1

A. Our interpretation is that the affirmative should have

to instrumentally defend the institutional implementation
of a topical plan.
B. Violation the aff doesnt defend a plan.
C. Extra Topicalitythe affirmative tries to garner
advantages from things that are not in the plan, the judge
should exclude those impacts, because weighing them
justifies a 1AC with a topical plan and literally anything
else as a reason to vote aff. None of their psychoanalysis
advantages stem from the plan.
D. Best for fairness.
1. Plan focus is the only predictable way of affirming
the resolution. Philosophical and theoretical
concerns certainly play into the ways that policies
are made, but the resolution only calls for us to
defend and/or question political-institutional
implementations of these kinds of concerns.
2. Plan focus is the only way to ensure a fair division
of ground. The affirmative has the advantage of
trying to solve the most heinous problems of the
status quowithout plan focus, debates devolve into
whether or not things like racism, sexism, classism,
or homophobia are good or bad. While problems are
often less contestable, solutions to these problems
arewe can debate about whether or not a particular
proposal will fix or worsen these problems and
proffer our own solutions.

E. Best for education:

1. Their infatuation to theoretical purity makes political
and institutional engagement impossible
Bureaucratic engagement is good and necessary its a
good way of using the masters tools against itself to
dethrone conservatism.
Robert Hoppe 99, Professor of Policy and knowledge in the Faculty of
Management and Governance at Twente University, the Netherlands.
"Argumentative Turn" Science and Public Policy, volume 26, number 3, June
1999, pages 201210 works.bepress.com
ACCORDING TO LASSWELL (1971), policy science is about the production and
application of knowledge of and in policy. Policy-makers who desire
to tackle problems on the political agenda successfully, should be able to
mobilise the best available knowledge. This requires high-quality
knowledge in policy. Policy-makers and, in a democracy, citizens, also
need to know how policy processes really evolve . This demands
precise knowledge of policy. There is an obvious link between the two: the more
and better the knowledge of policy, the easier it is to mobilise
knowledge in policy. Lasswell expresses this interdependence by defining the policy scientist's

operational task as eliciting the maximum rational judgement of all those involved in policy-making. For
the applied policy scientist or policy analyst this implies the development of two skills. First, for the sake of

he/she should be able to mediate

between different scientific disciplines. Second, to optimise the
interdependence between science in and of policy, she/he should be
able to mediate between science and politics. Hence Dunn's (1994, page
84) formal definition of policy analysis as an applied social science
discipline that uses multiple research methods in a context of
argumentation, public debate [and political struggle] to create, evaluate
critically, and communicate policy-relevant knowledge.
mobilising the best available knowledge in policy,

Historically, the differentiation and

successful institutionalisation of policy science can be interpreted as the spread of the functions of knowledge organisation, storage, dissemination and application in the knowledge system (Dunn and Holzner,
1988; van de Graaf and Hoppe, 1989, page 29). Moreover, this scientification of hitherto 'unscientised' functions, by including science of policy explicitly, aimed to gear them to the political system. In that sense,
Lerner and Lasswell's (1951) call for policy sciences anticipated, and probably helped bring about, the scientification of politics. Peter Weingart (1999) sees the development of the science-policy nexus as a
dialectical process of the scientification of politics/policy and the politicisation of science. Numerous studies of political controversies indeed show that science advisors behave like any other self-interested actor
(Nelkin, 1995). Yet science somehow managed to maintain its functional cognitive authority in politics. This may be because of its changing shape, which has been characterised as the emergence of a postparliamentary and post-national network democracy (Andersen and Burns, 1996, pages 227-251). National political developments are put in the background by ideas about uncontrollable, but apparently inevitable,
international developments; in Europe, national state authority and power in public policy-making is leaking away to a new political and administrative elite, situated in the institutional ensemble of the European

The authority and policy-making

power of national governments is also leaking away towards
increasingly powerful policy-issue networks, dominated by
functional representation by interest groups and practical experts.
Union. National representation is in the hands of political parties which no longer control ideological debate.

In this

situation, public debate has become even more fragile than it was. It has become diluted by the predominance of purely pragmatic, managerial and administrative argument, and under-articulated as a result of an
explosion of new political schemata that crowd out the more conventional ideologies. The new schemata do feed on the ideologies; but in larger part they consist of a random and unarticulated 'mish-mash' of

The market-place of
political ideas and arguments is thriving; but on the other hand, politicians
and citizens are at a loss to judge its nature and quality. Neither
political parties, nor public officials, interest groups, nor social
movements and citizen groups, nor even the public media show any
inclination, let alone competency, in ordering this inchoate field. In
such conditions, scientific debate provides a much needed minimal
attitudes and images derived from ethnic, local-cultural, professional, religious, social movement and personal political experiences.

amount of order and articulation of concepts, arguments and ideas.

Although frequently more in rhetoric than substance, reference to scientific 'validation'
does provide politicians, public officials and citizens alike with some

sort of compass in an ideological universe in disarray . For policy

analysis to have any political impact under such conditions, it should
be able somehow to continue 'speaking truth' to political

elites who are ideologically uprooted, but cling to power; to the

elites of administrators, managers, professionals and experts who
vie for power in the jungle of organisations populating the functional
policy domains of post-parliamentary democracy; and to a broader
audience of an ideologically disoriented and politically disenchanted
citizenry.
D. Voter for fairness and education.

2
The United States should legalize gambling only for
established, land-based casinos on tribal lands.
The governments Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is one
that cheats tribes out of revenue from gaming now, and
pins them against each other in search of revenues
Capriccioso 14(Rob, 7/28, Indian Country, Indian Gaming Reform: What
is Congress Poltting and how Will SCIA Chair Jon Tester Respond?
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/07/28/indian-gamingreform-what-congress-plotting-and-how-will-scia-chair-jon-tester-respond
accessed 10/21/14 KR)
Undercurrents of legislative reform of the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act (IGRA) the 1988 law that gives the federal government the
power to regulate tribal gaming are once again flowing through
Congress. That legislators are intent on fiddling has been confirmed twice in recent months at
congressional hearings, first in September with the House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, where offreservation California casino battles took center-stage, and most recently at a July 23 meeting of the

Allegations of lies by a tribal

government about an off-reservation casino, competing Indian
interests in many states, flat earnings and the responsibility of
regulators were all topics of discussion during the latter hearing ,
which was originally intended to showcase the success stories of
IGRA and to seek out ways for more tribal victories. Such bleak matters were

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (SCIA).

perhaps not what SCIA Chairman Jon Tester (D-Mont.) hoped would prevail during his first gaming-focused
gathering as chair of the committee, titled, Indian Gaming: The Next 25 Years. After all, there is an
amazing and complex story to be told about how Indian gaming has helped some of the most struggling
tribes over the last quarter century, as various tribal leaders noted during the hearing. And there are many
more tribes that could benefit from the law as it is written. There is a lot of debate about gaming in
general, but one aspect that is undeniable is the economic development benefit of gaming to tribes, Sen.
Al Franken (D-Minn.) said halfway through the over two-hour-long meeting, as he attempted to remind
everyone of the positive side of this $28 billion per year industry currently operated by approximately 245

If Indian gaming vanished tomorrow, and all [tribal] needs

shifted to federal trust responsibility, what would that look like? I
would shudder to think what Indian country would look like without
the revenues that come in from Indian gaming, responded the
Department of the Interiors Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs
Kevin Washburn, who had noted earlier in his testimony, No one believes that [the federal
tribes.

government has] enough money to fulfill our trust responsibility to Indian tribes in the federal
appropriations process. The Off-Reservation Casino Conundrum But Tester knew that the dark issues
and the calls for reform were coming, just as they had come in spurts many times over the last 25 years,
especially regarding portions of IGRA that allow off-reservation gaming in limited circumstances. His staff,
in the weeks leading up to the main event, had been hearing from a variety of federal, state, and tribal

One of those interested

parties was Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who wished to appear
before the committee for the second time since November to discuss
off-reservation gaming and tribal casino competition in her state,
which she has said the Obama administration has exacerbated by
approving and considering several applications for new trust lands
from tribes that have not had traditional reservations. Despite
widespread tribal opposition, Feinstein introduced a bill in the
sources, each wanting to get their pressing problems on the table.

Senate last year that would make it more difficult for tribes to
acquire land that could be utilized for gaming. She has continued to
push that bill this year, and she has said she will only support a
legislative fix to the 2009 Supreme Court Carcieri decision that limits
Interiors ability to take lands into trust for tribes so long as it
including gaming limitations for tribes. Feinsteins appearance was announced by
SCIA staff two days before the hearing, but on the day of, she was missing in actionmuch to the surprise
of tribal advocates who expected her to firmly press her case against Indian gaming once again, and to the
wonder of SCIA staff, too, who thought that maybe a foreign relations conflict came up for her. Tom
Mentzer, a spokesman for Feinstein, said that the senator unfortunately had a last-minute scheduling
conflict and was unable to make the hearing, and he has been unable to provide her written testimony to
date. Tester has previously vowed to discuss the Carcieri issue with Feinstein, as he supports and has
introduced a clean fix that does not tie gaming to trust lands acquisition by Interior. All Eyes on Arizona

Even without Feinstein, the off-reservation casino issue was in the

spotlight thanks to Reps. Paul Gosar (R-Arizona) and Raul Grijalva
(D- Arizona), tribal leaders Diane Enos, president of the Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and Tohono Oodham Chairman
Ned Norris Jr. Gosar and Enos at the hearing made fervent pleas
against the Tohonos successful efforts to date to establish a casino
in the Phoenix metro area, despite previous promises made by the
tribe not to do so. Grijalva and Norris countered that the project, which recently gained approval

by the city of Glendale, was lawful. Gosar testified in favor of a House bill that would require the tribe to
wait until 2027 to proceed with its plan. [Tohono Oodhams] promise to build no additional casinos in
Phoenix is not something that Congress can ignore, the congressman testified before SCIA. No entity,
governmental or otherwise, should be rewarded for deceptive conduct that violates a compact and is
contrary to the will of the voters. Grijalva testified in response that the House legislation is a specialinterest bill that should be put to rest. Enter Sen John McCain (R-Arizona), who helped write the Gila Bend
Indian Reservation Land Replacement Act, which allowed the Tohono Oodham to buy lands in Glendale for
its casinoand which has been a source of consternation for the senator ever since. As the former chair of
SCIA, McCain raised points on both sides of the issue, saying that he can understand the concerns of
Arizona residents who feel a casino [is] being air-dropped into the metro Phoenix area, yet he noted that
the federal courts have ruled in favor of Tohono Oodham; and he made sure to ask Washburn whether he
has ensured the process has been lawful, which Washburn said it has been. Beyond the Tohono Oodham

McCain closely for his positions on tribal

Having been an author of IGRA when he served in the House in
the 1980s, he has since tried to unsuccessfully limit tribal gaming in
some circumstances by amending IGRA, and he has continued to
pursue oversight, including an ongoing investigation by the
Government Accountability Office. Plus, much to the chagrin of many tribes, he has
casino, many tribal advocates nationwide continue to watch
gaming.

been supportive of Feinsteins Carcieri fix machinations. Concerns Inside and Outside the Hearing
Even when Tester attempted to highlight positive instances of Indian gaming during his July 23 hearing, he
found himself experiencing challenges from outside the hearing room. One of these issues centered on
Eastern Band of Cherokee Principal Chief Michell Hicks, whom Testers staff invited to explain the benefits
gaming has provided to his community and beyond. Hicks provided a solid, well-rounded explanation, and
he was complimented by Tester after his testimony. But tribes that have faced negative dealings with the
Eastern Band of Cherokee over casino development and federal tribal recognition namely the nearby
Catawba and Lumbee Tribe were not so pleased that this tribe was being used by Tester as a glowing

The Catawba Nation, for one, has experienced a

prolonged legal and moral battle with the Eastern Band of Cherokee
involving the Catawbas desire to pursue a casino on its homelands;
and the Lumbees have faced intense lobbying from the E astern
example of Indian gaming.

