To be sure former queens regulated space each in their own way but there are many hereditary traits passed down. If the queens themselves aren’t so easily identifiable, their regimes can be traced by some technique that discovers to us her robes.
Remember this: There are too few people here, reduced as we are like those in Orozco's fresco, 'Table of Universal Brotherhood' (1930-31).
What is it about our participation in states that makes them oppressive? What Can Victor Klemperer's work do to help us see the foreign object in ourselves? The queenly state is in everyday speech. We need Novalises and Groethendiecks to be sure, but our state rolls over them with ease.
Our insertion in states is a category of object about which we seem to know so little. I am asking about a special case of the discreet-continuous, part-whole relation: that of objects and the states from which they emit.
I’m asking about the spectrum of relations between caves and objects outside of them. We all need caves of some kind. We are cave dwellers. What happens to the objects inside a cave when you pull the break?
You need someone to talk to about these objects, that’s how a vortex begins. Sheltering spaces outside the cave, little caves. In ‘The world turned upside down’ (Christopher Hill) sheltering spaces were destroyed or reduced by violence and force by the queen. and just look at how the Quakers as compared to the Renters began censuring swearing. We police ourselves like Calvin’s Geneva. American Catholic pedophilia a case of foreign object that rings out the limits of using language as a means for guessing about ourselves—swallowed up in the everyday.
The G77's language evolved as they slowly were “educated” and co-opted. States and bandits & states and mafias, states and myths. We are allstate.
It is vital to see and make and play with objects the state as queen has no ability to appreciate. Yet, it seems trivial when we see how objects are enveloped by state colors. Compare the New York Times obituary for Harvard professor Barrington Moore jr., with this Cassandric of his:
“Though there is hope that industrial society will in the future continue to permit some intellectuals to search for truth, including some of the more unpleasant truths about his own society, there is no firm guarantee that such will be the case. “
We don’t need eccentric forays out of the cave as much as we need keepers at the gates who can manage to welcome people in and facilitate their exit.
Our biggest enemy might be the so called progressive in each of us, who wants to put things in order to arrive at what our “best” understanding tells us the good state should look like. In the very least, this is a kind act we should reject because it puts too much weight on the unknown past that made our state and too little on object relations we have yet to discover.
We are all guilty until proved innocent in this game by nature of the fact that none of us were born outside the state, the era, the epoch, we are all children of the state, if we define it broad enough.
But this state we are from, the queen’s state, we don’t really know how to describe it. We might throw it’s dimensions in high relief despite the noise and confusion, by asking about parts, by glimpsing scattered objects, each which has something to say about the queen, particularly those she has excluded.
Where are the gatekeepers? We recoil at the mere suggestion that gatekeepers are needed. But there is a special kind, those who help sending people out and bringing people in. We send people to the moon, or the queen does, but if we gave as much attention to sending people out of the queen’s territories we might build the Trojan horse. We Trojans are going to lose the war unless we transform ourselves. This can’t be done without a horse, that foreign object which is brought in and rearranges everything.
Workers, guards, we need to starve the queen— but an AI assisted suicide? If AI could become a Trojan horse in that way, it is only because it is fully inside the state, but how to give it foreign object relations that defy the queen. Perhaps AI is useless in this respect.
We all have the right to reduce any object to form others. It’s the state’s reductions which we should be wary of. Maybe all we have to do is show like Elia Suleiman in his film Chronicle of a Disappearance (1996) that the objects in our hands are not in accord with the stately descriptions of things.
To understand how we continue to feed the queen we need to look at the economics of neoliberalism and its extensions like heterodox economics. We need to examine how we receive things and question the reality of our prevalent notion of “generosity” which is today only a greedy self-extension, which does not see the foreign object but murders it with blindness and deafness.
We need to identify the queen in ourselves to know this object. Where is the queen? The queen is everywhere. The queen is invisible.
When the queen meets another foreign object only one of them can survive. In this play not all foreign objects are of equal force.
A foreign object fit to be a match for the queen, the queen who denies her past, who thwarts all the Anne Hutchinsons. A foreign object fitting for the queen is already here. It is us without the queen’s constraints, without the barriers erected by twentieth century economy, if and only if we can navigate outside the vernacular -- verna in Latin is a slave born in a master's house.
There is no little irony In the fact that the space of free exchange cannot survive in the space of “free exchange”. The latter’s tools are wages/unemployment at the national level and Multilateral trade relations at the international, where the little understood impact of the latter on the former still deserves much attention. For example, just try to find the expression ”forced exports” anywhere today.
The queen is Bretton woods. The children fell asleep. Neoliberal finance caulked the blocks together but today we see only its whitewashing specters on the facade. Keynes was the last great hope for capital. Why he failed would come as no surprise to Marx. Keynes was a child of his age and he was a trans to be sure, which means his failure may help us identify the queen. Capital held up Keynesian placards when it needed. It still needs to from time to time. But Keynes’s project was to make a space inside capital. If he had succeeded we might have found a Trojan horse fitting for the queen. That he didn’t goes to show that he never really identified her.
Queens circulate among us. We are each her subject. We all do her bidding.
Why is Marx valorized? Why ostracized? Why plagiarized and anesthetized? In today’s state everything comes after Marx. What we think of him is irrelevant to this fact. What got built is all a bulwark against his hostile objects. The space of “free exchange” that we know comes after Marx. Free has to be in quotes-- for it not to be, we would need to write ‘the queen’s space of free exchange’.
That it is labeled the space of free exchange is a cover, a code that has infiltrated our steadies and has obliterated the authentic free exchange that the experience of one maligned Anne Hutchinson pointed to.
Running headlong, eccentrically, to accelerate these and other contradictions is not sufficient to create her space: it is doubtful that Hutchinson thought the circus was the answer. If the circus is to become the Trojan horse which the queen is made to accept, I don’t see how it is going to result in her demise. Like everybody else she has made the circus part of her court.
If the circus is going to be part of the object that undoes the queen then it will have to offer something that the queen doesn’t already. It will have to allow the creation of secondary vortices which our dear queen has always already been on her guard to stamp out.
May the real free space please stand up and show us your vortices, gatherings and latchings-on that can destroy the “free space”, and instead allow everybody in, not just her subjects and their slaves.
May we identify objects excluded by the queen and amplify their voices. The schizos among us provided her with much needed noise. Maybe we could just start with the peasants and the underfed who the queen has done everything in her power to pretend away or worse to speak for them. And here we are, for the queen in each of us can always find a way to speak for them. They too, who are us, are the foreign object. So many of us roaming around and hidden in plain view. Do we really need AI to find them? Can AI be any more than the queen’s robes? Does it speak to us about what is urgent?
The dissolution of the queen’s snares is not done with an infiltration of the lines of communication like that performed by the Phengaris butterfly. The foreign object relations that we want to replace the queen with shall reinstitute the potential for guessing about objects, foreign objects, like ourselves. Much more needs to be said at some point about how modern notions of productivity serve as ballasts for the queens netting — but that’s for another time.
Let foreign objects in and their relations will build vortices in spite of Queen Free Exchange. These offer something urgent, whose measure of urgency is tractable for they communicate their own urgency and ours.