The Schizo-Stroller

Overload. Screams. Cries. Ravaged hair pulling. Accelerator locked on. Chain stuck to rear axle. Wheel smoking. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

BOO HOO!

In comes the demolition ball of emotional cruelty. Compassion denied by the consumer mind. The emptiness bought into that entails the demand to embody the impossible rational economic subject. No feeling possible. To hear another’s cries brings out pangs of jealously. Smash the victim down!
I cannot feel so you may not.
I dare not feel so I will deny yours.
That which we refuse in ourselves we are least likely to allow in others.

The Tories are trying to eradicate the welfare state according to the Hayekian neo-liberal plan. And to do that they need people whose fore-fathers fought for it to hate it.
As Malcolm X said “If you believe the papers, you will soon start hating the oppressed and loving the oppressors”
And so the media onslaught began.

Love? Give it short shrift.
Compassion? Socialism!
Empathy? A code word for communism!
Someone suffering? let them know it’s all their own fault. It cannot be any other way.
The market dictates. There is no alternative. Put up or shut up!
Pay your rent! It’s the century of rentierism.
Stop complaining.
The exceptional complaint, the only complaint allowed, being the right to complain about others complaining.
It is the order. It is the state of exception.

All resistance is required to be channelled through conspiracy theory.
Resurrecting the old anti-semitic 1930′s Nazi propaganda of the New Order, rearing its ugly head again. The new illuminati, the new Elders of Zion.
Stick it up your 23. Push your skirt down. Girls in short skirts are asking to be raped. Blame the victim society.
Fuck Wilson give me Burroughs. Cut up, mash up, scars down my arm.
Watch me bleed.

It hurts. But you are not allowed to feel the pain. Cut yourself from feeling, for feeling, forbidden rights, forbidden expression. Forbidden truths. All pain must be visible and tangible. All scars in plain sight.
Disability only exists in the image of a wheelchair. Only immediately apparent impairments are acceptable.

It is necessary to collude in the destruction of the welfare state. In the destruction of our own job security. Our own living wage.

Only what is on TV truly exists. Only the simulacra counts.

If you’re not working you are subhuman. If you do anything other than watch TV at night, your too up yourself.

Daleks exterminated. We deny.

Deny it! Deny it! Deny it!

Others’ pain reminds us of our own. The pain we do not allow ourselves to feel.

Healing oneself is forbidden. It’s being too up yourself.

First Blood, the only decent Rambo film, a tale of how a community refused Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and the inevitable consequences.

My mind is a machine gun. My pain the bullets.

Why shoot me? All I did was deny you.

Refused acknowledgment. Denial of recognition. Failure to provide solidarity. Isolation. Destruction.
Only negative solidarity remains. Banding together to fight those who resist our repression. Who bear their pain.

Demon! Out! I name thee Repression!

Same as dat, yesterday, today, tomorrow
There will be no reprint, repress, suppress, oppress, compress
Same as dat, today, tomorrow, yesterday
No compression, oppression, repression, suppression
This is no mp3
This is not a copy of a copy
There is no original,
An original implies a copy
this is unique.
Stinky, human shit.
Everyday shit
Revolution of everyday shit
This shit is only suitable fertiliser for growing vegetables for human consumption after 10-20 years
About the same time as an original thought takes to get into academic discourse
Or for that discourse to affect policy.
And, then, only after you take the heavy metal out.
Mash it up with hardcore
Then break the scene.
Create those vacuoles
Elude Control.

Bad boy bubba
Double trouble
Bubble Trouble
Momma Can I Go out And Kill tonight
I was a teenage werewolf
But I don’t wear shades, not even after dark
Look into my eyes… deep into my eyes
MOTHERFUCKER.
Shut the fuck up and listen
Cos I wanna tell to a story.
Of how I was mummy’s golden boy.
But that golden boy was’na me.
Was name,
Was good boy bubba
Toil and trouble
Protestant ethical fucker
Victim blaming cunt

Same as dat, tomorrow, yesterday, today.
No reprint, repress, suppress, oppress
Same as dat, today, tomorrow, yesterday
No compression, oppression, suppression, repression
My bonny lies over the ocean, my bonnie lies over the sea
My bonnie lies trapped in the Other, and no-one can fucking here him but me.
Mirror in the bathroom you and me, help me gain some sanity
Don’t look at me bruv
I’m just you looking at you looking at you looking at you looking at you…
You need a knot eye
Not who?
Not you, another mother’s fucker
Any old fucker, any old fucker, any old fucker will do.
Young or old
Beautiful or not
Girl or boy
Just not you, do you see?
I see you, looking at you, looking at you, looking at you…
But not me
That’s cos you’re looking at you, looking at you, looking at you.
A knot eye to see your knot.
Tell your not to get knotted.
De-not. A not knot.
Get your punk arse out of the subjective and get some bastard to prove you wrong
High noon, guns at dawn
Dusk till dawn,
Better argument after negation after better argument after negation after better argument after negation…
Better than you looking at you looking at you looking at you…
It’s the knot eye, bleary eye till dawn and the wine flows like sweet, sweet nectar.
No vampires here.
Unless it’s the night you can’t get a word in edgeways
Never mind, you’re no virgin
You’re doomed to die in the horror story of your mind
At least you might get a fuck out of it.
Living in the love of the common people
Smiles from the heart of the family man
Papa’s gonna buy you an ideology to cling to
And you’ll never have a proper conversation til the day that you die.

If you’re worried you might have depression
First check you’re not surrounded by wankers
If you’re worried you might have psychosis
First check you’re not surrounded by narcissists.
Hard to do in the consumer society
Zombie land of the living shopper
Braaaiiinnns
Think, think it ain’t illegal yet
The zombie sniffs the air.
Brraaainnns. Thinking braainns.
Whoop whoop it’s the sound of the police
Censor that thought
It’s not fit for human consumption
It has inherent value.
Same as dat.
Dat shit. Bat shit.
That’s not for reprint, reprocess, redistribution.
Same as dat
I’ve got nothing to say
Nothing of value
Other than my truth.
My inherent value.
Whether it has any objective value, objective truth, can only be decided by others.
That’s a you, another, not the mirror,
Lest we slide into mental illness.
It is you ooh hoo, oh yeh yeh yeh
It is you ooh hoo, oh yeh yeh yeh.
Pressure drop, oh pressure drop
Pressure’s gonna drop on you.
And it cuts both ways
Sunshine
Solar anus
Uranus
Not Janus with his two face
Scarface
Don’t get high on your own supply
That shit ain’t ever gonna be good enough
Bat shit, dat shit,
Guana, g’wan a
You wanna
Same as dat.

Now distribute quick
And fuck off.

Some people seem to think that by reversing the Golden Rule: Do to others as you would have done to yourself, they can do what they want.

That is they think by saying, ‘Go on, you can punch me if I punch you’ they can do what they want. Or ‘Well, I don’t mind’, the narcissist’s version unable to extricate themselves from the subjective.

How about this. “If I can rape you, then you can rape me”. “I can violate you if you can violate me”.

Actually, no. You’ve consented, therefore it’s not rape. You still can’t rape me.

There are good reasons people come up with forms of philosophical forms of argumentation. Dialectics, dialogics, logical propositions, scientific experimentation and observation etc. It allows one to see beyond subjective opinion.

Unfortunately, its not that good for consumerism.

The general intellect and the general bitch are opposed.

The general bitch has other names, the general carry-go-bring-come, the general gossip, general ignorance (if you like QI). It is fed by hearsay and is thus opposed to Law.

The general intellect and general bitch both work at the edge of chaos.

However the general intellect draws from below, from chaos and creates its own democratic order.

The general bitch fears chaos and polices it.

The general intellect tames the Beast, plays with it, converses with it freely; the general bitch fears the Beast and thus unconsciously works for it, the general bitch is the Beast’s slave. Its willing slave, due to its willing repression of its own desires and thus is unable to become fully conscious.

Working for the Beast the general bitch uses police tactics, censorship, negative solidarity to feed the Beast it fears.

The general bitch invokes fealty and obedience to the Law whilst simultaneously forecloses its own ability to create it and therefore is not the Law.

The general bitch tries to be a parent whilst failing to be an adult and so becomes a child.

This statement is a bitch. This is a general statement. It does not belong to the general bitch.

If you don’t want to be ruled by fear and aggression.

That’s the job of the mammalian brain. As that bit was trained by suckling, one needs to find the mother-lode.

If the mother-lode is lacking, and even if it isn’t, one needs to find the significant-other lode. Or more precisely the significant-others lodes. For they are multiple.

Then language can move from a command ethics to a knowledge ethics.

The nu-atheists a priori acceptance of progress which is a very Christian belief system

(re: debate – it should be noted that intelligent commentators on evolution who are not nu-atheists tend not to be too bothered about the debate (it’s not a debate – the science won a long time ago – what masquerades as debate is really the nu-atheists attempted coup for leadership of conservatism))

(re: intelligent commentators – i’m dumbing down for the day)

(re: self-reflection – my arse)

For over a year now I’ve been hearing voices saying ‘Hayek’ or ‘Nozick’. Since last March in fact when my daughter was first hospitalised, these two along with ‘Foucault’. I realise as single words they are empty signifiers and I can fill them with what I will, but as they are a communication between my Other, created by my unconscious projecting onto the real, I guess I’ve got a better chance of gaining some meaning from it as any.

The ‘Foucault’ I have always associated with the experience of Great Ormond Street, and the fact that I had just finished the Birth of the Clinic (by then though I had moved on to the Order of Things). My therapist, who fortunately had also read the book, reminded me how Foucault talks of clinical discourse turning the subject into the object. And realising how it was my baby daughter this was happening to, and i was observing from two removes (later in the CDU of my local hospital a nurse with much experience of working with children and families in intensive care, and whose own child had been in intensive care talked to us about how, when a child ends up in intensive care the mother is pushed at a remove from the care of her own child, and the father, who is often pushed at a remove from the relationship with the mother, becomes separated from the child by a further remove. She stated her own husband had had issues with this). So with all this it made sense that I would hear this signifier. As our relationship with the hospital infrastructure became less intense and our own familial relationships improved this voice became less intense and prominent.

However, the signifiers naming the two right-wing theorists has continued. I can only associate this with the fact that with the burgeoning awareness that I would have to rely further on a state that under Tory rule was increasing its draconian governance and surveillance not just due to my own disability, which was at this time already under attack in the media, but now through my daughter.

The ‘Hayek’ I associate with my belief that the Tories know that they are likely to lose the next election and are stripping the state bare for theirs and their friends own pockets. The dominant ideology clings to his economic theory but the reality of the events from 2007 onwards meant that his ascendance is on the wane. The ‘Nozick’ i associated with the reality that to keep this post-Hayekian economic dominance the rich would have start to dismantling the state leaving only a skeleton state protecting private property. The floating of policies to privatise roads and the police confirm this for me.

As the infrastructure of water, gas, electricity, the railways and social housing had been sold off under the Thatcher government, what else is there left? Our genes?

But why do these signifers keep coming at me? I am aware they come when I am upset at the complacency of a world that feels powerless to do anything. But it also comes when I feel negative solidarity, mis-directed energies of the powerless towards the powerless and I feel isolated and alone. These voices seem to come from intelligent but deluded others who stemming from a middle class unaware of the real conditions of an underclass, who are busy setting themselves up with resentful carry go bring come simmering, underneath, bleat their desperate belief in their assuredness in a Robinson Crusoe selfhood, unaware of their own emotional cripplehood.

I associate this with my loss of connection with a more emotionally substantial left-orientated middle and working class, leaving these lost constructs, soft bodies projected onto a cold Real that is best represented in my mind by these emotionally dead philosophies that are unable to recognise the lives of Others, most prominently the lives of those others that they exploit.

‘Fuck ‘em’ said the ex-Black Panther.

But i still find it hard to keep my dignity.

After so many years of them refusing my right to peace, as they refuse so many others’ rights. So many human rights refused. Again and again.

Why? Because they refused themselves their own rights? Can we try to empathise with them for that?

When I am strong and well… perhaps. I can try. But the bastards have tried to grind me down for years.

The meek shall inherit the earth, but the fucking ignorant can go fuck themselves.

I’ve read book after self-help book telling me the only thing i can do is to take responsibility for my actions. and I try to, oh, i try to. But my crime seems to have been to be forced to shoulder the burden of others’ emotional responsibilities. And like an abused mule, stricken with one too many emotional bags to carry from yet one more emotional shirker, I kick. Buckaroo!

But do I get my own Society for the Protection of Abused Mules?

Do I fuck!

Instead i get contained by those who would blame the whipped dog for biting in frenzied self-defense.

I’m sick of being the holy scapegoat. Even the strongest get overwhelmed when there are too many cunts around.

Fuck’ em!!

No more keep calm, carry on.

