People are always saying, "Colin, why can't you just stop hating the right-wing so much"..."where is the love, dude"? Why are you always getting red-faced and angry at people who just don't have a clue, I'm asked? Brother West would tell me that there is no time to hate, there is too much injustice out there already for that emotion... you need to learn to forgive and to love.

Well, here is an example of why I find that so damn difficult, at times. President Obama is visiting a bunch of schools around America at the beginning of the school year (correction: he is only visiting one in person, but his speech is being broadcast to all other schools at 10 am on CSPAN; most school districts are requiring parental permissions slips to allow their children to hear the president's address) and it has aroused (typically) the (expected) choruses from Republicans of "I'm not letting my child go near school that day" and "Obama is embarking on a Hitler Youth Project" and "Brainwashing!, Propaganda", "How DARE he speak to my children, who aren't even voting age. He's just trying to indoctrinate them into his own system of beliefs so they'll vote for him in 2012."

Of course, when you look at the curriculum document the White House has prepared, none of this is (surprise, surprise) the case. All Obama is doing is going around to schools preaching the message to kids of how important it is to stay in school, work hard, go to college, and be successful. Apparently that is a bad message to send our children.

I *know* I shouldn't reply to the imbeciles, but this one post was just so flippin' far off the charts I could not resist. Here is the post, and here is my subsequent reply:

Seig Hiel, Obama

Rated 1 out of 10

September 03, 2009 (4 hours 11 minutes ago)

The Hitler Youth was a campaign to get the youth of Germany to believe in their leader. Of course, many remember that in the end, it was the greatest downfall for Germany. In speaking to a few German people, they said that they could not believe what they had fallen for in their youth. They said that they were told that Germany could own the world, if they just followed the greatest leader in the world, Hitler. Hitler was so drugged up most of the time that he was relentless in dealing out punishment to those who would not follow him. Millions died. Obama is still new, but his plan is a take-off on Hitler because he feels he can rule the world. He wants to change America the Great, to fullfil his plans. America is waking up and is understanding what Obama's is up to. One can only fool Americans for a short period of time and then it is GAME OVER. In this cases though, I feel Obama is just a pawn, used and soon the be abused because the plans of Obama's leaders will fail. True Americans will prevail and the Constitution will stand. Obama does not speak or understand Texan, but does speak Kenyon and so does his poor brother there,in the hut. Reverend Wright is wrong, America is the land of the free, if one wants to be free. For some, America is not the land of the free because some prefer to shackle themselves to the past or a certain belief because they were brainwashed by others to believe that they are wronged. Twenty years in Wright's wrong church is a great placed to be brainwashed. A great place for simpletons. I am very happy that my children are beyond elementary school. The schools will pay a high price for the lack of attendance on September 8. The States do not pay the schools for days missed by students. Most teachers are Democrats. What a wonder place to brainwash the children into the most upsurd beliefs. Our first child went through the full 12 years of brainwashing, but we were able to save the rest by homeschooling them. They 3 children that followed, were allowed to enter in tho the school system later and have shown leadership for beyond their classmate. For that we thank our Lord, the Almighty. God Bless America, Forever!

Reply to Desert Heater

Rated 10 out of 10

September 04, 2009 (12 seconds ago)

Desert Heater says: "Obama is still new, but his plan is a take-off on Hitler because he feels he can rule the world." How about coming up with something more original than another Hitler comparison. We're all bored of this, now. And you automatically discredit yourself from anything further you might say by doing this. He also says: "I am very happy that my children are beyond elementary school". Well, I am very *un*happy that you decided to procreate. It's bad news for all of us. To add insult to injury, he informs us that: "Our first child went through the full 12 years of brainwashing, but we were able to save the rest by homeschooling them." Buddy, I guarantee that your first child is the only one who's going to be fit for living in society if the rest of them were taught by someone who is comparing the United States President to Adolf Hitler, and who claims that "some people were brainwashed by others to believe that they were wronged". Oh, that's all that slavery, child laborers, sexism and the KKK were, I see. I thought they were *actual* systems of material inequity, oppression and abuse, but they were just systems of brainwashing to make people *believe* they were wronged. Thanks for correcting the historical record on that. "The 3 children that followed were allowed to enter into the school system later..." NO SHIT, SHERLOCK...your local school was probably salivating to get them out of your clutches before you turned them all into brainwashed, (oops, I stole your favorite word...wait, that's what the gov't does, not you, nosireee) raving, sociopaths. Let's hope it's not too late to undo all the damage. Desert Heater closes with a lovely, Christian prayer to round off all the wonderfully un-Christian sentiments of his preceding rant: "For that we thank the Lord, our Almighty! God Bless America, Forever!" You, my friend, are one sick, sick individual. We can only hope your psychosis accelerates so quickly in coming months that you're one of the first to be victimized by Obama's forthcoming "death panels". Let's see, you compare the President to Hitler, trash the school system as a liberal brainwashing camp, and pull your children out of it, yet you're asking the Lord to bless your country forever? There's a precious little nugget of logical consistency.

Public Domain

Dr. Cornel West

In "Enjoy Your Symptom", Slavoj Zizek writes:

"...the definition of 'normalcy' [in ego psychology] is a
psychical apparatus open to reality, whereas the psyche is
'pathogenic' if, instead of establishing proper contact with
reality, it builds its own 'disjointed' universe. It was of
course the classic Marxist criticism of 'conformist' pyscho-
analysis which opposed itself to such a notion of reality:
the 'reality' to which conformist pyschoanalysis refers as a
norm of psychic 'sanity' is not neutral reality as such, but
the historically specified form of social reality. By offering as its

ideal the subject 'adjusted to reality', conformist psychoanalysis

makes itself subservient to existing social reality, to its relations

of domination, categorizing critical distance from it as 'pathological'(54).

It seems to me that Dr. West is addressing the students on exactly this issue (see 5:18 in the video for the relevant comments, although I highly recommend watching it from start to finish), when he urges them not to be "well-adjusted to injustice"... Elsewhere, he encourages people to *be* mal-adjusted to the status-quo.

Zizek, in the same chapter that the above quote is taken from, parts ways with West (who are good friends and share many differences and similarities) in his articulation of the Lacanian 'act': he suggests that a true act is an absolute break from the symbolic order, a "once-more-unto-the-breach" leap that is purely negative, and thinks nothing about what comes after the break until the break itself is complete. (the symbolic order meaning roughly society, family ties, career, etc.) This seems to me to be an over-simplification of the symbolic, and especially of history; all of Zizek's discussions of the revolutionary act have a whiff of the a-historical, as though the subject of the act is not a specific individual who is raced, sexed, nationalized, and so on, but just a 'pure' subject. (see chapter 2 of "Enjoy Your Symptom").

By contrast, the first thing West mentions in the address above is family and friends, the support network. Although he calls for radical and independent thought, political leadership, a commitment to injustice, it is never severed from where these students came from (or where any of us committed to justice come from), namely, our mothers, fathers, friends, pastors, professors etc. who all have a shaping influence for us, and who really are the reason why we are committed to the things we're committed to in the first place. Zizek fails to see that there isn't simply a symbolic order, but many symbolic orders, or symbolic orders embedded within other symbolic orders-- nations within nations, cultures within cultures--

The video leaves no doubt in my mind that there is an African-American nation and there is the American nation; West is addressing both, but first and foremost he is talking to his 'sisters'.

I'd like to say something more about voice, and rhythm, and the 'blues' and how all of these are intertwined in the cadences of West's own distinctive voice, as he freestyles his way through such an inspired and inspiring address...maybe next time.

http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/media/press/2009/WWFPresitem13540.html

The post above will take you to the WWF --(NOT the World Wrestling Federation, now defunct) but the World Wildlife Fund's website, where they issued an apology and a clear dis-association with an advertisement created by an outside ad agency, that insensitively depicted numerous planes flying toward Manhattan island with the caption "the tsunami killed 100 times as many people as 9/11". It should never have seen the light of day, yet somehow managed to get to an advertising award panel, and received an award. I am not providing a link to the image, because I personally feel that it is a) tasteless and b) should be a non-issue because WWF has made it clear they are not to be held responsible; it was rejected before it ever made it to print.

However, WWF IS responsible in one sense: by outsourcing their advertising campaigns to agencies like DDB, WWF is asking for events like this to happen. Hire your own fucking marketing team, pay them salaries, watch them like hawks, and don't follow the 'outsourcing' trend, which, as a not-for-profit, progressive organization you SHOULD be opposed to in principle. Then shit like this will never hit the fan. Outsourcing leads to PR nightmares, and makes it that much more difficult to know who's 'working' for you.

A couple of comments about the media/public outcry about the message of the ad: While I am in complete agreement that the ad is reprehensible, it is noteworthy to observe that commenters on various news websites that have decided to run this as a major story, mainly direct their hatred and vitriolic comments toward the WWF and all types of "greenpeace-shit-oriented hippy" organizations instead of the one ad. agency that was responsible. The conclusion to be drawn is that people want to hate environmentalists, animal rights advocates, (and the list could go on to gay rights advocates etc. etc.) and so conveniently use this kind of dubiously connected evidence to fuel that hatred. While, of course, simultaneously ignoring the press release that shows that WWF did not authorize the ad to go to print-- actually, they condemned it.

A more general point to be made is to observe how, to borrow Slavoj Zizek's idea, you CANNOT steal people's enjoyment today. The actual point made by the ad is a factual statement, it cannot be denied, and what is REALLY getting people upset is not the WAY the ad makes its point but the FACT that it IS making it, period. This is not acceptable. While I agree with the visual tastelessness of the ad, one can't say they're wrong for saying what they're saying. (which, in my own interpretation, is to make the comparison between natural disasters stimulated by climate change, and terrorist attacks: there are interesting comparisons to be drawn between Hurricane Katrina, the tsunami, and 9/11, not in the actual events themselves, but in how these various events are represented, pictured, covered in the media, memorialized, what one can say about them and how one says it, etc.)

Non-profit organizations that are fighting for change are in the business of being provocative, of probing at people's sorest spots, and are in constant danger of being a target for people's actual unconscious SELF-rage, which is displaced upon them. In short, these NGO's are quite often in the position of the analyst. At some point, they will occasionally cross the line between what is acceptable provocation and what is unacceptable. It is difficult to constantly walk that line and not fall off on each side, by either being so politically correct that your ads are effete and ineffectual at provoking any kind of reaction, or going too far the other way, offending huge numbers of people, and thus tarnishing your image and subverting your aims.

Back to Zizek's idea: he would likely agree, that although unacceptable, the reaction to the ad is interesting nonetheless because it shows how much of a trauma still remains with regard to 9/11, which in turn suggests that mourning hasn't really taken place, or that it is been transgressed altogether by other coping mechanisms like repression or random outbursts of violence against "straw-people" scapegoats. Jerry Falwell, as right-wing America's spiritual leader, helped all his followers unburden themselves of their feelings of grief, outrage, and impotence by having his congregation of several million dump it all on gays, lesbians, African-Americans, and socialists.

And it is also interesting that it is particularly VISUAL representations of NYC sans the two towers, (like the one in the non-existent ad campaign) that are especially triggering. Not only does this indicate the full transition we've made in postmodernity to being a visual, rather than textual society-- note that the printed word never evokes the kind of reaction that a photo does, people and organizations can (and do) say anything all over the internet, and most of it simply gets ignored)-- if it is SHOWN, depicted visually, the reaction is all the more hyperbolic. I can only hypothesize at this point that, particularly with regard to images of the NYC skyline, it is associated with the excessive and overblown visual coverage of the actual events of September 11, 2001, and the repetitiveness with which it was broadcast. Our memories of, and the traumatic responses to that day, are bound up with the images that remain in the heads of all those who sat in front of their boob tube, transfixed. (Fredric Jameson argues that "the visual is essentially pornographic", in his Signatures of the Visible). It seems to me that it wouldn't be far-fetched to argue that the combination of horror/enjoyment (or spectacle), the contradictory responses that such a combination provoke, make it much more difficult to disentangle our reactions, and therefore prevent effective and respectful mourning and memorializing, and until we confront our own complicity, our own guilt, in being passive consumers of this event, we will never get beyond it.

Deconstruction and Post-Marxism

I am currently reading Simon Critchley's essay on Derrida's "Spectres of Marx"(further references abbreviated to SOM), a chapter in his book "Ethics-Politics-Subjectivity" (Verso, 1999). I thought I would begin a brief discussion of a few of the concepts that Critchley picks up on in Derrida's book, even though I have not finished yet. Early on, speaking of the context to Derrida's overall argument, he has this to say:

"Within Marxism, a strong point of Derrida's reading is the link he draws between what he rather euphemistically calls 'the totalitarian heritage of Marx's thought' and the refusal of spectrality. Totalitarianism, or what Jean-Luc Nancy calls 'immanentism', in all its recent and less recent guises, is a political form of society governed by a logic of identification, where 'everything is political'. That is, it is a political form where all areas of social life are claimed to represent incarnate power... Totalitarianism is the phantasy of a complete and transparent social order, a unified people among whom difference or social division is denied." In terms of SOM, totalitarianism is premised upon a refusal of spectrality, it is, as Derrida puts it, a 'panic before the phantoms in general'; that is, before something which escapes, transcends and returns to haunt the social order".

There is a lot to say here, so I'm going to get straight to my points. I won't bother with Derrida's characterization of Marx's thought as 'totalitarian' as Critchley gets on to debunking this in the next sentence following the quote. (and to be fair, Derrida does say to the "heritage" of Marx's thought, and not to Marx's own works: he is likely thinking more of Lukacs, Trotsky, Althusser, Lenin, and especially Stalin when he makes this comment). My first issue has to do with Derrida's use of the term spectrality, and of course, it is the at the center of the book's construction-- spectres, ghosts, haunting (hauntologie), returns, monsters-- and similar figures return again and again. But is it really conceptually that rigorous, in spite of the literary dimension it adds to the text? My own feeling is no, it is not the best name for what Derrida is trying to describe. That term was already used by Adorno, in various works, namely, the non-identical (or sometimes, the particular). I don't believe I am diverging too far from the path Derrida wishes to pursue here, by seeking analogies between political totalitarianism, the maniacal desire to have every crack in the social order sealed, and Adorno's critique of philosophical totality and the violence that systematic thought tends to incur upon the particular. In addition, it also points to the 'quasi-transcendental' aspects to Derrida's thought, the hint that there are two orders of reality, divine and human, and that any translation between the two is a dicey business to say the least (particularly, for Derrida, in trying to incarnate the 'ideal'...but no room for more here, I'll pick this up again next time).

It seems to me that enough of the groundwork has been laid by thinkers like Adorno and Derrida to make Marxists, anarchists, social-democrats and radicals of all stripes and sizes, all pretty bloody aware by now (if we haven't been since about 1969) of the undesirability and impossibility of such totalizing systems as a replacement for the old, undesired capitalist-liberal democratic society. What seems to me much more vital and important is the question of how to do away with the political desire for this kind of symbolic closure, for making the political the site of permanence and the status quo, instead of precisely what it is (or at least should be) which is the site of a permanent contestation, deliberation, revolution, not excepting the very fundamental and ideological underpinnings of its own instantiation (whether it be founded on Marxist principles or what have you). (see Judith Butler's essay in "Feminists Theorize the Political" for a worthy discussion of the kind of anti-foundational foundationalism I'm trying to characterize here).

So, who really needs to continue to be lectured about the dangers of totality/totalitarianism and not creating room for anything opposed to 'its' point-of-view, is not today the political Left, but the political Right. It might seem at first glance, to translate this discussion into more real-world politics, that a nation like America would be the anti-totalitarian society par excellence. There is room for anyone to express their opinions, every crackpot with no need to offer proof of a brain or even a soapbox to stand on, can criticize openly the society in which they live. Yet, on the other hand there is actually no real contestation happening in the US today, because of the way the media only highlights the most polemical arguments on either side of the debates that are taking place. Commercialism/media profiteering is taking the fertile ground of political debate, civil society, and turning it into one giant Maury Povich episode. Without some form of recognition that we're on the same turf, (beyond the empty sound bites of patriotism and 'we're all Americans now'), that we're after at least some of the same goals, then there is no possibility for ironing out the specifics on how to accomplish any goals. As a result, there is a tendency for America to become increasingly totalizing because of the irrelevance of all the heckling and shouting that's going on. It's pure spectacle, no substance, therefore the administration can just continue with their fear-mongering and misinformation, push policy through, and not have anyone to answer to, at least until the next election.

The desire for totality comes initially from the Right. To paraphrase Benjamin, it is capitalism that is the runaway train, and Leftist revolution that is the emergency brake, although in the popular imagination it is always envisioned as the other way round. Or Brecht, who asks rhetorically, what is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of one?

Critchley goes into this in the next paragraph: "Outside of Marxism, and here we come to the real context for SOM, if there is a refusal of spectrality (again, compare with non-identity) within totalitarianism, then there is an equal refusal of it in that anti-Marxist consensus that celebrates 'the collapse of communism' in terms of the uncontestable triumph of liberal democracy." Derrida goes on to quote Fukuyama's much-discussed Hegelian arguments on the end of history in this section of the book.

Critchley then concludes this part of his discussion on SOM's context by demonstrating the ultimate confrontation between spectrality and phenomenology. "The spectre is precisely that which refuses phenomenologization, that retreats before the gaze that tries to see it, like the ghost of Hamlet's father." This leads into the question of what possible value the spectral has for a Marxist-infused politics, a seemingly groundless, floating-in-the-ether way of basing a political movement. Critchley discusses this in another part of his paper (specifically, Derrida's ambivalence surrounding a 'ground', or an 'ontology', which he sees as pre-deconstructive), and I shall discuss this in more detail next post. Suffice it to say, this is where I most strongly disagree with Derrida: any progressive politics, including any engagement with Marxism/Post-Marxism, requires a ground from which to begin (for Marx, rooted in 'life' and 'the conditions of people's real existence') and that the actual fear which Derrida (and Adorno) are concerned to avert (the problem of haunting that Derrida deconstructively probes out of Marx's own writings, the violence that tends to occur within a systematic body of thought as any aporias , any particulars that pose a threat are dialectically subsumed by the whole , for Adorno) are not necessarily inherent to either totalitarianism or totality, but, when under the watchful guidance-systems of Derrida (deconstruction) and Adorno (negative dialectics) we are forewarned, we can find creative ways of ensuring that concretization doesn't necessarily mean sealing every fissure that naturally forms in the concrete.