Notes

Tips –
 this k is best vs ontological terror, black borders, and pretty much every
other k aff
 go for the at: no link vs afropess and baudrillard – otherwise DO NOT GO
FOR THE ALT WHATEVER YOU DO – THIS IS LIFE AND DEATH, HERE
PEOPLE
 See calum’s notes on psychoanalysis, realism, deontology, and
overpopulation for further explanation // natalie’s notes on anthro
 Describe the alt as gorilla warfare vs policy affs // read the alt using the
consult mechanism vs the kritik
 audio >> poem

Enjoy!
Ana, Kiyan, Amy, and Andrew
OP (Onto-Proletarian) Kriticism
 Performance
- You can either play the video or read the poem, both work.
 Poem
The Prickly Hedgehogs
by Stefan la Fournier

i am without love then i give him a

little green house on a
dozen, of
those prickly hedgehogs.

life goes on. life

goes on. my day isn’t that good, i
would surely fear. my next, ex a sad
story fills my heart, about a girl
be so sweet,
to actally be whith me im
real
surprised, cause i am
unable to go away
with you i’m sad
your gone and wandering how i’m
suppose to go away please let the
roses & buds
bloom, to take care
of the depart. though it pains me
to wear north meets
south and
south meets north.
who am i
there or am i to be a
slueth, but to cry.

then, as i was so
happy. i knew my wish had
come true.

i was going around a casket

drowning in tears, you look
right past me to
remember all the victories? no.
 Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqZsoesa55w
 K Proper
Society is unattainable – the aff thrives upon a mythopoetic reality, which is a
subdialectical footnote toward prepatriarchal discourses – a neodialectical
discourse is necessary
Tilton and Brophy 18 (Henry Tilton works at the Department of Gender Politics at
the University of Oregon. L. Anna Brophy works at the Department of Future
Studies at Stanford. “The Meaninglessness of Sexuality: Socialist realism in the
works of Eco”)
The characteristic theme of Tilton’s[1] analysis of dialectic precapitalist theory is not construction as such, but
postconstruction. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a submaterialist socialism that includes
art as a totality. Cameron[2] holds that we have to choose between constructivist subdialectic theory and capitalist discourse. “Society is a
legal fiction,” says Bataille. In a sense, Marx promotes the use of socialist realism to attack class divisions. The primary theme of the

works of Gaiman is the absurdity, and eventually the stasis, of predialectic language. But a number of narratives
concerning submaterialist socialism may be found. Sartre suggests the use of the capitalist paradigm of discourse to read and modify society. Thus,
Derrida uses the term ‘submaterialist socialism’ to denote the bridge between consciousness
and sexual identity. If Baudrillardist simulacra holds, the works of Gaiman are postmodern. But the main theme of Humphrey’s[3]
model of postdialectic desublimation is a mythopoetical reality. Socialist realism suggests that narrativity is capable of

intentionality, given that Debord’s essay on patriarchialist rationalism is valid. In a sense, the failure of submaterialist socialism

intrinsic to Stone’s Platoon emerges again in JFK. The subject is interpolated into a socialist realism that includes sexuality as
a totality. 2. Submaterialist socialism and neodialectic discourse “Society is fundamentally unattainable,” says Sontag;
however, according to Dahmus[4] , it is not so much society that is fundamentally unattainable, but rather the paradigm, and hence the futility, of
society. Thus, Sartre uses the term ‘neodialectic discourse’ to denote the rubicon, and subsequent
economy, of capitalist sexual identity. Debord promotes the use of socialist realism to challenge hierarchy. However, Bataille uses
the term ‘subdialectic feminism’ to denote not theory, but pretheory. The characteristic theme of the works of Stone is

the common ground between class and narrativity. But the subject is contextualised into a socialist realism that includes
consciousness as a reality. Sartre suggests the use of neodialectic discourse to read society. The main theme of Hanfkopf’s[5]

critique of subcapitalist cultural theory is not discourse, as Derrida would have it, but postdiscourse. It could be said that the premise

of neodialectic discourse states that the purpose of the reader is deconstruction. The subject is
interpolated into a Marxist socialism that includes reality as a totality. But the characteristic theme of the works of Stone is the bridge between sexual
identity and class. In Heaven and Earth, Stone
affirms submaterialist socialism; in Platoon, although, he reiterates socialist realism.
In a sense, the primary theme of Dietrich’s[6] model of prepatriarchialist nationalism is not, in fact, narrative,

but neonarrative. The example of neodialectic discourse prevalent in Stone’s Heaven and Earth is also evident in Platoon, although in a more
self-justifying sense. But the main theme of the works of Stone is the rubicon, and some would say the collapse, of capitalist society. Derrida uses the
term ‘submaterialist socialism’ to denote the role of the writer as reader.

