When Laruelle says something like this I go “I’m listening…”

doubtless because rigorous science (in connection with the necessary destruction of the Copernican Revolution, we will suggest)

Even if he calls deconstruction a theology, I haven’t been convinced yet that he isn’t a pious believer himself.

Staging a “conversation” with him is the closest thing I know of to doing pioneer work in philosophy, or at least that’s what it feels like. Note that’s not necessarily political philosophy, because he seems like a typical French leftist in many ways. When you stage a “conversation” with Dugin then you’re talking about something similar in the realm of political philosophy. I wonder what they would say about each other. That would be a fun conversation. They both represent a “gotcha” that most people in the west do not have a response to. They both reveal always-alreadys, the presuppositional background of where most people begin from. Putting the two together already sounds like schizophrenia waiting to happen! And yet, if we were serious about Laruelle’s idea of “refounding” and emancipating the various disciplines, that’s what one would first have to do, if I had to say. Because with Laruelle’s liberalism, you’re gonna be refounding nothin. Being nonracist and friendly to our great Jewish friends like Dugin almost always is will also not facilitate a thoroughgoing reset of our institutions. We love Jews woohoo! Laruelle is all about the subject prior to philosophizing. Dugin is a philo-semite then philosophizes. Genuinely so? Through coercion? Either way. Much like in the Pale, the Jew holds the keys to the church in his soul.

It’s so casual for Laruelle to say this, just another day to him

paradigm entails the abandonment of Greek ontological habits and their deconstructions.

Oh so you mean pretty much everything, okay.

Imagining him being himself in China and laughing, he’d be so dead.

See how the above puts into question the Platonist Dugin? Then he can respond asking if Laruelle really has abandoned those if he still has his liberal tendencies.

Note from my humble perspective, I have not been convinced yet that Laruelle is not a Greek Deconstructionist himself, nor that Dugin is not a liberal himself in certain ways.

And when I read them I realize that I have certain qualities that make me a liberal greek deconstructionist myself. So all fun.

And a book on this subject probably won’t be written because Dugin is seen as too evil to “deign to take seriously”. And Laruelle is such a normie in his own way he might even have that attitude himself. The living illuminati we’re talking about here. And as challenging as these thinkers are, at the end of the day neither of them can throw a brick at my head quite like a woman can if she so casually decides to. Want to know what “reality” is?

Reflecting on these theorists in question though, it’s quite striking how monolithic “white people thinking” really is. They both present themselves as having these radically new ways of looking at the world and it’s like, you’re both so white though. Moderns who appropriate Greek thought. At least with Dugin he doesn’t deny that. Laruelle is in some delusion that he isn’t just like the rest of us.

Think of how ironic this is from the perspective of reactionaries

To put it rigorously and more succinctly: it is a question of breaking (with) the empirico-transcendental – we might say, stato-minoritarian – parallelism in the thought of minority

Giving voice to minorities in an–incredibly elaborate–sense. Mr. Laruelle you are a very normal liberal.

When I see him talking about abandoning philosophy it’s almost like a fiction or a cartoon that I’m watching. It’s entertaining, there’s just some kind of fantasy element involved.

And then imagine an academic daring to question Laruelle about this today. You’re not going to see that in print. So the greatest minds of our time you can’t write about. That doesn’t sound like a mature culture to me.

Ending this post with a joke I saw earlier about Laruelle’s concept of the pre-philosophical decision to philosophize which is a simple refutation of him that you probably have thought of before if you aren’t new to him and the same kind of logic I can imagine him applying to Dugin’s Russianness which would be interesting to see if they ever had a dialogue

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: