omg Henri Bergson hiii

reminder to think of your safety as much as your pleasure

What if - instead of 'How Do You Make Yourself A Body Without Organs?' - one were to ask: How do you make yourself a Nazi? For this is far more strenuous than the 1980 diagnosis suggests.
1) Wherever there is impersonality and chance, introduce conspiracy, lucidity, and malice. Look for enemies everywhere, ensuring that they are such that one than simultaneously envy and condemn them. Proliferate new subjectivities; racial subjects, national subjects, elites, secret societies, destinies.
2) Burn Freud, and take desire back to the Kantian conception of will.
Wherever there is impulse represent it as choice, decision, the whole theatrical drama of volition.
Introduce a gloomy atmosphere of oppressive responsibility by couching all discourses in the imperative form.
3) Revere the principle of the great individual. Personalize and mythicize historical processes. Love obedience above all things, and enthuse only for signs; the name of the leader, the symbol of the movement, and the icons of molar identity.
4) Foster nostalgia for what is maximally bovine, inflexible, and stagnant: a line of racially pure peasants digging the same patch of earth for eternity.
5) Above all, resent everything impetuous and irresponsible, insist upon unrelenting vigilance, crush sexuality under its reproductive function, rigidly enforce the domestication of women, distrust art, classicize cities to eliminate the disorder of uncontrolled flows, and persecute all minorities exhibiting a nomadic tendency.
N. Land; Making it with Death

Nazism might even be characterized as the pure politics of effort; the absolute dominion of the collective super-ego in its annihilating rigor. Nothing could be more politically disastrous than the launching of a moral case against Nazism: Nazism is morality itself, heir to Europe's respectable history: that of witch-burnings, inquisitions, and pogroms. To want to be in the right is the common substratum of morality and genocidal reaction;
the same desire for repression - organized in terms of the disapproving gaze of the father - that Anti-Oedipus analyzes with such power. Who could imagine Nazism without daddy? And who could imagine daddy being pre-figured in the energetic unconscious?
Death is too simple, too fluid, too disdainful of races and fatherlands to have anything much to do with the Nazis. Ressentiment was something they knew about, as was the aspiration to a mythic sacrifice, a Gotterdammerungthat would inscribe them in the history books, but these things never stretch to dissolution-desire. After all, lose control and you might end up fucking with a Jew, becoming effeminate, or creating something degenerate like a work of art. Does anyone really think that Nazism is like letting go? The weleit's studies of Nazi body posture should be sufficient to disabuse one of such an absurdity.
Nazism can turn you into a stiff before the messy passage into death.
N. Land; Making it with Death

wanted to thank @miki_memes
silliest littliest channel on here

"singularity is not given in a massive opposition with generality or universality, but as a praxial crossroads and, thus, as a choice. This ethical choice of the always possible reimmersion in questions like ‘what am I doing here?’ ’what am I doing right here?’ ’do I have a responsibility for what I am at the moment?’, but also, for what will come afterwards, not just for me but for the other, for the entirety of universes of sense that are concerned?"
F. Guattari; the Vertigo of Immanence

"It’s entirely the same type of preoccupation as for performance:
there are two immanences. The immanence in which nothing occurs, where one remains in refrains closed in on themselves, empty repetitions, as Gilles Deleuze said in Difference and Repetition . . . And the immanence in which a microscopic difference sets off a processuality,
something which starts up, gets organized, develops. As the two of us speak here, it is quite possible that I always repeat the same thing, or that I’m not saying anything, and then it is possible that there will be a bifurcation, that there will be a process that is set off. This is something that evidently concerns aesthetic questions a great deal, but it concerns psychoanalytic questions as well, because one encounters refrains closed in on themselves there, too. It is a matter of knowing if there can be an event, if there can be something that gives the feeling of existential singularity, of not being in an infinitely reversible time, but in a processual time, an irreversible time.
F. Guattari; the Vertigo of Immanence

hypnostatic retromania injecting the future into the present just to progressively brainkill a notorious 1990s Warwick Philosopher:

"The cyborg [...] is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust."