Now, communication and control have become one, without remainder.Byung-Chul Han
The question of rhetoric in the Aristotelian form rarely comes up in the 21st century. While we argue forms of truth and the truth of truth, the truth of rhetoric becomes lost under accusations of ad hominem.
Fidelity to the aim of the original purpose of the thing is a second movement and will of the original thing, but such Fidelity occurs primarily in academia, where the quality of service provided dramatically increases with that Fidelity. In the technopolitical landscape, such Fidelity is reserved for the most simplistic of ideas on one hand, and on the other, the vicious reterritorializations of Trumpistas.
The Socialist Left, which prides itself on its academic fidelity to the original aim of economic raising of quality of life, tends to forget the Aristotelian lesson that rhetoric is in fact, its own art.
Nick Land recently called me dishonest for arguing with his horde of monarchy, race theory pushing and capitalism enjoying horde by calling his Jewish citation a minstrel act for Anglos, a disgrace, and pointing to his own (rumored) association with the Jewish community from his lineage, specifically, asking if he’s going to raise his Jewish children to be minstrel spectacles for Anglo taste.
Yes, this is vicious.
But is this dishonest? Land then reduced leftism entirely to this practice of rhetoric, which is seen as alien to “the real thing” of truth, which is for him of course, race theory and the like.
A vigorous reterritorialization is best, but how does one first do this? First you need to be calling to something which has significance in the Real, and then there is a truth in the symbolic (the history of the Uncle Tom archetype).
A vicious piece of rhetoric, but not dishonest.
The rhetoric serves a sense of not being a spectacle for others utilizing one’s race. The moral framework of internalized racism is mainstream thinking, so almost never brought up in the cutting edge of philosophical thought, but it is certainly a fundamental question that race realist right wingers should contend with if they believe they should push that ideology on the world.
Reterritorialization is best done viciously if you really want to break something. What other job of a leftist intellectual could there be but to break forms of institutionalized race theory via rhetoric calling on the Real and symbolic orders which the reactionaries are trying to pull in their direction?
Deterritorialization and Reterritorialization via the word, qua rhetoric. Rhetoric is not a lie, but a mode of communication to argue for the moral standards one desires.