. For humanity to become great again, man must become great again.
If I was pushed to be more specific about how this would manifest in the lives of those who are against the forces in motion, I’d suggest the formation of an antibourgeois sensibility. An antinormal character. Not a strictly contrarian character, but a character by which there is the encouraging and active pursuing of a sense of self-overbecoming; of achievement; of triumph; of personal pride; of breaking out of a comfort zone and entering the fire to emerge unburned and unscathed.
We ought to rediscover an active spirit; an outgoing, adventurous and optimistic spirit. If we are not to do this, we are forfeiting reality and forfeiting history to those who will destroy it.