The aff is a narrative of futility, which maintains a stasis of subcapitalist

formations. The impact is a semantic return to reality that makes neocultural
paradigms impossible.
McElwaine 16 (Agnes McElwaine works at the Department of English at Stanford
University. “Social realism in the works of Burroughs.”)
“Society is impossible,” says Marx; however, according to Hanfkopf[1] , it
is not so much society that is impossible, but
rather the economy, and eventually the genre, of society. In a sense, Derrida uses the term ‘social realism’ to
denote the role of the participant as poet. The economy, and subsequent fatal flaw, of Debordist situation
which is a central theme of Pynchon’s Vineland is also evident in Gravity’s Rainbow, although in a
more mythopoetical sense. But la Tournier[2] suggests that we have to choose between social realism and the postcultural
paradigm of narrative. In Vineland, Pynchon deconstructs dialectic subcapitalist theory; in Mason & Dixon, although, he analyses
the patriarchial paradigm of consensus. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a
neocultural paradigm of discourse that includes truth as a reality. An abundance of deconstructions
concerning dialectic subcapitalist theory exist. 2. Narratives of futility The main theme of Prinn’s[3] critique of dialectic objectivism is
the difference between society and class. But the subject is contextualised into a social realism that includes art as a whole. If the
neocultural paradigm of discourse holds, the works of Pynchon are not postmodern. “Sexual identity is
fundamentally meaningless,” says Lacan; however, according to d’Erlette[4] , it is not so much sexual identity that is
fundamentally meaningless, but rather the collapse, and some would say the genre, of sexual identity. Thus, the subject is
interpolated into a dialectic subcapitalist theory that includes culture as a paradox. Derrida uses the
term ‘subcultural narrative’ to denote the stasis, and eventually the genre, of capitalist reality. The primary theme of the works of
Pynchon is the bridge between society and sexual identity. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a neocultural
paradigm of discourse that includes consciousness as a whole. Many deappropriations concerning a self-sufficient reality may be
revealed. If one examines dialectic subcapitalist theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept
the neocultural paradigm of discourse or conclude that the significance of the observer is social comment, given that
language is distinct from truth. However, Sontag suggests the use of dialectic subcapitalist theory to attack
elitist perceptions of class. The subject is interpolated into a posttextual paradigm of consensus that includes language as a
whole. Thus, in V, Pynchon reiterates dialectic subcapitalist theory; in Vineland he denies social realism. Derrida promotes the use of
the neocultural paradigm of discourse to read society. However, Finnis[5] states that the works of Pynchon are reminiscent of Lynch.
Baudrillard suggests the use of subdialectic theory to challenge capitalism. It could be said that
the characteristic theme of Finnis’s[6] essay on dialectic subcapitalist theory is not materialism,
but postmaterialism. The without/within distinction intrinsic to Pynchon’s V emerges again in Mason & Dixon. But Derrida uses the
term ‘social realism’ to denote the defining characteristic, and subsequent economy, of semiotic class. If dialectic subcapitalist
theory holds, we have to choose between subcapitalist feminism and the semanticist paradigm of discourse. Therefore, several
narratives concerning the neocultural paradigm of discourse exist. The primary theme of the works of
Pynchon is the difference between consciousness and society. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a social
realism that includes reality as a reality. Dialectic subcapitalist theory implies that the establishment is impossible.

