SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K

Page 1
INDEX

index ....................................................................................................................................................................................
1
1NC SHELL........................................................................................................................................................................ 2
LINKS .................................................................................................................................................................................5
IMPACTS .........................................................................................................................................................................11
ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................................................................................................... 13
A2: PERM .........................................................................................................................................................................
16
AFF ANSWERS ...............................................................................................................................................................
17

~ b au Y OD the ~ e o n ~g f d OF
LOL1 8k people. when u run thfs k r e ~ ~ e p thst
sumtb~es1 Feel Ike quittbg deb8 wen I mu;,1. O heeheehes ;-)
-Emla
e the dabste lo8 K~!tttsaye chsatbg as lve aLL DO. .
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 2
1NC SHELL

1) Intellectual criticism finds its basis in forcing academics to find and defend a static position, codifying the
nomadic space that open thought presents us. When an idea becomes territorialized by the war machine of
rationality, it advances itself in a self-destructive war against everything
Mann 1996 [PAUL. PROFESSOR ENGLISH AT POMONA COLLEGE, POSTMODERN CULTURE JOURNAL, THE NINE GROUNDS OF INTELLECTUAL
WARFARE, PROJECT MUSE]

Nothing is more important to the intellectual than a position. Even the fabled collapse of foundations has done little to
change this: economicallv. discursivelv. this collapse turns out to be vet another position. something to believe in and
hold true. the consolidation of "flows." "drift." etc.. into the most familiar academic architecture. You must have a
position. and if vou do not. one will be assigned to vou. or vou will simplv not exist. The homoloev of wosition as
standwoint and ~ositionas iob. budget line. FTE. is a matter of a great deal more than analogv or vulgar marxism. With
a vosition. evervthing is possible. You are suwuorted bv a truth. a discipline, a methodologv. a rhetorical stvle, a
discursive form, a mode of vroduction and exchange. You know where vou stand. vou reco~nizevourself bv vour
position: vou see vourself there because vou see vourself seen there. Your position is vour identitv and value: it
authorizes vour work. circulates it. constitutes it as prouertv. lends vou the securitv of ownershiw. But at the same time
nothing is ~ossiblewith a vosition. To hold a position is to be held bv it. to be caught up in its inertial and economic
determinations. to be captured bv an identitv that vou might not, finallv. believe to be auite vour own. Nothing could be
more difficult than reallv, substantivelv. radicallv to change one's mind. change the forms in which one works. risk
evervthin~bv leaving behind a position on which, it seems, everything has come to rely.
The position is a fundamental form of civilization. Recall Virilio's remark that the city itself originates in a position, a garrison, a dcfeensive posture, a logistical rorm.17
To adopt the terminology of A Thousand Plateaus, the position is a "sedentary fortification" of "state armies"; it is entirely contained hy the state apparatus.18 In academic
criticism, the symbolic place of the state is occupied and hcld by the text or oeuvre, around which the defending forcc of commentaries is deployed; in a field such as En,olish or
Comparative Literature, the state or national form of the text is clearly and hence problematically manifcstcd. The critic defends the lext by the elaborate construction of
intcrprctations around it; at the same time. in a kind of fractal homomorphism, the critic's own position is defined and defended by the construction of thc paper circle of his or her
own works. The more forces occupy a position, the stronger it will be. The barrage of words projected from the most heavily fortified strongholds (currently: New Historicism,
poslcolonial criticism, certain orders of gender and race theory) can rcpcl critiques by sheer force of numbers. Indeed, conflict between posit~onsis itself one of the chief means by
which they are defined. As Rosc points out, for Freud war "not only ~hwaten[s]civilization, it can also advance it. By tcnding towards the conglomeration of nations, it operatcs
[not only] likc dcath [but also] like the eros which strives to unify" (16). In intellectual warfare, the strategic form of this erotic unification is the discipline, in cvcry sense of the
word. I9 Mechanisms of regimental identification are crucial here. It would be impossible to overestimate the importance of esprit de corps to garrisoned forces. Healthy
competition keeps troops battle-sharp and singles out the most effective officers, but such contlict must k contained and focused toward strategic goals.
it the fixity of the
If, on one hand, it is a mistake to refer to intellectual movements, since their force is always institutional, static, on the other hand
intellectual wosition that Droves to be illusorv. A ~ositionmust not onlv be held. but advanced. The surrounding
territorv must come under its influence and control. Furthermore. as Clausewitz indicates. defenses tend to become
offensive. It is not simplv that the best defense is a good offense: defenses. like attacks. exceed the limits of strategic
reason. The escalating. offensive character of nuclear deterrence has l o n been ~ noted. So also for the provocative force
of the most striking. cultural formations: defensive postures escalate bevond the power of whatever threat thev face.
More importantlv. the wosition is never more than a temporarv establishment: once consolidated. its termination is
assured; the more force it generates, the more certain that its walls will be breached. That is Virilio's brief against deterrence: it exhausts
its own resources, it destroys the societies it defends. There is no indefensible vosition, and no ~ositionthat can be defended for verv
long. At the moment a uosition is founded, its destruction has beeun. Defections to other positions. other cities of
words, are doubtless alreadv under wav. The intellectual position is therefore not simplv a ground. let alone 4
foundation, however attached to or identified with it its garrison becomes. even in the act of arguing that there is no
foundation. On the contrarv, the position turns out to be a point along a vector. a line of advance or retreat. a temporary
encampment. a bivouac. of strategic or tactical importance alone. and sutmortable onlv bv means of its relation to other
positions. other forces. counterforces. and logistical agencies all along the line. There is no auestion that the strength of
the sited force's investment in its ground. however temworarv, is crucial. But in the end everv vosition will turn out to
have been a relay-~ointor intersection. the ternworarv location of an intellectual armv whose erounding is not to be
measured bv its "rightness" -- the archaic notion of truth proven bv combat mav be said to survive onlv in the academv
-- but bv its force and resistance in relation to other auantities of force. velocitv. intensitv. logistical power, tactical
skill, etc.. all of which will not onlv support but eventuallv help to detach that arrnv from its ground. m psychoanalytic terms, it
would be necessary to see the texts that a writer deploys around his or her position as defense mechanisms of another order, that is to say, as symptoms. but not only of an
individual pathology: rather as encysted trouble-spots on the intersecting curves ~Tdiscursiveforces about which the intellectual is often barely, if at all, aware, and which no one -
- no chaos theorist of discursive physics -- will ever be able to map.
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 3
1NC SHELL

