Driftwork

He was walking down the hill towards me , from his head a cloud of smoke puffed. Looking at him you might think that he had a cigarette in his hand but this delusion merely obscured the truth, which was that it was a dragon, perhaps even the long lived Fafner himself, walking down the hill towards the shops and the train station. Perhaps the dragon was going to the deli to eat toast and drink coffee or the petshop to buy hamsters for tea ? Exactly what folk tale the dragon had escaped from, something mentioned in Propp, Cortazar or the Strugatski Brothers, remains a mystery. We passed one another and as I turned into the passage into the Close I couldn’t help wondering if I had an equivalent Anthropological function, or should that be a Dragonopological function ? To that which he as a dragon had for me…

The common misunderstanding is that women wearing head-scarves (hajib) are doing so because of the gender politics of Earth, the ghosts of the missing millions of women, the ravages of patriarchy and private property etc. Some of course are, others are doing so to hide and protect their inhumanness which is easily identified through their alien wattle like protuberances. Hidden and suppressed by the light obscuring scarves this suppresses their native intelligence and enables them to function at a human level. In this sense then the head-scarves whether worn by human or inhuman women serves the same purpose…

H in the hotel for two breakfasts running so wanted to believe that a libertarian was somehow a better being, a better ideological proposition than a neo-con. There was something sad about an American who wanted his America to be more liberal than the state apparatus he had never struggled against. (As if passivity was a positive value…) His argument against direct democracy was based on ignorance and identification rather than the constraints of equality and the limits of what a person, a society may desire and possess.

Ah look - suddenly across my increasing silent virtual desk a new edition of parrhesia appears and then a copy of Zizek’s “In Defense of Lost Causes” for possible review…

It has reached a stage where I cannot tell whether any comments by american women and men on H.Clinton’s election campaign are infected by misogyny or justifible political disagreement. I suppose what might mark the difference is references to “attack of the 50 foot …” (obviously misogynistic) and so on. Certainly a critique of HC’s politics is possible, but the problem it seems is the words and phrases that make up the critique “back to the kitchin…”

What happened to them ? were they always this reactionary or am i missing something in their history…