hOOks kOOks 'n' spOOks
July 3, 2005

The American Renaissance web site had a discussion thread Wednesday about an old entry in the DiscoverTheNetwork.org data base which gives, I believe, an accurate profile of the famous professor, bEll hOOks. (In my blog entry here, proper names are case insensitive. joNeS == JOnes == Jones == jones, etc. My blog, my reality, my decision, my declaration.) I recommend that you click on the DTN link right now, before continuing with the following.

Conservatives, of course, can only be appalled that the likes of hOOks are paid big money to teach their baloney at public colleges. She isn't worth it, period. But not all right-wingers are conservative, and moderately radical types such as myself actually find in bEll's writing some ideas worth considering, at least after suitable inversions and other transformations have been applied. As a scholar, hOOks might be pathetic, but as a conjurer of baloney she really isn't bad. We don't like what she conjurs, but she exercises admirable skill in the conjuring.

There is a dimension to the struggle we are in that might reasonably be called "magical warfare," of the mundane image vs. image, pose vs. pose, style vs. style kind, but not, as far as I know, the heavy duty wizard vs. wizard stuff we see in the movies. The best introduction to that subject that comes immediately to mind is called Lemurian Time War, on the web site of the Cybernetic culture research unit. Of course, it's baloney, but I honestly believe there are truths that are best expressed through baloney symbolism. So click the link and read at least down to the definition of "hyperstition": "fictions that make themselves real." (The Burroughs-Lovecraft-Cthulhu people are the "kOOks" of my title.)

I must digress and mention a few different kinds of reality:

Whew! I avoided writing a dissertation! Not enough time, and who would want to read it? But notice that there is a certain plasticity in three of the above "realities." Almost enough to justify L. Ron Hubbard's definition of "reality" as "the agreed-upon apparency of existence." There is, indeed, something "real" that is not captured by the definition preferred by athiests such as the flaming anti-semite Alex Linder, who says reality is that which still exists when you stop believing in it.

Belief, faith, magic, whatever, have their own potency. We might call them schools of psychological manipulation of the self or others. But apart from underlying absolute realities, there is a realm where beliefs change things, where "fictions . . . make themselves real," where magic works.

It is in this realm that Mx. hOOks operates so effectively. ("Mx." means "Mr. or Ms." It is pronounced "mix.") By the way, alterations of words really is a magical practice designed to detach a person, somewhat, from the habitual symbolism he has incorporated into his intellectual and emotional processes. Thus, the musical group Psychic TV called their cover of an old '60s song "Eve Ov Destruction."

Anyway, back to hOOks. Consider this passage from the DTN data base:

Teaching, hooks contends, "is a performative act... that offers the space for change, invention, spontaneous shifts, that can serve as a catalyst drawing out the unique elements in each classroom."
That is some really glorious, magical baloney. I want us right-wingers to have something just like that: "space for change, invention . . . drawing out the unique elements" and so on and so on. hOOks, of course, is an establishmentarian, not a revolutionary. That renders all her magic harmless. She doesn't really want to change anything. She merely wishes to justify the fact that she and numerous lesser slingers of baloney are being indulged with public funds.

We are the revolutionaries these days and we can learn things of value from the coddled, co-opted left. Suppose you go to a talk given by Mx. hOOks. She says something about a "right as a subject in resistance to define reality." You stand up and yell, "I have a right as a subject in resistance to define reality!" Keep repeating it. When they threaten to haul you away if you don't shut up, then say, "OK, I'm sorry, I'll shut up now. Please continue, Mx. hOOks!" And then really shut up. Now, after everyone has gone home, who will have "defined reality?" You! You will have been the winner in a lower form of magical combat.

This is just a little item from the Gnostical bag of tricks. Present people with something weird. Blow their minds. Derail their habitual trains of thought. Etc. No big deal, really. Everyone from the '60s knows all about this kind of thing.

Before I give the inspirational close for this blog entry, I must point out that there is yet another school of Reality Modification adepts which is even more politicly and culturaly significant than the one hOOks belongs to. I'm talking about the neo-cons and the Bush administration! In his October 20, 2004 posting on AntiWar.com, Delusions of Empire, Justin Raimondo quotes from a New York Times article, Without a Doubt (October 17, 2004) by Ron Suskind, who quotes from an interview he had with a "senior advisor to Bush":

"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
The Bush administration, due to heavy reliance on hardware, has nullified any magical powers it might have had, but it is interesting that the "reality is whatever we say it is" motif shows up in both the neo-con and the multiculturalist factions of the ruling class.

Anyway, time to wrap things up. We need to avoid the dreary cultism of the multicultual left. Here is DTN, quoting hOOks:

"I have not forgotten the day a student came to class and told me: 'We take your class. We learn to look at the world from a critical standpoint, one that considers race, sex, and class. And we can't enjoy life anymore.'"
We want our students saying, "Now that I see the world from a critical perspective, I understand the great conflicts we are in the middle of. I understand the difficulties of our situation. But I feel more alive than ever before. I and my comrades will face those difficulties with courage and intelligence. And with joy."

Copyright © 2005, 2006

If you wish to link to this article, try copying and pasting:

<a href="http://m3peeps.org/02/hkns.htm">hOOks kOOks 'n' spOOks</a>

[Go to index for Web Log, Volume Two

[Go to m3peeps.org home page]