2) Intellectual nomadism poses too great a danger for dominant modes of thought; they assimilate it into idea's
like "intellectual positions'' and use it as a scalpel for their own ends. This is the cause of every war to have ever
been fought between states
Deleuze and Guattari, professor of philosophy at u Paris and psychoanalyst, 1987 {Gillesand Felix, a thousand plateaus, 414-4171]

1
the State amaratus. States were not the first to make war: war. of course. is not a phenomenon one finds in the
universalitv of Nature. as nonspecific violence. But war is not the obiect of States. quire the contrary. The most archaic States
do not even seem to have had a war machine. and their domination, as we will see, was based on other agencies
(comprising. rather the police and prisons). It i s safe to assume that the intervention of an extrinsic or nomad war machine that counterattacked and destroyed the archaic hut
powerful States was one of the mysterious reasons for their sudden annihilation. But the State learns fast.One of the birrrrest Cluestions from the point of
view of universal historv is: How will the State a ~ ~ r o w r i athe t e war machine. that is. constitute one for itself. in
conformitv with its size. its domination. and its aims? And with what risks? (What we call a rnilitarv institution. or
armv. is not at all the war machine in itself. but the form under which it is avvro~riatedbv the State.)I n ordcr to grasp the
paradoxical character of such an undertaking, we must recapitulate the hypothesis in its entirety. ( I )The war machine is that nomad invention that in fact
has war not as its ~rimarvobiect but as its second-order, supplementary or synthetic ohjcctive, in the sense that it is determined in such a way as to
destroy the state-form and city-form with which it collides. (2) When the State ap~rouriates the war machine. the latter obviouslv changes in
nature and function. since it is afterward directed against the nomad and all State destrovers. or else exwresses relations
between States. to the extent that a State undertakes exclusivelv to destrov another State or impose its aims upon it. (3)
is vreciselv after the war machine has been a~prowriatedbv the State in this wav that it tends to take war for its direct
and vrimarv obiect. for its "analvtic" obiect (and that war tends to take the battle for its obiect). In short. it is at one and
the same time that the State awDaratus awwropriates a war machine that the war machine takes war as its obiect. and that
war becomes subordinated to the aims of the State.
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 4
1NC SHELL

3) Vote negative in rejection of rigid walls of intellectualism that the affirmative engages in. Nomadic resistance
to oppressive policies and modes of thought allows us to rise out of the dominant modes of thought without being
assimilated into their framework
Bey 1991 [HAKIM, TEMPORARY AUTONOMOUS ZONE, http://www.hermetic.com/bey/taz3.html#labelWaiting]

HOW IS IT THAT "the world turned u~side-down"alwavs manages to Right itself? Whv does reaction alwavs follow
revolution. like seasons in Hell?
U ~ r i s i nor ~ ,the Latin form insurrection. are words used bv historians to label failed revolutions--movements which do
not match the expected curve. the consensus-approved traiectorv: revolution. reaction. betrayal, the founding. of a
stronger and even more o~uressiveState--the turning of the wheel. the return of historv again and again to its highest
form: jackboot on the face of humanitv forever.
By failing to follow this curve. the UD-risingsuggests the oossibilitv of a movement outside and bevond the Hegelian
spiral of that "vrogress" which is secretly nothin2 more than a vicious circle. Surgo--rise up. surge. Insurgo--rise up,
raise oneself up. A bootstrap operation. A ~oodbveto that wretched parody of the karmic round, historical
revolutionarv futilitv. The slogan "Revolution!" has mutated from tocsin to toxin. a malign pseudo-Gnostic fate-trap, a
ni~htmarewhere no matter how we struggle we never escave that evil Aeon. that incubus the State. one State after
another, everv "heaven" ruled bv vet one more evil angel.
~f History IS "Time," as it claims to be, then the u~rising is a moment that springs up and out of Time, violates the "law" of Historv. If
the State IS Historv, as it claims to be. then the insurrection is the forbidden moment. an unforgivable denial of the
dialectic--shimmving. up the pole and out of the smokehole, a shaman's maneuver carried out at an "impossible angle" to the universe. History says
the Revolution attains "permanence,*' or at least duration, while the uprising is "temporary." In this sense an uprising is like a "peak experience" as
opposed to the standard of "ordinarv" consciousness and experience. Like festivals. uprisings cannot happen every dav-
-otherwise thev would not be "nonordinarv," But such moments of intensitv give shape and meaning- to the entirety of q
life. The shaman returns--vou can't stav UD on the roof forever-- but t h i n ~ have s changed. shifts and integrations have
occurred--a difference is made.
You will argue that this is a counsel of despair, What of the anarchist dream, the Stateless state, the Commune, the autonolnous zone with duration, a free socicty, a frcc culture?
Are we to abandon that hope in return for some existentialist acte eratuit? The point is not to change consciousness but
to change the world.
I accept this as a fair criticism. I'd make two rejoinders nevertheless; first, revolution has never yet resulted in achieving this dream. The vision comes to life in the moment of
uprising--but as soon as "the Revolution" triumphs and the State returns. the dream and the ideal are alreadv betraved. I have
not given up hope or even expectation of change--but I distrust the word Revolution. Second, even if we replace the revolutionary approach with a concept of insurrection
Absolutelv nothing. but a futile
blosso~ningspontaneously into anarchist cu~ture,our own particular historical situation is not propitious for such a vast undertaking.
martvrdom could possiblv result now from a head- on collision with the terminal State. the megacorporate information
State. the empire of Spectacle and Simulation. Its guns are all pointed at us, while our meager weaponrv finds nothing
to aim at but a hvsteresis, a rigid vacuitv, a Spook cavable of smothering every spark in an ectoplasm of information. a
societv of capitulation ruled bv the image of the CODand the absorbant eve of the TV screen,
In short: we're not touting the TAZ as an cxcIusivc end in itself, replacing all other forms of organization, tactics, and goals. Wc rccommend it hccausc it can provide the quality of
The TAZ is like an uprising which does not enrrage
enhancement assoc~atedw ~ t hthe uprising without necessarily leading to violence and martyrdom.
directlv with the State. a guerilla o~erationwhich liberates an area (of land, of time, of imagination) and then dissolves
itself to re-form elsewhere/elsewhen. before the State can crush it. Because the State is concerned primarilv with
Simulation rather than substance, the TAZ can "occu~v"these areas clandestinelv and carrv on its festal vumoses for
auite a while in relative ~ e a c eP. e r h a ~ certain
s small TAZs have lasted whole lifetimes because thev went unnoticed,
like hillbilly enclaves--because thev never intersected with the Spectacle, never appeared outside that real life which is
invisible to the a ~ e n t sof Simulation.
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 5
LINKS

