Rebellion

When the liberal-left spectrum of thought reacts in horror to the far right, they desire to, before anything else, identify the figure as being “Nazi”, or a similar synonym. More sophisticated versions may be more or less exact, but the construction of the sentence remains the same - identifying the target as being possessed of a particular quality, at which point the discussion ends. “Nazi” is used in the same form as “Sin” is used. Their takedowns of particular figures are attempts to demonstrate not primarily the wrongness of the statement of their enemy, but the self-evident wrongness in their target as being “Nazi”, with the exposing being in showing how this figure is possessing of the qualities of Nazism and then terminating the analysis. This draws the same schematic as the famous article “Who Goes Nazi” and has been drawn by conservative and puritan authors through history. There is the known category, that which is included and allowed, where the speaker sits in the position of, not only in the center of, but in being able to adjudicate the inclusion or exclusion of a particular target inside this zone of inclusion. The diagram drawn is that of an enclosed inclusion and an infinite exclusion-space. Such is the recurring themes of conservative neurosis - hell as exclusion in Augustine, “out of state agitators”, and the language of identifying someone as “Nazi” by not being in line with specific principles and then “cancelling” them.

Such is not an aberration however, of some alien form of communication, but a fundamental fact of the linguistic’s role in making a group of people into a community. When a community is formed, whether through geography or ideology, that community must be held together by becoming greater than the sum of its parts, which is its collective dream that makes it up. This dream is a linguistic machine which determines the health of the community by not only defining the constituents of the community by its constituents, but determines and selects what is included or excluded from the community. Through this mechanism, all communities produce natural conservativism, which should be confused as a right wing political inclination, but the natural outgrowth of a person who has gained an existence which has value in the context of others.

To rebel for the individual is therefore to strike back against this dream which makes the community what it is and to assert the individual’s existence, but also to abandon the self to be lost within the wilderness. To leave the community and their dream is to abandon oneself not only to being unmoored in any central axioms of language to orient oneself (the dream as political ideology or religion), but to be the lost in the ahuman wilderness, whether this wilderness is the ahumanity of nature or the ahumanity of technological and urban assemblages. Rebellion therefore is not an act of revolution or democracy, but a profoundly asocial action carried out with sorrow by those excluded, who find themselves becoming-lumpen in their inability to integrate into any community. This asociality is an action which is facilitated by the internet, which does the first action of separation wherein it allows the rebellion to be done cleaner than it was done in earlier eras by famous isolates and hermits, but also allows the rebellion to be the entering of a new community, where communication technology allows for language to create connection no more different than it does face to face. It is the former part of this motion which forms the majority of reactions to the internet, with its horror in confronting many being the horror of its ability to facilitate the rebellion process, as shown in the liberal commentary on “online radicalization”, the “video game violence” debates of earlier eras, or in the self-destructive deterritorialization-comedy of Sam Hyde.