World order isn’t necessary, it’s only inevitable. The question is, what this order means – since clearly we aren’t speaking of a liberal democratic or global economic délire de grandeur, but “order” in its more worldly ramification of predictive dynamics, of homeostasis & perturbation, of productive entropology. That’s to say, contra the economic & technological imperative wherein the language, if not the social impulse, of revolution has been institutionalised in our time. For politics to be an “architectonic science” (Aristotle), it isn’t sufficient for it to assume a technocentric view orientated by the programmatic & experimental aspirations of industry & “innovation” of the entrepreneurial type, that plagiarises & subordinates social drives. This would merely repeat the fraudulent view that technology is a prosthesis of the social domain: the social, on the contrary, is technological to its core, & inversely there’s no discourse of technology that’s ideologically neutral – in other words, not political. The provocative thesis, that globalisation will eliminate conflict between existing “social contracts,” isn’t a mutation within history but a mutation of history itself.


Ours isn’t a reactive stance against the shifting winds of public opinion, but the basis of any true foundation of political “order.” Power operates in a dynamic fluidity. Autocracy is, in contrast, the decadence of power, bulwarked by an artificially construed “Call to Order.” It is a system maintained in stasis. Its crudest form is the declaration of emergency powers (State of Emergency). Its subtler forms make appeal to a universal “reasonableness” invested in the cult of administrative (technocratic, economic) competencies. Yet the only essentialism in politics rests in the fundamental ambivalence of social “order.” The arbitrary scope of all political contestation is encapsulated by the redundancy expressed in such terms as “power struggle” & “political force.” There is, in any case, no such thing as a politics of “consensus.” Which is to say, an ideologically neutral politics. Such a fiction is itself the ideology of the technocratic state: the disavowal of ideology at its most ideological.



Crisis has always existed as an ideological foil, the “fear at the gates.” This in opposition to the real complexity of social relations. Its aim has always been to dissemble the intent of a politics that aspires to bring a “science” of normalisation: the reduction of human interactions to a schema. These geometries of delirium exist solely to discipline the social body, henceforth subservient to the political order. This “common good” is nothing if not opportunistic of a grasping sadism tending to a collective masochistic impulse. The truth is that society is always prepared to suffer at the hands of a pragmatic idealism. Such “organic” crises, which in fact are nothing of the kind, always revert to the form of a problem to be solved, for which the technocracy is uniquely qualified. Politically “rationalised,” crisis undergoes a miracle of transformation, becoming an opportunity for progress. We ignore the fact that the formulation of the problem is ideologically predetermined at our peril. It is precisely the appeal to science, models, hypotheses, contending viewpoints & experimental methods, that conceals a coercive attitude towards the “scientific” as such – which at the moment it contradicts the operations of power is denounced as “pseudo-science.”



An ideology doesn’t prove or contradict the existence of a hydrogen atom, but it does create the real existence of an atomic or hydrogen bomb. The “realist” or “pragmatic” view is thus one that operates on the understanding that all viewpoints are ideologically premised. That the existence of viewpoints is in fact synonymous with ideology. A nuclear warhead is a viewpoint. The “realist” view of ideology operates on the premise that in order to create the real existence of a future, the ideological character of a given viewpoint must be capable of superseding itself. But that it must be able to do so without contradicting the viability of the future thus constituted. It is said of the nation state that “self-supersession” is the price of survival in today’s “community of nations.” But the nation state isn’t a product of self-supersession & doesn’t possess this evolutionary characteristic. The nation state, like all concrete manifestations of power, is unbound by “reasoned necessity,” other than its own. Yet the myth of voluntarism stands in immediate relation to the violence by which the “rational” nation state is born, & by which it must past away. Like the Greek polis, the modern nation state has no conception of itself that isn’t the product of ideological hegemony. The future “state” will not be the outcome of reasoned self-supersession, but of disproportionate & unforeseen evolutionary forces.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s