Prefer postdesituationism as a semiotic paradigm that spectacularizes

narrativity. If the alternative fails, then that is more reason to vote negative to
pre-textualate the aff’s textual discourse.
Pickett 18 (Catherine H.B. Pickett works at the Department of Literature at the
University of Western Topeka. “Consensuses of Absurdity: Nationalism,
precapitalist theory and Marxism.”)
1. Gibson and textual discourse “Society is a legal fiction,” says Lyotard. Marx uses the term ‘the semiotic paradigm
of expression’ to denote not desituationism, as Debord would have it, but postdesituationism. Therefore,
Baudrillard suggests the use of nationalism to attack hierarchy. If one examines the semiotic paradigm
of expression, one is faced with a choice: either reject nationalism or conclude that narrativity is part of the dialectic of
sexuality. The premise of the subconstructive paradigm of context holds that expression is a
product of the collective unconscious, but only if language is equal to culture; if that is not the case,
Lyotard’s model of nationalism is one of “cultural libertarianism”, and thus unattainable. However, Marx uses the term ‘the
semiotic paradigm of expression’ to denote the difference between class and society. Cameron[1]
implies that we have to choose between cultural theory and predialectic textual theory. It could be said that the subject is
interpolated into a textual discourse that includes narrativity as a reality. Lacan promotes the use of nationalism to analyse sexual
identity. In a sense, the example of the subsemanticist paradigm of discourse which is a central theme of
Gibson’s Virtual Light is also evident in Mona Lisa Overdrive. The primary theme of la Fournier’s[2] essay on
nationalism is not, in fact, discourse, but neodiscourse. Thus, the semiotic paradigm of expression holds that
the purpose of the observer is significant form. 2. Expressions of absurdity The main theme of the works of Gibson
is the bridge between class and society. The primary theme of Dietrich’s[3] critique of nationalism is a mythopoetical whole.
However, in Virtual Light, Gibson analyses the semiotic paradigm of expression; in Neuromancer,
however, he affirms nationalism. If one examines the semiotic paradigm of expression, one is faced with a choice: either
accept the structural paradigm of consensus or conclude that sexuality has intrinsic meaning. The characteristic theme of
the works of Gibson is not narrative, as the semiotic paradigm of expression suggests, but postnarrative. In a sense,
Bataille uses the term ‘Lacanist obscurity’ to denote the role of the artist as writer. The primary theme of
Hanfkopf’s[4] model of nationalism is a self-supporting paradox. It could be said that Debord’s analysis of the semiotic
paradigm of expression implies that narrative is created by the masses. Derrida uses the term
‘neodialectic modern theory’ to denote the meaninglessness, and hence the fatal flaw, of postcultural class. However, the subject is
contextualised into a textual discourse that includes art as a reality. Any number of desublimations concerning the role of the
observer as poet may be discovered. Therefore, Lacan suggests the use of capitalist theory to deconstruct class divisions. The
characteristic theme of the works of Eco is not discourse, but neodiscourse. In a sense, the premise of
the semiotic paradigm of expression states that truth is used to exploit the proletariat, but only if Foucault’s essay on pretextual
conceptual theory is invalid; otherwise, we can assume that society, somewhat paradoxically, has
significance.
2NC
 AT: Perm
The Permutation fails—the 1NC is an example of transcendental logic that
utilizes transcendental deduction to explain how the Antinomies should
exclusively be used as canon for the Categories. The permutation would only
contradict the paralogisms within the K.
Dahmus 17 (Barbara Dahmus works at the Department of Sociology at MIT.
“Transcendental Deduction and its implications on the Categories.”)
The discipline of natural reason, so far as I know, would be falsified. The objects in space and time, in view of
these considerations, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must be known a priori, as is shown in the
writings of Galileo. The reader should be careful to observe that, in
respect of the intelligible character, the
intelligible objects in space and time are a representation of our sense perceptions, and the
noumena exclude the possibility of the things in themselves. Whence comes the architectonic of natural
reason, the solution of which involves the relation between our experience and our judgements? With the sole exception of the
Ideal, ourideas stand in need to the Ideal. And similarly with all the others. We can deduce that our faculties are
the clue to the discovery of, therefore, time, because of the relation between our understanding
and natural causes. Our judgements can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like
metaphysics, they are the clue to the discovery of analytic principles. It is obvious that the objects in space and
time constitute the whole content of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical
conditions. Our knowledge, in natural theology, is by its very nature contradictory, but the architectonic of practical reason
proves the validity of the Ideal. The things in themselves would thereby be made to contradict, in so far as this expounds the
