The Deconstruction of Scott Pelley

Written by:

Published on: September 27, 2015

Scott Pelley of CBS news recently rebuked Donald Trump because Trump himself did not rebuke a fan of his who stated that we have a Muslim problem in this country.

Trump was much less aggressive in his response than I wanted him to be.  Perhaps Trump is afraid of looking like he is thin skinned.

I do not believe Trump is thin-skinned.  Based on experience, this description of him is absurd and not the slightest bit damaging to him in any event.  I believe Trump should have crawled down Pelley’s throat in spite of any threat of being mischaracterized for doing so.  He should have went after Pelley’s childish and unconscious premises ferociously, out of an obligation to deconstruct the social and political pretense of liberalism which has become tiresome to the point of revolution.  If I could, I would teach Trump to publicly assert his moral responsibility to deconstruct the Scott Pelleys of the world with extreme prejudice.  The survival of America quite literally depends upon this deconstruction.

My neopopulist philosophy, which is all about the postmodern deconstruction of liberal and progressive pretense, recommends a very clear tactical response to the sickening poses of a Scott Pelley which, again, it is no longer safe to tolerate.  The destruction of the liberal language game is essential to spiritual and political survival in the west and Scott Pelley, posing as the moral authority, has provided us neopopulists with another teaching moment.  Let’s see how a neopopulist Donald Trump would have handled Scott Pelley.  Trump is already impolitic which is entirely acceptable to most of us.  All he needs is a few new rhetorical tools.

Mr. Pelley, of course, will never understand, like both the conservative and liberal pundits, that the only thing most voters care about is what a candidate is determined to do.  We do not care about the other standards applied by the pretentious media class, including the impractical notion that a candidate is supposed to know exactly how he is going to do what he is determined to do.  Not being practical human beings, the so-called intellectuals do not understand the process of iterating through a project. 

Mr. Trump will survive just fine by remaining nasty and continuing to tell us what he is determined to do.  He will fare even better if he becomes as nasty as Neo Trump.

—————————————————-

Pelley

Mr. Trump, your tolerance of the bigot, who said we had a Muslim problem in this country, tells us something bad about you.

Neo Trump

YOU are the bigot.  What you just said tells us something very bad about YOU.

Pelley

(incredulous)

Neo Trump

When you say that my friend is a bigot you become the real bigot.

Pelley

And how could that be?

Neo Trump

Are you the author of the absolute rules for using the term ‘bigot’ correctly?  Are you God handing down the only truthful use of this word?

Pelley

I think most people would agree that your fan’s remark was totally bigoted.

Neo Trump

That is a patent and childish lie.  There is probably a current majority in this country which does not think my friend’s remark was bigoted at all; a majority which will not accept your grammar, your rules for using the term “bigot” correctly.  I think you know this and lie about it.

Pelley

So what’s wrong with my use of the term ‘bigot’?

Neo Trump

It simply expresses your will to power, the attempt to further your relative cultural and political goals.  You hate the goals of my friend who thinks that we have a Muslim problem.  You think you know what those goals are and you probably do.  By using the term “bigot” in your way you hope to suppress his goals and advance yours.  It is no more meaningful than that.

Pelley

Isn’t there a dictionary definition of the word ‘bigot’?

Neo Trump

Yes, and I say you are violating it.  You claim you are satisfying it.  How do we decide?  If we had criteria for deciding what difference would it make?  Those criteria could only be understood in terms of a whole paradigm of language, entire competing dictionaries.  You and my friend are simply committed to different language games as a will to power.  The dictionary is not language-in-use.  You are.  So is my friend.  So am I.  The dictionary cannot control how you, I, or my friend use language.  Bigotry, in my grammar, is a subjective moral condition.  I do not pretend to read minds.  Do you? 

Pelley

Aren’t there objective conditions, behaviors, expressions, which your sick fan exhibits and which imply bigotry?

Neo Trump

No.  Bigotry, or being ‘sick’ morally, is a complex, even subtle set of behaviors about which people ardently disagree.  Since we have different views of my friend’s motivations or subtext, his goals or pretext, and the whole context, we arrive at different conclusions about the true meaning of his text — about whether or not he is actually behaving like a bigot where the only thing we agree on is that bigotry is bad.  There are, of course, people who think that bigotry is good, denying both your use and my use of the term “good.”  All of this is obvious to everyone except children.  The dictionary cannot settle any of our philosophical disagreements because philosophy — and science and politics — are simply a proposal to use language in a certain way in order to achieve certain goals.  The dictionary just follows this process, lagging behind.  Liberals, like you, behave like children, insisting that your use of language is the only correct use.  This dogmatism, this incapacity to confess your will to power, turns you into a bigot.  You have no real respect for diversity, for differences which, above all else, are expressed in our relative language games, our rival traditional uses of the very same terms.

Pelley

So my use of the term ‘bigot’ is nothing but an expression of my relative will to power, my relative political and social goals?  It has no more significance than that?

Neo Trump

Correct.  Almost all of us know this without admitting it because we believe that acting like our use of language is absolute, even without God’s backing, is a more powerful use of it.  We think it serves our goals better to insist, like children, that our use of language has inherent authority.  The only thing that could possibly make your use or my use of language absolutely right or wrong is the existence and authority of God.  But this theological question does not matter to children like you.  You insist that your use of language is the only correct use by fiat.  There is no adult honesty or sophistication in this.  And so you are going to be deconstructed, per nature, per force. 

