Miley’s Inhuman World | A Look at Cruelty and Inhumanity in the Discourse of a Neoliberal Economist

Millay’s Law contains coincidences, which may or may not exist. There are those who support it, those who promote it, and those who reject it for various reasons, although one account is not enough to know its fate, because preferences and predictions are unpredictable, good or bad. Precisely, calculations are a small field of all that is connected in the concert of souls.

I will talk about Miley’s inhuman world, inhuman in its dual sense. Because nothing Milley believes is compatible with human life, cruelly, the application of their convictions is violent and inhumane to the majority. None of its precepts bear any possible relation to our singular and collective subjectivity. Miley, then, speaks of a world without, without man. As L. Rozitchner says (Be Jewish) need to be identified “Symbol of Man’s Inhumanity”.

It is dehumanizing, in both senses indicated, and its effect is to destroy reality as a general symbolic category based not only on material but on exchanges.

A clarification: the effect of macrismo does not vary much; Both are determined to compete against each other in an inhuman race. Briefly, under the name Milei, this essay calls for an analysis of the politics of dehumanization.

A short sample

Before calling Mli Partners He has an accusation Aesthetic excellence. This expression has a seriousness that we should not minimize, gathering a long tradition of hatred and oppressing the inhumanity it presents. This is not about a trivial distinction about beauty, but about two different anthropological systems, the beautiful (them) who deserve to be called human and the ugly (the others) who don’t. That sentence says fate Ugly It is death.

Dehumanists want to break the link already established between needs and rights; There will be no relation between one and the other. Then they claim the right to starve, sell organs, and turn childhood into a market for buying and selling. After all, apologists for authoritarianism adhere to its programs.

Miley, we have seen, expresses herself violently: she shouts, insults and demeans speakers present and absent. Because Miley has no hypothesis and no data, his inability to communicate is serious. It consists only of a set of automated phrases and, again, no approach to human reality. His automatism is obvious and repeated when speaking, for example, when he repeats the same phrase to define his liberalism: “It is unrestricted respect for the life plan of others based on the principle of non-aggression in the protection of life, liberty and property”.

If we were to propose a piecemeal analysis the discussion would stretch almost ad infinitum. What is the purpose of the adjective? unobstructedwhat you mean Non invasive A subject that never stops insulting, what does it mean to respect life, etc. However, the most important thing that we need to take into account is that it repeats itself, again, automatism.

From Miles Gardens

Chance Gardiner summons a softness that would distance him from any possible comparisons to Miley, though I’d hazard a parallel, partial one. Strictly speaking, access to the center of power is described in a loving picture From the garden It depends not only on the characters of its protagonist, but also on the words of a rich man, the sensational nature of the media and the innocence of an uncritical audience.

The character has only one name, Chance (which translates to Chance); A series of misunderstandings turns him into a Chauncey, making his trade a surname. The human world is alien to him; He does not understand pain, love, poverty, violence or injustice. He synthesizes and reproduces the gestures and phrases he constantly observes on television. To him the world is a screen and his connection is a remote control. There is something superhuman in Gardiner’s world, not evil. He sees history as a series of natural cycles, like the seasons of the year when flowers grow and die. When they ask him about economics and politics, he unconsciously answers about gardening, and confusion alone convinces his interlocutor that he is proposing an allegory. As revealed by a television host: “His position carries a lot of weight in the financial community.”.

Rand, the billionaire who hosts it, complains about the taxes and angrily says: “I will not tolerate people living on social security”. Perhaps that is why he warms to Gardiner’s naturalistic worldview.

At the end of the film, at Rand’s funeral, the politicians discuss Chauncey as the coffin is moved. “We don’t know anything about his past.”One of them says; Another replies: “It’s a positive point. A man’s past cripples him.”.

As I already said, the comparison between Milei and From the garden On the one hand, we have to take into account the bias of the similarity between the economist and Gardiner and on the other hand, we take the film as a whole beyond its protagonist. For this reason, our intended metaphor must include Rand, politicians, journalists, and citizens (after all, in this they are not so different from Gardiner) who listen without hearing what is being said on television.

Children’s market

Miley couldn’t hide that she was in favor of a market for the sale of boys and girls. A neoliberal, one who abolishes all history and, therefore, all connections. Perhaps the market can be defined as the negation of all temporality.

Not even Jonathan Swift could have imagined that the satire he wrote in 1729 would one day become a real project. The Irishman, with threatening irony, wrote a short speech “A modest proposal to prevent the children of the poor of Ireland from being a burden to their parents or their country, and to render them useful to the public.”. The dark humor used by Swift is a way of showing the horror of those who abandon the vulnerable. “I was assured by the most learned American I knew in London –he says–A healthy, well-bred, tender child of one year of age, whether stewed, fried, baked or boiled, makes a very palatable, nutritious and marketable meal.. and adds: “They may, at the age of one year, be offered for sale to persons of rank and fortune in the kingdom, instructing their mothers to nurse them abundantly in the last month, that they may be plump and buttery for a good table.”. After hysterically presenting his plan about how it would increase “trade” and reduce the social burden on the poor, he concludes: “Don’t nobody talk to me about taxing our unemployed”.

Neoliberalism is a no

Only does right numbers. The guide to your accounts is greedy and lying. Even in human rights they a I am working And they want to discuss the number of missing people, the figure does not represent lives, is not real or has a symbolic meaning. A war, for them, is only a variation in price materials. They create accounts only for their own benefit and to lie. Accounts that are fatal to others.

Neoliberal logic is based on the centrality of numbers as a model of singularity and social life. But what is this number? This is a number that represents ineligible amounts; Numbers expressing non-differential amounts (money, amounts, allocations, subjects, dates or pressure are the same).

These numbers are an expression of a certain psychic state, a configurational pattern of emotional fulfillment, a central component of goals and ideals, as well as a transitional artifice.

In the history of writing, number was first used as an expression of quantities and later as an expression of temporality. Above all, we are interested in emphasizing that figure, which reveals a regression from historicizing employment toward mere quantitative value. Some of these are reflected in expressions Time is money Or the response of a usurer when asked when his son would be born: “It’s 90 days before the next check I sign”.

When a subject says they feel it is a number “Left is a zero”. Being another number is a very retrogressive and impersonal form of identification. In other words, the private world that emerges from that number prevents the production of a society centered on tenderness and/or unity. So while the market is dominant, the number at risk may not be suitable for identification. Unlike who says “I am from the fifth promotion” One “I was born on June 1”, the number of scale does not indicate a temporal, historical dimension. It is the number that characterizes the neoliberal ideal of profit, a number that only replaces other numbers and fails to connect with other mental and social projects.

Learn to count

Counting is not counting. Accounting is dangerous if it is not linked to other accounts. One tells stories, tells stories, counts on the other and lives to tell it.

Economics itself tells us that many thoughts and affections circulate at the center and around money. Market behavior, reasoning, selfishness, Panic, hope, contempt, hope, Depressionetc

Freud (War and Death) argued that a community of interests–the market–cannot lead to tolerance and mutual coexistence (without libidinous contribution). The market, without the libidinal ties or restraints of narcissism, cannot sustain mutual tolerance for longer than the immediate benefit extracted from the other. It also implies that the expectation that the market contributes to the development of ethics is a false expectation as individuals prioritize their interests to satisfy their interests.

Only from its connection with other desires and its structure with related ideals and projects can the ideal of profit endow money with psychic and social meaning. When money ceases to satisfy any other desire, it retains only its speculative use, which soon becomes deadly.

Let’s go to the beginning: an account is not enough to know about destiny, because the accounts are only a small part of everything that is connected in the concert of souls.

Sebastian Blut is a doctor of psychology and a psychoanalyst.