Mr. Obama, tear down this wall! Or, the maggots in the wall.
Despite the furious title I’ve assigned this musing, I don’t think that what I’m going to say will quite carry the force of it’s assertion. Nevertheless, I wanted to make some remarks towards a future essay inspired by this fantastic novel I’m reading right now (‘Cyclonopedia: Complicity with Anonymous Materials’ by Reza Negarestani). Certainly right now the world is dealing with many contradictions, hidden and revealed, but one that is given as the primary by the folks who control the avenues of discourse in at least the war-torn correspondence between the United States and the rest of the world, is that between Islamic Fundamentalism and American Capitalism. According to the standard narrative, this contradiction comes down to the confrontation between the dissemination of public power (in the form of American Capitalism) and the concentration of monolithic force (in the form of Islamic Fundamentalism). This popular story is interesting, albeit for reasons obscured by the ordinary discourse. Instead of reading this contradiction in the normal way, I propose that we view it as a question of ‘openness.’ That is, as a question of how open each system is to the intrusion, influence and archaeological investigation of outside forces.
I can obviously speak much less to the Middle Eastern part of this equation, but if I might make some comments on the American variable, I might have achieved my goal. To this end I will assert the following ideas: First, that the Greco-American liberal-open theory of outside influence is inadequate. Second, that the Judeo-Christian-American theory of language refortifies the inadequacy of American openness.
In my opinion, the question of openness comes down to the following insight: “It is less the case that human affairs are constantly under threat of being convoluted by an unknown outside than that the human world is dangerously incapable of opening itself to the outside. It is the fear of outside influence, an anthropocentric xenophobia, that prevents the introduction of the an-animal elements of reality such as Justice, Truth, and Nihilation that haunts the geo-politics of contemporary discourse. In fact, it is the paranoid solidization of social structures that leads to the decay which opens the human to the (already existing) absolute outside.” What I mean is that much of American xenophobia is the symptom not of the desire for the conservative elements of America to keep out the outside influence of Islamic theocracy, but the inability of American culture to release it’s hold on it’s conceited sense of liberal secularism in favor of the possibility of an inhuman intrusion of irrational Justice and Truth. These concepts, which are utterly foreign to our ideological world-standing, are due as much to the atheistic liberalism of our State as to the narrow-minded Christian notion of America. The inability to conceive of the non-humanist possibility of Justice, the giving due to every being according to their an-human being, is a fault of atheist humanism as much as it is of conservative Christian theology. What ought to be considered, rather, is the intrusion of impossible Justice, the respect of plants and every other animal outside of the narrow human concept, into the political structure. This trickling concept, this invisible yet immanent concept is what prevents American liberalism from living up to the Idea of America, the porous entity capable of bringing a non-religious divinity into the world. As an endnote, in order to comfortably assert my anti-xenophobic stance, I would comfortably state that the Middle East is another entity, among many, that is capable of facilitating this intrusion of Justice and Truth.
Finally, and keeping in mind the preceding considerations, I will note the linguistic inhibitions that, in my mind, do in fact make the conservative establishment a greater party to blame in the humanist conspiracy against Justice. The incantation that has given the Republican party power in the last few years is as follows: “build a wall.” The desire to keep out the Mexicans, the Guatemalans, &c. which is indubitably a xenophobic expression, also betrays the depth of the American commitment to a bordered existence. In the Kabbalistic tradition, letters and words express the very existence of God (the divine outside), and the American conservative tradition that commits itself to asserting that we ought to build a wall does not understand the significance of their assertion. IN asserting the necessity of a wall, they build the wall. The wall between Mexico and America (which really represents the wall between America and the rest of the world in a non-superficial [read non-capitalist] manner) is really manifested, despite the inexistence of the wall that is currently being built, in a barrier between the porous entity known as America and the rest of the world. Through the very assertion to ‘build a wall,’ a wall is being built that keeps out the existences of any entity not confirmed as American. The anti-Kabbalistic tendency of this motion, the desire to use the words of resistance against the very notion of openness, protends the possibility of opening up the American Idea to the infinity of the world, and it is only through the inevitable decay that comes through the very construction of such a building that makes it possible to forsee the possibility of a world governed by the indiscriminate application of Justice that the Idea of America entails. So american conservatives, continue your project of building a wall, through the dissolution of your xenophobic project with the possibility of an open world come into existence.