Add new comment

If you read Deleuze and find a singular ideology rather than what Jorge Luis Borges once so eloquently referred to as a "Garden of Forking Paths," then what you are seeing is the inverted mirror image of your own ideological aspirations reflected back at you in a way that makes you feel uncomfortable. It is revealing that the author seems to view Tiqqun, with its strongly collectivistic overtones, as somehow emblematic of Deleuzian thought as a whole rather than, say, someone like Alejandro de Acosta who, in his essay "How The Stirner Eats Gods," employs a Deleuzian reading of Stirner's "Ego" as a *process of becoming* rather than an ontological *a priori* in the vein of Descartes' Cogito. The irony here is that, in their eagerness to make a decisive break from an "ascetic morality" found in one particularly lazy interpretation of Deleuze, the author passes up a ripe opportunity to launch a more rigorous critique of asceticism than either Stirner or Nietzsche alone were able to come up with. I'm not exactly sure who this "us" is that the author keeps referring to, but I *do* know one thing: placing the word in quotes does not automatically mean that you've magically escaped from the pernicious grasp of the collectivist hive mind.