AUT: Harald's profound point

[andrew robinson <ldxar1@xxxxxxxxx>]

"And there's the very definition of disingenious.
Harald makes a very profound point, Dave Stratman
smears it with his own homophobic shit, making it
impossible to discuss until it's been cleaned up."
John

Yes, and profound point it was, indeed.  I've just
seen a survey that says that 22% of voters in exit
polls rated "moral issues" as their main factor in
voting, ahead of the Iraq war and the economy.
Analysts are suggesting this section are probably Bush
voters, and make up nearly half his support base.
This rather confirms what Harald is saying, as well as
Chris's very astute and detailed analysis of the
sociological breakdown of the ideological composition
of America.

Though this also seems to confirm my own point
regarding slave morality.  One article has made the
very valid point that these people who voted for Bush
for "moral reasons" obviously consider it "moral" to
mass murder 100,000 Iraqis, to make hundreds of
thousands of poor Americans unemployed and homeless,
and to trample all over civil liberties.  So what is
this "morality" about?  Well, it comes down to wanting
to impose social conformity on others, at any cost.
And to regulate other people's private lives, what
women do with their bodies, and what personal
relations will be officially sanctioned.  And hatred
of sex, especially "perverse" sex, combined with
worship of work and a reified image of normality and
propriety as "moral", are at the root of all this.

Which certainly points towards Nietzsche, Deleuze and
Reich.

In fact, to Harald's claim that such analyses could
not come from within rhizomatic theory, I would reply
that Harald's point about ethical conservatism and
Chris's detailed analysis of everyday life ARE to all
intents and purposes an exercise in rhizomatic theory,
for all that they might deny it.  Neither is in any
way reducible to class or historico-developmental
determinism; both involve an open multiplicity of
social forces analysed in their concreteness; and both
basically identify the right with forces of libidinal
and social repression.  And Chris's analysis of white
Universalism reminds me of nothing more than the work
of (distinctly anti-Hegelian) postcolonial writers
such as Richard Dyer and Gayatri Spivak.

Andy


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---