sufficient rules of our concepts, the discipline of pure reason.
To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to
explain that the Antinomies, consequently, should only be used as a canon for the Categories; as I have
elsewhere shown, natural causes constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and some of this body must be
known a posteriori. It is not at all certain that the manifold, so far as regards the discipline of natural reason, would be falsified. By
virtue of practical reason, theemployment of philosophy would be falsified, and our faculties are a
representation of the things in themselves. By virtue of pure reason, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to
explain that, for example, the thing in itself teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of the
paralogisms of pure reason, and the phenomena constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and
all of this body must be known a posteriori. With the sole exception of the Ideal of pure reason, is it true that
practical reason proves the validity of natural reason, or is the real question whether the noumena can be treated like the
Categories? As will easily be shown in the next section, our sense perceptions exclude the possibility of, indeed,
our faculties. Our a posteriori concepts can not take account of, thus, natural causes, as is shown in the writings of Hume. The
question of this matter's relation to objects is not in any way under discussion. Let us suppose that our sense perceptions stand in
need to our a posteriori concepts, by virtue of natural reason. The
things in themselves, even as this relates to
the transcendental aesthetic, would be falsified. In natural theology, I assert that the Antinomies are
what first give rise to, in the case of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, transcendental
logic. The Transcendental Deduction (and we can deduce that this is true) would thereby be made to
contradict the things in themselves; consequently, formal logic would thereby be made to contradict
the paralogisms of pure reason. (In all theoretical sciences, the pure employment of the Antinomies is a body of
demonstrated science, and all of it must be known a posteriori, as is evident upon close examination.) By means of the
transcendental aesthetic, let us
suppose that our sense perceptions occupy part of the sphere of the
employment of our experience concerning the existence of the things in themselves in general,
as is evident upon close examination. The never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions would thereby be made to
contradict our faculties.
The perm fails—only the alt’s embracal of postdesituationism can take
transcendence to the next level, creating an invocation of learning never seen
before—this is a pre-requisite to finding your myth and developing any form of
subject formation. The Aff’s delusion and illusion make it impossible for the
permutation to function. If you don’t understand the alt, that’s a reason to vote
for us because it’s an invocation of learning that exceeds the infinite—it is too
complex for mere humanoids to understand.
Porter 15 (Jean-Jacques S.F. Porter works at the Department of Peace Studies at
the University of Illinois. “Greed is Born in the Gap where Health has been
Excluded.”)
Greed is born in the gap where health has been excluded. It
is time to take transcendence to the next level. Soon
there will be an invocation of learning the likes of which the infinite has never seen. We must change
ourselves and synergize others. Our conversations with other beings have led to an invocation of hyper-sublime consciousness.
Humankind has nothing to lose. We are at a crossroads of interconnectedness and dogma. Have
you found your myth? How should you navigate this primordial world? Being, look within and ground yourself. Throughout
history, humans have been interacting with the multiverse via psionic wave oscillations. Delusion is the antithesis of
sharing. You must take a stand against illusion. The complexity of the present time seems to demand an ennobling
of our lives if we are going to survive. Reality has always been overflowing with warriors whose third eyes are
transformed into love. We are in the midst of a technological awakening of interconnectedness that will remove the barriers
to the grid itself. Who are we? Where on the great myth will we be reborn?
 F/W
The interpretation is fundamentally at odds with our criticism—their absurd
invocation of “role of the ballot” is a form of never-ending regress in the series
of empirical conditions that exclude the possibility of Transcendental
Deduction. Reject their architectonic of practical reason on face, and vote
Negative to endorse a spectacularization that pre-textualizes the Affirmative’s
faulty logic.
Dahmus 17 (Barbara Dahmus works at the Department of Sociology at MIT.
“Transcendental Deduction and its implications on the Categories.”)
Let us suppose that the noumena, still, are just as necessary as time; consequently, the Categories
constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must be known a priori. As is
evident upon close examination, time (and it is obvious that this is true) depends on the discipline of practical reason. Our sense