B and of C herokee against their bid for federal recognition . Both

tribes have indicated that the E astern T ribe of C herokee is
usurping their sovereignty to protect its gaming operations.
Poverty is the worst form of violence, Paul Brooks, chairman of
the Lumbee Tribe, said in a statement after Testers hearing. While

a number of tribes such as the E astern B and of C herokees have

greatly benefitted from economic opportunity, too many tribes and
Indian communities live on islands of poverty. We must remember
that we all breathe the same air, and we must give all our Native
brothers and sisters a basic chance, Brooks added. Tribal economic
development and self-sufficiency are beautiful dreams that are not to be exclusively realized by the few.
Poverty of goods in today's world, though difficult, can be cured. When Indian Country Today Media
Network asked SCIA staff before the hearing about the concerns raised by the tribes regarding the Eastern
Band of Cherokee appearance, sensitivity was evident. [Y]ou know we dont comment on rumors and
speculation, Reid Walker, a spokesman for Tester, e-mailed in response to questions posed by ICTMN to
SCIA Director Mary Pavel over how and why the tribe was invited to testify. From the questions below, it
sounds like this story is already written. No story was already written, ICTMN assured Walker. But the

Indian casino
competition issues are not going away if anything, they are
getting more pronounced and therefore, because Congress has
oversight authority over this field, it is not going to sit idly by,
simply looking to tribal success stories for insight. The big question
is whether Congress will try for incremental changes, passing or not
passing bills related to one or few tribes, as the Tohono Oodham
legislation would do, or whether sweeping and broader legislation
will gain favor, as Feinstein would like to see happen with a potential
Carcieri legislative fix. To date, IGRA amendments, even with strong
support from McCain have failed, and Feinstein knows this, so many
believe she and legislators like her with major off-reservation
gaming concerns will continue to seek larger must-pass legislative
vehicles to attach their bills. There are pitfalls for tribal sovereignty
in both approaches, notes George Skibine, former Acting Chairman of the National Indian
Catawba and Lumbee concerns do remain. More Oversight to Come

Gaming Commission who is now an Indian affairs lawyer with Dentons. I have always had an issue with
legislative efforts that target specific tribes for disparate treatment, he said after the hearing. Of course,
a legislative approach that will infuriate only one tribe is more likely to be successful than one that will be
opposed by multiple tribes. As the tribal gaming industry matures and as revenues have plateaued of
late, which Washburn testified to, there is great interest in the complexities of tribal gaming and how they
will be resolved, as evidenced by the long, long audience line to get into the July 23 SCIA hearing room,
which committee vice-chair Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) excitedly pointed out to Tester early on. The
chairman noticed, lamenting that the same large audiences have not filled his recent hearings on Native
youth, education, and language. Tester, slightly exasperated, vowed to forge on. What we need to do as
a committee is do our due diligence on all these issues, he said at the conclusion of his hearing.

CP solves the aff while maintaining tribal sovereignty.

Gambling is a unique tool for Native Americans to resist
the federal government and have a reparations-free
solution to sovereignty. Reparations fail because they
allow the government to put a price on the history of
colonization
Tillotson 2 (Tammy, 1/16/02, David Boles Blogs, Reparations for Native

Americans: Another Trail of Tears

http://bolesblogs.com/2002/01/16/reparation-for-native-americans-anothertrail-of-tears/ Accessed 10/22/14 KR)
Native Americans were here first. We took their land while generously doling out reservations for their
people who survived to live on. Considering a moral sense of fairness, perhaps we now owe them some
other form of reparation in order to exemplify a more universal concept of reciprocity. After all, the Native
Americans were the ones who did us a favor. Shouldnt we feel morally obligated to return the favor?
Reparation and Reciprocity Reparation is compensation payable by a defeated nation for damages or loss
caused during war. Federally recognized Indian tribes have the legal status of defeated nations, and the

Federal government has legal responsibility to protect and promote their welfare. Since the Indian tribes
classify as defeated nations, the issue arises whether or not they should be financially compensated for
the great losses their people have suffered as a result of colonization. The idea of monetary reparation is
not a new concept, yet it partially stems from the notion that America is divided and is in need of healing.
In an attempt to turn suffering into healing, money is the solution, which yields the reciprocity of fairness.
Money can buy anything these days, and the notion is beyond absurd and appalling. Justice is not served
by silencing voices, and money cannot buy or return dignity and self-respect. If Native Americans were to
accept any form of monetary reparation from the Federal government, it would simply undermine what
self-respect they have suffered to successfully maintain. Accepting compensation would yield the idea that
the debt has been paid in full, when, in fact, there is no possible way to repay Native Americans. It will
simply make the Federal government happy in knowing that the Native Americans have been pacified, and
they should have nothing else to complain about, when indeed they do. True Reciprocity In truly
understanding the concept of reciprocity, what goes around comes around, and the same holds true for
both the Native Americans and the Federal government. In the governments obligation to protect and
promote the welfare of these defeated nations, Native Americans are finding ways to creatively use the

Is there any other

form of bittersweet reparation or justice more satisfying than
outwitting the oppressor, and not having to accept consolation
handouts? Gambling and gaming have presented Native Americans
with an ingenious loophole to obtain self-sufficiency, while
simultaneously sending the Federal government into an uproar . Well,
governments dictation against them for the benefit of their own people.

lifes not fair. Native Americans have learned that lesson all too well through the irony of the reparations
they have received from a government that is only trying to protect and promote their welfare. Irony of
Reservations In an attempt to make amends for taking over Native American land, the federal
government provided these individuals with reservations. Reservations, though held in trust by the federal
government, are not subject to state and local laws and authorities. The purpose of this was to allow Indian
tribes to be recognized as sovereign entities responsible for their own affairs without the interference from
other governments. The nature of the reservation itself does not completely allow the Native Americans
autonomy from the federal government, nor does it provide adequate means for citizens to be totally
responsible for their own affairs. It merely yields the appearance of autonomy, and to some extent, the
capability of the reservation to operate as a sovereign entity. Since reservations are land held in trust, the
land can only be leased to industries. Many companies and industries are unwilling to build on reservations
as there are legal concerns over ownership of the structures. Banks are unwilling to lend money toward
construction endeavors also as in case the loan is not paid in full, the bank cannot be guaranteed the
ability to repossess the structure. The federal government has in essence, provided land that cannot yield
a successful harvest. As a result of the reluctance to industrialize, which would create a means of
generating income, Native American reservations have historically had some of the highest poverty
statistics. Characteristics of reservations have included high unemployment rates, school dropouts, welfare
dependency, sanitation inadequacies, and alcoholism. This is not surprising, as the reservation is a window
in which Native Americans can see what freedom epitomizes for those outside, while solemnly
acknowledging the limitations of the reservation in failing to provide that same equity for the people
inside. Irony of Indian Gaming In Article I of the Constitution it is stated that Congress has the power to
regulate commerce of Foreign Nations and with Indian Tribes. Obviously, Native Americans still fall under
federal government jurisdiction when commerce is considered, despite their sovereign entity status.
Though Congress can regulate the flow of goods or trade, Native Americans found a gold-mine loophole in
gambling which effectively utilizes the limitations and possibilities of the reservation. The reservation
does not fall under the jurisdiction of the local or state authorities, which also means they are exempt from

As a result, gambling is one of the first real

tools that Native Americans have discovered to gain back their
economic self-sufficiency and self-respect without the aid of the
federal government. In 1983 the Cabazon tribe, on its Southern California reservation, opened
all local, state, and federal taxes.

the first high stakes Bingo. Other tribes followed suit, creating much controversy between the tribes and

Gaming is a proven way to

generate substantial tax-free income, and because this is carried out
on a reservation Native Americans do not have to report
comprehensive income. The figures of gaming income in public
literature are only estimates that range from $10 million in profits to
billions in profits, as there is no definite way of determining exact
figures. The federal government initially had no say so in how the
Indian Gaming was regulated, and this created havoc and panic for
the government as well as private owners of casinos that were
the federal government for somewhat obvious reasons.

subject to taxes and federal regulations. Suddenly there was competition where
there hadnt been competition before, the Native Americans had cleverly discovered a way to better
themselves, and it didnt seem fair to the federal government and to certain Americans! The success of
the Native Americans was received with resentment. Employment rates near casinos dropped, and many
tribes had electricity and water thanks to the additional income. The Native Americans had learned to use
the stipulations of their resources to their own advantage, and were promoting and protecting their own

Instead of the government welcoming and applauding their

ingenuity, the government saw fit to intervene once again. I ndian
self-interest.

G aming R egulatory A ct In 1988 Congress passed the Indian

Gaming Regulatory Act which recognized the right of Indian Tribes to
establish gaming facilities on reservations. The Act gave Indians the chance to
better themselves through their own efforts. It also provided a regulatory base to protect Indians from
becoming involved with organized crime,

and it established the N ational I ndian

G aming C ommission to oversee the implementation of certain

policies and regulations. The Act also defined three classes of Gaming and detailed who has
regulatory jurisdiction among which classes. Irony of Successful Reparation Despite the
disadvantages and limitations of reservations and functioning as
sovereign entities, Native Americans successfully implemented a
form of self-sufficiency that the government had otherwise
overlooked or not considered. Reparations are often a means of beginning the healing
process, yet how can Native Americans heal if when they make a valiant and successful attempt at selfsufficiency the federal government sees fit to intervene? Is this really promoting and protecting the best
interest of the sovereign entity, or promoting and protecting the best interest of the federal government?
Gambling with wits and intelligence is a hard pill for the federal government to stand by and swallow
without asserting some powerful efforts of their own .

For this reason, Native Americans

will continue to be oppressed to the extent that the federal
government deems fitting for them to achieve autonomy, as they
technically are still classified as defeated nations. True Reparation True
reparation is exemplified by the tax-free revenues generated by the
casinos, and this is a liberation that Native Americans should relish
and take advantage of while they still can. Native Americans have leveled the
odds in learning to behave like any other special interest group through putting themselves first and not
depending on the federal government to always act in their best interest .

