Media positions itself, not according to what is, or what should or should not be, but always, so as to save itself, in a certain apositional form of opposition. Always for the benefit of profitable headlines, no matter what party is temporarily on the scene. From here, from this on, politics is never the same: politics revolving around the eternal “critique” from a press that has made big business on systematizing hypocrisy. The damage done to politics is immeasurable; politics, on this or that side, is, since media is the very medium of politics, forced to continuously adjust to a mediatic swirl of inconsistent and incoherent quasi-critiques from a press that serves no other purpose than satisfying any arbitrary aggregate of stock holders.

Nietzsche spoke of a belief in. From now on politics is the very whatever. Media is always in the between, and can always perfectly answer for your question.  Hitler knew this kind of logic. Media is the gate from which speaks the transcendent voice. Why would media ever let go of this privileged position?

Lies are at the origin. Lies open up the entirety of history. Lies give me a me. Lies furnish from where to speak. Lies measure the distance. Lies enable you to intervene and progress, to build. The lie is the distance from the immediate response or reflex. As soon as there is distance, there is also simulation, dissimulation, forgery, pretense, fraud, manipulation, lies, make-believe, counterfeit, deception, imitation, posturing, etc. The distance itself is what makes possible invention and bringing into being what was not.

Could one imagine a history of the lie? The history of truth is supposedly something easy to account for. But if the lie is structurally integrated into man to propel what we call ‘thought,’ if lie is inextricably linked to the phenomenon of thought as such, then our histories of truth may turn out to be rather dubious.

If said is right, if there is no way to distinguish irony from the literal, and if this is a great philosopher’s saying, Derrida’s, in his The Beast and the Sovereign, what does it imply? From the surface of a message communicated, and remember that the surfaces are irreducible and numerous, there is no way, according to Derrida, to tell ‘proper,’ ‘honest,’ and ‘literal’ meaning from irony: you will never know for sure.


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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: