40,000 words to drone on and on. Yarvin is a plonker. But I reserve my contempt for that appalling woman Andrews. Apparently, like the despicable Muskrat, she is opposed to empathy. It is too feminine in her little pea brain. How can anyone reject empathy? It is the force that binds humans together.
I hesitate to psychologize, but a lot of it from that direction seems like overcompensation for perceived inadequacy. That's after all what "reality" TV was about; if you had limited talent, you could still become a 'celeb' by simply being various shades of offensive. I have no love for the kind of gate-kept golden-circle success and celebrity that came before (and persists), but that is no reason to celebrate obnoxiousness and pretend it's the mark of the "authentic". But, such is the neoliberal paradigm; if you can't get ahead by merit, or if you've got a massive chip on your shoulder because of something that perhaps you have been (wrongfully) given a hard time over (like being a woman, a Jew, gay, black, or just looking like a sinister garden gnome, as several of these pompous cretins do), just be a verbose a/hole, and bing.....
I can understand why you might see political theory as otiose but the problem is it has real world consequences. Take Carl Schmitt. He supposes the only reason for a political structure is because of the existence of an enemy. It is a variation on Hobbes who posits the existence of an internal enemy, the criminal basically. Schmitt externalizes it.
I find the idea utterly abhorrent. If I have a favorite political theory it is in the Tao Te Ching. "The best of all rulers is but a shadowy presence to his subjects ..." And: "Know the male but play the role of the female".
I agree; and your essay on that vacuous poser, Curtis Yarvin, prompted this. Yarvin, Dugin, Zizek, Land and others….past the bells, whistles and costumes, there's not much going on there.
LOVELY! You hit the mark here. 👏👏👏👏💜💜💜💜👏👏👏👏
Thanks!!! 🙏 🙏 💚💚💚
Bangers only from Ross
Thanks Cedric!🙏
😊
40,000 words to drone on and on. Yarvin is a plonker. But I reserve my contempt for that appalling woman Andrews. Apparently, like the despicable Muskrat, she is opposed to empathy. It is too feminine in her little pea brain. How can anyone reject empathy? It is the force that binds humans together.
I hesitate to psychologize, but a lot of it from that direction seems like overcompensation for perceived inadequacy. That's after all what "reality" TV was about; if you had limited talent, you could still become a 'celeb' by simply being various shades of offensive. I have no love for the kind of gate-kept golden-circle success and celebrity that came before (and persists), but that is no reason to celebrate obnoxiousness and pretend it's the mark of the "authentic". But, such is the neoliberal paradigm; if you can't get ahead by merit, or if you've got a massive chip on your shoulder because of something that perhaps you have been (wrongfully) given a hard time over (like being a woman, a Jew, gay, black, or just looking like a sinister garden gnome, as several of these pompous cretins do), just be a verbose a/hole, and bing.....
I can understand why you might see political theory as otiose but the problem is it has real world consequences. Take Carl Schmitt. He supposes the only reason for a political structure is because of the existence of an enemy. It is a variation on Hobbes who posits the existence of an internal enemy, the criminal basically. Schmitt externalizes it.
I find the idea utterly abhorrent. If I have a favorite political theory it is in the Tao Te Ching. "The best of all rulers is but a shadowy presence to his subjects ..." And: "Know the male but play the role of the female".
I agree; and your essay on that vacuous poser, Curtis Yarvin, prompted this. Yarvin, Dugin, Zizek, Land and others….past the bells, whistles and costumes, there's not much going on there.