The same federal

government that would promote and protect them, also took their
land, generously gave them reservations, and would also intervene
as soon as they demonstrated intelligence of self-sufficiency that
surpassed control of their regulations. Native Americans are no
strangers to gambling. They have faced incredible odds and overcome many harsh realities.
Gambling introduces concepts of immorality to their culture and
threatens losing traditional values to corruption and organized
crime, yet Native Americans diligently strive to use the money to
provide a better life for their people. It is ironic that the federal
government would even dare step in and try to take away that fair
and well overdue reparation. The satisfaction of true reparation
comes from being able to overcome incredible odds through
determination and will power, while remembering the roots from
which the branches of self-sufficiency and self-respect grew.
Achieving that through ones own clever means is payment in full.
Accepting a mere handout to be silent makes the suffering of our
ancestors meaningless, yet more importantly demonstrates to future
generations that it is okay for there to be a set price to compensate
for wrongful actions and deeds. It will also create a chain reaction for every individual in

through their own efforts,

even if the attainment is short-lived. Another Trail of Tears certainly
will flow when a consumerism society believes it is okay to consume
humans as long as some predecessor receives monetary
compensation.
the world that feels society has in some way wronged him to

This form of neocolonialism is founded on a history of

racism. Challenges that become depoliticized fail because
they ignore the history and late 19th century exploration
that was the emergency of hierarchal racism and racist
governmentality. Our kritik is one of how colonialism
intersects with all critiques of humanism to challenge the
exceptionalism of the United States
Arujo and Maeso 12

(Marta, Silvia, August 31, 2012, Ethnic and Radical Studies journal History
textbooks, racism and the critique of Eurocentrism: beyond rectification or
compensation
http://peer.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/72/66/61/PDF/PEER_stage2_10.1080%252F01
419870.2011.600767.pdf accesed 7-10-13, KR)
2.3. Racism within the definitive bond between concepts and historical processes Socio-historical studies
have demonstrated that it was in the second half of the 18th century, within the Enlightenments growing
centrality of scientific and empiricist rationality, that the idea of race entered common usage. At the time,
it was used to refer to discrete categories, empirically observable, according to phenotypical traits (Mosse,
1978; Solomos and Back, 1996; Hannaford, 1996). Nevertheless, we argue that it is crucial to consider that
racially defined discourses and administrations of populations have existed without a clear concept of
race scientifically sustained that refers to bounded groupings of human beings. The governing of
populations based on racial ideas was already in place in 15th century Iberian Peninsula, illustrated by the
idea of purity of blood in the persecution of New Christians (Fredrickson, 2002) or in the construction of
the category Negro as an equivalent to slave (Sweet, 2003). This is of great importance for the analysis of
Portuguese textbooks regarding two aspects: on the one hand, the conceptual shrinkage in the
understanding of racism (reduced to an extremist ideology) and, on the other, the establishment of a
All textbooks
analysed refer to racism for the first time in the period at the turn of
the 20thcentury, focused on Imperialism and Colonialism
emphasising the British and French cases. Subsequently racism is
thoroughly discussed as a prejudice characteristic of the Italian and
German totalitarian regimes of the 1930s and 1940s (LH9-1; NH9).
Racism is only mentioned again in relation to the situation of
minorities in Western societies during the 1950s and 1960s,
illustrated by the Ku-Klux-Klan as an example of a racist
organisation (LH9-2: 46). We thus consider that textbooks reinforce a
Eurocentric concept of racism that associates it with some form of
extremism or exceptionalism , rather than something more
conventional and mainstream (Hesse, 2004: 14; see also Gilroy, 1992). This
linkage of racism and racial discourses to very specific projects,
such as 19th-centurys Imperialist enterprise, locates racism in the
colonial territories while conceiving these as outside and unrelated
to Europe . Such approach hinders a broader understanding of the

definitive bond between racism, 19th-century Imperialism and the Nazi regime.

interaction between racism as a modern

political project and the

European nation-state (Lentin, 2004: 36), beyond the Nazi State

and anti-Semitism. Following Barnor Hesse, this can be seen as the double

bind that operates in the (Eurocentric) concept of racism: the

concept of racism is doubly-bound into revealing (nationalism) and
concealing (liberalism), foregrounding (sub-humanism) and
foreclosing (non-Europeanism), affirming (extremist ideology) and
denying (routine governmentality) (Hesse, 2004: 14). Furthermore,
it is fundamental to emphasise the historical shrinkage that confines
racial governmentality to the so called new Imperialism (LH9-1:
14) and the Western European countries greed for Africa:
Europeans considered it was their duty to bring their superior
civilisation to the less-developed peoples. Africa was thus the most
desired continent (LH9-1: 16). The textbooks analysed do not consider racial differentiation
and racist governmentality within the Portuguese and Spanish Expansion and the systems of slave trade
and slavery. Slave trade is mainly depicted as part of the circulation of new products between Europe
the other continents. Following Ellen Swartzs study of American history
textbooks, we also consider that in the Portuguese textbooks
analysed, slavery discourse () generally serves to justify and
normalise the system of slavery (1992: 345). Slavery thus appears
more as a necessity, not as a choice, implying that slavery was
natural, inevitable, and unalterable (Ibid: 345): Portuguese presence in

and

Black Africa. The climate in So Tom is hot and damp and the soil is quite fertile. The Europeans,
however, were deeply affected by tropical diseases, particularly malaria, and it was mainly thanks to the
African slave labour that a dynamic sugar production was settled. The two archipelagos [S. Tom and
Cape Verde] became entrepts of the slave trade. Slaves were acquired in the African coast and

The
depoliticised accounts of Portuguese colonialism guarantee the
absence of a discussion of racism and racial consciousness before
the emergence of specific racist ideologies and theories of race in
the late 18th century; this is key to understanding the prevalence of
a discourse that underwrites the good sides of colonialism in
terms of multiculturalism and cultural contact. On the contrary, we
thereafter re-exported to Europe and the

American continent (LH8-1: 38, original emphasis).

consider that the historical period characterised in textbooks as the

Expansion or the Discoveries was crucial for the emergence of

hierarchical racial classifications and of racist governmentality15 :

The sixteenth century thus marks the divide in the rise of race
consciousness. Not only does the concept of race become explicitly
and consciously applied but also one begins to see racial
characterization emerging in art as much as in politico-philosophical
debates. [] while slavery may be explained largely (though not
nearly exhaustively) in economic terms, one must insist in asking
why it was at this time that racial difference came to define fitness
for enslavement and why some kinds of racial difference rather
than others (Goldberg, 2002: 287). Some textbooks focus rather on the degrading
conditions under which those enslaved were treated, stressing a moral narrative on the inhumanity of
slavery (LH8-1: 39). Thus, rather than an articulated discourse on racism16, euphemisms pervade a
benevolent and compassionate discourse on circulation, acculturation and miscegenation, illustrated
by the following passage: The practice of slavery, the large-scale transportation of African population to
America and Europe, gave rise to miscegenation (the mixing of races) and sometimes created among
Europeans a feeling of superiority in relation to the indigenous peoples. This attitude, however, brought
about in some European minds, namely members of the clergy, an awareness of the need to defend these
peoples antagonised by others. Moreover, maritime expansion led to a broader understanding of Nature
(Ibid: 39). Racism is (not) named with the euphemistic sentiment of superiority, and therefore not
considered as a routine governmentality (Hesse, 2004) structuring society and politics, but as an
attitude. Conceived as an individual disposition, racism can be combated in the same way some
members of the clergy did in those times. This is an example of the deployment of a moralising

approach to speak of racism: challenges to injustice, violent socio-economic

structures are projected as

The
narrative shifts the focus onto the humanitarianism of the clergy.
Within this humanist take on difference, empathy17 emerges as the
only available device to approach the other.18 In the textbooks analysed,
being undertaken by the good people, whose immersion within

the colonial ideology is masked.

empathy is deployed to favour the identification of the reader with the feelings of the victim i.e. the
slaves - facilitating the cognitive and emotional understanding of the victims suffering:19 Write a text
to be titled Living and Working in a 17th-century Brazilian Sugar Mill () Which sufferings did slaves
experience, during transport and captivity? Were they truly considered and treated as human beings?
elicit? (LH8-1: 97-98). Empathy with the
enslaved emerges as a way of sustaining a humanist and moralising
view that evades issues of power/race and is incapable of
questioning the master narrative that runs throughout the
textbooks, consistent with a view of slavery and colonialism as an
evil located in the past. The shortcomings of this device are also evident in a section on the

Which moral opinions did and still does this drama

Holocaust, where racism is addressed regarding the participation of Jesse Owens, the black American
athlete, in the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin. Next to the picture of him collecting a medal, it is asked
What would Jesse Owens feel when he went to collect his fourth medal at the podium? Why? (LH9-1:

While the students are invited to walk in his shoes, racism is

framed as something morally wrong, happening to individual
powerless victims. Victims are thus presented as lacking any
meaningful political action in those historical processes (seen in
the way the history of abolitionism or colonial independencies are
told). In the textbooks analysed, the underlying assumption seems
to be that teaching students knowledge about the feelings of
victims will result in their sympathy and change of attitudes
towards oppression. Yet, empathy alone cannot contest the broader
depoliticised narrative being deployed. Indeed, as Johnson (2005: 44) suggests,
empathy may be managed, limited, and restrained in ways that do not challenge subordination. We
thus argue that the framing of the debate within a moral, binary
opposition the good victim vs. the bad aggressor is not capable
of questioning the structural role played by colonialism, slavery and
racism in Western societies.
159).

Euro-centrism is the point in which everything that isnt

white, male, European, able-bodied, and human is
permanently devalued to always be inferior. This has and
will cause an eruption in colonialist violence.
Quijano 2000, professor of the Department of Sociology at
Binghamton University
(Anibal, Peruvian sociologist and humanist thinker, known for having
developed the concept of "coloniality of power". His body of work has been
influential in the fields of post-colonial studies and critical theory, 2000, Duke
University Press, Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America,
http://www.unc.edu/~aescobar/wan/wanquijano.pdf, Accessed 7/5/13, JB)
Parallel to the historical relations between capital and precapital, a similar set of ideas was elaborated

the
foundational myth of the Eurocentric version of modernity is the
idea of the state of nature as the point of departure for the civilized
course of history whose culmination is European or Western
civilization. From this myth originated the specifically Eurocentric evolutionist perspective of linear
around the spatial relations between Europe and non-Europe. As I have already mentioned,

this myth was

associated with the racial and spatial classification of the worlds
population. This association produced the paradoxical amalgam of
evolution and dualism, a vision that becomes meaningful only as an expression of the
and unidirectional movement and changes in human history. Interestingly enough,

exacerbated ethnocentrism of the recently constituted Europe; by its central and dominant place in global,
colonial/modern capitalism; by the new validity of the mystified ideas of humanity and progress, dear
products of the Enlightenment; and by the validity of the idea of race as the basic criterion for a universal
social classification of the worlds population. The historical process is, however, very different. To start

in the moment that the Iberians conquered, named, and

colonized America (whose northern region, North America, would be
colonized by the British a century later), they found a great number
of different peoples, each with its own history, language, discoveries
and cultural products, memory and identity. The most developed and
sophisticated of them were the Aztecs, Mayas, Chimus, Aymaras,
Incas, Chibchas, and so on. Three hundred years later, all of them had
with,

become merged into a single identity: Indians. This new identity

was racial, colonial, and negative . The same happened with the
peoples forcefully brought from Africa as slaves: Ashantis, Yorubas, [End Page 551]
Zulus, Congos, Bacongos, and others. In the span of three hundred years, all of
them were Negroes or blacks. This resultant from the history of
colonial power had, in terms of the colonial perception, two decisive
implications. The first is obvious: peoples were dispossessed of their own
and singular historical identities. The second is perhaps less obvious, but no less
decisive: their new racial identity, colonial and negative, involved the
plundering of their place in the history of the cultural production of
humanity. From then on, there were inferior races, capable only of
producing inferior cultures. The new identity also involved their relocation in the historical
time constituted with America first and with Europe later: from then on they were the past. In other words,

the model of power based on coloniality also involved a cognitive

model, a new perspective of knowledge within which non-Europe
was the past, and because of that inferior, if not always primitive.

