The Fascism of Everyday life

An insult was needed because the receiver was lacking life-force. The offer is a form of deterritorialized space that mitigates the flows of life-force.

Life is inherently suffering. Existentialists would claim that a life well lived is a life worthy of living. In other words, an affirmed life. This gives life the paradoxical property of being absolutely terrible at times. Are those that mastered life the ones who can shut themselves away from life. They affirm a denial of life rather than deny life altogether. This is the general experience of discipline. Discipline is a property many adults like to claim that they’ve gained from becoming stoic and bougeouse. There’s a rhetoric that says that those at the top deserve to be commanding those who can not discipline themselves. And those who can not discipline themselves are repressed by their own lack of will. From the perspective of the undisciplined individuals operating in lower rungs, deterritorialized space given to the undisciplined to reside. Could this “space” be a region where they are rewarded for being undisciplined? This is not how we’d want to understand repression. Because if those reject this “gift” would hurt those at the top. The act of rejecting a gift would be considered rebellion. And so the operation would account for this rejection with an already rejecting desiring-machine. Desire in itself, already comes negated right when it arrives to the individual. When an individual claims he desires to be oppressed, it is because desire is precisely the inability to desiring the object-of-desire. And so rejecting this rejection (desire) would be what?

It’s no longer practical to say that practicality comes at the top to maintain subordination. A trickle down economics. Seniority should then governs the life-experience as proper experience. This is the where “the offer” can not be negated if one decides to turn it down. The idea is to become the “hater,” the stingy, the life-denier, the solar-anus. But life-force siphons up to the miser as long as he sees the lives of his subordinates become better and better. By the time the adult becomes an adutl, he has experienced the ups and downs, the highs and lows. He can now make that ultimate offer. The offer is made where one can reject the offer.

It would seem that inducing suffering is a great service to the youth. Maybe to the point where suffering could be controlled and monitored. Why wouldn’t a parent build a second life for his child, one where they can “learn their lesson” to the world to come. This preparatory phase builds a home, a school, a colleges, a university, an internship, an apprenticeship, a marriage counseling session, and a tax bracketing to those not yet ready to experience the entirety of life. What comes after paradox is allowance. It would seem that the entire ordeal of life, the suffering of it, is dependent on a permission. It is the parents that gives the child permission to live life on their terms. The taxpayers gives college students permission to live a full life. Just not, yet. That privilege hasn’t yet been granted.

The fascism of everyday life

The best of life merely reflects the worst in life. In other words, what is experience? When one is miserable, it is because one hasn’t lived life to his fullest. When one is insulted, it is really a gift. One should really be grateful for being insulted. For it isn’t the assailant that gives a flow of words saving the victim from victimizing himself?

“Where would the miserable individual, a pathetic individual, filled with ressentiment, be without his insulter? The victim would come out better after being insulted. What the victim should be after is to be insulted.” When the victim finds himself in is a simulation that hasn’t yet been granted permission to suffer. Thus he can not be insulted but rather suspended in voluntary and involuntary reactions of the will. The nobel response would be to walk away and not address the insult. But this would interrupt the flow of the assailant’s message. The assailant is the carrier that carries the deterritorialized space that unconceils the simulation. Here the assailant also traps himself in a paradox. Because the objective of the assailant is to make the receiver offended not by his message, but the victim hurting (insulting) himself. The victim is a receiver that is placed under a double-bind. He is the displaced represented that falls victim to social repression only to come around as psychic repression. The assailant is also placed under the same flows-of-growth that the victim is also participating under. The carrier/ assailant is looking for his gift to return. If the victim comes out better for suffering because of the insult, then the assailant has not received the gift “overcoded”. Instead, allowance would encourage fascistic behaviors and insult away. Sadly, this doesn’t happen. It becomes worse.

The suffering of the victim is meant to pay for the gift that was given. This is the gift that returns to the assailant’s eye. His gazing eye looks for a blush in the cheeks, a mug of the eye, a chatter of the teeth, an intonation of the voice… any reaction would suffice. Sadly, this does not occur because the code arrives in different spaces. The deterritorialized space that was sent by the assailant is meant to return purged instincts. Rage, growling anger, uncontrollable pangs of despair. Sadly, for the liberated sovereign individual, the victim does not return those codes to pay for the gift that was given. This was the paradox of the imperial formation as it re territorialized nomadism by force, that is, involuntary.

Flinching (voluntary or involuntary) responses

We have to be in the wrong in order to be in the right. An insult is essentially an offer to “right the wrong.” A civilized, non-response, that is, a victim that becomes a masochist, throws a wrench to the entire operation. Life-force grinds to a halt and the gears stop turning. The assailant turns into a masochist and the victim comes out better at the other end. But a voluntary response, would require codes to return from an immanent surface. This is because the victim is given a choice to react voluntary (which is not a reaction in the first place) or involuntary. An involuntary reaction is what we described earlier. It is a response from the imperial formation forcing the savage to comply to the conquering. The capitalist formation grants the savage the gift of “learning a lesson”, thus, the sovereign would be rewarded with a payment. The savage must pay his debts for living a life worth living in a developed world. The sovereign built a world entirely for the purpose of granting permission – allowance because granting individual allowance based on utilitarian principles was the major belief that “progress” was made by liberating the individual from the chains of history. The claim that capitalism brings out the instinctive drives to compete with one another only holds true in the productive, homogeneous surface, not in the developed surface. The sovereign must compete with capital itself

Deleuze and Bataille tackle this problem in completely different ways. For one to gain acceptance to the full glories of life, one must be what is the receiver receiving? It is the full range of life. The insult doesn’t offend anyone, it is the victim who places himself under a particular space where he can “purge” out emotion. He offends himself. This is social repression that carrying overcoded developed codes to reintroduce back to p repression, the same repression that made the victim a victim in the first place.

We can say that the negator of life is the one who does not want to experience the bad parts in life. He rejects life because suffering is not worth experiencing. This is the person who despises those who suffers and remains affirmative. The negators reject life and build up resentment This is the repressive representative who needs a carrier to send him life-force in a form of decoded code. This code is what life-force travels in almost like a jumper cable that connects two car batteries. But he must pay. The attacker is also a carrier because the aggressor carries a gift with him that will be sent in the form of a voice. The vocal outlines the sharpness of a blade that will pierce the victim deep in his soul. What the attacker has done is given him life by displacing the repression so that the victim will purge voluntary emotion into such space and will be returned. The insult is a present, meant to give teh victim the full range of emotion. This is anger, ressenimant. The victim will trash and shout, negate, and moan to the point of despite. But will ultimately surrender and the thoughts in this brain will distort not by involuntary action, but voluntary. This is against his will

What use is an insult if it goes over his head. If a victim is too incompetent that he’s being insulted, the insult would not work. It’s one thing to be overly insulting. This would automatically disqualify the carrier, not because the —, but because capital reclaimed developed codes back to their original productive ones.

Remember that both carrier and receiver participate in flows of growth. The despot that forms the imperial formation must force the primitive to comply and obey. The previous economy that ran on involuntary (savage) instinct must be overwritten with graphism. This can happen by forcing codes into non-comparative spaces. The space of the despot is comparative – codes must use the matching principle in order for currency to lose ambiguity. As currency finds equilibrium, a general economy forms. But the territory that it operates is under involuntary instincts. (The despot enslaves the primitive to their will) likewise, comparative codes are forced to suse the matching principle with commerce and mercantilism. The despot moves codes into non-comparative spaces and codes no longer behave with involuntary reactions bur rather, voluntary ones. aq

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.