Kao23 :: Blog :: Reflections Beneath A Dark Sun: Myth, History, Politics and Paganism 5, 6

5  Neo-Nazi Mysteries (8th April)

This penultimate talk was a familiar exploration of Goodrich Clarke’s research into Fascism within contemporary Occultism. I missed this due to other commitments but it is something I’m already quite aware of. Those who attended reported it was of some interest and highly informative for them.

6. On the Spirit of Terrorism (15th April)

The final talk in this series tackled terrorism and Islamism through the philosophical lens of maverick French philosopher Jean Baudrilard, whose philosophy, some say, claims that in post modern society the image and the media have become so dominant that the ‘map’ has replaced the ‘territory’. In fact reality according to Baudrilard has been demonstrated to be evasive and ambiguous and essentially unknowable. All that

is left for a stable environment it seems is the conventional system of interlinking symbols we call culture. This ‘hyper-reality’ was however an empty shell that could collapse at any moment leaving us nothing. Or so some have interpreted the message of  the opaque, radical semiotics this post-situationist provocateur.   

Alexander unashamedly became a mouthpiece for the controversial views of this provocative intellectual, summing up his series with the extreme viewpoint that, regrettably, fascism was now the only dynamic voice in politics, given the weak liberalism, groundlessness and uncommittedness of the post modern West. Looking for a radical response he expressed scepticism, describing the green / left alternative as a hopeless and dangerous attempt a libertarian decentralisation in an increasingly unstable, violent and threatening world.

He expressed Baudrilard’s view that Islamism was the most threatening reaction from the Third World in response to Globalism, that threatened to puncture the bubble of post modern liberal democracy.  While admitting that fascist Islamism was hardly widespread or politically potent, he described it in typically Baudrilarian style as a symbolic act of defiance that challenged the hegemony and confidence of the West.

An interesting ironic perspective on international relations, from the speakers Baudrillardian position, was that the Third World resents not the 'exploitation' of the West, but rather its 'charity'. This was based on the notion that the deep political economy is not rooted in an exchange ethic, but rather in an older (distorted?) gift economy. But here the ethic was one of prestige, a competitive gift giving in which those who gave the greatest gifts, and especially gifts which could not be returned with equivalence, have the higher status. This is also seen as the basis of consumerism by Baudrillarians. Thus those who cannot reciprocate are demeaned. However, as with most Baudrillarian ideas, many of us thought this an interesting half truth, and somewhat exaggerated. I felt it reflected a distorted idea of the notion of Gift, which in its pure form does not require reciprocation, though a likely distortion when in parallel economic relation to a market system.     

Almost xenophobically he also echoed his guru in the claim that the unassimilated Third World subcultures now existing in the West threatened its stability, a situation due to worsen as the wave of immigration from east to west increased, that was also
connected to the threat of Islamism.   

He concluded his apocalyptic vision with the bizarre and almost Gnostic views of Baudrilard that the world was naturally ‘evil’ in respect to our ‘humanist’ ideals and that fascism gained its strength from accepting this. He failed to elucidate what this meant however and was heavily pressed by the astonished audience to define himself.

The nearest he came to this was a kind of Dionysian concept of disruptiveness and the will to power that always undermined utopian ideals of peace, harmony and equality.

Few were convinced by this unworldly idealist position however. Most regarding what Baudrilard viewed as ‘evil’ as quite desirable.

One insightful point made was that 9/11 was actually subconsciously, and sometimes consciously, welcomed by many in the West, appealing to our secret taste for ‘evil’ and our deep awareness of the emptiness of our culture. This was evidenced in our fantasies of self destruction (given dubious democratic notions that we are our culture) it was suggested, such as certain disaster movies that prefigured the attack. This he claimed made us complicit in ‘terrorism’ and self undermining.   

He concluded on the pessimistic note that we were all essentially doomed.

To me this was an awful end to the series and one that seemed to potentiate the very fascist worldviews Alexander had earlier denounced. Many were unhappy with his assessment of the world situation, both his characterisation of the West as weak and indecisive (given the genuinely ‘terroristic’ American attacks on the Middle East) and his view that Islamism represented a real dynamic force, other than an artificial movement funded by the Saudis, upping their influence in the global power elite.

I was disappointed the series ended on this note, spoiling a good exploration of real issues with what amounted to pessimism fed by right wing propaganda.