3
Status quo maintains tribal revenues legalizing internet
gambling massively expands tribal inequalities and crush
tribal sovereignty..
DePillis, 12 [Lyida, Bad Odds: Online Gaming Would Only Widen Tribal
Inequality, The New Republic, 12-12-12,
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/110951/online-gambling-bill-would-favorcasino-tribes-over-upstarts, RSR]
After years of poking at the issue, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is serious
about legalizing online poker, allowing states to opt in to a federally regulated system that
would give them 14 percent of poker proceeds. Hes said it wont happen before the end of the year, but
the easiest way to get it done might be to attach it to a must-pass bill like the defense authorizationand
in a lame-duck session, you never know what might make it to the presidents desk. Native-friendly
politicians cycled through 628 Dirksen to reassure the assembled leaders, some sporting beaded or
patterned accents to their halls-of-government drab, that any law change would take tribal interests into
account. "If you're going to do Internet gaming, do it fairly," said the snowy-haired Virginia Rep. Jim Moran,
to nods of approval from the audience. "Don't try to pull something where Las Vegas casinos get
preferential treatment. We don't want them to get any advantage, even if it's from their perspective."

the tribes have reason to worry . Over the past 25

years, state compacts granting exclusive rights to operate casinos
have allowed for the greatest advances in tribal welfare ever . (The 1988
Despite Moran's exhortation,

law governing Indian gambling basically requires that federally recognized tribes be granted a strong
advantage; Vegas and Atlantic City only exist because there are none in Nevada or New Jersey.) Analysts

online poker wont drag too many customers away from

casinos that provide a wider entertainment experience, beyond
gambling. But if poker is legalized nationally, that new online
audience will have a lot more websites to choose from than the ones
run by the tribes. Still, there's an even bigger risk for the Indian
estimate that

nations . Gambling, after all, was never an equal-opportunity business: It benefits those blessed with
reservations close to large cities. The 480-member Shakopee tribe grows rich off the Twin Cities, for
example, while the Oglala Sioux stay poor in South Dakota. The Internet economy always carries the hope
that physical location will cease to be a handicap, allowing anybody with a broadband connection to

having a lucrative physical gambling

operation is the best preparation for setting up a lucrative virtual
onewhich means the new frontier of Internet gaming is likely to
reinforce tribal inequality , rather than ease it. AFTER FIRST OPPOSING online
disrupt entrenched businesses. As it turns out,

gambling entirely, the tribes have come around on the idea. It's not hard to see why. Tribal casino revenues
nationally topped out in 2007 at $26.7 billion. Most of the tribes allowed to build casinos have done so, and
cash flow has declined particularly in states where the industrys most mature, like Florida and California.
Meanwhile, legal online gambling seems inevitable: The National Indian Gaming Association has
commissioned multiple reports on the issue, encouraging the tribes to get online just like everybody else.
"We all realize the future of gambling is the younger generation, with online gambling and mobile apps,"
NIGA executive director Jason Giles said at a September gathering at the Seminoles' Hard Rock Casino in
Hollywood, Florida. That may work fine for gambling pros like the Seminolesor the Mohegans in
Connecticut, whove already inked a deal with the online poker provider OnGame, and will flip on the
switch as soon as Congress legalizes it nationwide. Theoretically, smaller tribes could benefit, too, either
by joining larger ones or by forming their own consortiums to generate the kind of liquidity that any
gaming operation needs to pay out attractive winnings. W. Ron Allen, chairman of Washington State's
Jamestown S'Klallam tribe, imagines that Native kids could busy themselves designing gambling apps,
giving them a ticket to Internet wealth. "Where does the ingenuity of the free market come from? It can
easily come from Indian country," Allen says. "These young kids are not interested in fishing. They're more
interested in this new tech world, and saying, 'I can make money here.' You're gonna see 'em starting to
emerge and shift in terms of vocational skill sets." It's a lovely vision, but likely won't come to pass, for
three reasons. One: Reid's draft bill would ban all forms of online gaming other than off-track betting and

poker, an approach both tribal and non-tribal casinos favor because those games don't cut into slot
machines, where casinos make most of their money. Outside the Senate hearing room, representatives
from the Mohegans of Connecticut and the Mississippi Choctawwith a practiced lobbyists quick and
facile pattertalked about how legalizing all kinds of gambling online would crush their brick-and-mortar
business. Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month. "Ten
thousand people rely on us," says Charles Bunnell, the Mohegans' chief of staff. "We really believe that
you'll see an erosion of jobs if you can play any game you can think of on the Internet." That's a pretty
good way to preserve their monopolythere are only so many ways to play poker, leaving little room for

Reputation and size matter. Steven

Light, co-director of the University of North Dakota's Institute for the
Study of Tribal Gaming Law and Policy, says that smaller, poorer
tribes lack the resources to develop the kind of infrastructure you
need to run and market a sizeable online gaming platform. Even if
small tribes banded together, theyd be competing with big casinos
that have spent a long time building powerful brands, which
gamblers will trust when jumping from a physical card table to a
virtual one. "The online gaming world is going to reinforce the haves and have-nots," says Light.
disruption by app-developing upstart tribes. Two:

"Where are you likely to go? You're likely to go to Google for your info searches. We don't go to a tiny
startup site that I can't even think of.

You're driven to the big players, and that's

what's gonna happen with online gaming ." And three: In trying to get some form of
online gaming passed, the big gaming tribes might talk about allowing smaller ones to join them (Bunnell
dangled the possibility, and Allen of the SKlallam said some tribes are betting on it). But actually, there's
very little reason for the Mohegans, or the neighboring Mashantucket Pequotswho operate the Foxwoods
Resort Casinoto share the eggs from their golden goose. " Why

in the world would the

Pequots partner with the Standing Rock nation here in North
Dakota? Why would they do that?" Light asks. "There's no incentive
to do that." Tribes, after all, are independent nations, just like American statesthey might lobby
together on the Hill, but back on the reservation, their own members come first. "People sometimes say,
'Why don't the tribes just help each other?'" says Light. "How often have you seen California reach out to
Connecticut and say, 'Hey, let's band together and share our revenue?'" A totally open gambling
marketplace might help those tribes that have suffered even more than the average Indian nation, by
allowing for innovation of the sort that allows underfunded newbies to take on entrenched incumbents. But
the way things are looking now, with only pokerif anythingup for legalization, the U.S. regulatory
system will continue to privilege well-located tribes over their less-fortunate peers. American law doesnt
protect brick-and-mortar businesses against the Internet in other sectors of the economy. Perhaps it
shouldnt in this one, either.

Tribal sovereigntys modelled solves ethnic conflicts that

outweigh the aff.
Morris 5 Tenured professor @ UC-Denver, American academic and Native
American activist(Glenn, Native American Sovereignty, e-copy from Taylor
and Francis, p. 276)
While such assertions may seem novel and untenable at present, it
should be recalled that just forty years ago, tens of millions of people
languished under the rule of colonial domination; today, they are
politically independent. Central to their independence was the
development and acceptance of the right to self-determination under
international law. Despite such developments, many colonized peoples
were forced by desperate conditions to engage in armed struggle to advance their

legitimate aspirations. Similarly, for many indigenous peoples few viable options remain in their quest for

a majority of the current armed conflicts

in the world are not between established states, but between
indigenous peoples and states that seek their subordination. Armed
struggle for most indigenous peoples represents a desperate and untenable
strategy for their survival. Nonetheless, it may remain an
control of their destinies. Consequently,

unavoidable

because if their petitions seeking recognition of their

many indigenous peoples, quite literally, face

option for many of them,

rights in international forums are ignored,

extermination.

Although this chapter has implications for the status of all indigenous peoples, its

the status of
indigenous nations within the U.S. is unique, and the policy of the
U nited S tates toward indigenous nations has frequently been
concentration is primarily within the United States. This is because, in several ways,

emulated by other states . The

fact that a

treaty relationship exists

between the U nited S tates and indigenous nations, and the fact that
indigenous nations within the U.S. retain defined and separate land
bases and continue to exercise some degree of effective selfgovernment , may contribute to the successful application of
international standards in their cases. Also, given the size and relative
power of the U nited S tates in i nternational r elations, and absent the unlikely independence
of a majority- indigenous nation-state such as Guatemala or Greenland,

the successful

application of decolonization principles to indigenous nations within

the U.S. could allow the extension of such applications to
indigenous peoples in other parts of the planet .

Case
Psychoanalysis is non-falsifiable
Mahrer 99
(Alvin R., professor emeritus at the University of Ottawa School of Psychology, Embarrassing Problems for the Field of
Psychotherapy John Wiley& Sons, Inc. J Clin Psychol 55: 11471156, 1999. p. 1151, via Wiley Inter Science//shree)

Most scientists believe that if something is real, it can be measured.

Psychotherapists are quixotically unique in their certainty that if they can
devise a measure of it, then it must of course be real. We have the
idea backwards, but we are energetic at our pseudoscience. We are convinced that
there really are things like schizophrenia, altruism, introversion, conceptual
schemata, egos, and hundreds of other things mainly because we have thousands
of measures, scales, and tests, all of which are subjected to the highest rigorous standards of science. Set
our scientific measure-makers on the task, and they can prove the existence of schizophrenia, devil possession, elves and
goblins, witches and warlocks. No problem. We have scientific measures. While the emperors tailors are measuring the
sleeve-length of the garment with impeccable precision, psychotherapists are using rigorous measures to measure the
emperors ego defect. Both the tailors and our intrepid psychotherapists know that anything measured with scientific
precision must therefore be real. But the psychotherapists are on much safer ground. A little boy in the crowd can see that
the emperor has no clothes. Just let that little boy try to convince the crowd that the emperor has no ego!

Psychotherapists are still fooling the crowds by wrapping

themselves in a pseudoscience of nonexisting unrealities, measured
with rigorous precision. Our field is a public relations success story.

Transgression requires the law combining transgression

with a refusal of the law results in unlimited violence.
Foley et al, 12 [Matt (Postdoctoral Teaching Fellow at the University of
Stirling); Neil McRobert (Editor); and Aspasia Stephanou (Editor),
Transgression and Its Limits, INTRODUCTION: THE LIMITS OF
TRANSGRESSION AND THE SUBJECT, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2012,
RSR]

That is not to say, however, that Kristevas understanding of Mikhail Bakhtins notion of the carnivalesque
is one of lawlessness:

In fact, this transgression of linguistic, logical and

social codes within the carnivalesque only exists and succeeds , of
course, because it accepts another law (41). As Bataille notes, if
transgression is to be lawless it becomes an unequivocal act of
violence : Often the transgression of a taboo is no less subject to
rules than acts that are law abiding. No liberty here. At such and such a
time and up to a certain point this is permissiblethat is what the
transgression concedes. But once a limited licence has been allowed,
unlimited urges towards violence may break forth (2006, 65). In turn, a
transgression adheres to its own esoteric law, whether it is de Sades pursuit of pleasure, Batailles laws of
appropriation and excretion, or the injunction to throw off and usurp societal power relationships by

When a transgression is no longer bound by law,

it becomes limitless, pushing towards an anarchy of unmediated
violence.
revelling in the carnivalesque.