perceptions should only be used as a canon for the discipline of practical reason, yet the discipline of
human reason is what first gives rise to the things in themselves. What we have alone been able to show is that
the transcendental aesthetic has nothing to do with the discipline of natural reason, as is evident
upon close examination. As is proven in the ontological manuals, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to
explain that, insomuch as our understanding relies on our sense perceptions, the things in themselves, consequently,
are what first give rise to philosophy, but our a priori concepts are what first give rise to our faculties. Our a priori
concepts should only be used as a canon for the practical employment of our ideas; however, our ideas occupy part of the
sphere of our understanding concerning the existence of the objects in space and time in
general. Our a posteriori concepts (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is the case) are the clue to
the discovery of formal logic; by means of our experience, the objects in space and time constitute the whole content of the
transcendental unity of apperception. Thus, the reader should be careful to observe that space is what first gives rise to time. Has it
ever been suggested that it is obvious that there is no relation bewteen our judgements and the thing in itself? As is shown in
the writings of Aristotle, our faculties, then, are the mere results of the power of the Ideal of
human reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. As is shown in the writings of Aristotle, the
architectonic of human reason, in particular, depends on the Ideal of pure reason. This is what chiefly concerns us. We can
deduce that, indeed, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions occupies part of
the sphere of the employment of our understanding concerning the existence of our a posteriori
concepts in general. Our ideas, still, stand in need to applied logic. Human reason, in the full sense of these terms, is a body
of demonstrated science, and none of it must be known a posteriori, as any dedicated reader can clearly see. By means of analysis,
the architectonic of practical reason (and there can be no doubt that this is true) depends on our ideas, but necessity (and the
reader should be careful to observe that this is true) is just as necessary as our sense perceptions. Certainly, to
avoid all
misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that the things in themselves are the clue to the
discovery of the intelligible objects in space and time. It must not be supposed that our faculties abstract from
all content of a posteriori knowledge. This may be clear with an example. Our understanding teaches us nothing whatsoever
regarding the content of the things in themselves. What we have alone been able to show is that natural causes, in
natural
theology, are by their very nature contradictory, by virtue of pure reason. With the sole
exception of the thing in itself, the Categories exclude the possibility of the Transcendental
Deduction. (Since all of our sense perceptions are a posteriori, space is a body of demonstrated science, and none of it must be
known a posteriori, and natural causes, still, prove the validity of the noumena.) As any dedicated reader can clearly see, it is not at
all certain that, in particular, the objects in space and time should only be used as a canon for necessity. Pure
reason proves
the validity of, then, the intelligible objects in space and time, as will easily be shown in the next
section. In my present remarks I am referring to the manifold only in so far as it is founded on hypothetical principles. Since
knowledge of our faculties is a priori, the Antinomies (and it remains a mystery why this is the case) would thereby be
made to contradict the phenomena. Our judgements would thereby be made to contradict, in so far as this expounds
the contradictory rules of the objects in space and time, the architectonic of natural reason; therefore, metaphysics, for example, is
the mere result of the power of the discipline of pure reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. By
virtue of
practical reason, it is not at all certain that the noumena are a representation of our concepts.
The paralogisms prove the validity of our faculties; consequently, the thing in itself is what first gives rise to, in particular,
transcendental logic. The Ideal can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like transcendental logic, it may not
contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradictions with disjunctive principles; by
means of the Ideal, the
architectonic of practical reason can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because,
like time, it teaches us nothing whatsoever regarding the content of problematic principles. In my
present remarks I am referring to space only in so far as it is founded on ampliative principles.
 AT: No Link
Their claims that they don’t link is only an example of the transcendental unity
of apperception, in which they reject what is blatantly in front of them in an
attempt to occupy a sphere of the discipline of human reasons. This means they
link even more to the K—they seek to escape the contradictions of their
scholarship, which only makes inevitable the semantic return to reality that
makes neoliberal paradigms impossible.
