Search results

because it delegitimises hamas in the eyes of the Palestinians, and in the eyes of everyone else. how does current Israeli strategy prevent further attacks from hamas? it doesnt. even the israeli govt recognises that the goal of destroying hamas is quixotic. all it's doing is feeding the beast...

firstly, not firstly, not overreacting and bombing the gaza strip to smithereens, killing huge numbers of innocent civilians. that would *maintain* israeli legitimacy. secondly, moving through or creating international institutions in response. that would *extend* israeli legitimacy.

that was basically the playbook of the Bush admin. instead of using the tragedy of 9/11 to pull the international community together, it went on the rampage in a way that alienated most of its peers

thinking about this situation, I keep going back to 9/11, and I think there's a significant parallel. due to the scale and the nature of the atrocities committed on October 7th, israel had this amazing (for israeli strategy) moment of moral legitimacy which it could have used to build some kind...

true too--perhaps even more so--for people like land and d&g, since baurdrillard can at least be read in part as a critic of the logic of the simulacrum / techno-singularity, whereas land and d&g are solely its heralds.

I think that makes sense - and its a disjuncture that leads to hysteria, as you said. what is the context in which we operate? we never seem to be able to find our feet.

A maddening aspect of all of this, if you take the perspective of israeli strategy, is that what's outlined above doesn't make sense, and that incoherence is manifest in the events of October 7th. However, its evident failure has not dissauaded Israel in any way; instead it seems to have, if...

well, iirc, D&G conclude--in A Thousand Plateaus--that you should always retain a bit of terra firma to cling on to in your journeys. Complete deterratorialisation is not an end to be sought.

one of our age's true prophets

you have to be on it to understand it, I'm afraid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_of_immanence#:~:text=Thus%2C%20all%20real%20distinctions%20(mind,a%20plane%20of%20consistency%20accordingly.

there's a very clear, implicit, historical allusion there

aka the development of the realm of pure immanence - the "plane of consistency"

but still, the wider point about the aim of israeli strategy seems consistent with their response to october 7th

"e/acc" is shallow garbage - land, for all his faults, deserves better acolytes

tell me you've never read nick land without telling me you've never read nick land

you could ask land the same question - although what he believes the outcome will be is quite at odds (hilariously so) with andreesen and co

A really interesting and highly recommended case study of this is Donald MacKenzie's An Engine Not A Camera, which shows how modern derivative markets are predicated upon the existence of modern finance theory--in particular option theory and the Black-Scholes equation, without which derivative...

I would characterise it slightly differently. It's not that, if you have enough money, you can insulate yourself from the rule of law. It's rather that institutions--including "the rule of law"--are constitued on the basis of their creating "the zone of the anti-market".

And what if it were ever thus? "Above this layer [of the market economy], comes the zone of the anti-market, where the great predators roam and the law of the jungle operates. This–today as in the past, before and after the industrial revolution–is the real home of capitalism." (Braudel)

I don't see the equivocation. What I see is the obvious subtext to statements about how the US can "certainly afford" to fight two (proxy) wars at once, and the very real possibility that it will soon be doing just that.