Desire is not lack because it produces the real; when we

think of desire in terms of acquisition, we cannot explain
why those who are oppressed and should rebel against
the system often find an interest in investing in that very
self-same system of exploitation.
Deleuze and Guattari 1972 [Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and

Schizophrenia, trans. Robert Hurley and Mark Seem (1977), pp. 25-30]
To a certain degree, the traditional logic of desire is all wrong from the very
outset: from the very first step that the Platonic logic of desire forces
us to take, making us choose between production and acquisition.
From the moment that we place desire on the side of acquisition, we
make desire an idealistic (dialectical, nihilistic) conception, which causes us
to look upon it as primarily a lack: a lack of an object, a lack of the
real object. It is true that the other side, the "production" side, has not been entirely ignored. Kant,
for instance, must be credited with effecting a critical revolution as regards the theory of desire, by
attributing to it "the faculty of being, through its representations, the cause of the reality of the objects of
these representations."28 But it is not by chance that Kant chooses superstitious beliefs, hallucinations,
and fantasies as illustrations of this definition of desire: as Kant would have it, we are well aware that the
real object can be produced only by an external causality and external mechanisms; nonetheless this
knowledge does not prevent us from believing in the intrinsic power of desire to create its own object-if
only in an unreal, hallucinatory, or delirious form-or from representing this causality as stemming from
within desire itself. The reality of the object, insofar as it is produced by desire, is thus a psychic reality.
Hence it can be said that Kant's critical revolution changes nothing essential: this way of conceiving of
productivity does not question the validity of the classical conception of desire as a lack; rather, it uses this
conception as a support and a buttress, and merely examines its implications more carefully. In point of

if desire is the lack of the real object, its very nature as a real
entity depends upon an "essence of lack" that produces the
fantasized object. Desire thus conceived of as production, though
merely the production of fantasies, has been explained perfectly by
psychoanalysis. On the very lowest level of interpretation, this
means that the real object that desire lacks is related to an extrinsic
natural or social production, whereas desire intrinsically produces an
imaginary object that functions as a double of reality, as though
there were a "dreamed-of object behind every real object," or a
mental production behind all real productions. This conception does not
fact,

necessarily compel psychoanalysis to engage in a study of gadgets and markets, in the form of an utterly
dreary and dull psychoanalysis of the object: psychoanalytic studies of packages of noodles, cars, or
"thingumajigs." But even when the fantasy is interpreted in depth, not simply as an object, but as a
specific machine that brings desire itself front and center, this machine is merely theatrical, and the
complementarity of what it sets apart still remains: it is now need that is defined in terms of a relative lack
and determined by its own object, whereas desire is regarded as what produces the fantasy and produces
itself by detaching itself from the object, though at the same time it intensifies the lack by making it

Hence the
presentation of desire as something supported by needs, while
these needs, and their relationship to the object as something that
is lacking or missing, continue to be the basis of the productivity of
desire (theory of an underlying support). In a word, when the theoretician reduces desiring-production
absolute: an "incurable insufficiency of being," an "inability-to-be that is life itself."

to a production of fantasy, he is content to exploit to the fullest the idealist principle that defines desire as
a lack, rather than a process of production, of "industrial" production. Clement Rosset puts it very well:
every time the emphasis is put on a lack that desire supposedly suffers from as a way of defining its
object, "the world acquires as its double some other sort of world, in accordance with the following line of
argument: there is an object that desire feels the lack of; hence the world does not contain each and every
object that exists; there is at least one object missing, the one that desire feels the lack of; hence there
exists some other place that contains the key to desire (missing in this world)."29

If desire

produces, its product is real. If desire is productive, it can be productive only in the real
world and can produce only reality. Desire is the set of passive syntheses that engineer partial objects,

flows, and bodies, and that function as units of production. The real is the end product, the result of the

Desire does not lack

anything; it does not lack its object. It is, rather, the subject that is
missing in desire, or desire that lacks a fixed subject; there is no
fixed subject unless there is repression. Desire and its object are one
and the same thing: the machine, as a machine of a machine. Desire
is a machine, and the object of desire is another machine connected to it. Hence the product is
passive syntheses of desire as autoproduction of the unconscious.

something removed or deducted from the process of producing: between the act of producing and the

The
objective being of desire is the Real in and of itself .* There is no particular
product, something becomes detached, thus giving the vagabond, nomad subject a residuum.

form of existence that can be labeled "psychic reality." As Marx notes, what exists in fact is not lack, but
passion, as a "natural and sensuous object." Desire is not bolstered by needs, but rather the contrary;

Lack is a
countereffect of desire; it is deposited, distributed, vacuolized
within a real that is natural and social. Desire always remains in
close touch with the conditions of objective existence ; it embraces them and
follows them, shifts when they shift, and does not outlive them. For that reason it so often
becomes the desire to die, whereas need is a measure of the
withdrawal of a subject that has lost its desire at the same time that it loses the
needs are derived from desire: they are counterproducts within the real that desire produces.

passive syntheses of these conditions. This is precisely the significance of need as a search in a void:
hunting about, trying to capture or become a parasite of passive syntheses in whatever vague world they
may happen to exist in. It is no use saying: We are not green plants; we have long since been unable to

Desire then becomes this abject

fear of lacking something. But it should be noted that this is not a
phrase uttered by the poor or the dispossessed. On the contrary,
such people know that they are close to grass, almost akin to it, and that desire
"needs" very few things-not those leftovers that chance to come
their way, but the very things that are continually taken from them-and that what is missing is not things a subject feels the lack of
somewhere deep down inside himself, but rather the objectivity of man, the
objective being of man, for whom to desire is to produce, to produce within the realm
of the real. The real is not impossible; on the contrary, within the real
everything is possible, everything becomes possible . Desire does not express
synthesize chlorophyll, so it's necessary to eat. . ..

a molar lack within the subject; rather, the molar organization deprives desire of its objective being.
Revolutionaries, artists, and seers are content to be objective, merely objective: they know that desire
clasps life in its powerfully productive embrace, and reproduces it in a way that is all the more intense
because it has few needs. And never mind those who believe that this is very easy to say, or that it is the
sort of idea to be found in books. "From the little reading I had done I had observed that the men who were
most in life, who were moulding life, who were life itself, ate little, slept little, owned little or nothing. They
had no illusions about duty, or the perpetuation of their kith and kin, or the preservation of the State.... The
phantasmal world is the world which has never been fully conquered over. It is the world of the past, never
of the future. To move forward clinging to the past is like dragging a ball and chain."30 The true visionary is
a Spinoza in the garb of a Neapolitan revolutionary. We know very well where lack-and its subjective

Lack (manque)* is created, planned, and organized in and

through social production. It is counterproduced as a result of the pressure of antiproduction;
the latter falls back on (se rabat sur) the forces of production and appropriates them. It is never
primary; production is never organized on the basis of a pre-existing
need or lack (manque). It is lack that infiltrates itself, creates empty spaces or vacuoles,
correlative-come from.

and propagates itself in accordance with the organization of an already existing organization of

The deliberate creation of lack as a function of market

economy is the art of a dominant class. This involves deliberately
organizing wants and needs (manque) amid an abundance of
production; making all of desire teeter and fall victim to the great
fear of not having one's needs satisfied; and making the object
dependent upon a real production that is supposedly exterior to
production.r

desire (the demands of rationality), while at the same time the

production of desire is categorized as fantasy and nothing but
fantasy. There is no such thing as the social production of reality on
the one hand, and a desiring-production that is mere fantasy on the
other. The only connections that could be established between these two productions would be
secondary ones of introjection and projection, as though all social practices had their precise counterpart
in introjected or internal mental practices, or as though mental practices were projected upon social
systems, without either of the two sets of practices ever having any real or concrete effect upon the other.
As long as we are content to establish a perfect parallel between money, gold, capital, and the capitalist
triangle on the one hand, and the libido, the anus, the phallus, and the family triangle on the other, we are
engaging in an enjoyable pastime, but the mechanisms of money remain totally unaffected by the anal
projections of those who manipulate money. The Marx-Freud parallelism between the two remains utterly
sterile and insignificant as long as it is expressed in terms that make them introjections or projections of
each other without ceasing to be utterly alien to each other, as in the famous equation money = shit.

The truth of the matter is that social production is purely and simply
desiring-production itself under determinate conditions. We maintain that
the social field is immediately invested by desire, that it is the
historically determined product of desire, and that libido has no
need of any mediation or sublimation, any psychic operation, any transformation, in order
to invade and invest the productive forces and the relations of
production. There is only desire and the social, and nothing else.
Even the most repressive and the most deadly forms of social
reproduction are produced by desire within the organization that is the consequence of
such production under various conditions that we must analyze. That is why the
fundamental problem of political philosophy is still precisely the one that
Spinoza saw so clearly, and that Wilhelm Reich rediscovered: "Why do men [humans] fight
for their servitude as stubbornly as though it were their salvation?"
How can people possibly reach the point of shouting: "More taxes!
Less bread!"? As Reich remarks, the astonishing thing is not that some
people steal or that others occasionally go out on strike, but rather
that all those who are starving do not steal as a regular practice,
and all those who are exploited are not continually out on strike:
after centuries of exploitation, why do people still tolerate being
humiliated and enslaved, to such a point, indeed, that they actually
want humiliation and slavery not only for others but for themselves?
Reich is at his profoundest as a thinker when he refuses to accept ignorance or illusion on the part of the
masses as an explanation of fascism, and demands an explanation that will take their desires into account,

no, the masses were not innocent

dupes; at a certain point, under a certain set of conditions, they
wanted fascism, and it is this perversion of the desire of the masses
that needs to be accounted for.31 Yet Reich himself never manages to provide a
an explanation formulated in terms of desire:

satisfactory explanation of this phenomenon, because at a certain point he reintroduces precisely the line
of argument that he was in the process of demolishing, by creating a distinction between rationality as it is
or ought to be in the process of social production, and the irrational element in desire, and by regarding
only this latter as a suitable subject for psychoanalytic investigation. Hence the sole task he assigns
psychoanalysis is the explanation of the "negative," the "subjective," the "inhibited" within the social field.
He therefore necessarily returns to a dualism between the real object rationally produced on the one hand,
and irrational, fantasizing production on the other.* He gives up trying to discover the common
denominator or the coextension of the social field and desire. In order to establish the basis for a genuinely
materialistic psychiatry, there was a category that Reich was sorely in need of: that of desiringproduction,
which would apply to the real in both its so-called rational and irrational forms.