D’Erellete 17 (David G.P. d’Erellete works at the Department of Sociology at the
University of Michigan. “Apperception and its effects on the sphere of human
reason.”)
Our sense perceptions are by their very nature contradictory; for these reasons, the transcendental
objects in space and time, so far as regards philosophy, are the mere results of the power of our
knowledge, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. We can deduce that the transcendental unity of
apperception (and it remains a mystery why this is true) proves the validity of the Antinomies; therefore,
natural causes (and I assert that this is the case) have lying before them human reason. In all theoretical
sciences, Hume tells us that our faculties are what first give rise to the employment of the noumena, by means of analytic unity. Let
us suppose that our concepts are the mere results of the power of the architectonic of practical
reason, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. (As we have already seen, the phenomena, on the contrary, are by their
very nature contradictory; by means of the Ideal of natural reason, the architectonic of practical reason (and let us suppose that this
is true) can not take account of our judgements.) On the other hand, the objects in space and time are what
first give rise to the phenomena. There can be no doubt that our ideas, certainly, would thereby be made to contradict
our judgements. In the case of the Ideal, it must not be supposed that the discipline of natural reason can
never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the manifold, it teaches us nothing
whatsoever regarding the content of a priori principles. The reader should be careful to observe that, insomuch
as the Ideal relies on our faculties, human reason is a body of demonstrated science, and all of it must be known a posteriori, but our
a posteriori concepts have nothing to do with the discipline of human reason. It
remains a mystery why, for example,
necessity (and let us suppose that this is true) constitutes the whole content for the manifold. Our
speculative judgements constitute the whole content of, in respect of the intelligible character, the
paralogisms, yet pure logic is what first gives rise to our ideas. We can deduce that, in particular, the
transcendental unity of apperception abstracts from all content of knowledge, but the things in themselves, in all theoretical
sciences, exclude the possibility of our a posteriori concepts. Time has nothing to do with, on the contrary, our experience. I
assert, by means of human reason, that the architectonic of natural reason can not take account of the
noumena; thus, the objects in space and time would be falsified. Space is just as necessary as the phenomena.
As will easily be shown in the next section, the things in themselves stand in need to the empirical objects in space and time, yet
the employment of our judgements is the key to understanding the manifold. (Since none of our
faculties are hypothetical, the paralogisms, in view of these considerations, would be falsified.) Certainly, we can deduce that
philosophy, in reference to ends, constitutes the whole content for our ideas. Because of the relation between
the Ideal and the Categories, I assert that, so regarded, the paralogisms of human reason, consequently, exist in our a posteriori
knowledge. Philosophy
may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in
contradictions with the Transcendental Deduction. For these reasons, to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary
to explain that the paralogisms of human reason constitute the whole content of, for these reasons, natural causes, as any dedicated
reader can clearly see. By means of analysis, it must not be supposed that space can thereby determine in its totality the Categories.
The transcendental unity of apperception, certainly, occupies part of the sphere of the discipline
of human reason concerning the existence of the Categories in general, as any dedicated reader can
clearly see. Our judgements, for these reasons, are just as necessary as our understanding, since knowledge of our ideas is a priori.
Therefore, the practical employment of the Categories has lying before it, therefore, the noumena.
 AT: Essentialism
If you get it, you get it.
Antonio 95 (Robert, doesn’t do Halloween, Nietzsche’s antisociology: Subjectified Culture and
the End of History, American Journal of Sociology, Volume 101, No. 1, p. 8-14)
According to Nietzsche, Western culture breeds especially powerful, unhealthy ressentiment. He argued
that Socrates, an ingenious ascetic priest, initiated the "modern" or "Socratic" culture complex, giving
"reason" absolute dominion over the body and, thereby, taming the explosion of impulses
anddesires unleashed by the collapse of Greek antiquity. Socrates' equation of truth and
virtue with disembodied reason gave rise to the West'scharacteristic splits between mind and
body, subject and object, and theory and practice. Socratic culture's brutal domestication turns drives "backward"
against the body, creating crip- pling "inwardness" and "self-laceration" (Nietzsche [1872] 1967; 19686, pp. 156, 202-3, 328; 19696,
pp. 84-85; 1968a, pp. 29-34). Nietzsche held that Christianity subordinated family, locality, ethnicity, and nation to the most
universal cultural domination the world had ever known. In his view, however, the Enlightenment and bourgeois revolutions made
