long live Deconstruction.
This work is an attempt at deconstructing the Neoconservative political movement which originated from a 'Trotskyist' in the United States during 1950's.
Yes, the work is quite incoherent.
It is supposed to be.
Sorry to be so crass. RIP. Your ideas live on.
First, let us discuss
terms and definitions.
Deconstructionism is based on the premise that much of human history, in trying to understand, and then define, reality has led to various forms of domination - of nature, of people of color, of the poor, of homosexuals, etc. Like postmodernism, deconstructionism finds concrete experience more valid than abstract ideas and, therefore, refutes any attempts to produce a history, or a truth.
Here we see that
deconstructionism (D) is best used in the context of tearing down the powerful and the ideologies they derive that power from.
In the context of the Neoconservative movement, their ideology is best expressed through the views of the "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC). It becomes evident after only a momentary perusal of the website that, indeed, they represent a "form of domination" based on a claim of knowledge of absolute truth.
At this point, some may be saying, "D is useless as there is never any real point to it." This is valid criticism that lasted as long as the originator of the idea was alive. Now that times haved changed, there is the potential that a new reasoning may develop. The previous understanding went something along the lines of the following.
It is not even entirely clear what kind of thing deconstruction is - whether it's a school of thought, a method of reading, or, as some call it, a "textual event."
This
indeterminate nature aspect of a D can best be expressed through a multi-dimensional medium, such as "the internets". Creating deconstructive arguments in a flat or linear medium (books, movies, song) is even more confusing because the argument should be able to branch and confound in multiple directions at once. Hence, a "true" deconstructive argument looks more like a conversation than it does a manifesto.
Additionally, there is a difficult 'Godel Hole' one must traverse to practice deconstructionism. It is expressed as follow.
Part of the difficulty in defining deconstruction arises from the fact that the act of defining deconstruction in the language of Western metaphysics requires one to accept the very ideas of Western metaphysics that are thought to be the subject of deconstruction. Nevertheless, various authors have provided a number of rough definitions.
Hence, while in the act of deconstruction, the 'deconstructor', if you will, must expose themselves to heretical attacks and endlessly recursive argument. This, again, rasies the likelihood that a 'hypertext' medium would be the
least amount of interactivity necessary to construct a 'logical' deconstructive argument.
To continue with the deconstruction at hand, we look at the next part of the definition and the actions of those that we wish to deconstruct.
In other words, the multiplicities and contingencies of human experience necessarily bring knowledge down to the local and specific level, and challenge the tendency to centralize power through the claims of an ultimate truth which must be accepted or obeyed by all.
Here it becomes understood that we are, in this argument, attempting to 'knock down an ultimate truth'. In the culture of the United States that ULTIMATE TRUTH is most commonly embodied in the likeness of one Jesus Christ.
Hence, we can now look at comments by the two most powerful people in the United States compare them to those attributed to Jesus Christ, and see if the deconstruction results in logical implosion.
Dick Cheney: "The problem is that the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments."
George W. Bush: "I believe that millions in the Middle East plead in silence for their liberty. I believe that given the chance, they will embrace the most honorable form of government ever devised by man. I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world."
Dick Cheney: "Let us have no illusions that the danger facing our country has passed," Cheney said. "Our enemies are constantly looking for ways to disrupt the American way of life, and our only option is to take the fight to them."
George W. Bush: "These thugs were in power for awhile, and now they're not going to be in power anymore, and they don't like it. And they're willing to kill innocent people. Their terrorist activities --we'd rather fight them there than here."
Jesus H. Christ: "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
Here we see contradiction of attempting to use a 'history' that directly contradicts the actions being taken. One of the major claims of the Bush Administration (and the Neocon Ideology from whence it came) is that by 'taking the fight to them' we all are made safer.
While this may hold as true when directly applied to those that have attacked the United States and killed innocents, (as by doing so they open themselves up to a similar moral judgement of Muhammed's), it does not apply to the recent events involving the "Coalition" invasion of Iraq.
In the interests of brevity, I have only chosen one of "Christ's Teachings" to contradict the claims of Bush and Cheney. Additional examples can be offered in the comments portion of this argument if desired.
Now, I cannot "do" all the math on this page, but perhaps one of you can check the work presented there? It seems so be a rather long and involved 'proof' of the proposition that the "Coalition" used to justify the Invasion of Iraq is in fact composed of single entity, the United States.
The actual Coalition Forces in Iraq, as of August, 1, 2004, are represented by the N=30, X=160,000 number set: (140,000, 8300, 2800, 2350, 1550, 1300, 850, 500, 500, 450, 420, 400, 290, 200, 200, 150, 150, 140, 130, 124, 110, 110, 90, 60, 50, 50, 45, 32, 30, 30). The í of this number set is í1.32, which rounds off to í ~
1 which indicates that there is only one significant nation in the Coalition Forces, the United States. This í ~= 1 value can be interpreted in two ways. Either there is no coalition because a coalition, as defined in the dictionary, requires more than one (significant) member. Or there is a coalition of 30 nations, one of them significant, the United States, and the rest of them insignificant. Either of these interpretations of the mathematics fits the intuitions of moderately intelligent adults.
Hence we have now deconstructed two of the major platforms of justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
It has not, at least by the actual statements of He who Our Values Rise from, made us safer.
The actions of the Neocons, have in fact, invited our enemy to attack our homes and our children while feeling morally justified in doing so.
Additionally, complex mathematics have shown that the existence of an "International Coalition" is also an illusion and the U.S. has partaken in an act of 'unilateral aggression'.
Also, the Duelfer Report claims that no WMD existed in Iraq.
This knocks the knees off of at least three of the legs of the Bush Administration's (Neocon) justification ('causus belli') for their actions and allows one to draw the only useful thing that can be drawn from a deconstruction....a single binary choice.
Either (Bush and Cheney are Wrong)
or (Math and Christ are Wrong)
One final thing to ponder while attempting to comprehend this argument or draw a conclusion from it. Your mind is not completely rational.
By design (or by 'evolution' if you prefer that word).