Marxism and Assault. III:

Marxism and Assault. III.

The confusion of theft and rape can only be committed by the neurotic ego. If one's locus of attention is upon the Other, then there can be no confusion. The Other NEEDS food, and similarly the Other has a Need NOT to be violently abused. There can be no conflict of interest here. In the same way as we must honor the Other's space we must honor the Other's nutrition and general well being. Only the Self can imagine this latter obligation is an infringement upon its OWN former rights. The Self, if it is sufficiently conniving, will hold the altruist to altruistic standards. But the egoist is exposed at the moment that the altruist sees that the egoist neither holds its self nor other others to these altruistic expectations. This hypocrisy can get SO egregious that, when the altruist rages that they are not being held to the same standards, the egoist simply says to the altruist: think of others. But it is merely an absurd parroting of the altruist's own indignation -- a re-direction of resentiment. At this moment the offense must be seen not as revelatory of the altruist's contradictions but rather of the egoist. The egoist fucks up; he thinks that he is simply perpetuating the ruse. In fact he had blown his cover, for were thought of Other his own goal then he would join in his altruistic friend's tirade against the selfishness of these others.

That this seems to contradict the principle of Tolerance for the Intolerant is a fact that I can tolerate. After all: consistency belongs to the self. Inconsistency is the province of the Other. Yet I do not espouse a surrender of consistency. There can BE consistency underlying an apparent inconsistency, and for a balance betwixt self and other to exist we must honor it. The consistency here is that we still tolerate those whom we criticise; we try to ignore those we do not see any positive potential in.

The effect of Political Correctness is that we repress the Otherness of the Other and our own tendency to Otherise in favour of including the Other in the Self. So it is that, as tends to be the case with repression, the repressed instinct becomes VILE. When we DO Otherise, it is with unconscious aversion. And this is not said to haunt you with fear of your own unconscious; my intent is quite the opposite. The moment that we express this aversion we become conscious of it. But what we forget is that it was not justified to begin with. So it is not as though at this moment you must ask your self: am I secretly racist? You are not. There is no such thing. But rather when you say: I AM racist, but I cannot help it! you are lying. When the notion of racism its self is seen to be a projection of the unconscious then it loses all meaning except as a slur. But what we must be vigilant of here is the investment we make in the psyche. If we spend days being politically correct, by the time that we order a drone strike on the phantom projection that is I.S.I.S. it is all ready too late to convince the well meaning, politically correct ego that this is blatant xenocide. The ego has done every thing RIGHT, but it is still wrong, to use a cynical expression. And this is, again, NOT to say that the egoist is 'unconsciously racist' and that he can atone by becoming 'conscious' of that 'fact'. There never WAS a fact, just like there never WAS any sort of Racism nor any sort of I.S.I.S. The naivete here is on the part of the realist. What there WAS were the Muslim people, but because they were excluded under threat of exclusion their Otherness was repressed, forgotten, corrupted, and re-projected upon the Middle East. The non-realist does not deny an actual crisis, so he is not naiive; HIS whole argument is that the crisis is perpetuated by the people trying to stop it. And whilst it is in man's nature to act, to cite Watts, we should act in such a way that does not act against Nature.

Dm.A.A.