New Style Criticism =+df artistic evaluations that effectively introduce, imply and/or utilize invert root themes similar to the manner brought forward by left oriented European ideologists of the 19th century. New style critics vary dramatically in belligerence and conscious awareness of what they do. Many use invert root themes simply because they are in style. Others use them with deliberate purpose and know the effect to expect. Most are some degree in between. It is very seldom that we can tell from the context whether a critic is using new style techniques on purpose or accidentally.
 
New style critics, in some manner, proceed as if traditional rational theory is inherently flawed. Some purport to replace the old with a higher consciousness. Many pin their hopes on a new logic, a new reason, a new way of thinking, a new reconstruction. As negative themes build in the rational style of a society, antithetic reaction tends to intensify. Proponents of new style analysis have succeeded in making traditional logic appear unattractive, even abhorrent. (From Plus Essay)
 
New style criticism is not all negative. To the contrary, many new style critics are sharp in much of their reasoning. However, they weave invert root themes and out of their otherwise astute analysis. Because so much of what they say is charming and interesting, the majority of readers fail to see anything untoward in the divergent root ideas being presented along with the more positive material. As a result of new style criticism, which has been in style now over two hundred years, in an almost imperceptible softening up process, negative ideas slowly come on a par with affirmative ideas. Once the two are set before the public on the theoretically equal basis, negative begins to dominate because, for one reason, it is a powerful tool for destroying one's opponent. This process came to fruit in Europe in the early part of the Twentieth Century. Some of it is happening now in the USA but in a revised rendition.
 
Strange Twist: New style critics use the vices of the past as reason to expurgate the virtues. It happens somewhat as follows:
 
Throughout history, the disasters brought forth by negative power ploys have been more dramatic and more noticeable than improvements achieved through affirmative development.
Since negative maneuvers often win power, those who use negative tactics tend to keep the upper hand. Negative practice paves the way for totalitarian thinking and tyrannical dictatorship. Dictators in power generate more power through negative tactics. People who use negative methods to gain power encourage negative theories that justify their circuitous maneuvers.
There are only a few occasions in history where affirmative ways of thinking have been dominant. These few occasions have been successful insofar as affirmative values have been used. 
[Personal note: In a separate study on the Founders of the USA, I offer evidence to show the power of affirmative development in the lives of our US Founders and the importance of classical affirmative logic in creating the US Constitution and our government. I argue that commitment to the basics of affirmative logic is the underlying power that holds us together as a nation. Affirmative commitment does not eliminate opposition of opinion. To the contrary, it brings conflicting opinions to the surface where they can be addressed with civility in a rational framework. It is in totalitarian societies that opinions must be suppresses. {see LaxTaut Essay} As of Jan. 2001, this research is not yet published on the web. If anyone is interested in finding out more about this study contact virginia(--at--)plusroot.com
 
New style critics seldom give credit to the historic success of affirmative development. In a strange twist of thinking, they use examples of past negativity as excuse to reject affirmative classical values. Having posited affirmative ideals as the cause of modern sickness, they a offer a revised version of negative power as a solution to social problems. They use vices of the past as excuse to reestablish those same vices today under a new name and pretend they have a solution to present problems. Usually they don't see their own contradictions. If they do see some of the contradictions involved, they point out that contraction is the driving force of reality.
Modern divergent dialecticians, taking advantage of contemporary antagonisms, seek to gain power in the present by reinstating divisive practices of the past. Instead of seeing the real problem, negative oriented philosophers blame the failures of the past on classical values. They have it exactly wrong.
The practice of inverting values, [Tactic (e)], keeps classically oriented thinkers continuously on the defensive. Cruel insults and sly misinformation come so fast that, by they time classical thinkers refute one false accusation, five more are in the news and the other issues are forgotten.
Modern antithetical dialectics grows in power. Classical values lose ground. Most people do not see what is happening. It is a twisted, mixed up, strange situation..
From Affirm Essay
 
Problems develop when divergent ideologies come on the scene that ignore, repudiate and even despise affirmative requirements of sound rational thinking. These ideologies are negative in varying degrees.
 
Each of the seven basic theorems mentioned in the Affirm Essay is, in subtle ways, repudiated in new style criticism. We find contempt for the provisions of affirmative thinking in literary criticism, political criticism, psychological criticism, social criticism and even scientific criticism.
 
Most critics who suppress the theorems of affirmative thinking do not realized the implications of what they do.
 
A handful of radical revolutionaries do realize what they do. Many have come to believe that repudiating 'affirmative' ways is necessary to save society. They grow powerful through their deliberate employment of themes of antithetical finesse. Their success seems to confirm the validity of their methods.
 
There is no way of knowing who uses negative antithetical tactics deliberately and who does it accidentally. Machiavelli advocated doing it on purpose. Marx, Engles, Lenin, Stalin and Sorel all advocated and used deliberate antithetical tactics. As Alan Bullock pointed out in his 1991 book, Hitler and Stalin, Parallel,
 
One such list might include Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Mill, Peirce, Heidegger, and Wittgenstein. We might also try to construct a unifying characterization of some of the basic fields of philosophy – for instance epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics – and beyond this one should also consider what is central in such subfields as aesthetics, philosophy of history, philosophy of language, philosophy of logic, philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion, and philosophy of science. Reading the entries on these philosophers and fields will probably yield a much better indication of what philosophy is than we could expect from even a thousand-word entry. [p xxvi]
Robert Audi
Plus root theory aims to establish a method to successfully address problems created by negative ideologies and totalitarian dialectics. However, the first step is to explain plus root theory.
 
There is some mention of negative oriented ideology in the Roots of Sound Rational Thinking but a thorough study of negative ideology can only proceed after we clearly understand the basics of affirmative rational philosophy.
 
We cannot refute negative thinking unless we have something with which to refute it.