The affs project of resistance towards freedom plays into

the hands of power and culminates in the ultimate
tyranny of the self doing nothing is the only way to let
power die on its own and avoid existential anxiety.
KOSLOW, Grad Student at Baylor (YES THAT KOSLOW), 12 [Scott,
Occupy Wall Street: Sippin' on Jesus Juice with Genet and Baudrillard,
International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, Vol. 9, No. 2, July 2012, RSR]

As a child, at 10 years old, Jean Genet was playing alone in the kitchen. He absentmindedly reached into a
drawer: You're a thief he heard, as someone walked in behind him (Sartre, 1963a:17). Under this
reprobation,

Genet cowered and was forced to make a choice: Either

explain himself and argue his innocence, or accept his naming, and
become a thief. All of us have had similar experiences a children
caught in some act of thievery or lying, or even just suspected
thievery or lying, and all of us know the outcome. Certain of the
ignorance and moral barbarity of children, the adult will yield no
quarter to explanation. And certain of the divine intelligence of adults, the young
child will accept their punishment. The young Genet was accused by his foster parents,
who must know better than he, and who would punish the child to bring his to reason. So, Jean Genet

This one event dictated the rest of

his life. Jean Paul Sartre chronicles this moment in SaintGenet, and caught up in the logic of
existentialism, Sartre is certain that Genet continually lives and relives
this defining moment, struggling with it, suffering from the weight
of this damning interpolation. He sees Genet transformed into a foul insect in that
ceded to his naming as a thief, and became a thief.

moment (Sartre, 1963b). From that moment he was a mere, object, a thief. Genet must have loathe[d]
himself and the continual thievery that resulted, and been struggling with an internal disharmony
(Ibid.:27). But Genet was far more wise that Sartre. He found the escape, and in fact the escape from all

Where Sartre describes the symptom of

anguish as we discover we are responsible not just for ourselves but
for the whole world, Genet's genius revelation moved in the opposite
direction: He was not responsible for his interpolation as a thief, it
was something that his foster parents had impose upon him. He
the burdens Sartre enumerated.

was not responsible for the world, therefore neither was he

responsible for himself . His parents, his culture, the world was
speaking through him in making him a thief (a chance event, his
parents entering at the wrong moment), acting through him in
stealing, not the other way around. Before the event, as a foundling taken in by foster
parents, Genet had to say thank you for everything everything he received was a gift
and his conscience demanded he repay the gift and be thankful .
Afterwards, he could take without guilt . Ironically, Sartre's description of Genet is entirely
accurate. He has acceded to the status of a thing, he is wholly Other than the society
he finds himself in, and the name thief is always something that
came from outside himself, from the law or from his community . Sartre

is even more correct when he says that thievery becomes Genet's destiny. His foster parents told him he
would die on the gallows, and that became his unavoidable destiny from the moment he heard that
accusation Thief! Genet spent the next 3 to 4 years without stealing, trying to repent, and suffers from
his crimes. But after this atonement he returned to crime, and after a brief imprisonment and after he was
expelled from the Foreign Legion for homosexuality, he wandered Europe as a thief, vagrant, and
prostitute. When his community tried to make him responsible, he responded as a child does he was an

Finally he
became free, precisely because he became a thing, an object. Sartre
diagnoses Genet as a monster, cruelly imprisoned in and forced into
idiot, an object, merely living up to the image and identity that community had given him.

monstrosity by the demands of his community, with all power on the

side of the community which shaped him (Ibid.:23). This elides the art and the
power of Genet's life and work, art and power which derived precisely from his being nothing and

On the political scene in the United States, we find

the same damning logic at play . Most students and young
professionals find themselves in the position of Genet. They find
themselves saddled with a national debt of $15 trillion, and a
massive personal debt on top of that. Social security, created to be a
safety net, is failing. The unemployment rate is higher than in recent decades, and it becomes
accepting he was nothing.

more and more difficult to find work. But, conservative commentators (those trying to maintain the status

They are lazy,

entitled and disrespectful, and do not deserve jobs or social welfare
anyways. Unfortunately, the majority of these young US citizens
have taken the opposite choice of Genet, speaking up in
coffeehouses, bars, public parks, classrooms, and editorials to
maintain their innocence and demand political change . September 17,
2011, the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests began in Zuccotti Park of
New York City. Within a month the protest proliferated around the
nation, and students, young veterans, and the disaffected jobless
youth went to the streets to insist on their hardworking nature, their
worthiness, and their political acuity. They would do much better to
follow Genet, embrace their hailing by a system which tells them
they are worthless and thieves, stealing from hard-working
Americans. This gives them the absurd power which Genet wielded . In
some instances, the Occupiers have followed this tactic, and this is where
they have succeeded. They accept their objectification and
celebrates it, as Genet did when he took up a life of crime. But more
often, they follow Sartre and asserts its subjectivity against the
political morass they found themselves in. As long as they follow the
later tack, they remain an utter failure . OWS finds themselves caught in the same
quo, whether on the right or the left), insist that the next generation deserves it.

trap which Genet stumbled into. They've been promised they can succeed, that if they go to college they
will get a better paying job, that the sky's the limit. When they find this to be untrue, they shout back
about big business and corporatism.

But every time the Occupiers complain

about low wages, the media talking heads accuse them of feeling
entitled to a job they haven't earned. When they want student loan
debt forgiven, they just want a name-brand education at Harvard or
Yale, despite knowing they can't afford it. When they ask for
universal healthcare, they are socialists. The Occupiers try to fire
back. They insist that big businesses in the US are the real problem. Corporations have too
much power, they are controlling the political process, they cause
deprivation at home and abroad, they are utterly immoral; but it
comes as a surprise to no one that Exxon and BP are exploitative, or
that major US banking firms use usurious lending practices . Of course, all
these claims (on both sides) are accurate. Many of the Occupiers feel there should
be a right to a living wage, that students should be able to attend a
good school regardless of class, that some socialist principles are
acceptable. But the instant they move on these fronts they have
lost. They plead their innocence, insisting the true source of current
troubles lies outside themselves, in the community. The real cause is
this endlessly accelerating machine of accumulation, which gives out
loans, only to package the debt, sell them, and buy back the

derivatives at a profit, constantly drawing further and further from

all foundation or support. But this is a system that has long been
done with truth . Jean Baudrillard wrote that: When you're in a trap, you're in
a trap . There's no point fighting on a terrain where the models for
neutralizing opposition are strongest, where you're up against the
spiraling trap of a system that is master both of the positive and of
the negative (Baudrillard, 2008). Truth is precisely the snare which grabs
them, and dangles them aloft before the community. This is what precisely what happened to Genet.
He was cast off as immoral, and tried to atone, to fight his
immorality. And this is what is happening the OWS. The reality is plain, it lies unconcealed since the
recent banking crisis. The kaleidoscope of the media reflects it back to us ,
inflecting it with notes of Super PACs, media bias, anti-Christian
hatred, and so on. Yet these lenses are mere distractions from what is clear on every channel:
corporations dominate the political system of the US, and have shaped the laws to serve them over
individual workers. We all know this, there is no need to argue. But that is the only thing
demanded of OWS or of the US people as a whole. They should speak, debate, argue endlessly from
classroom to boardroom to legislature to Zuccotti Park. They should take to the streets, take to Twitter,
take to Facebook, demand 24 hour media coverage so that there is instant feedback and interactivity, so
they are constantly caught up in who is really to blame, so that being political is as easy as signing online

When being political is as easy as going to a website

and clicking a link, what excuse do we have not to speak? When
changing the world is as easy as camping out in New York City, what
excuse do you have not to mobilize? So speak out! Sign petitions!
Speak loud and proud, and don't forget to write your own
personalized placard which the media may capture on video and pick
up on. I support raising the capital gains tax and forgiving student loan debate, but not grants to
and clicking on Like.

green-energy companies; healthy school lunches but not road improvements. And most importantly, I am

This is approaching the culmination of what

Baudrillard describes as the removal of all barriers, leaving us with
total interactivity and turning liberation into a duty, a moral
obligation[.] (Baudrillard, 2005:50). They must fight their
immorality, to prove that they are correct. This only of the effect of
reviving our faith in a political system which no longer even has
values for us to believe in. All that capital asks of us is to receive it
as rational or to combat it in the name of rationality, to receive it as
moral or to combat it in the name of morality (Baudrillard, 1994:15). Vote
political. I am moral.

Democrat or Republican, drink Pepsi or Coke, laud or abhor the president, it makes no difference. Either

we remain caught in a helicoid spiral of blame and renegotiation

which ultimately has no center or end. Either way we remain
concerned with getting to the bottom of things, finding the reality of
the matter. And then we are committed to that reality and creating a
corrective to it. Either way, we legitimize and remain indebted to a
democratic process of deliberation which has aired and considered
our demands, but merely found them wanting, perhaps not popular
way,

enough or unrealistic . Either way we resuscitate the public morality. This gives anyone an
avenue and an impetus to speaknd if one speaks persuasively enough to the masses, we believe we will

So we remain committed to deliberation and

protesting. Even if OWS or such speaking in general were to have an effec, it would be only a
change government policy.

minor renegotiation of existing policy, so that perhaps an investment firm will be fined or closed, while the
users are ensnared more and more in a system where someone else will immediately take the firm's place.
When OWS formulates lists of demands, politicians accommodate minor planks that are popular like

ending corporate personhood and use that to prove that they listen to the activists, that they are good
democrats. Simultaneously, they disregard the majority of the platform, anything that would have a radical
political effect. This only allows politicians to claim OWS as supporters, while doing nothing to change the
nature of the political system. As long as OWS state traditional political demands, they can be appeased
and accommodated, losing any critical power they have, and becoming yet more beholden to a system

He
explains that the political elite will alternately accommodate that
is, recognize, bring in, and assimilate or banish reject as
politically impossible all challenges. Obama takes the voice of
citizens, and welds it to their cause to claim it as support. Simultaneously,
he says he would push for their radical demands, but they're just
they are trying to oppose.Such a logic is explored by Spanos (1992, 2000, and 2008) to great effect.

not realistic right now. Petitioners are assimilated as Obama supporters, while all radicality is
banished]. What's more, as long as they are pursuing political ends and seeking politicians to represent

the
force of this system only becomes stronger , while they do nothing
but engage in minor repair to a broken (according to OWS) system. Baudrillard
them, they are guaranteed to concern themselves with the pragmatics of partisan politics. In fact,

expressed this claim well: What or who can stop globalization? Surely not anti-globalization forces, whose

The anti-globalization forces have

considerable political influence but their symbolic impact is
nonexistent. The violence of the protestors is simply one more event that system will absorb while
continuing to control the game (2006). Functioning in this way, OWS loses all it's symbolic
power, becomes nothing more than a strategic move in a game they
want to reject. This makes even more sense when applied to a micropolitical level. OWS demagogues claim they've finally found a
realpoliticalevent and go on and on about occupying the real, about
the hyper-reality of modern consumer life, about their horrible ennui
real aim is only to slow deregulation.

