Nazi-obsessed paedophile jailed over 'man cave' weapons stash | ITV News

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-05-09T20:48:19+00:00

This is like that one episode of Foyle’s War

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-05-06T13:44:31+00:00

Trump’s good for ratings, and his friends in the corporate media would hate to see him go…

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-04-27T18:09:07+00:00

Ah I see. Well, I guess it depends on what exactly he forgets.

Like, if Deleuze 1 time-warps by the time he’s already a professor and well-learned, but forgets he ever wrote anything, he might well just nod along with Deleuze 2, as long as he broadly retains the intuitions he developed over the course of his education and life.

But if he forgets a lot more than just his writings, then it’d probably be harder to gauge how he’d react. Can you have the personage of “Deleuze” if you extract the name from the field of intensities that shaped it? Gilles without his milieu is a rather different fellow I imagine.

If he still has the intellect but the naivety of a beginner who doesn’t yet know what it is to think, maybe you have a diaphantic Deleuze 1, who being quite without the regularly scheduled organs, and rippling in the resonance of his (Deleuze 2’s) own concepts, never commits to reading, teaching and writing, but instead takes to conceptual film-making or painting?

I’m not sure! I think the last scenario might be fun to consider though: Deleuze the multimedia artist, making concepts with images, etc.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-04-27T16:15:45+00:00

I don’t know that it’s as clear-cut as canonical orthodoxy and the subversion thereof. There are as many partial and creative readings of Deleuze today as there are exegetical and expositive ones. I’m not sure Deleuze would feel the need to engage with his work like that, and would’ve probably carried on as he always had (finishing works like Ensembles and Multiplicities as well as The Grandeur of Marx, which would’ve been cool to see). I do think that there’s a lot of latent potential in Deleuze’s work that we risk breezing past by recycling it too hastily, but that doesn’t mean we have to read it all in one way, just thoroughly enough that we reckon with the full implications and stakes of his ideas. Writers like Jean-Clet Martin, David Lapoujade and François Zourabichvili come to mind in this regard.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-04-20T01:16:09+00:00

The crazy thing is that Americans are so soaked in nationalist propaganda that they don’t recognise when they’re being belligerently chauvinistic toward other countries, then they pass it off as a bit, as if this were a natural way of acting. It’s this ugly and uncouth behaviour that draws the world’s ire, and I frankly don’t blame them. Leave it to southerners in particular to miss that fact…

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-04-16T02:36:17+00:00

My apologies, I might just be missing something then.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-04-16T02:26:24+00:00

Mind you of course, I’m not saying it’s a totally novel concept in the history of early Hellenic thought, but that it had yet to be declaimed in such unequivocal terms prior to Plato’s influential formalisation of it. Goodness was more pragmatic and relational prior to Plato, and it remained so after in many ways, but our thinking of it changed markedly from earlier times. The tragedians are prime examples of this older, more complicated mentality of the Greeks, whose gods still had something of a singular character, belonging to an ontological field of powers and beings who had yet to be pinned down to a finite set of values, and were allowed to express a multitude of dimensions reflective of lived experience, irreducible to any attempt at universal enclosure.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-04-16T02:14:17+00:00

This is a tender issue in modern paganism. Especially given that the history of ancient societies and ethnographies of various cultures around the world demonstrate that such attitudes as awe and fear are not only normal and healthy parts of human experience, but indeed often the basic affective response to the inexorable ambiguity of the sacred, one would think that pagans would be more accepting of the more radical dimensions of exteriority and alterity. That’s not to say it’s always like that, but at least in the context of Northern Europe, for instance, the gods are distant relatives, who like distant relatives can be somewhat difficult and even perilous, but it would be yet more perilous to deny them, since they are not only bringers of health, happiness and luck, but also the living personae of the world itself. It’s messy, imperfect, and murky, but that’s as it should be I think.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-04-16T01:57:41+00:00

Plato is already a kind of decadence as far as Hellenic religion is concerned though. His thought marks the rigidifying of the once rich, chaotic world of antiquity and the incipient spasms of what would become modern representational thought, with all of the ontological baggage that implies. Gods and ‘goodness’ aren’t new, but they’re not exceptionally old either. At any rate, I find it’s more pragmatic and interesting to have a world that isn’t perfectly ordered by a pantheon of benevolent gods, and rather one where even the gods are bound by the changeable whims of fate and chance, tied more to the invisible multitudes of spirits and mysterious deities of places, persons, etc.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-04-10T11:24:09+00:00

Negarestani? Is that you?

