POST_MODERN ANALYSISUsury Kings and their re-definition of "sharing"
Jean Baudrillard wrote:...in every case of things being contiguous with their own images or becoming confused with their
own code, there is a threat of incestuous virulence, of a diabolical alterity...
Working inside the logic of capitalist charity
, and what definitions of it are currently possible, it is the word charity
that is problematically defined (in public discourse) to mean coded charity.
Real charity isn't advertised or used to brand a product or personality. So only coded charity
- a very different animal - appears in public. All other forms of charity hide in dark shadows.
By generously offering simply "the codes of charity" to the lower classes - that is, by just limiting itself to speaking the language of charity
, which costs itself virtually nothing - the kings and clowns of capitalism are able to continue to extract the maximum "tribute" from their gaping-mouthed serf class, while the words of charity
are ever-present during their interactions. The serf is made to feel humbled, dependent, and grateful when presented with the language of charity, carefully coded to mean its very opposite.
Words like "philanthropy" and "fund" take the place of (displace) any real act of sharing or of transfer from rich to needy.
1. The *incest* is in the (violent) limiting (restricting) of the definition and function of "charity" - capitalism acts like a torturer of word-meanings
time and time again. Destroying word definitions is yet another get-rich-quick scheme.
2. The resulting *virulence* takes the form of income inequality and nature-destruction - extinction being the ultimate *diabolical alterity* (shitty new order).
an mk-ultra *science* and a jeffrey dahmer *foreign policy*
funded by pick-pocket *economics*