(OWS, 2011a). This is the source of their failure. Here tTo give one telling example, Stephen Colbert
interviewed two individuals elected to represent the movement on his show (Colbert Nation.com, 2011). In
it, the representatives do everything in their power to avoid any sort of discursive violence. They insist that
they do not speak for anyone else, that they cannot be synecdochalized for the movement as a whole. One
expounds on the radical potential of voting by waving your hands in the air versus crossing your arms. He
demonstrates his Jazz-Hands to show how this is an absolute rupture from past politics where citizens and
elected representatives would make such banal statements as Yea or Nay. The other calls herself a
female-bodied individual, afraid to commit the discursive violence of implying that a person with a
vagina, ovaries, and breasts is a woman. Anything that might misrepresent someone, or impute an identity
upon someone, is disavowed, because every possible pain hurts them; it is an object of guilt. So they do
away with violent identity politics, away with traditional schema of representation and voting, away with all
leaders. They would rather just be done with them. These Occupiers most of them college students,
wandering scholars of Butler, Foucault, Sartre, and so on take up this political position enthusiastically.

They proudly proclaim There are no police. There is no state, no law, and no jail to turn to
within the occupy community. There is only individual responsibility

and accountability [.] (OWS, 2011a). They know that they are the first
generation in history to experience true freedom, and so they feel
the abandonment, anguish, and despair which Sartre predicted.
Writing proleptically about the Occupiers, Sartre described:
Abandonment, that God is dead, all leaders fail us, and we have no
platform or ideology to guide us; anguish, the knowledge that we
are absolutely and solely responsible for our lives, and not just our
own life but the enter world; and despair, a final acceptance of the
realm of imperfect (less than true) options available to them (Sartre, 1975). They accept this

knowledge, as Sartre prescribes, optimistically. They are responsible for every instance of gendered or
sexed violence, so they willingly refuse to even call themselves female. They know every leader will fail,
so they refuse any guidepost or governance. They will vote yes, that's a necessity but they emphasize
that their voting is different from the voting of the past, complete with mic checks and drum circles.

Sartre describes how that one fatal instant decided the course of
Genet's life. Similarly, as children, the protesters were all caught
with the silverware in their hands. And now they live their life trying
to disprove their fate, to demonstrate to themselves that they are
not thieves, layabouts, or utopians. They are certain they are not lazy, they're not
apolitical, they're not entitled, they've repented, they've lived the life of the underclass and they will speak
to and about it; they must prove this to their detractors and their own conscience. Every FOX News report
hurts them, every criticism of the movement is an attack which must be countered. Every claim of

They have accepted

their existential freedom in the world, but all it does is enslave
entitlement, socialism, privilege is as damning as the shout Thief!

them more and more until every slur hurts, every wrong is
unbearable. This terrible force is clear when the occupiers explain the edicts of the OWS General
Assembly (the closest thing in OWS to a governing body) in OccupyTheory (OWS, 2011a). The
General Assembly, they explain, offers no binding resolutions, no
one is required to agree or abide by its judgments. Instead, every
member of the movement is free and responsible for their own
actions. Yet in the same breath, they declare what members of the
movement must do, including camp outside through the winter,
give any benefit they win to the Occupy community, and educate
anyone and everyone about the movement. The General Assembly meets

endlessly, constantly issuing rulings on how to act, events to hold, what to say, and so on. Yet these are
only suggestions. The individual bears the full weight of responsibility for their actions; they are left naked

This
freedom is merely a way for OWS community organizers to
displace blame to the individual, while making their control even
more pernicious . Protesters are given the liberty to disagree with the General Assembly, to
before the police, the law, and morality, while the General Assembly is free of any guilt.

disobey their judgments, yet those who don't are not serving the movement. This became starkly clear
when a group of drummers exercised this freedom to disobey and threatened the well-being of the
movement. An anonymous OWS activist reported that the protests in New York City would be shut down
because of drummers playing their instruments too much, such that the local community board was
lodging noise complaints with the police. This activist bemoaned that they drum late at night, that they will
not organize, that they refuse to meet with the General Assembly, that they don't care about the larger
movement. After complaining that they are going to kill the Occupation, the activist notes that those who
can't : 1) keep our space and surrounding areas clean and sanitary, 2) keep the park safe, 3) deal with
internal conflict and enforce the Good Neighbor Policy that was passed by the General Assembly, threaten

Their lack of
cooperation makes them traitors to the cause, thoughtless and
irresponsible (OWS, 2011b). Under this anarchist system of direct and
total freedom, someone who disobeys the General Assembly is not
just breaking a rule, they are threatening the entire movement ,
negating the work and suffering of hundreds or thousands of likeminded people. Where Baudrillard says that hegemony is a worse
form of control than domination, this is what he means. Domination
to undermine the Occupation, and are ruining what everyone has fought for.

would be a relief . To be pepper-sprayed or jailed would be a badge

of honor the victim would display with pride (after the immediate pain). Even to be
somehow punished by the Occupy organizers (if they had set up a structure to do so) would only be proof
of OWS's hypocrisy that the arrestee is a more genuine protester than the arrestor. They would suffer
whatever punishment was given to them, repay their debt, and be free of the matter. But the General

Instead, they only suggest and help,

and protesters must remain beholden to them or their very lack of
assembly will not dominate, will not punish.

support is proof enough of their evil. Under the neoliberal state,

every citizen is responsible for their own well-bein g. Under the banner of this
leaderless revolution, every protester is responsible for the well-being of the entire movement. In
OccupyTheory, Michael Premo expresses this well: I reject the notion that this is a leaderless movement,
because I know that the opposite is true. [] [I]n this movement we are all leaders[] (Premo, 2011).
Everyone says endlessly that there is no leader. This does not remove the panoptic force of the law from
anyone (the law of the local government, or of the General Assembly). Instead, it forces everyone to takes
responsibility for the movement, and makes literal the anguish Sartre describes at knowing he is
responsible for the entire world. It only magnifies and multiplies those panoptic forces, coming now from

it
also literalizes Foucault's bio-power, radiating endlessly throughout
the socius, rather than exercised by a ruler upon her/his subjects
Sartre says that one can rely on nothing else not God, not chance,
not history, not the revolutionary cause, not other people and so
one is radically responsible for his/her own action. Genet acted, was
blamed, and that blame stuck. This is the essence of Baudrillard's
tyranny of the self . The child Genet was interpellated as a thief, and reaching into the wrong
one's peers instead of the state. That is, precisely because of its headlessness and undefinability,

drawer made his instantly responsible for the rest of his life. He had to accept it as his burden. The
activists, submitting petitions, calling for government salvation, justifying themselves, they all enact that
tyranny upon themselves. They allow their naming as lazy, entitled brats, to enter into their Being and
decide their life. They must fight against it, that is the yoke they must bear, they are responsible for it.
Whether they fight for liberation or oppression, protest the White House or Wall Street, provide social
services or end social services, it all amounts to the same thing: an enslavement to that naming, which
must at every moment decides their lives. But Sartre fails to see how Genet escaped this naming precisely
by taking it up. Whether Genet accepted or fought his new name (thief) he could not escape his fate. He
is a thief, either because the world takes him as a thief, or because (if we accept Sartre's logic) he is
radically responsible for that naming, and must bear the damning weight of it. The only difference is that
arduous imperative. Thief is either a burden to carry, a horror to atone for, or it is freedom from the law
and morality, a chance to do anything because he is already a malefactor and unrepentant barbarian.
Genet realized that thief is a concept that came not from himself, but from the community. He was not
accountable for it, it was merely an imposition by the community.

This is what Baudrillard

meant when he said At all events, it is better to be controlled by

someone else than by oneself. Better to be oppressed, exploited,
persecuted, and manipulated by someone other than oneself
(Baudrillard, 1993:167). Condemned by his community, Genet can either be oppressed
by them (accept the name), or he can express his authorship of his
own life and take responsibility for it himself (fight for his
innocence). The Occupiers share this choice. They've learned of their absolute
freedom, which also means their absolute responsibility. Every injustice is their fault, because they always
could have done more, been more ethical. Only when oppression comes from elsewhere does it free them
of their self-oppression.

Only when they've been arrested do they have their

autonomy. Only the martyrs, who've been pepper-sprayed, jailed,

and harassed, are able to enjoy their freedom, because only they
have been oppressed by their community, rather than oppressing
themselves. They are criminals, and they have merely accepted their imprisonment. OWS's
insistence of their headlessness should remind us of another movement: Acphale (The Headless ).
George Bataille founded Acphale as a secret society to be the first
truly headless movement. Bataille had born witness first-hand to the
theft of Friedrich Nietzsche's corpus from the grave by the Nazi
party. To prevent political misappropriation of this sort, he insisted the movement must be rendered
literally headless with his own literal decapitation. A few members volunteered to be decapitated, but no
one would be the executioner (Goldhammer, 2005:84). OWS has a unique opportunity the police have
taken up the role of executioner. They no longer need executioners, the state will do it for them. This is
where OWS's power lies: not in paeans about the power of the human spirit unbound by relations of greed,
not by giving birth a movement never-before seen on Earth, not in producing ruminations on bio-power or

human rights, or in positive political change. Their power lies in their death. This has been true historically.
The protests of 1968 gained widespread traction when the police barracked the universities. Economic
liberalization in China gained traction with the Tiananmen Square Massacre. Tibetan Independence won
global support with the self-immolation of Buddhist monks. Baudrillard himself identifies the suicide of Lee
Kyung Hae, when he climbed atop to police barricade keeping protesters from the WTO summit in Cancun,
Mexico in 2003 and stabbed himself, as a gesture with the power to disrupt neo-liberalism. He says that, in
refusing to offer political arguments for or against globalization instead totally self-destructing Lee
represents a singularity which cannot be recapitulated to the political morality of good and evil
(Baudrillard, 2006). Even the police know this. Riot-police throughout the developed world are told not to
respond to crowds, but to simply absorb a crowds anger. They have learned that any response will only

But the officers responding to Occupy movements

across the US have missed this simple truth. The power to oppose
the current hegemony lies not in positive political action. It lies
empower the rioting forces.

purely in their self-destruction at the hands of the law . It's here that all
their symbolic force resides Let us consider now the real history of class struggle whose only moments
were those when the dominated class fought on the basis of its self-denial "as such," on the basis of the
sole fact that it amounted to nothing. Marx had told it that it should be abolished one day, but this was still
a political perspective. When the class itself, or a fraction of it, prefers to act as a radical non-class, or as
the lack of existence of a class, i.e., to act out its own death right away within the explosive structure of
capital, when it chooses to implode suddenly instead of seeking political expansion and class hegemony,
then the result is June '48, the Commune, or May '68 . The secret of the void lies here, in the incalculable
force of the implosion (contrary to our imaginary concept of revolutionary explosion)-think of the Latin
Quarter on the afternoon of May 3 (Baudrillard and Lotringer, 1988:63). The strength of the movement lies

As political
subjects they are utter failures, and thank god. If more of them put
forward political demands, they would be easily accommodated and
assimilated. They would be allowed the proper avenue to speak, they would be required to voice
not in what they accomplish, in any demand they have met, but in what they suffer.

their concerns in an easily understood and managed way, and anyone who continued to resist would be
eliminated by the police as unrepentant barbarians shitting in the street, trespassing on private property,
and making too much trouble for the corporate elite. With the majority channeled into rational political
dialogue, the remaining protesters would simply be managed by police forces and washed away. But
because they refuse such means like circulating petitions, like raising money for a PAC or candidate, like
posting activist slogans on Facebook and Twitter, the overwhelming mass of their heretical refusal cannot
be contained, and the police violently strike back. I said earlier that OWS finds themselves caught in a trap.
When an animal is caught in a trap, it's struggles will only enmesh it more. When Jean Genet was handed
his fate as a criminal, his guilt and regret only ensured he stayed beholden to the law. When OWS insists
on political change, their justifications and platforms only ensure they remain mired in traditional politics.

