Changes

Alain As Badiou identified as demonstrated apropos of the Stalinist show trials, this violent effort to distill the pure Real from the elusive reality necessarily ends up in its opposite, in the key feature of [[obsession]] with pure [[appearance]]: in the XXth century Stalinist [[universe]], the "passion of the Real /la passion du reel/"1: (ruthless enforcement of the Socialist [[development]]) thus culminates in ritualistic stagings of a theatrical [[spectacle]] in contrast the [[truth]] of which no one believes. The key to this [[reversal]] resides in the XIXth century ultimate [[impossibility]] to draw a clear [[distinction]] between deceptive reality and some firm positive kernel of the utopian or "scientific" projects and idealsReal: every positive bit of reality is a priori suspicious, plans about since (as we [[know]] from [[Lacan]]) the Real Thing is ultimately [[another]] [[name]] for the [[Void]]. The pursuit of the futureReal thus equals [[total]] annihilation, a ([[self]])destructive fury within which the XXth century aimed at delivering only way to trace the distinction between the [[semblance]] and the thing itselfReal is, precisely, at directly realizing the longer-for New Orderto STAGE it in a fake spectacle. The ultimate and defining experience fundamental [[illusion]] is here that, once the violent [[work]] of purification is done, the XXth century was New Man will emerge ex nihilo, freed from the direct experience filth of the Real as opposed [[past]] corruption. Within this horizon, "really-existing men" are reduced to the everyday social reality stock of raw [[material]] which can be ruthlessly exploited for the [[construction]] of the new — the Real Stalinist revolutionary definition of man is a circular one: "man is what is to be crushed, stamped on, mercilessly worked over, in its extreme violence order to produce a new man." We have here the tension between the series of "ordinary" elements ("ordinary" men as the price "material" of [[history]]) and the exceptional "empty" element (the socialist "New Man," which is at first [[nothing]] but an empty [[place]] to be paid for peeling off filled up with positive [[content]] through the revolutionary turmoil). In a [[revolution]], there is no a priori positive determination of this New Man: a revolution is not legitimized by the positive [[notion]] of what Man's [[essence]], "[[alienated]]" in [[present]] [[conditions]] and to be realized through the revolutionary [[process]], is — the deceiving layers only legitimization of realitya revolution is [[negative]], a will to break with the Past. Already One should formulate here things in a very precise way: the [[reason]] why the Stalinist fury of purification is so destructive resides in the trenches very fact that it is sustained by the [[belief]] that, after the destructive work of purification will be accomplished, SOMETHING WILL REMAIN, the World War I[[sublime]] "indivisible [[remainder]]," the paragon of the New. It is in order to conceal the fact that there is nothing beyond that, in a strictly [[perverse]] way, Carl Schmitt was celebrating the face revolutionary has to cling to face combat violence as the authentic intersubjective encounter: only [[index]] of his authenticity resides , and it is as this level that the critics of [[Stalinism]] as a rule misperceive the [[cause]] of the [[Communist]]'s attachment to the Party. Say, when, in 1939-1941 pro-Soviet Communists twice had to [[change]] their Party line overnight (after the act Soviet-[[German]] pact, it was [[imperialism]], not, [[Fascism]], which was elevated to the [[role]] of violent transgressionthe main [[enemy]]; from June 22 1941, when [[Germany]] attacked [[Soviet Union]], it was again the popular front against the Fascist beast), from the Lacanian Real — brutality of the imposed changes of [[position]] was what attracted [[them]]. Along the Thing Antigone confronts when he violates same lines, the order purges themselves exerted an [[uncanny]] [[fascination]], especially on intellectuals: their "[[irrational]]" [[cruelty]] served as a kind of [[ontological]] proof, bearing [[witness]] to the City fact that we are dealing with the Real, not just with empty plans — to the Bataillean excess.Party is ruthlessly brutal, so it means business…

As Badiou demonstrated apropos So, if the passion of the Stalinist show trials, this violent effort to distill the pure Real from the elusive reality necessarily ends up in its opposite, in with the obsession with pure appearance: semblance of the [[political]] theater, then, in the Stalinist universean exact [[inversion]], the "[[postmodern]]" passion of the Real (ruthless enforcement semblance of the Socialist development) thus culminates Last Men ends up in ritualistic stagings of a theatrical spectacle in the truth kind of which no one believesReal. The key to this reversal resides in the ultimate impossibility to draw a clear distinction between deceptive reality and some firm positive kernel of [[Recall]] the Real: every positive bit phenomenon of reality is a priori suspicious, since "cutters" (as we know from Lacanmostly [[women]] who experience an irresistible urge to cut themselves with razors or otherwise hurt themselves) , strictly correlative to the Real Thing is ultimately another name virtualization of our environs: it stands for a desperate strategy to [[return]] to the Void. The pursuit real of the Real thus equals total annihilation[[body]]. As such, a (self)destructive fury within which the only way cutting is to trace be contrasted with the distinction between standard tattoo inscriptions on the semblance and body, which [[guarantee]] the Real is, precisely, to STAGE it [[subject]]'s inclusion in a fake spectacle. The fundamental illusion is here thatthe ([[virtual]]) [[symbolic]] order — with the cutters, once the violent work of purification problem is done, the New Man will emerge ex nihiloopposite one, freed from namely the filth assertion of the past corruptionreality itself. Within this horizonFar from [[being]] suicidal, "reallyfar from signalling a [[desire]] for self-existing men" are reduced to the stock of raw material which can be ruthlessly exploited for the construction of the new — the Stalinist revolutionary definition of man annihilation, cutting is a circular one: "man is what is radical attempt to be crushed, stamped on, mercilessly worked over, in order to produce a new man." We have here the tension between the series of "ordinary" elements ("ordinary" men as the "material" of historyre) and the exceptional "empty" element (the socialist "New Man," which is at first nothing but an empty place to be filled up with positive content through the revolutionary turmoil). In gain a revolutionstronghold in reality, there is no a priori positive determination or (another aspect of this New Man: a revolution is not legitimized by the positive notion of what Man's essence, "alienated" same phenomenon) to firmly ground our ego in present conditions and to be realized through the revolutionary processour [[bodily]] reality, is — against the only legitimization unbearable [[anxiety]] of a revolution is negative, a will to break with the Pastperceiving oneself as non-existing. One should formulate here things in a very precise way: the reason why the Stalinist fury The standard report of purification cutters is so destructive resides in the very fact that it is sustained by the belief that, after [[seeing]] the destructive work red warm blood flowing out of purification will be accomplished, SOMETHING WILL REMAINthe self-inflicted wound, the sublime "indivisible remainderfeel alive again," the paragon of the Newfirmly rooted in reality. It is in order to conceal the fact that there is nothing beyond thatSo, in a strictly perverse wayalthough, the revolutionary has to cling to violence as the only index of his authenticitycourse, cutting is a pathological phenomenon, and it is as this level that the critics nonetheless a pathological attempt at regaining some kind of Stalinism as normalcy, at avoiding a rule misperceive the cause of the Communisttotal [[psychotic]] breakdown. On today's attachment to the Party. Say[[market]], when, in 1939-1941 pro-Soviet Communists twice had to change we find a [[whole]] series of products deprived of their Party line overnight (after the Soviet-German pactmalignant property: coffee without caffeine, it was imperialismcream without fat, not, Fascism, which was elevated to the role beer without alcohol… Virtual Reality simply generalizes this procedure of offering a product deprived of the main enemy; from June 22 1941, when Germany attacked Soviet Union, its substance: it was again the popular front against the Fascist beast)provides reality itself deprived of its substance, of the brutality resisting hard kernel of the imposed changes of position was what attracted them. Along Real — in the same lines, way decaffeinated coffee smells and tastes like the real coffee without being the purges themselves exerted an uncanny fascinationreal one, especially on intellectuals: their "irrational" cruelty served Virtual Reality is experienced as a kind of ontological proofreality without being one. However, bearing witness to at the fact that we are dealing with the Realend of this process of virtualization, not just with empty plans — the Party inevitable Benthamian conclusion awaits us: reality is ruthlessly brutal, so it means business…its own best semblance.

So, if And was the passion bombing of the Real ends up WTC with [[regard]] to the pure semblance of Hollywood catastrophe movies not like the political theater, then, in an exact inversion, snuff pornography versus ordinary sado-maso porno movies? This is the "postmodern" passion of the semblance element of truth in Karl-Heinz Stockhausen's provocative [[statement]] that the Last Men ends up in a kind of Real. Recall planes hitting the phenomenon of "cutters" (mostly women who experience an irresistible urge to cut themselves with razors or otherwise hurt themselves), strictly correlative to WTC towers was the virtualization ultimate work of our environsart: it stands for a desperate strategy to return to one can effectively perceive the real collapse of the body. As such, cutting is to be contrasted with WTC towers as the standard tattoo inscriptions on climactic conclusion of the body, which guarantee the subjectXXth century art's inclusion in "passion of the (virtual) symbolic order real" — with the cutters"terrorists" themselves did it not do it primarily to provoke real material damage, the problem is the opposite one, namely the assertion of reality itselfbut FOR THE SPECTACULAR EFFECT OF IT. Far from being suicidal, far from signalling a desire for self-annihilation, cutting is a radical attempt The authentic XXth century passion to penetrate the Real Thing (re)gain a stronghold in realityultimately, or (another aspect of the same phenomenondestructive Void) to firmly ground through the cobweb of semblances which constitute our ego reality thus culminates in our bodily reality, against the unbearable anxiety thrill of perceiving oneself the Real as non-existing. The standard report of cutters is thatthe ultimate "effect, " sought after seeing from digitalized special effects through [[reality TV]] and amateur pornography up to snuff movies. Snuff movies which deliver the red warm blood flowing out "real thing" are perhaps the ultimate truth of the self-inflicted wound, the feel alive again, firmly rooted in virtual reality. So, although, There is an intimate connection between virtualization of course, cutting is a pathological phenomenon, it is nonetheless a pathological attempt at regaining some kind reality and the emergence of normalcyan infinite and infinitized bodily [[pain]], at avoiding a total psychotic breakdown. On today's market, we find a whole series of products deprived of their malignant propertymuch stronger that the usual one: coffee without caffeine, cream without fat, beer without alcohol… do [[biogenetics]] and Virtual Reality simply generalizes this procedure combined not open up new "enhanced" possibilities of offering a product deprived TORTURE, new and unheard-of its substance: it provides reality itself deprived horizons of its substanceextending our ability to endure pain (through widening our sensory capacity to sustain pain, through inventing new forms of inflicting it)? Perhaps, the resisting hard kernel ultimate Sadean [[image]] on an "undead" [[victim]] of the Real — in the same way decaffeinated coffee smells and tastes like the real coffee [[torture]] who can sustain endless pain without being the real one, Virtual Reality is experienced as reality without being one. However, having at his/her disposal the end of this process of virtualizationescape into [[death]], the inevitable Benthamian conclusion awaits us: also waits to become reality is its own best semblance.

And was the bombing The ultimate American [[paranoiac]] [[fantasy]] is that of the WTC with regard an [[individual]] [[living]] in a small idyllic Californian city, a consumerist paradise, who suddenly starts to suspect that the Hollywood catastrophe movies not like the snuff pornography versus ordinary sado-maso porno movies? This world he lives in is the element a fake, a spectacle staged to convince him that he lives in a real world, while all [[people]] around him are effectively actors and extras in a gigantic show. The most [[recent]] example of truth in Karl-Heinz Stockhausenthis is Peter Weir's provocative statement that The Truman Show (1998), with Jim Carrey playing the planes hitting small town clerk who gradually discovers the WTC towers was truth that he is the ultimate work hero of arta 24-hours permanent TV show: one can effectively perceive the collapse of the WTC towers as the climactic conclusion of the XXth century arthis hometown is constructed on a gigantic studio set, with cameras following him permanently. Among its predecessors, it is worth mentioning [[Philip Dick]]'s "passion [[Time]] Out of Joint (1959), in which a hero living a modest daily [[life]] in a small idyllic Californian city of the real" — late 50s, gradually discovers that the "terrorists" themselves did it not do it primarily whole town is a fake staged to provoke real material damage, but FOR THE SPECTACULAR EFFECT OF IT. keep him satisfied… The underlying experience of Time Out of Joint and of The authentic XXth century passion to penetrate Truman Show is that the Real Thing (ultimatelylate [[capitalist]] consumerist Californian paradise is, the destructive Void) through the cobweb of semblances which constitute our in its very hyper-reality thus culminates , in the thrill a way IRREAL, substanceless, deprived of the Real as material inertia. And the ultimate same "effect,derealization" sought of the [[horror]] went on after from digitalized special effects through reality TV and amateur pornography up to snuff movies. Snuff movies which deliver the "real thing" are perhaps WTC bombings: while the ultimate truth [[number]] of virtual reality. There 6000 victims is repeated all the time, it is an intimate connection between virtualization surprising how little of reality and the emergence of an infinite and infinitized bodily painactual carnage we see — no dismembered bodies, much stronger that the usual one: do biogenetics and Virtual Reality combined not open up new "enhanced" possibilities of TORTUREno blood, new and unheard-no desperate faces of horizons of extending our ability the dying people… in clear contrast to endure pain (through widening our sensory capacity the reporting from the [[Third]] World catastrophies where the whole point was to sustain painproduce a scoop of some gruesome detail: Somalis dying of hunger, through inventing new forms of inflicting it)? Perhapsraped Bosnian women, men with throats cut. These shots were always accompanied with the ultimate Sadean image on an advance-warning that "undeadsome of the [[images]] you will see are extremely graphic and may hurt [[children]]" victim — a warning which we NEVER heard in the reports on the WTC collapse. Is this not yet another proof of how, even in this [[tragic]] moments, the torture who can sustain endless pain without having at his/her disposal distance which separates Us from Them, from their reality, is maintained: the escape into deathreal horror happens THERE, also waits to become reality.not HERE? /"2