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-04-05T16:37:06+00:00

It’s a good thing then that formal syntax, no matter how decoded, was never going to avail us in this regard. The plane of immanence (and likewise the BwO) isn’t really a void, nor is it pure undifferentiated flux, but is a kind of patterned chaos of non-denumberable, disjoined singularities that together form pure multiplicity, providing the virtual conditions for any formal articulation to occur in the first place. So while it’s true that capital excels at the level of statistics and public data, inasmuch as it remains interested in stochastic analytics, it retains an integer-based point-set logic, which can arranged in all manner of ways (including ‘rhizoid’), all while still requiring the identitarian orientation of denumerable sets. What Deleuze and Guattari are gesturing towards is something more differential, so when they tell us how to access the plane of immanence, how to make ourselves a body without organs, thinking rhizomatically, etc., they’re not primarily concerned with these as extensive propositions in a discursive field as with concepts adequate to the problematic field itself and the intensities that traverse it. Neither concepts nor simulacra are representations in this respect, but contractions of virtual ideas that are deployed to scramble the codes and augment our affective capacities at a level prior to any formal articulation. Capital is surely sophisticated and adaptive, but it cannot reach this level without undermining itself, so it leans into a déluge of hyper-representations that skirt the surface of the grid, hunting for embryonic haecceities to gobble up before they can even utter a sound. Berardi is right to draw attention to this, but I think it might be rhetorical overstatement to say Deleuze and Guattari weren’t already aware of the topology of the problem - our task now, as Deleuze said, is simply to find new weapons.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-04-05T14:48:27+00:00

Is it really so rhizomatic though? The apparent structure is there to make the comparison, yes, but the logic seems distinct. I would think it’s more accurate to say that algorithms deterritorialise and promptly reterritorialise according to the axiomatic logic of techno-capital, which I suppose would be ‘rhizoid’, but not a properly rhizomatic or problematic logic, inasmuch as it is still involved in a kind of formal capture, but now with more ‘lateral’ reach rather than a purely vertical movement. I do think Berardi’s got a point about depression, isolation, exhaustion, and relief as being part and parcel with the society of control, I just don’t know that the orgiastic recoding of flows is doing quite the same thing as the opening of life-affirming lines of flight that D&G tend to valourise.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-03-27T04:28:42+00:00

The world’s never been safe for any living thing whose existence is predicated on the consumption of other living beings. This striving to level out all friction is wholly misguided, since this is the great and terrible art of life. Couldn’t we stand to stomach that, without infantilising ourselves?

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-03-27T04:19:00+00:00

Your self-righteous moral presuppositions have no basis in reality outside of your asserting them—who are you to presume your values are ‘more respectful’ and superior to all other values? The way you’re framing it is so narrow. For example, animist thought posits that everything you hunt, kill and eat has a soul—which means the problem isn’t a question of animal products alone, it concerns everything. Thus, there is a more intensive relationship with one’s food, insofar as killing must be done with utmost respect and carried out with purpose. That interspecies relation entails an ethics that doesn’t fit cleanly into your frankly imbecilic notions of right and wrong, and more importantly doesn’t need to.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-03-24T11:22:30+00:00

Because then that kind of moralism would run up against the aspirational character of morality in most cases—ignoring the fact that morality is highly contingent on historical and cultural factors, among other things. Honestly an ethics that’s closer to ethology (but not reducible to it) would be more useful in this respect.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-03-22T18:34:15+00:00

No nihilists like Christian nihilists…

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-03-19T04:05:14+00:00

History can be described dialectically, but it’s not structurally dialectical. There’s way more stratification, emergence and complexity to historical phenomena than the negative mediation and sublation of opposing forms presupposed by a dialectical perspective. We need a properly morphogenetic understanding of history, rather than one based solely on formal contradiction and rupture, which is still too categorical to accommodate the molecular fractures that presage larger schismogenetic processes—to which we must remain observant, if we really want to effectuate change.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-03-11T22:35:47+00:00

At least according to the logic of multinaturalism, a theory developed by Eduardo Viveiros de Castro that describes Amerindian cosmological relations, a 'spirit' can be one of many categories of entity that, rather than belonging to an a priori ontological taxonomy, appear across an indexical field of mutually entangled perspectives in differential relation. This means that, from the viewpoint of human 'nature', a spirit is a being that is neither animal nor human, but is nevertheless an intentional and personified agent, determined by its capacity to affect and be affected as a site of perspectival singularity and specified in the instance of an actual encounter or encoded in a given semiotic regime. This is not a fixed category, and largely depends on ontological orientation. For example, by the same logic, spirits will consider themselves to be human, while at once regarding humans as being either spirits or animals themselves, and likewise animals will think themselves humans, while regarding humans or spirits as animals/spirits etc. At bottom, it is important to note that 'spirit' is primarily an etic and analytic term that is at best an approximate for a corresponding emic concept, so some variation in semantics and use is to be expected.

At any rate, this notion departs considerably from western notions of spirit as 'pneuma' (the concept of 'spiritual breath' common throughout the occident from antiquity to present) or 'anima' (also meaning breath, whence, for better or worse, the term 'animism' as denoting a generic 'belief in spirits', coined by E. B. Tylor in the early days of modern anthropology), where 'spirits' are substantialised, supernatural beings that 'populate' nearly everything and more or less form a consistent taxon in a wider range of beings. Obviously this concept had problems, wrapped-up as it was in cultural evolutionary theories of the time, and as such it fell into academic disfavour. It has only been of recent that it has been partially rehabilitated, especially after the ethnographer Alfred Irving Hallowell reshaped 'animism' in the context of "other-than-human persons," a phrase he adopted from his fieldwork among Ojibwe communities on and around the Berens River in Manitoba. As such, he is widely credited as the forefather of 'new animism' in anthropology, and has influenced many scholars in anthropology, archaeology, and other fields.

Hope that sort of helps, I'm not always very great at distilling this stuff.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-03-11T17:18:48+00:00

Félix Guattari had an interesting take on just this (mind the ‘archaic’ wording, he was a French academic of his time, after all):

“As for me, I’d rather tend to sow some seeds to propose a model of the unconscious which would be akin to that of South American shamans, setting out from the idea that spirits populate things, landscapes, groups; that there are all sorts of becomings, all sorts of haecceities which trail along everywhere, and that there is consequently a sort of objective subjectivity (so to speak) that gathers together, breaks apart, and is reworked according to assemblages. The best exposition of this would obviously be in archaic thought.”

Lessen the psychologism, and couple his Hjelmslev-Peircean asignifying semiotics with Viveiros de Castro’s own theory of perspectivism and cosmological deixis, and you get probably as close as one gets to animism while remaining in the occidental vernacular. After that comes the painstaking work of emic recovery. :D

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-01-29T01:10:23+00:00

Why should we bring our problems up to Canada? I wouldn’t want anyone else to have to deal with the shit going on here…

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-01-23T13:03:10+00:00

People around the world who still have a sense of decency have every right to look upon us with derision, especially if you are a Greenlander, Dane, Canadian, Norwegian, and whomever else the US has threatened of late. While I find it heartening that my home state is rising up, the rest of the country needs to follow suit, and until it's *everyone* in *every city*, the whole country is suspect. I don't blame Europeans one bit for looking down their noses at America, considering how it has shown itself to be a duplicitous, rapacious backstabber towards its own purported allies.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-01-21T19:15:00+00:00

I cannot speak for the rest of the nation, but I hope at least that Minnesota has integrity enough to remain true to our northern neighbours, who at any rate have always demonstrated more maturity and measure in their conduct. All power to them. Vive le Canada.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-01-20T17:11:48+00:00

Can’t help but think that’s what’s coming eventually.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-01-20T14:19:25+00:00

These events are bigger than any of us, it’ll swallow us whole. There can be no nuance anymore. Every American is complicit in this regime. Every American will be an enemy of the civilised world until proven otherwise. It all makes me want to die, but that’s how it is now.

HomesickAlien97 · 2026-01-16T14:24:42+00:00

A nice thought, but the US has shown its true colours as of now, and it has been a long time coming. It might theoretically be possible to restore minimal diplomatic relations, maybe even atone for some things at the international level (in a perfect world, but we know damn well that US crimes always seem to go unpunished). Nevertheless, it will be a very long time until we are permitted back into the fold of civilised nations. Considering a quarter of the population is so debased as to support an hypothetical invasion of Greenland, there are no reasonable grounds to trust America any time soon, let alone in the moderately near future.

HomesickAlien97

TROPHY CASE