Instead, the animal must play dead, give up on struggling, and the
trap will slip loose on its own . News conglomerates, reporters, politicians, all seeking to
castigate Occupy Wall Street scrambling to find an official platform so that they can mock it. Many have
taken OccupyWallSt.org to state the official platform, and decried it as socialist. Elsewhere, in Denver,
Mayor Michael Hancock demanded that the Occupiers in his town pick an official leader to meet with him,
and offer an official platform. But like Genet, OWS has been too wise for this. Platforms have proliferated
online, so that OccupyWallSt.org alone lists over 10,000, and there are many more at protests around the
US. In Denver, the protesters elected a border collie named Shelby, who they say exhibits heart, warmth
and an appreciation for the group over personal ambition that Occupy Denver members feel are sorely
lacking in the leaders some of them have voted for (ODGA, 2011). They had Shelby meet with Mayor
Hancock the next week, but I expect he was disappointed. It is the strategy Baudrillard describes as
drawing one's enemy out into the open, of playing dead rather than resisting. Political moves against
corporatism, even if successful, would amount to nothing. A law might be passed through a Congress
dominated by special interests, a few radical or third party representatives might be elected to the House
only to drown in a sea of conservatism, the Democratic party might win back the House in the 2012
elections, but all would signify a continuation of the status quo. The occupiers, through their political nonaffectivity, turned the tools of our society against itself, so that the government would demonstrate its own
corruption and violence. In their stupidity, the Occupy Wall Street protesters have opened the way for a
more radical and effective response that is, pure stupidity itself. Having no goals, no aims, no strategy
means they cannot be accommodated or reasoned with. They are precisely the entitled, apolitical hippies
that they have been accused of being (you cannot argue with someone who admits to having no
argument, and not caring about an argument, anyways). So, they have drawn police forces to the only
response left against such a group: committing abuse after abuse. Indeed, OWS seem like some perverse

If Baudrillard is
correct and politics is dead, perhaps these protests are the United
band of quantum hobos, like the photons in Young's double-slit experiment.

State's political objects enacting their revenge upon the politicians .

The individual protesters seem to disappear, while socialists and hipsters and lay-abouts are pro-duced
(made visible) more and more by this endless cycle. Politics is no longer possible, there can be no more
true events. Yet in OWS we are confronted by a weird non-event, like reality television. Of course, if not for
the TV cameras and reporting, the protesters wouldn't be there. The protesters are merely creating a
spectacle for the cameras. Yet in the response we see something unplanned, something intended to be
hidden. When the police use riot clubs, tear gas, or pepper-spray on non-violent protesters, it happens as a
rogue event, something they do not want seen. The police and the politicians commanding them want to
act decisively, to regain control of their city, to create the security and order which they so desperately
desire. They act as responsible subjects to maintain the moral order (but as officer rather than thief),
and in-so-doing they allow the object to enact it's revenge. All those apolitical lay-abouts they exert their
power over suddenly force those in charge to expose their violent will. And when the police and the
politicians get lured out like this, they collapse upon themselves. The police, in attempting to prevent
anything from happening, any disturbance in their ideological hegemony, enact the only event that can
really be said to have happened. They act with a preemptive logic, one attempting to prevent a riot before
it even begins. They fear these occupiers will exert their subjectivity in a forceful revolt, so they douse the
protesters with pepper-spray before they can even begin. This is clear in the justification by the police and
politicians. In protests at University of California: Davis, one scene video-taped from multiple angles
shows a line of seated and immobile protesters as an officer calmly walks up and sprays the line of
students for 10 to 15 seconds. When they remain sitting, unmoving, he walks to a fellow office, grabs
another bottle of pepper-spray, and sprays them all once more. The police chief came out to say they had
to do it because the officers were feeling boxed-in by the surrounding crowd, and violence would have

Similar
scenes, and apologias, have appeared nation-wide at Occupy
protests. At these protests, we see how all rational, preventive,
prophylactic countermeasures are automatically turned against
themselves through their own excesses. Security is the best medium
for terror (Baudrillard, 2010:98). All this was magnified and made tangible on Thursday, 8 December
broken out had the officers not used non-lethal force against them first (Rankin, 2011).

2011, when Law and Order: SVU attempted to make an episode on OWS. Law and Order recreated the
OWS camp in Foley Square in Manhattan (just a few blocks from Zuccotti Park where the OWS movement
was encamped until 15 November) during the day. They put up tents, a kitchen/dining station, anticorporate signs and placards, and so on. That night, the protesters, who'd been forced to leave Zuccotti
Park, arrived. Some climbed in the tents and went to sleep. Some set up a drum circle. Some began eating
the food out of the kitchen. They thought it was unfair that they couldn't set up camp in a park less than a
mile away, but Law and Order could create an identical camp, with all the same slogans and public
nuisances, because it was farce rather than reality. So the protesters occupied the fake camp (chanting
Who's fake park? Our fake park! and even calling themselves mockupiers) and refused to leave (Barron
and Moynihan, 2011). They remained until the producers of Law and Order called the police to evacuate
them. However, Law and Order had failed to secure the proper permits to film in the park, so when the
police showed up, they threatened to arrest everyone protester, Law and Order protester extras, and
production assistant alike, unless they cleared the area (Chiaramonte, 2011). According to one account,
SVU had acquired all necessary permits, but because the police couldn't tell the protesters and the show's
employees apart, they revoked the permit and forced them all to leave (Ibid.). Their chants (Who's fake
park? Our fake park!) proved they embodied Genet's choice better than anything else OWS had done.

Ever since Andy Warhol promised us our 15 minutes of fame, we all

know that celebrity has been the dream of ever privileged
suburbanite. These protesters didn't even need to be cast, they
claimed the position themselves (not only fame obsessed, but selfentitled). They arrived, became the extras in the television-set camp, ate the television-set food,

waved the television-set signs, and disappeared among the crew and props. Here, we see the literalization
of Baudrillard's more false than false, no story, no narrative, no liberation or aim, only the mocking of
Law and Order's story about OWS. The only possible response by the police or the producers was to
become more true than true[.] (Baudrillard, 1985). The producers had to become real, appear not just as
actors, but manifest themselves as corporate interests directing a profit-driven enterprise. And the police
had to force not only the protesters to leave, but to turn against and shut down the entire corporate
production, and force Law and Order to leave its own film set.

OWS functioned like a

reality making machine . Just as Jean Genet did not believe he was evil or a criminal, they
possess no reality in themselves. For both, their power is in letting others believe
that they are real, and forcing them to respond. That's proven when the police

tear down the fake encampment just as they tore down the original encampment. Their occupations
sprang up randomly and with no grounding or meaning, with radicals across the US branding themselves
Occupy wherever they were. On their own, the occupations would have disappeared just as easily as

their arose. They are altogether empty and ineffectual. Their only power was in
forcing others to live up to those individuals' own realities. Law and Order creates a fake camp, and the
occupiers make it into a real camp. The police show up to control them, and the occupiers force them to
exercise their authority. The occupiers thrive in making themselves more fake than the fake (Our fake
park! or the puppy elected as leader, because who doesn't love a puppy). In this way, the protest of Law
and Order demonstrates exactly the logic of Jean Genet. The dissidents are branded as irreverent,
protesting for no reason and with no real goal. So when Hollywood attempts to revive the movement, to
celebrate them, to show them in only a positive light, they appear to protest for no reason at all. They
protested merely because there's a perfect location for them to protest, ready-made with a kitchen, food,
places to sleep, and pre-made placards with appropriate political slogans. Law and Order created a camp
site lacking only the protesters, so OWS supplied them. Many defenders of the movement attempt to
explain that they have goals, but are amorphous and leaderless. They know what they want, but are
unwilling to do the violence of pretending their own goals represent everyone. The reality, from
conversations with protesters and news reports, is far less patronizing. They have no idea why they
protest, or what they protest for, they are divinely idiotic. They are like the French who voted No to the
European Union's constitutional referendum (Baudrillard, 2006b). They have felt their displacement from a
system in which they no longer have any part, and they refuse to be integrated into this complex machine
not of their making. In describing how to philosophize as one wages war, Lotringer says the enemy's
center of gravity must be identified right away, the inner spring of its movement, and then pushed to the
limit (Baudrillard and Lotringer, 1988:24). We can see this move in Steven Colbert's response to the
protests. First, he provokes them, inviting them to a penthouse suite, ordering a 10 course breakfast which
he eats before them, even offering them to eat along with them (a gesture which, coming from the center
of privilege and corporate extravagance, they must refuse). Then, he inverts their logic, and when the
female interviewee identifies herself as a female-bodied person, he asks the man if he is a male-bodied
person or a female-bodied person. It is incorrect to identify Colbert as parody in which one inverts the
dominant logic, saying it while actually implying/meaning the opposite and Baudrillard even designates
such acts as parody (Baudrillard and Lotringer, 1985: 64). Colbert is not actually defending the Occupy
movement any more than he is actually defending corporations. Rather, as Jameson (1991:17) points out,
it is pastiche. Colbert cuts and pastes together fragments of either's ideology to render them entirely
meaningless and free-floating, demonstrating their groundlessness. It is a modern form of
reductioadabsurdum. The Occupy protesters, engaging in similar moves, are doing the same thing. The
Occupy Denver protesters also embody this logic. First, they provoke, with a headless movement, anticorporate slogans, vagrancy, and so on. Then, when forced to elect a leader, they select Shelby, a dog,
saying that if a corporation is a person, certainly Shelby is. Shelby is even more of a person, because while
the Denver Mayor could not meet with a corporation only its representatives and agents he can actually
meet with a puppy, which is a living creature. Genet, at that moment as a child, had a choice. He
responded by answering his violent interpolation genuinely. He accepted responsibility, internalized the
guilt of society, and tried to repent. Many occupiers followed this tact, and to that extent their failure was
destined. However, after four years Genet realized that he was a thief, that society was right, and that he
need not feel guilty. Thief was a mask that he could disappear behind, so he became and thief and
embodied that role. The occupiers, at their best, hide behind the mask of their stupidity, their privilege,
their inanity. They are a mere product, produced by a system of accumulation freed of all bounds. OWS are
not subjects. When the banking and housing sector collapsed, OWS emerged as the reverberation of that
collapse, spelling out the truth of its corporatist logic. It was fated from the beginning. Even the slogan We
are the 99% merely serves to force those in power to justify themselves, to locate some referent in
democracy or justice or truth. Hence, they had to occupy Law and Order, because the occupation was
already there. Protesters were already there. The only thing missing was reality. Protesters injected that
reality into Law and Order and it became too real, just as they did with the NYPD, just as their did with the
corporate banking system Genet finally embraced the fate handed to him when he was 10, a thief
condemned to the gallows. Rather than seeking freedom from authority (which is only self-enslavement),

OWS should accept their fate as worthless and apolitical . Rather than
emphasizing no leader and radical freedom, they should elect a dog as a leader, or maybe even a kitten
(everyone loves kittens).