Oh, yeah, and if Russiagate isn’t paranoid enough, apparently, the corporate media is now prepared to deploy the “Putin-Nazi Election Hackers” propaganda in any and every election going forward (as they did in the recent French election, and as they tried to do in the Dutch elections, and presumably will in the German elections, and as The Guardian appears to be retroactively doing in regard to the Brexit referendum). Any day now, we should be hearing of the “Putin-Nazi-Corbyn Axis,” and the “Putin-Nazi-Podemos Pact,” and video footage of Martin Schultz and a bevy of former-East German hookers engaging in Odinist sex magick rituals in an FSB-owned bordello in Moscow. Soon, it won’t just be elections … no, we’ll be hearing reports of Russian shipments of rocks, bottles, and pointy sticks to the “Putin-Nazi Palestinian Terrorists,” and … well, who knows how far they’re willing to take this?
. . . what we’re dealing with here is more than just a lame attempt by the Democratic Party to blame its humiliating loss on Putin (although of course it certainly is that in part). The global neoliberal establishment is rolling out a new official narrative. It’s actually just a slight variation on the one it’s been selling us since 2001. I could come up with a sixteen-syllable, academic-sounding name for this narrative, but I’m trying to keep things simple these days … so let’s call it The Normals versus The Extremists, (the Normals being the neoliberals and the Extremists being everyone else). The goal of this narrative is to stigmatize and otherwise marginalize opposition to Neoliberalism, regardless of the nature of that opposition (i.e., whether it comes from the left, right, or from religious, environmentalist, or any other quarters).
At some point I began to realize that what goes by the name of “critical theory” is a prolongation of adolescence masquerading as a questioning of norms. This wallowing in adolescence, which includes among other things, the snowflake evasion of the burden of sexuation, is now itself the norm and the only one immune from critique.
Macron’s pro-war, anti-working class and ’supply-side’ economic policies leave us with only one conclusion: Marine Le Pen is the only candidate of the left. Her program and commitments are pro-labor, not ‘hard’ or ‘far’ right – and certainly not ‘fascist’.
Is there anything whiter than white guilt?
There’s no denying that the record of Euro-American colonialism is a record of egregious brutality.
But it is a record notable only for being the most recent episode in a dismal history of human aggression that stretches back to the first traces of sedentary humanity.
Before Europeans set foot in the New World, native tribes were in a state of endemic warfare with each other. Entire civilizations in Central and South America were built on human sacrifice. Africa and Asia fared no better. Had this not been the case, European conquests would have faced far stiffer resistance. Divide and rule only works when internecine warfare is already rife.
Moreover, as centuries of barbaric fratricidal warfare prove, Europeans have not exactly been kind to one another. Indeed, the notion of Europeanness was and remains little more than a Platonic ideal. Go ask the Greeks, whose ancestors invented the idea of the West, what that gets them when dealing with the EU and the IMF.
Theatrical displays of white guilt, such as are common in academia, are little more than perverse, underhanded ways of affirming white elite superiority: See how sensitive we are. How civilized. How European. Virtue signalling.
Freud’s insight that guilt is aggression deflected inward and thereby converted into harsh moralism remains pertinent in an age when wars of aggression are invariably rationalized as humanitarian interventions. White guilt has not produced a cessation of aggression but merely armed it with a different logic. We are being driven toward the precipice of global conflict by a liberal Russophobia that has effectively rendered meaningless the distinction between what were once political opposites.
As the traditional left goal of economic equality was abandoned, it was superseded by emphatic allegiance to “human rights”, which is now taught in school as a veritable religion. The vague notion of human rights was somehow associated with the “free movement” of everything and everybody. Indeed the official EU dogma is protection of “free movement”: free movement of goods, people, labor and (last but certainly not least) capital. These “four freedoms” in practice transform the nation from a political society into a financial market, an investment opportunity, run by a bureaucracy of supposed experts. In this way, the European Union has become the vanguard experiment in transforming the world into a single capitalist market.
Huysmans dismissed him as a pompous fanatic. Baudelaire acknowledged him as his intellectual tutor. I think Joseph de Maistre is worth reading as an antidote to deconstruction.
The problem with deconstruction is that it has come to be associated with a knee-jerk liberalism that finds hysteric fault with every manifestation of authority and, therefore, tends toward a paralytic anarchist cult of consensuality and victimhood. To me, this is a deconstruction afraid to pursue its logic to the end, which ought to be its self-nullification. What deconstruction should reveal, ultimately, is the indispensability (as opposed to lamentability) of violence and privilege in the construction and maintenance of effective civilizational myths.
This is what Maistre does. And he does it by ruthlessly judging high-sounding ideas of emancipation by their outcome. Rather than attempt an impotent philosophical demolition of rationalism and the incipient bourgeois democratic ethos, he ties them to the bloody disorder ushered by the collapse of the Ancien Régime. And ultimately, he puts his faith not in the rhetorical power of his words but in the social and spiritual calamities that attend the destruction of the old patriarchal order. The people “have only seen the Revolution; they must feel it and enjoy, so to speak, its bitter consequences.”
Life is too short for anything else.
So basically all that pissing and moaning about Trump being a Kremlin stooge was just sexual tension. After the wargasm, liberals are swooning over the bad boy.