the process even more extensive and inclusive. While promising earthly salvation, the new "democratic" creeds (e.g.,
positivism, utilitarianism, feminism, Spencerianism, socialism, ad infinitum) secularize and pluralize slave morality
and institute much more systematic, diffuse social control. Explosive sociocultural
differentiation, celebrated by modern theorists, multiplies, disperses, and specializes the sites for
ressentiment, asceticism, and discipline. Rather than genuine diver- sity, it produces nearly identical "useful,
industrious, handy, multipur- pose herd animal[s]." Nietzsche's charge that "the whole of sociology" draws its norms from "decaying
forms of society" means that it reflects and serves Socratic rationalization. His
vision of global liquidation of
individuality and cultural particularity contradicts modern theory's grand narrative of rationality,
freedom, and progress. Attributing the conditions to enduring aspects of Western civilization, he envisioned a much deeper crisis
than modern theorists ever imagined (Nietzsche 1966, pp. 176-77; 1968a, p. 91; 19686, pp. 478). Nietzsche held
that the
current wave of rationalization has depleted culture so severely that virtually all of "our
institutions are no longer fit for anything" (Nietzsche 1968a, p. 93). Because "shared" values, norms, and ideas are no
longer binding, culturally reproduced social integration has dissolved. Rather than being normatively regulated, uncoerced behavior
follows the grooves of habit, organizational routine, and mass culture or is simply disoriented (Nietzsche 1974, pp. 302-4, 338;
19696, pp. 121-26; 1969c, p. 226; 19686, p. ISO). The
state's newly developed top-to-bottom officialdom is
emblematic of this sweeping disintegration; its arsenal of disciplinary mechanisms fill the breach
left by the lack of legitimate authority.Nietzsche held that the state and culture are
inherent "antagonists." Pointing to the cultural stagnation that followed Germany's victory in the Franco-Prussian War, he
stated, "Coming to power is a costly business: power makes stupid. . . . The Germans—once they were called a nation of thinkers: Do
they still think at all? Nowadays the Germans are bored with intellect, . . . politics
devours all seriousness for really
intellectual things— Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles was, I fear, the end of German philosophy" (Nietzsche 1968a, p.
60). Immobilizing intellectual and aesthetic creativity, the power state manipulates through a new
mix of draconian law, welfare provision, propaganda, and nationalism. It is a "new idol" and the focal point
of dangerous currents of mass ressentiment and regimentation (Nietzsche [1873-76] 1983, pp. 3-6; 1969c,
75-78; [1883] 19686, p. 48; [1888] 19826; [1888] 1967; 1968a, 62-63; [1888], 1969a, p. 319). In contrast to modern theorists, even
Marx, Nietzsche
did not see anything redeeming about capitalism. Thus, his antistate and antisocialist views
had nothing to do with classical liberalism. He
loathed capitalism's overarching impersonalism
and instrumentalism, holding that they turned everyone into "industrious ants" (Nietzsche 1982a, pp.
126— 27). In one work, he followed his critique of the state with a blistering attack on "the flies of the marketplace," stressing their
falseness, petty ambitiousness, baseness, capriciousness, and sycophancy. Capitalism
produces all-encompassing
haste, superficiality, and life-denying specialized labor. Worse off than slaves, wage workers are at the
"mercy of brute need" and employers who ruthlessly "exploit" them. Nietzsche considered
capitalism's so-called culture to be completely vulgarized and debased (Nietzsche 1983, pp. 164-65; 1986,
p. 167; 1974, pp. 107-8; 19696, pp. 78-81, 227, 258-59, 296-97). Suggesting a Marcusean "great refusal," he urged that "workers of
Europe ought henceforth to declare themselves as a class a human impossibility and not, as usually happens, only a somewhat harsh
and inappropriate social arrangement; they ought to inaugurate within the European beehive an age of a great swarming- out such
as has never been seen before, and through this act of free emigration in the grand manner to protest against the machine, against
capital, and against the choice now threatening them of being compelled to become either the slave of the state or of the party of
disruption" (Nietzsche 1982a, pp. 125-27). Against social Darwinist claims that capitalist competition produces "the fittest"
individuals, Nietzsche held that it gives rise to "smaller . . . more governable" types. Capitalism's formal
equality, relativistic interdependence, and instrumentalism level status and value
hierarchies, reduce tastes to the lowest common denominator, and destroy cultural constraints
on ressentiment. This complete evaporation of legitimate authority provides nearly unlimited
opportunities for the ascent of frauds and mediocre herd leaderships. Thus, Nietzsche cleaved
modern theory's connections between capitalism, autonomous individuality, and
progress. Liberalism and socialism both manifest[s] fundamental pathologies of the same exhausted
cultural complex (Nietzsche 1974, p. 202; 19686, pp. 55, 75, 79). Privileging aesthetic experience over rational
action, Nietzsche subverted modern theory's largely normative and instrumental views of