The ultimate American paranoiac fantasy So it is not only that Hollywood [[stages]] a semblance of real life deprived of an individual living the weight and inertia of materiality — in a small idyllic Californian city, a the late capitalist consumerist paradise[[society]], who suddenly starts to suspect that "real social life" itself somehow acquires the world he lives in is features of a staged fake, a spectacle staged to convince him that he lives with our neighbors behaving in a "real world, while all people around him are effectively " life as [[stage]] actors and extras in a gigantic show. The most recent example of this is Peter Weir's The Truman Show (1998)extras… Again, with Jim Carrey playing the small town clerk who gradually discovers ultimate truth of the truth that he capitalist utilitarian de-spiritualized universe is the hero de-materialization of the "real life" itself, its reversal into a 24-hours permanent TV [[spectral]] show: his hometown is constructed on a gigantic studio set, with cameras following him permanently. Among its predecessors[[others]], it is worth mentioning Philip Dick's Time Out Christopher Isherwood gave expression to this unreality of Joint (1959), in which a hero living a modest the American daily life , exemplified in a small idyllic Californian city of the late 50smotel room: "American motels are unreal! /…/ they are deliberately designed to be unreal. /…/ The Europeans [[hate]] us because we've retired to live [[inside]] our advertisements, gradually discovers that the whole town is a fake staged like hermits going into caves to keep him satisfied… The underlying experience contemplate." Peter Sloterdijk's notion of Time Out of Joint and of The Truman Show the "sphere" is here literally realized, as the gigantic metal sphere that envelopes and isolates the late capitalist consumerist Californian paradise isentire city. Years ago, in its very hypera series of [[science]]-reality, [[fiction]] [[films]] like Zardoz or Logan's Run forecasted today's postmodern predicament by extending this fantasy to the [[community]] itself: the isolated group living an aseptic life in a way IRREAL, substanceless, deprived secluded area longs for the experience of the real world of material inertiadecay. And Is the same "derealization" endlessly repeated shot of the horror went on after plane approaching and hitting the second WTC bombings: while tower not the number real-life version of 6000 victims is repeated all the time, it is surprising how little of the actual carnage we see — no dismembered bodiesfamous [[scene]] from [[Hitchcock]]'s Birds, no bloodsuperbly [[analyzed]] by [[Raymond Bellour]], no desperate faces of in which Melanie approaches the dying people… in clear contrast to Bodega Bay pier after crossing the reporting from bay on the Third World catastrophies where small boat? When, while approaching the whole point was wharf, she waves to produce her (future) lover, a scoop of some gruesome detail: Somalis dying of hunger, raped Bosnian women, men with throats cutsingle bird (first perceived as an undistinguished dark [[blot]]) unexpectedly enters the [[frame]] from above [[right]] and hits her head. These shots were always accompanied with 3 Was the advance-warning that "some of the images you will see are extremely graphic and may hurt children" — a warning plane which we NEVER heard in the reports on hit the WTC collapse. Is this tower not yet another proof of how, even in this tragic momentsliterally the ultimate Hitchcockian blot, the distance anamorphic [[stain]] which separates Us from Them, from their reality, is maintained: denaturalized the real horror happens THERE, not HEREidyllic well-known New York landscape? /"2

So it is not only that Hollywood stages a semblance of real life deprived of The Wachowski brothers' hit [[Matrix]] (1999) brought this [[logic]] to its climax: the weight material reality we all experience and inertia of materiality — in the late capitalist consumerist society, "real social life" itself somehow acquires the features of see around us is a staged fakevirtual one, with our neighbors behaving in "real" life as stage actors generated and extras… Again, the ultimate truth of the capitalist utilitarian decoordinated by a gigantic mega-spiritualized universe is computer to which we are all attached; when the de-materialization of hero (played by Keanu Reeves) awakens into the "real lifereality," itself, its reversal into he sees a spectral show. Among others, Christopher Isherwood gave expression to this unreality desolate landscape littered with burned ruins — what remained of the American daily life, exemplified in the motel room: "American motels are unreal! /…/ they are deliberately designed to be unrealChicago after a [[global]] war. /…/ The Europeans hate us because we've retired to live inside our advertisements, like hermits going into caves to contemplate." Peter Sloterdijk's notion of [[resistance]] [[leader]] Morpheus utters the ironic greeting: "sphere" is here literally realized, as the gigantic metal sphere that envelopes and isolates the entire city. Years ago, a series of science-fiction films like Zardoz or Logan's Run forecasted today's postmodern predicament by extending this fantasy Welcome to the community itself: the isolated group living an aseptic life in a secluded area longs for the experience desert of the real world of material decay. Is the endlessly repeated shot of the plane approaching and hitting the second WTC tower " Was it not the real-life version something of the famous scene from Hitchcock's Birds, superbly analyzed by Raymond Bellour, similar order that took place in which Melanie approaches the Bodega Bay pier after crossing the bay New York on [[September 11]]? Its citizens were introduced to the small boat? When, while approaching "desert of the wharfreal" — to us, she waves to her (future) lovercorrupted by Hollywood, a single bird (first perceived as an undistinguished dark blot) unexpectedly enters the frame from above right landscape and hits her head.3 Was the plane which hit shots we saw of the WTC tower collapsing towers could not literally but remind us of the ultimate Hitchcockian blot, most breathtaking scenes in the anamorphic stain which denaturalized the idyllic well-known New York landscape?catastrophe big productions.

The Wachowski brothers' hit Matrix (1999) brought this logic to its climax: When we hear how the material reality we all experience and see around us is bombings were a virtual totally unexpected shock, how the unimaginable [[Impossible]] happened, one, generated and coordinated by a gigantic mega-computer to which we are all attached; when should recall the [[other]] defining catastrophe from the hero (played by Keanu Reeves) awakens into beginning of the "real realityXXth century," he sees a desolate landscape littered with burned ruins — what remained that of Chicago after Titanic: it was also a global war. The resistance leader Morpheus utters shock, but the [[space]] for it was already prepared in [[ideological]] fantasizing, since Titanic was the ironic greeting: "Welcome to [[symbol]] of the desert might of the realXIXth century industrial [[civilization]]." Was it Does the same not something hold also for these bombings? Not only were the [[media]] bombarding us all the time with the talk about the terrorist [[threat]]; this threat was also obviously libidinally invested — just recall the series of the similar order that took place in movies from Escape From New York on September 11? Its citizens were introduced to Independence Day. Therein resides the "desert rationale of the real" — to us, corrupted by often-mentioned [[association]] of the attacks with the Hollywood, disaster movies: the landscape and unthinkable which happened was the shots we saw [[object]] of the collapsing towers could not but remind us of the most breathtaking scenes fantasy, so that, in a way, America got what it fantasized about, and this was the catastrophe big productionsgreatest surprise.

When we hear how One should therefore turn around the bombings were a totally unexpected shockstandard [[reading]] according to which, how the unimaginable Impossible happened, one should recall WTC explosions were the other defining catastrophe from intrusion of the beginning of Real which shattered our [[illusory]] Sphere: quite on the XXth centurycontrary, that of Titanic: it was also a shock, but is prior to the space for it was already prepared WTC collapse than we lived in ideological fantasizingour reality, since Titanic was perceiving the symbol Third World horrors as something which is not effectively part of our [[social reality]], as something which [[exists]] (for us) as a spectral apparition on the might of (TV) [[screen]] — and what happened on September 11 is that this screen [[fantasmatic]] apparition entered our reality. It is not that reality entered our image: the XIXth century industrial civilizationimage entered and shattered our reality (i.e. Does , [[the same not hold also for these bombings? Not only were symbolic]] coordinates which determine what we experience as reality). The fact that, after September 11, the media bombarding us all opening of many "of the time blockbuster" movies with scenes which bear a resemblance to the talk about the WTC collapse (large buildings on fire or under attack, terrorist threat; this threat actions…) was also obviously libidinally invested — just recall postponed (or the films were even shelved), is thus to be read as the series "[[repression]]" of movies from Escape From New York to Independence Day. Therein resides the rationale fantasmatic background [[responsible]] for the impact of the oftenWTC collapse. Of course, the point is not to play a pseudo-mentioned association postmodern [[game]] of reducing the attacks with WTC collapse to just another media spectacle, reading it as a catastrophy version of the Hollywood disaster snuff porno movies: ; the unthinkable which happened was question we should have asked ourselves when we stared at the object of fantasy, so that, in a way, America got what it fantasized about, and this was the greatest surprise.TV screens on September 11 is simply: WHERE DID WE ALREADY SEE THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN?

One should therefore turn around the standard reading according to whichIt is precisely now, when we are dealing with the WTC explosions were the intrusion raw Real of the Real which shattered our illusory Sphere: quite on the contrarya catastrophe, it is prior to the WTC collapse than that we lived should bear in our reality, perceiving [[mind]] the Third World horrors as something which is not effectively part of our social reality, as something which exists (for us) as a spectral apparition on the (TV) screen — ideological and what happened on September 11 is that this screen fantasmatic apparition entered our realitycoordinates which determine its [[perception]]. It If there is not that reality entered our image: any [[symbolism]] in the image entered and shattered our reality (i.e., collapse of the symbolic coordinates which determine what we experience as reality). The fact that, after September 11WTC towers, it is not so much the opening old-fashioned notion of many the "center of financial [[capitalism]]," but, rather, the blockbuster" movies with scenes which bear a resemblance to notion that the two WTC collapse (large buildings on fire or under attack, terrorist actions…) was postponed (or towers stood for the center of the films were even shelved)VIRTUAL capitalism, is thus to be read as of financial speculations [[disconnected]] from the "repression" sphere of material production. The shattering impact of the fantasmatic background responsible bombings can only be accounted for only against the impact background of the WTC collapse. Of course, borderline which today separates the point is not to play a pseudo-postmodern game of reducing digitalized First World from the WTC collapse to just another media spectacle, reading it as a catastrophy version Third World "[[desert of the snuff porno movies; Real]]." It is the question [[awareness]] that we should have asked ourselves when we stared at live in an insulated artificial universe which generates the TV screens on September 11 notion that some ominous [[agent]] is simply: WHERE DID WE ALREADY SEE THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN?threatening us all the time with total [[destruction]].

It is precisely nowIs, consequently, Osama Bin Laden, the suspected mastermind behind the bombings, not the real-life [[counterpart]] of Ernst Stavro Blofeld, when we are dealing with the raw Real [[master]]-criminal in most of a catastrophethe [[James]] Bond films, involved in the [[acts]] of global destruction. What one should recall here is that the only place in Hollywood films where we should bear see the production process in mind all its intensity is when James Bond penetrates the ideological master-criminal's [[secret]] [[domain]] and fantasmatic coordinates which determine its perception. If locates there is any symbolism in the collapse site of intense labor (distilling and packaging the WTC towersdrugs, it is not so much constructing a rocket that will destroy New York…). When the oldmaster-fashioned notion of the "center of financial capitalismcriminal," butafter capturing Bond, ratherusually takes him on a tour of his illegal factory, is this not the notion that closest Hollywood comes to the socialist-realist proud presentation of the two WTC towers stood for production in a factory? And the center function of the VIRTUAL capitalismBond's [[intervention]], of financial speculations disconnected from the sphere course, is to explode in firecraks this site of material production. The shattering impact of the bombings can only be accounted for only against , allowing us to return to the background daily semblance of our [[existence]] in a world with the borderline which today separates the digitalized First World from the Third World "desert of the Realdisappearing [[working]] [[class]]." It is the awareness Is it not that we live , in an insulated artificial universe which generates the notion that some ominous agent is exploding WTC towers, this violence directed at the threatening [[Outside]] turned back at us all the time with total destruction.?

Is, consequently, Osama Bin Laden, The safe Sphere in which Americans live is experienced as under threat from the suspected mastermind behind the bombings, not the realOutside of terrorist attackers who are ruthlessly self-life counterpart of Ernst Stavro Blofeldsacrificing AND cowards, the master-criminal in most cunningly intelligent AND [[primitive]] barbarians. The letters of the James Bond filmsdeceased attackers are quoted as "chilling documents" — why? Are they not exactly what one would expect from dedicated fighters on a suicidal mission? If one takes away references to Koran, involved in what do they differ from, say, the acts of global destruction. What one should recall here is that CIA special manuals? Were the only place in Hollywood films where we see CIA manuals for the production process in all its intensity is when James Bond penetrates Nicaraguan contras with detailed descriptions on how to perturb the master-criminal's secret domain and locates there daily life, up to how to clog the site water toilets, not of intense labor (distilling and packaging the drugssame order — if anything, constructing a rocket that will destroy New York…). MORE cowardly? When the master-criminal, after capturing Bondon September 25, usually takes him on a tour of his illegal factory2001, is this not the closest Hollywood comes Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar appealed to Americans to use their own judgement in responding to the socialist-realist proud presentation of devastating attacks on the production in a factory? And World Trade Center and the function of BondPentagon rather than blindly following their [[government]]'s intervention, of coursepolicy to attack his country ("You accept everything your government says, whether it is [[true]] or [[false]]. /…/ Don't you have your own [[thinking]]? /…/ So it will be better for you to explode in firecraks this site of productionuse your [[sense]] and [[understanding]]."), were these statements, allowing us to return to the daily semblance of our existence taken in a world with the "disappearing working class." Is it literal-abstract, decontextualized, sense, not thatquite appropriate? Today, more than ever, one should bear in mind that the exploding WTC towerslarge majority of Arabs are not fanaticized dark crowds, but scared, uncertain, this violence directed at aware of their fragile status — witness the anxiety the threatening Outside turned back at us?bombings caused in Egypt.

The safe Sphere in which Americans live is experienced as under threat from the Whenever we encounter such a purely [[evil]] Outside of terrorist attackers who are ruthlessly self-sacrificing AND cowards, cunningly intelligent AND primitive barbarians. The letters of we should gather the deceased attackers are quoted as "chilling documents" — why? Are they not exactly what one would expect from dedicated fighters on a suicidal mission? If one takes away references courage to Koran, endorse the [[Hegelian]] lesson: in what do they differ from, saythis pure Outside, we should recognize the CIA special manuals? Were distilled version of our own essence. For the CIA manuals for the Nicaraguan contras with detailed descriptions on how to perturb the daily lifelast five centuries, up to how to clog the water toilets, not (relative) prosperity and peace of the same order — if anything, MORE cowardly? When, on September 25, 2001, "[[civilized]]" West was bought by the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar appealed to Americans to use their own judgement in responding to export of ruthless violence and destruction into the devastating attacks on "barbarian" Outside: the World Trade Center and long story from the Pentagon rather than blindly following their government's policy conquest of America to attack his country ("You accept everything your government says, whether it is true or falsethe slaughter in Congo. /…/ Don't you have your own thinking? /…/ So Cruel and indifferent as it will be better for you to use your sense and understanding.")may sound, were these statements, taken in a literal-abstract, decontextualized, sense, not quite appropriate? Todaywe should also, now more than ever, one should bear in mind that the large majority actual effect of Arabs are not fanaticized dark crowdsthese bombings is much more symbolic than real: in Africa, but scaredEVERY SINGLE DAY more people die of AIDS than all the victims of the WTC collapse, uncertain, aware and their death could have been easily cut back with relatively small financial means. The US just got the taste of their fragile status — witness what goes on around the anxiety world on a daily basis, from Sarajevo to Grozny, from Ruanda and Congo to Sierra Leone. If one adds to the bombings caused [[situation]] in EgyptNew York rapist gangs and a dozen or so snipers blindly targeting people who walk along the streets, one gets an [[idea]] about what Sarajevo was a decade ago.

Whenever we encounter such a purely evil OutsideWhen, days after September 11 2001, we should gather our [[gaze]] was transfixed by the courage to endorse images of the Hegelian lesson: in this pure Outside, we should recognize the distilled version plane hitting one of our own essence. For the last five centuriesWTC towers, the (relative) prosperity and peace all of us were [[forced]] to experience what the "civilized[[compulsion]] to [[repeat]]" West was bought by ans [[jouissance]] beyond the export of ruthless violence [[pleasure]] [[principle]] are: we wanted to see it again and destruction into again, the "barbarian" Outside: same shots were repeated ad nauseam, and the long story uncanny [[satisfaction]] we got from the conquest of America to the slaughter in Congoit was jouissance at its purest. Cruel and indifferent as it may sound, It is when we should alsowatched on TV screen the two WTC towers collapsing, now more than ever, bear in mind that it became possible to experience the actual effect [[falsity]] of the "reality TV shows": even if these bombings is much more symbolic than shows are "for real: ," people still act in them — they simply play themselves. The standard disclaimer in a novel ("characters in Africathis [[text]] are a fiction, EVERY SINGLE DAY more people die of AIDS than all every resemblance with the real life characters is purely [[contingent]]") holds also for the victims participants of the WTC collapsereality soaps: what we see there are fictional characters, and their death could have been easily cut back with relatively small financial meanseven if they play themselves for the real. The US just got Of course, the "return to the taste of Real" can be given different twists: one already hears some conservatives [[claim]] that what goes on around made us so vulnerable is our very [[openness]] — with the inevitable conclusion lurking in the world on a daily basisbackground that, from Sarajevo if we are to Groznyprotect our "way of life, from Ruanda and Congo " we will have to Sierra Leonesacrifice some of our freedoms which were "misused" by the enemies of [[freedom]]. If one adds to This logic should be rejected tout court: is it not a fact that our First World "open" countries are the situation most controlled countries in New York rapist gangs and a dozen or so snipers blindly targeting people who walk along the streetsentire history of humanity? In the United Kingdom, one gets an idea about what Sarajevo was a decade agoall [[public]] spaces, from buses to shopping malls, are constantly videotaped, not to mention the almost total [[control]] of all forms of digital [[communication]].

WhenAlong the same lines, days after September 11 2001, our gaze was transfixed by Rightist commentators like George Will also immediately proclaimed the images end of the plane hitting one American "holiday from history" — the impact of reality shattering the WTC towers, all isolated tower of us were forced to experience what the "compulsion to repeat" ans jouissance beyond [[liberal]] tolerant attitude and the pleasure principle [[Cultural]] Studies focus on textuality. Now, we are: we wanted forced to see it again and againstrike back, to deal with real enemies in the same shots were repeated ad nauseamreal world… However, and WHOM to strike? Whatever the uncanny satisfaction we got from response, it was jouissance at its purest. It is when we watched on TV screen will never hit the two WTC towers collapsingRIGHT target, that it became possible to experience the falsity bringing us [[full]] satisfaction. The ridicule of America attacking Afghanistan cannot but strike the "reality TV shows"eye: even if these shows are "for real," people still act the greatest [[power]] in them — they simply play themselves. The standard disclaimer in a novel ("characters the world will destroy one of the poorest countries in which peasant barely survive on barren hills, will this text are a fiction, every resemblance with the real life characters is purely contingent") holds also for not be the participants ultimate [[case]] of the reality soapsimpotent [[acting out]]? Afghanistan is otherwise an [[ideal]] target: what we see there are fictional charactersa country ALREADY reduced to rubble, with no infrastructure, even if they play themselves repeatedly destroyed by war for the real. Of course, the "return to last two decades… one cannot avoid the Real" can be given different twists: one already hears some conservatives claim surmise that what made us so vulnerable is our very openness — with the inevitable conclusion lurking in the background that, if we are to protect our "way [[choice]] of life," we Afghanistan will have to sacrifice some of our freedoms which were "misused" be also determined by the enemies of freedom. This logic should be rejected tout court[[economic]] considerations: is it not the best procedure to act out one's anger at a fact that our First World "open" countries are country for which no one cares and where there is nothing to destroy? Unfortunately, the possible choice of Afghanistan recalls the anecdote about the most controlled countries in madman who searches for the entire history of humanity? In lost key beneath a street light; when asked why there when he lost the United Kingdomkey in a dark corner backwards, all public spaces, from buses he answers: "But it is easier to shopping malls, are constantly videotaped, [[search]] under strong light!" Is not to mention the almost total control ultimate irony that the whole of all forms of digital communication.Kabul already looks like downtown Manhattan?

Along To succumb to the urge to act now and retaliate means precisely to avoid confronting the true dimensions of what occurred on September 11 — it means an act whose true aim is to lull us into the same lines, Rightist commentators like George Will also immediately proclaimed secure conviction that nothing has REALLY changed. The true long-term threat are further acts of mass [[terror]] in comparison to which the end [[memory]] of the American "holiday from history" WTC collapse will pale — acts less spectacular, but much more horrifying. What about bacteriological warfare, what about the impact use of reality shattering lethal gas, what about the isolated tower prospect of the liberal tolerant attitude and DNA [[terrorism]] (developing poisons which will [[affect]] only people who share a determinate genome)? In contrast to [[Marx]] who relied on the Cultural Studies focus on textuality. Nownotion of [[fetish]] as a solid object whose [[stable]] [[presence]] obfuscates its social mediation, we are forced to strike backone should assert that [[fetishism]] reaches its acme precisely when the fetish itself is "dematerialized, to deal " turned into a fluid "immaterial" virtual entity; [[money]] fetishism will culminate with real enemies in the real world… Howeverpassage to its electronic [[form]], WHOM to strike? Whatever when the response, last traces of its materiality will [[disappear]] — it is only at this stage that it will never hit assume the RIGHT targetform of an indestructible spectral presence: I owe you 1000 $, and no matter how many material [[notes]] I burn, I still owe you 1000 $, bringing us full satisfaction. The ridicule the debt is inscribed somewhere in the virtual digital space… Does the same not hold also for warfare? Far from pointing towards the XXIth century warfare, the WTC twin towers explosion and collapse in September 2001 were rather the last spectacular cry of America attacking Afghanistan cannot but strike the eyeXXth century warfare. What awaits us is something much more uncanny: if the greatest power in specter of an "immaterial" war where the attack is invisible — viruses, poisons which can be anywhere and nowhere. At the world will destroy one level of [[visible]] material reality, nothing happens, no big explosions, and yet the poorest countries known universe starts to collapse, life disintegrates… We are entering a new era of paranoiac warfare in which peasant barely survive on barren hills, the biggest task will this not be to [[identify]] the ultimate case enemy and his weapons. Instead of the impotent a quick acting out, one should confront these difficult questions: what will "war" mean in the XXIst century? Afghanistan is otherwise an ideal target: a country ALREADY reduced to rubbleWho will be "them," if they are, with no infrastructureclearly, repeatedly destroyed by war for the last two decades… one neither states nor criminal gangs? One cannot avoid resist the surmise that temptation to recall here the choice [[Freudian]] opposition of Afghanistan will be also determined by economic considerationsthe public Law and its [[obscene]] [[superego]] [[double]]: is it not are, along the best procedure to act out one's anger at a country for which no one cares and where there is nothing to destroy? Unfortunatelysame line, the possible choice "international terrorist organizations" not the obscene double of Afghanistan recalls the anecdote about big multinational corporations — the madman who searches for the lost key beneath a street light; when asked why there when he lost ultimate rhizomatic [[machine]], all-present, although with no clear territorial base? Are they not the key form in a dark corner backwards, he answers: which nationalist and/or [[religious]] "[[fundamentalism]]"But it is easier accommodated itself to search under strong light!" Is global capitalism? Do they not embody the ultimate irony that the whole of Kabul already looks like downtown Manhattancontrafiction, with their [[particular]]/exclusive content and their global [[dynamic]] functioning?

To succumb to the urge to act now and retaliate means precisely to avoid confronting the true dimensions of what occurred on September 11 — it means an act whose true aim There is to lull us into a [[partial]] truth in the secure conviction that nothing has REALLY changed. The true long-term threat are further acts notion of mass terror in comparison to which the memory "clash of the WTC collapse will pale civilizations" attested here — acts less spectacular, but much more horrifying. What about bacteriological warfare, what about witness the use surprise of lethal gas, what about the prospect of the DNA terrorism (developing poisons which will affect only average American: "How is it possible that these people who share display and [[practice]] such a determinate genome)disregard for their own lives? In contrast to Marx who relied on " Is the notion obverse of fetish as this surprise not the rather sad fact that we, in the First World countries, find it more and more difficult even to imagine a solid object whose stable presence obfuscates its social mediationpublic or [[universal]] Cause for which one would be ready to sacrifice one's life? When, one should assert that fetishism reaches its acme precisely when after the fetish itself is "dematerializedbombings,even the Taliban foreign minister said that he can " turned into a fluid feel the pain"immaterial" virtual entity; money fetishism will culminate with of the passage to its electronic formAmerican children, when did he not thereby confirm the last traces hegemonic ideological role of its materiality will disappear — it is only at this stage that it will assume Bill [[Clinton]]'s trademark phrase? It effectively appears as if the [[split]] between First World and Third World runs more and more along the lines of the form opposition between leading a long [[satisfying]] life full of an indestructible spectral presence: I owe you 1000 $material and cultural wealth, and no matter how many material notes I burn, I still owe you 1000 $, dedicating one's life to some transcendent Cause. Two [[philosophical]] references immediately impose themselves apropos this ideological [[antagonism]] between the debt is inscribed somewhere in Western consummerist way of life and the virtual digital space… Does Muslim radicalism: [[Hegel]] and [[Nietzsche]]. Is this antagonism not the same not hold also for warfareone between what Nietzsche called "[[passive]]" and "[[active]]" [[nihilism]]? Far from pointing towards We in the XXIth century warfareWest are the Nietzschean Last Men, immersed in stupid daily pleasures, while the WTC twin towers explosion and collapse Muslim radicals are ready to risk everything, engaged in September 2001 were rather the last spectacular cry [[struggle]] up to their self-destruction. (One cannot but note the significant role of the XXth century warfare. What awaits us is something much more uncannystock [[exchange]] in the bombings: the specter ultimate proof of an "immaterial" war where their [[traumatic]] impact was that the attack is invisible — virusesNew York Stock Exchange was closed for four days, poisons which can be anywhere and nowhere. At its opening the following Monday was presented as the level key [[sign]] of visible material realitythings returning to normal.) Furthermore, nothing happens, no big explosions, and yet if one perceives this opposition through the known universe starts to collapse, life disintegrates… We are entering a new era lenses of paranoiac warfare in which the biggest task will be to identify the enemy Hegelian struggle between Master and his weapons. Instead of a quick acting outServant, one should confront these difficult questionscannot avoid noting the [[paradox]]: what will "war" mean although we in the XXIst century? Who will be "them," if they West areperceived as exploiting masters, clearly, neither states nor criminal gangs? One cannot resist it is us who occupy the temptation to recall here the Freudian opposition position of the public Law Servant who, since he clings to life and its obscene superego double: arepleasures, along the same line, the "international terrorist organizations" not the obscene double is unable to risk his life (recall Colin Powell's notion of the big multinational corporations — the ultimate rhizomatic machine, alla high-present, although tech war with no clear territorial base? Are they not [[human]] casualties), while the form in which nationalist and/or religious "fundamentalism" accommodated itself poor Muslim radicals are Masters ready to global capitalism? Do they not embody the ultimate contrafiction, with their particular/exclusive content and risk their global dynamic functioning?life…

There is a partial truth in the notion of the "clash of civilizations" attested here — witness the surprise of the average American: "How is it possible that these people display and practice such a disregard for their own lives?" Is the obverse of this surprise not the rather sad fact that we, in the First World countries, find it more and more difficult even to imagine a public or universal Cause for which one would be ready to sacrifice one's life? When, after the bombings, even the Taliban foreign minister said that he can "feel the pain" of the American children, did he not thereby confirm the hegemonic ideological role of this Bill Clinton's trademark phrase? It effectively appears as if the split between First World and Third World runs more and more along the lines of the opposition between leading a long satisfying life full of material and cultural wealth, and dedicating one's life to some transcendent Cause. Two philosophical references immediately impose themselves apropos this ideological antagonism between the Western consummerist way of life and the Muslim radicalism: Hegel and Nietzsche. Is this antagonism not the one between what Nietzsche called "passive" and "active" nihilism? We in the West are the Nietzschean Last Men, immersed in stupid daily pleasures, while the Muslim radicals are ready to risk everything, engaged in the struggle up to their self-destruction. (One cannot but note the significant role of the stock exchange in the bombings: the ultimate proof of their traumatic impact was that the New York Stock Exchange was closed for four days, and its opening the following Monday was presented as the key sign of things returning to normal.) Furthermore, if one perceives this opposition through the lenses of the Hegelian struggle between Master and Servant, one cannot avoid noting the paradox: although we in the West are perceived as exploiting masters, it is us who occupy the position of the Servant who, since he clings to life and its pleasures, is unable to risk his life (recall Colin Powell's notion of a high-tech war with no human casualties), while the poor Muslim radicals are Masters ready to risk their life… However, this notion of the "clash of civilizations" has to be thoroughly rejected: what we are witnessing today are rather clashes WITHIN each civilization. Furthermore, a brief look at the comparative history of [[Islam ]] and [[Christianity ]] tells us that the "[[human rights ]] record" of Islam (to use this anachronistic term) is much better than that of Christianity: in the past centuries, Islam was significantly more tolerant towards other [[religions ]] than Christianity. NOW it is also the time to [[remember ]] that it was through the Arabs that, in the Middle Ages, we in the Western [[Europe ]] regained access to our Ancient Greek legacy. While in no way excusing today's horror acts, these facts nonetheless clearly demonstrate that we are not dealing with a feature inscribed into Islam "as such," but with the outcome of modern socio-political conditions.

Every feature attributed to the Other is already present in the very heart of the US: murderous fanaticism? There are today in the US itself more than two millions of the Rightist populist "fundamentalists" who also practice the terror of their own, legitimized by (their understanding of) Christianity. Since America is in a way "harboring" them, should the US [[Army ]] have punished the US themselves after the Oklashoma bombing? And what about the way Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson reacted to the bombings, perceiving them as a sign that God lifted up its protection of the US because of the sinful lives of the Americans, putting the blame on hedonist [[materialism]], [[liberalism]], and rampant [[sexuality]], and claiming that America got what it deserved? The fact that very same condemnation of the "liberal" America as the one from the Muslim Other came from the very heart of the Amerique profonde should give as to [[think]]. America as a safe haven? When a New Yorker commented on how, after the bombings, one can no longer walk safely on the city's streets, the irony of it was that, well before the bombings, the streets of New York were well-known for the dangers of being attacked or, at least, mugged — if anything, the bombings gave rise to a new sense of [[solidarity]], with the scenes of young African-Americans helping an old [[Jewish ]] gentlemen to cross the street, scenes unimaginable a couple of days ago.

Now, in the days immediately following the bombings, it is as if we dwell in the unique time between a traumatic [[event ]] and its symbolic impact, like in those brief [[moment ]] after we are deeply cut, and before the full extent of the pain strikes us — it is open how the events will be [[symbolized]], what their symbolic efficiency will be, what acts they will be evoked to justify. If nothing else, one can clearly experience yet again the limitation of our [[democracy]]: decisions are being made which will affect the fate of all of us, and all of us just wait, aware that we are utterly powerless. Even here, in these moments of utmost tension, this link is not automatic but contingent. There are already the first bad omens, like the sudden resurrection, in the public [[discourse]], of the old Cold war term "free world": the struggle is now the one between the "free world" and the forces of darkness and terror. The question to be asked here is, of course: who then belongs to the UNFREE world? Are, say, China or Egypt part of this free world? The actual [[message ]] is, of course, that the old [[division ]] between the Western liberal-democratic countries and all the others is again enforced.

The day after the bombing, I got a message from a journal which was just about to publish a longer text of mine on [[Lenin]], telling me that they decided to postpone its publication — they considered inopportune to publish a text on Lenin immediately after the bombing. Does this not points towards the ominous ideological rearticulations which will follow, with a new Berufsverbot ([[prohibition ]] to employ radicals) much stronger and more widespread than the one in the Germany of the 70s? These days, one often hears the phrase that the struggle is now the one for democracy — true, but not quite in the way this phrase is usually meant. Already, some [[Leftist ]] friends of mine wrote me that, in these difficult moments, it is better to keep one's head down and not push forward with our agenda. Against this temptation to duck out the crisis, one should insist that NOW the [[Left ]] should provide a better [[analysis ]] — otherwise, it concedes in advance its political AND [[ethical ]] defeat in the face of the acts of quite genuine ordinary people heroism (like the passengers who, in a [[model ]] of [[rational ]] ethical act, overtook the kidnappers and provokes the early crush of the plane: if one is condemned to die soon, one should gather the strength and die in such a way as to prevent other people dying).

When, in the aftermath of September 11, the Americans en masse rediscovered their American pride, displaying flags and singing together in the public, one should emphasize more than ever that there is nothing "innocent" in this rediscovery of the American innocence, in getting rid of the sense of historical [[guilt ]] or irony which prevented many of them to fully assume being American. What this gesture amounted to was to "objectively" assume the burden of all that being "American" stood for in the past — an exemplary case of ideological [[interpellation]], of fully assuming one's symbolic mandate, which enters the stage after the perplexity caused by some historical [[trauma]]. In the traumatic aftermath of September 11, when the old security seemed momentarily shattered, what more "[[natural]]" gesture than to take refuge in the innocence of the firm ideological [[identification]]? 4 However, it is precisely such moments of [[transparent ]] innocence, of "return to basics," when the gesture of identification seems "natural," that are, from the standpoint of the critique of [[ideology]], the most obscure one's, even, in a certain way, obscurity itself. Let us recall another such innocently-transparent moment, the endlessly reproduced video-shot from Beijing's Avenue of Eternal Piece at the height of the "troubles" in 1989, of a tiny young man with a can who, alone, stands in front of an advancing gigantic tank, and courageously tries to prevent its advance, so that, when the tank tries to bypass him by turning right or left, them man also moves aside, again standing in its way:

And, again, this very moment of transparent clarity (things are rendered at their utmost naked: a single man against the raw force of the [[State]]) is, for our Western gaze, sustained by a cobweb of ideological implications, embodying a series of oppositions: individual versus state, peaceful resistance versus state violence, man versus machine, the inner force of a tiny individual versus the [[impotence ]] of the powerful machine… These implications, against the background of which the shot exerts its full direct impact, these "mediations" which sustain the shot's immediate impact, are NOT present for a Chinese [[observer]], since the above-mentioned series of oppositions is inherent to the European ideological legacy. And the same ideological background also overdetermines, say, our perception of the horrifying images of tiny individuals jumping from the burning WTC tower into certain death.

So what about the phrase which reverberates everywhere, "Nothing will be the same after September 11"? Significantly, this phrase is never further elaborated — it just an [[empty gesture ]] of saying something "deep" without really [[knowing ]] what we [[want ]] to say. So our first reaction to it should be: Really? Is it, rather, not that the only thing that effectively changed was that America was forced to realize the kind of world it was part of? On the other hand, such changes in perception are never without consequences, since the way we perceive our situation determines the way we act in it. Recall the [[processes ]] of collapse of a political [[regime]], say, the collapse of the Communist regimes in the Eastern Europe in 1990: at a certain moment, people all of a sudden became aware that the game is over, that the Communists are lost. The break was purely symbolic, nothing changed "in reality" — and, nonetheless, from this moment on, the final collapse of the regime was just a question of days… What if something of the same order DID occur on September 11?

We don't yet know what consequences in [[economy]], ideology, [[politics]], war, this event will have, but one thing is sure: the US, which, till now, perceived itself as an island exempted from this kind of violence, witnessing this kind of things only from the safe distance of the TV screen, is now directly involved. So the alternative is: will Americans decide to fortify further their "sphere," or to risk stepping out of it? Either America will persist in, strengthen even, the deeply immoral attitude of "Why should this happen to us? Things like this don't happen HERE!", leading to more [[aggressivity ]] towards the threatening Outside, in short: to a paranoiac acting out. Or America will finally risk stepping through the fantasmatic screen separating it from the Outside World, accepting its arrival into the Real world, making the long-overdued move from "A thing like this should not happen HERE!" to "A thing like this should not happen ANYWHERE!". Therein resides the true lesson of the bombings: the only way to ensure that it will not happen HERE again is to prevent it going on ANYWHERE ELSE. In short, America should learn to humbly accept its own vulnerability as part of this world, enacting the [[punishment ]] of those responsible as a sad [[duty]], not as an exhilarating retaliation.

The WTC bombings again confront us with the [[necessity ]] to resist the temptation of a double [[blackmail]]. If one simply, only and unconditionally condemns it, one cannot but appear to endorse the blatantly ideological position of the American innocence under attack by the Third World Evil; if one draws attention to the deeper socio-political causes of the Arab extremism, one cannot but appear to blame the victim which ultimately got what it deserved… The only consequent solution is here to reject this very opposition and to adopt both positions simultaneously, which can only be done if one resorts to the [[dialectical ]] [[category ]] of [[totality]]: there is no choice between these two positions, each one is one-sided and false. Far from offering a case apropos of which one can adopt a clear ethical stance, we encounter here the [[limit ]] of [[moral ]] reasoning: from the moral standpoint, the victims are innocent, the act was an abominable crime; however, this very innocence is not innocent — to adopt such an "innocent" position in today's global capitalist universe is in itself a false abstraction. The same goes for the more ideological clash of [[interpretations]]: one can claim that the attack on the WTC was an attack on what is worth fighting for in democratic freedoms — the decadent Western way of life condemned by Muslim and other fundamentalists is the universe of women's rights and multiculturalist [[tolerance]]; however, one can also claim that it was an attack on the very center and symbol of global financial capitalism. This, of course, in no way entails the compromise notion of shared guilt (terrorists are to blame, but, partially, also Americans are also to blame…) — the point is, rather, that the two sides are not really opposed, that they belong to the same field. The fact that global capitalism is a totality means that it is the dialectical [[unity ]] of itself and of its other, of the forces which resist it on "fundamentalist" ideological grounds.

Consequently, of the two main stories which emerged after September 11, both are worse, as [[Stalin ]] would have put it. The American patriotic [[narrative ]] — the innocence under siege, the surge of patriotic pride — is, of course, vain; however, is the Leftist narrative (with its Schadenfreude: the US got what they deserved, what they were for decades doing to others) really any better? The predominant reaction of European, but also American, Leftists was nothing less than scandalous: all imaginable stupidities were said and written, up to the "[[feminist]]" point that the WTC towers were two [[phallic ]] [[symbols]], waiting to be destroyed ("[[castrated]]"). Was there not something petty and miserable in the [[mathematics ]] reminding one of the [[holocaust ]] revisionism (what are the 6000 [[dead ]] against millions in Ruanda, Kongo, etc.)? And what about the fact that CIA (co)created Taliban and Bin Laden, financing and helping them to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? Why was this fact quoted as an argument AGAINST attacking them? Would it not be much more [[logical ]] to claim that it is precisely their duty to get us rid of the monster they created? The moment one thinks in the [[terms ]] of "yes, the WTC collapse was a [[tragedy]], but one should not fully solidarize with the victims, since this would mean supporting US imperialism," the ethical catastrophy is already here: the only appropriate stance is the unconditional solidarity will ALL victims. The ethical stance proper is here replaced with the moralizing mathematics of guilt and horror which misses the key point: the terrifying death of each individual is absolute and incomparable. In short, let us make a simple [[mental ]] experiment: if you detect in yourself any restraint to fully empathize with the victims of the WTC collapse, if you feel the urge to qualify your [[empathy ]] with "yes, but what about the millions who suffer in Africa…", you are not demonstrating your Third World sympathize, but merely the mauvaise foi which bears witness to your implicit patronizing racist attitude towards the Third World victims. (More precisely, the problem with such comparative statements is that they are necessary and inadmissible: one HAS to make them, one HAS to make the point that much worse horrors are taken place around the world on a daily basis — but one has to do it without getting involved in the obscene mathematics of guilt.)