Pelley

How does the existence of God make language more than a relative will to power?

Neo Trump

That should be obvious.  If God exists, and constructs Reality out of language, as Christianity suggests, then He is the ultimate judge of whether or not you and I are using language correctly.  He is in the all-encompassing frame of reference explaining all other uses of language in terms of His own.  He decides what correct use is — what is a lie, and what is truth; what is good and what is evil.  He gives us this moral knowledge as a paradigm of use — a tradition.  The fall of man is a fall into language; into an awareness that God is the ultimate language giver.  The knowledge of good and evil is the knowledge of His language.  There is only one unforgivable sin — rejecting God’s authority over our language.

Pelley

But how do we know what God’s paradigm of language is?  How could I know what God thinks about my language?

Neo Trump

He would have to come down here and tell us.  He would have to introduce the world to a linguistic tradition, a whole grammar for words like ‘good’, ‘evil’, ‘reason’, ‘justice’, ‘sin’, ‘salvation’, and finally even words like ‘bigot’ by implication.  He would have to endorse a tradition.  But you are not interested in any of this.  You cannot imagine that your language is subject to God’s revelation.  And this is what makes you an evil bigot by your very nature as a liberal.  YOU are the one who finally denies that there are any authoritative rules for using terms correctly, morally, because this authority could only come from God.  You pretend that the authority lies in YOU.  YOU are a bigot.  In my Christian grammar, this is exactly what a bigot is. 

Pelley

So unless I agree that Christianity is the authority for the correct use of terms, I am a bigot with nothing more than an arbitrary will to power.  The only meaning my language has is the expression of this will…

Neo Trump

Correct.  Exactly.  Like a totally self-centered two-year-old.  If this is not true then what authority backs up your grammar?  Islam?  Tell me now, like a man, putting away childish things, where does the authority for using language, the way you use it, come from? 

Pelley

Reason.

Neo Trump

Ah, yes.  And who decides what is rational?  How do they decide what is rational?  What are the rules for using the term ‘rational’ correctly?  I just got done telling you that philosophy, science, and politics are simply proposing practical uses of terms like ‘reason’, ‘justice’, ‘bigot’, and ‘marriage’ which serve the goals of the speakers, unless they make themselves subject to the goals of God; unless they submit to a tradition which makes a rival claim to authority. 

Pelley

But reason transcends all of these competing points of view.

Neo Trump

No, it does not.  And you know it.  And we all see right through you when you make this silly claim.  Your reason is simply identical with all of your rules for using language correctly.  Your whole grammar.  Tom Dahlberg, Erick Kaardal, and a host of postmodern philosophers of language and science have already dealt at length and in detail with the question of whether or not you, like God, have access to tradition-independent standards of reason.  You do not.  Start reading and stop thinking like a child.  And finally, tell me whether or not a Muslim, who takes the Quran seriously, and is an advocate of Sharia law for all, is a bigot or not, based on your rules for using the term ‘bigot’?  What do you say when a Muslim argues that we have a ‘Christian’ problem in this country?  What is the response of YOUR tradition to this claim?

Pelley

Well, if there is no universal reason, I guess I am not obligated or even capable of offering you an answer to that question.

Neo Trump

And I say you are a liar and hypocrite.  You have a tradition, a very inauthentic and naïve tradition, and now that it has been deconstructed you do not know what to say.  You are refusing to participate in my language game just as I refuse to participate in yours.  There is nothing left to say.  There is no conversation, no dialogue, no debate.  It has become embarrassing to watch an adult deny that the answer to my question is grounded in a relative tradition which is not based on any universal standard of rational justification.  In your liberal tradition a blatantly chauvinist Muslim is not a bigot simply because saying so will not achieve your insane goal of multi-culturalism, which Muslims do not believe in.  Again, you will play any language game which achieves your goals, no matter how arbitrary and no matter how suicidal.  And you will refuse any language game which prevents you from bringing on our suicide.  Ironically, liberalism has morphed into a cult of guilt and suicide.  Christianity is much more life affirming.

Pelley

Well then, I can say this.  We have very, very different rules for using the terms ‘guilt’ and ‘suicide’ correctly.

Neo Trump

That we do.  But you are not welcome to yours because they threaten me and my family.  And I intend to do something about it.

Pelley

And what is that?

Neo Trump

I and many others will continue to deconstruct your language until it is a cultural given that what you have to say is nothing but your arbitrary, ungrounded, will to power.  It must be since you deny that you have a competing tradition.  In the meantime universal reason is a hopeless modern myth.  I think we are already there with at least half of the people, some of whom used to be liberals.  The days of your modern, liberal pretense to universal reason, to universal justice, to knowing who is absolutely a bigot and who is not, are waning quickly.  This modern game is over.  You are now the dogmatist, the uneducated redneck, the arbitrary bigot.  The postmodern understanding of language has upended your entire view of Reality.  In the meantime it has actually reinforced a religious understanding of Reality.  Deal with it.

Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.
Check out Sons of Liberty Polls on LockerDome on LockerDome
Comment via Facebook
Comment via Disqus

Send this to friend