Get angry! Fight back!

First thought: The phrases ‘I feel judged’ or ‘I feel excluded’ are emotionally incorrect in a logical sense. The correct phrases are ‘I think I am judged’ or ‘I think I am excluded’, even, ‘I seem to be judged’ or ‘I seem to be excluded’ but as words that end with an -ed are most often judgements or observations that happen to the person (although there is a grey area as they may be observations of affects, hence ‘I feel outraged’ gives a sense of feeling, hence the affects will more likely illicit emotions to do with anger (although not necessarily) but are still not specifically defined), they cannot be feelings as emotions are processes (chemicals if one wants to be neuroscientific) that happen in the body. As regards words ending with -ed, one has either been judged or been excluded or not, whether one feels or for that matter thinks one has. However if I say ‘I think I’ve been judged’ it is a matter of agreement and can potentially be settled, however if one says ‘i feel I’ve been judged’ and someone says ‘Well you haven’t been’ it is harder not to take the disagreement personally, as one is evidently feeling something (there is some definite neurochemistry going on) but as an emotion has been confused with a judgement that has a truth value (emotions are qualities not truths, therefore have a different validity) then what is left when the feeling is denied One can say ‘I feel paranoid because I think I am judged’, or ‘I feel upset because I think i am judged’, perhaps ‘I feel angry because i think I have been excluded’ (hence one will most likely feel angry at being outraged but perhaps also sad or hurt). This is not to say the observation of judgements does not come with a corresponding feeling, but these feelings have multiple possibilities, hence if I say to you ‘i feel judged’ you might think I am paranoid when in fact i am feeling upset and anxious.

Second thought: Rhetoric is the skill of persuasion, often politically, using emotionally laden language. This language need not be, in fact perhaps necessarily is not, in conformity with the logic above. Hence if a politician suggest that they ‘feel slighted by asylum seekers getting a free ride’ you are free to insert your own emotion with regard to this ‘slight’ which indeed is a value-laden observation and judgement, not an emotion of its own.
The classic statement would be ‘I feel this is the right thing to do’. Really, do you feel happy, do you feel slightly conflicted, do you feel angry because you have no other choice, do you feel guilty because you think its right but many will suffer, because you know its right for only a few? It’s a very powerful statement though, as although there are limits to the possibilities for emotion set by the context, they are multiple and therefore can grab the attention of and perhaps persuade far more than if the statement had been more emotionally honest.

Third Thought: How does one deny rhetoric without either an ad hominem (perhaps a straw man) or more rhetoric?

The use of an unrelated attack to throw a brick (the troll may assume it’s a curve ball but it’s not i’m afraid) into an argument.

A Deus Ex Machina was originally a god in a greek play that suddenly appeared to change the ending, even though the god had played no part in the previous acts of the play. In an argument it is used to describe bringing something (often God and usually argued in a tautological fashion) into the argument to close it when the thread was starting to unravel.

An ad hominem is an attack on the person rather than the argument (you are arguing from a left-wing position and someone accuses you of being a communist, assuming that is enough to destroy the argument). of course the joke: “Danger may resort to ad hominems when cornered”, is a joke precisely because it is used when the the attacker, attacking the arguers character, has no decent counter argument. (It does occur out of frustration when the arguer is particularly stubborn though, if I’m to be kind).

A Straw Man figuratively refers to the creating of a different argument to the one presented, one that is less robust (made of straw) and is thus easier to knock down. Rather than confronting what is actually being said with a robust counter argument (again to be kind, can occur out of frustration when the attacker is struggling to understand the argument).

So an ad hominem/ Straw Man ex machina is to throw a random attack in.
For example an ad hominem ex machina whilst trolling a discussion on Marxist surplus labour theory the attacker could say ‘You’re gay’. An appropriate ad hominem here really would be ‘You’re a communist’.
Of course if one is willing to abandon the argument one can have fun attacking the troll as usually these are often strong projections from unreflected upon complexes.

A straw man ex machina could be, for example, whilst trolling an argument on english literature the attacker could say, “If it wasn’t for you guys wasting your time we’d have sorted 9/11 by now”. This of course underlies a deeper unmet need, and does not necessarily assume any underlying psychosis, just an oft-repeated fixation stemming from an unhealed emotional block, again projected.

The brick will only end up being a curve ball if the troll has the intellectual skills to wed his attack to the argument trolled.