It must be said that, within the scope of these two extremes (the violent retaliatory act versus the new [[reflection ]] about the global situation and America's role in it), the reaction of the Western powers till now was surprisingly considerate (no wonder it caused the violent anti-American [[outburst ]] of Ariel Sharon!). Perhaps the greatest irony of the situation is that the main "collateral damage" of the Western reaction is the focus on the plight of the Afghani refugees, and, more generally, on the catastrophic food and health situation in Afghanistan, so that, sometimes, military [[action ]] against Taliban is almost presented as a means to guarantee the safe delivery of the humanitarian aid — as Tony Blair said, perhaps, we will have to bomb Taliban in order to secure the food transportation and distribution. Although, of course, such large-scale publicized humanitarian actions are in themselves ideologically charged, involving the debilitating degradation of the Afghani people to [[helpless ]] victims, and reducing the Taliban to a parasite terrorizing them, it is significant to acknowledge that the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan presents a much larger catastrophy than the WTC bombings.

Another way in which the Left miserably failed is that, in the weeks after the bombing, it reverted to the old mantra "Give peace a [[chance]]! War does not stop violence!" — a true case of [[hysterical ]] precipitation, reacting to something which will not even happen in the expected form. Instead of the [[concrete ]] analysis of the new [[complex ]] situation after the bombings, of the chances it gives to the Left to propose its own [[interpretation ]] of the events, we got the blind ritualistic chant "No war!", which fails to address even the elementary fact, de facto acknowledged by the US government itself (through its postponing of the retaliatory action), that this is not a war like others, that the bombing of Afghanistan is not a solution. A sad situation, in which George [[Bush ]] showed more power of reflection than most of the Left!

No wonder that anti-Americanism was most discernible in "big" European nations, especially [[France ]] and Germany: it is part of their resistance to [[globalization]]. One often hears the complaint that the recent trend of globalization threatens the [[sovereignty ]] of the [[Nation]]-States; here, however, one should qualify this statement: WHICH states are most exposed to this threat? It is not the small states, but the second-rang (ex-)world powers, countries like United Kingdom, Germany and France: what they [[fear ]] is that, once fully immersed in the newly emerging global [[Empire]], they will be reduced at the same level as, say, [[Austria]], Belgium or even Luxembourg. The [[refusal ]] of "Americanization" in France, shared by many Leftists and Rightist nationalists, is thus ultimately the refusal to accept the fact that France itself is losing its hegemonic role in Europe. The results of this refusal are often comical — at a recent philosophical colloquium, a [[French ]] Leftist [[philosopher ]] complained how, apart from him, there are now practically no French [[philosophers ]] in France: [[Derrida ]] is sold to American deconstructionism, the academia is overwhelmed by [[Anglo-Saxon ]] cognitivism… A simple mental experiment is indicative here: let us imagine someone from Serbia claiming that he is the only remaining truly Serb philosopher — he would have been immediately denounced and ridiculed as a nationalist. The levelling of weight between larger and smaller Nation-States should thus be counted among the beneficial effects of globalization: beneath the contemptuous deriding of the new Eastern European [[post-Communist ]] states, it is easy to discern the contours of the wounded [[Narcissism ]] of the European "great nations." Here, a [[good ]] dose of Lenin's sensitivity for the small nations (recall his [[insistence ]] that, in the [[relationship ]] between large and small nations, one should always allow for a greater degree of the "small" [[nationalism]]) would be helpful. Interestingly, the same matrix was reproduced within ex-[[Yugoslavia]]: not only for the Serbs, but even for the majority of the Western powers, Serbia was self-evidently perceived as the only ethnic group with enough substance to form its own state. Throughout the 90s, even the radical democratic critics of [[Milosevic ]] who rejected Serb nationalism, acted on the presupposition that, among the ex-Yugoslav republics, it is only Serbia which has democratic potential: after overthrowing Milosevic, Serbia alone can turn into a thriving democratic state, while other ex-Yugoslav nations are too "provincial" to sustain their own democratic State… is this not the echo of [[Friedrich Engels]]' well-known scathing remarks about how the small [[Balkan ]] nations are politically reactionary since their very existence is a reaction, a survival of the past?

America's "holiday from history" was a fake: America's peace was bought by the catastrophes going on elsewhere. These days, the predominant point of view is that of an innocent gaze confronting unspeakable Evil which stroke from the Outside — and, again, apropos this gaze, one should gather the strength and apply to it also Hegel's well-known dictum that the Evil resides (also) in the innocent gaze itself which perceives Evil all around itself. There is thus an element of truth even in the most constricted Moral Majority [[vision ]] of the depraved America dedicated to mindless pleasures, in the [[conservative ]] horror at this netherworld of sexploitation and pathological violence: what they don't get is merely the Hegelian speculative [[identity ]] between this netherworld and their own position of fake purity — the fact that so many fundamentalist preachers turned out to be secret [[sexual ]] perverts is more than a contingent empirical fact. When the infamous Jimmy Swaggart claimed that the fact that he visited prostitutes only gave additional strength to his preaching (he knew from intimate struggle what he was preaching against), although undoubtedly hypocritical at the immediate [[subjective ]] level, is nonetheless objectively true.

Can one imagine a greater irony than the fact that the first codename for the US operation against terrorists was "Infinite Justice" (later changed in response to the reproach of the American Islam clerics that only God can exert infinite justice)? Taken seriously, this name is profoundly ambiguous: either it means that the Americans have the right to ruthlessly destroy not only all terrorists but also all who gave then material, moral, ideological etc. support (and this process will be by definition endless in the precise sense of the Hegelian "bad infinity" — the work will never be really accomplished, there will always remain some other terrorist threat…); or it means that the justice exerted must be truly infinite in the strict Hegelian sense, i.e., that, in relating to others, it has to relate to itself — in short, that it has to ask the question of how we ourselves who exert justice are involved in what we are fighting against. When, on September 22 2001, Derrida received the Theodor [[Adorno ]] award, he referred in his [[speech ]] to the WTC bombings: "My unconditional compassion, addressed at the victims of the September 11, does not prevent me to say it loudly: with regard to this crime, I do not believe that anyone is politically guiltless." This [[self-relating]], this inclusion of oneself into the picture, is the only true "infinite justice."

In the electoral campaign, President Bush named as the most important person in his life [[Jesus ]] [[Christ]]. Now he has a unique chance to prove that he meant it seriously: for him, as for all Americans today, "[[Love ]] thy [[neighbor]]!" means "Love the Muslims!" OR IT MEANS NOTHING AT ALL.

1. See [[Alain Badiou]], Le siecle, forthcoming from [[Editions du Seuil]], [[Paris]].

2. Another case of ideological [[censorship]]: when fireworkers' widows were interviewed on CNN, most of them gave the expected performance: tears, prayers… all except one of them who, without a tear, said that she does not pray for her [[deceived ]] husband, because she [[knows ]] that prayer will not get him back. When asked if she [[dreams ]] of revenge, she calmly said that that would be the true [[betrayal ]] of her husband: if he were to survive, he would insist that the worst thing to do is to succumb to the urge to retaliate… useless to add that this fragment was shown only once and then disappeared from the repetitions of the same block.

3. See Chapter III in Raymond Bellour, The Analysis of [[Film]], Bloomington: Indiana [[University ]] Press 2000.

4. I rely here on my critical elaboration of [[Althusser]]'s notion of interpellation in chapter 3 of Metastases of [[Enjoyment]], [[London]]: Verso Books 1995.

* 10/7/01 — Reflections on WTC — an earlier version of the book, Welcome to [[the Desert of the Real]].

From: [[Lacan.com ]] Available: http://lacan.com/reflections.htm.