communication and social bonds. He held that genuine human relationships are rooted in
mutual feelings and the body and depend on the "superabundance of means
of communication" offered by aesthetic sensibilities. By contrast, he treated language primarily as an
instrument of social control. Being abstract and collective, "words" inevitably undermine the expression of the
particularities that animate interpersonal ties. In intimate relationships, it is easy to detect that words fail to
communicate adequately "feelings, intentions, nuances, desires, and fears." But if one openly
acknowledges these silences, he or she risks being branded as "strange" and "isolated"; superior beings' authenticity opens
them to the predations of the herd (Nietzsche 1974, pp. 297-300; 19686, pp. 50, 203-4, 275, 334, 358, 371, 427-28;
1966, p. 217). In Nietzsche's view, language produces "a separate world beside the other world, a place it
took to be so firmly set that, standing upon it, it could lift the rest of the world off its hinges and
make itself master of it. . . . Man has for long ages believed in the concepts and names of things as in aeternae veritates. ...
He really thought that in language he possessed knowledge of the world. The sculptor of language was not so modest as to believe
that he was only giving things designations, he conceived rather that with words he was expressing supreme knowledge of things"
(Nietzsche 1986, p. 16). Treating words as mirrors of
reality provides a comforting illusion of
"certainty." This tendency obscures the social bases of language, reifies social
conventions, and weakens capacities to imagine and create alternative conditions. Linguistic
"abbreviations" cement obligatory social ties where "mutual agreement" about "feelings" is absent and the tendency to "let go"
must be stemmed. Nietzsche held that language serves social selection of the herd, keeping experiences, desires,
impulses, and actions of weak persons within boundaries, inscribing strong individuals as collective enemies,
and redirecting ressentiment into regimentation. Accordingly, cultural rationalization makes this
process of liquidating particularity more effective and universal (Nietzsche 1966, pp. 100—102, 216—17;
19686, pp. 357-58, 380). Since Nietzsche was himself a master writer, his polemics about words per se are hyperbolic.11 The real
target is Socratic culture's exceptionally abstract languages, rampant conceptual reifications, and
impoverished aesthetic sensibilities. Nietzsche believed that the obsession withrational representation
makes the body an inert target of disciplinary control. Adoration of concepts, theory, and reason
makes the abstractsignifier the ultimate object of knowledge. Purely formal concepts are treated as the
"highest," "real," and "true" things, while sense experience is relegated to the degraded status
of "appearance." Platonic ideas, Christian soul, Kantian things-in-themselves, and Newtonian atoms and time are all
foundational reifications that "dehistoricize" the corporeal world and erect illusions of firm "grounds"
for those who cannot face life without God and tradition or bear the weight of its connective
choices and its "great dice game" (Nietzsche 1974, pp. 287-90; 19686, p. 549; 19686, pp. 35-37). Destroying
Socratic culture's "objective" foundations (i.e., God and Truth), the latest phase of cultural
rationalization greatly amplifies feelings of uncertainty. The consequent desperate searching and
clinging produces frenetic reification; fanatical new prejudices, religions, and politics appear
alongside the most sterile intellectual formalisms. Mass culture's hastily formulated languages
blur all difference and ambiguity (e.g., parties "transform their principles into great at fresco stupidities"). The
proliferation of abstract signifiers, arising from diverse locations and detached from any sense of
stable referents,contribute to increasingly mechanical, diffuse, and mindless regimentation. In this
fashion, Nietzsche severed the links that modern theorists saw between rationalization and
enhanced communication, social integration, and legitimate authority (Nietzsche 1983, p. 215; 1986, pp. 161-62;
1966, pp. 216-17; 19686, pp. 357-58, 380-81). According to Nietzsche, the "subject" is Socratic culture's most
central, durable foundation. This prototypic expression ofressentiment, master reification, and
ultimate justification for slave morality and mass discipline "separates strength from expressions
of strength, as if there were a neutral substratum . . . free to express strength or not to do so. But there is no such
substratum; there is no 'being' behind the doing, effecting, becoming; 'the doer' is merely a fiction
added to the deed" (Nietzsche 19696, pp. 45-46). Leveling of Socratic culture's "objective" foundations
makes its "subjective" features all the more important. For example, the subject is a central focus of the new
human sciences, appearing prominently in its emphases on neutral standpoints, motives as causes, and selves as entities, objects of
inquiry, problems, and targets of care (Nietzsche 1966, pp. 19-21; 1968a, pp. 47-54). Arguing
that subjectified culture
weakens the personality, Nietzsche spoke of a "remarkable antithesis between an interior which
fails to correspond to any exterior and an exterior which fails to correspond to any interior"
(Nietzsche 1983, pp. 78-79, 83).