Academia has been assimilated by the war machine. In our struggle for intellectual superiority, we deploy
armies of impacts and metaphors in a battle for whose objective truths are better. It is this deployment of the
academic venue as a warzone that allows for all real wars to occur.
Mann 1996 [pu!, professor english at pomona college, postmodern culture journal. the nine grounds of inlellectual warfare, project muse]
Perhaps this imminent frenzy of production will open another front in thc current campaign against h e aesthetics of ideology. To the extent that modern warfare depends on the
eclipse of the real by images, culti~ralcritics would seem especially qualified to analyze it. Elaine Scarry: "it is when a country has become to its citizens a fiction that wars
begin."2 If this is the case, if war arises from an investment in certain fictions, then critics of fiction ought to be able to teach us to read war critically -- and. along lhe way, to
establish the moral and politicat gravity of their own work. What is at issue here. however. are not onlv analvses of war but also Zmalogies
of it. We will burrow into the archives of warfare because we will see. or at least want to see. criticism itself as a form
of warfare. We will project an image of ourselves onto a field of study and recognize our rcflcction in it. Gender critics already study war discourse in order both to attack its
violent phallicism and to conceive gender struggke itself along strategic lines. We have theorv wars. PC wars, linpuistics wars, Gerald Graff s
culture wars. Avital Ronell apvrowriating the war on drugs for a theorv of readinz.3 Vast energies will be expended not
onlv on the archives and rhetoric of warfare but on the warcraft of rhetoric and critical inauirv, on the "violence" of the
auestion, on the "mobile armv of rnetauhors. metonvms. and anthro~omomhisms"that. for Nietzsche. make uv what is
called truth.4
We will pursue the subiect of warfare because we will increasinnlv see a relationshiv between our own activitv and
warfare. Let me articulate the law that governs this movement: Critical discourse alwavs tends toward the eventual
phenomenalization, as objects of studv, of the devices that structure it. War becomes a field of critical studv when
critics come to believe. however obliauelv. that criticism has alwavs been a field of warfare. And warfare not onlv in
the narrow terms of intellectual difference. but in the most material terms as well. rf, for Clausewitz, war is extension of policy, for
i o reverse is true: politics and culture are. from the outset. extensions of warfare. of a logistical economv that
Paul ~ i r i ~the
encomDasses and ultimatelv exhausts all of societv. Standard critiaues of the coordination of scientific research with
the "militarv-industrial complex" are alreadv being extended to include the ideological state atmaratus: for Virilio,
technologv as such is a logistical invention and in one wav or another alwavs answers logistical demands. and the same
point will be made about technologies of repre~entation.5~ h humanities c are in a mood to scc the complicity of what Enzensberger called the
"consciousness industry" in the military-industrial-knowledge complex, to see themselves at one and the same time as ideological agents of the slate's "war machine" and as
warriors against the state.6 I will have more to say ahout this contradiction.
TO repeat: The obiect of criticism is always a svmptom. if you will. of the structure of critical discourse itself. alwavs a

phenomenalization of the device. But this device tends to aopear in a surrogate form. still dissimulated and disolaced: it
appears and does not auwear, makes itself known in wavs that further conceal its stakes. And it alwavs apvears too late,
at the verv moment it ceases to function: a kind of theorv-death, a death that is not a termination but a warticular sort of
elaboration. Now. evervwhere we look. critics will be cast in^ off their clerical mantles and rhetorical labcoats for suits
of discursive armor: the slightest critical aggression or ressentiment will be inflated with theoretical war-machines and
territorial meta~horics.7At the same time. the verv rise of war discourse amon2 us will signal the end of intellectual
warfare for us. its general recuweration bv the economics of intellectual production and exchange. It might therefore be
delusional -- even. as some would argue. obscene, 9;iven the horrible damage of real war -- to think of this academic
bickering as warfare, and vet it remains a trace of war. and ~ e r h a v sthe sign of a potential combat some critical force
could still fight.
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 6
LINKS

The rigorous adherence to one policy of the affirmative serves to striate the nomadic space of intellectualism; it
is necessary for us to reconceptualize our ideas of intelectia, and argumentation to avoid the assimilation of the
intellectual wart machine by the state apparatus
Mann 1996 [paul, professor cnglish at pomona college, post~nodernculture journal, the nine grounds of intcllcctual warfare, projcct muse1

I will return to the precisely oxymoronic, self-canceling figure of secrecy in a later section. Here. I will vroceed bv sue~esting; that the new war
studies should come to auite rigorous and unromantic terms with the nomadologv of Deleuze and Guattari.20 In their
work. the war machine is essentiallv exterior to the state. even if the state auvrovriates it. The problem is. therefore,
how to Dursue exterioritv in disciulinarv and e~istemoloeicalstructures that are themselves entirelv defined bv their
institutional interioritv. It will certainlv not be through anv of the current suecular and s~ectacularmodes of narcissistic
identification with the "other." One should treat everv text that weddles its vicarious nomadism while elaborating: the
most conventional analyses with the greatest susuicion. and at the same time with some confidence, DerhaDs auite
groundless. that an intellectual no ma do log;^ might still be carried out elsewhere.21rt is necessary to comprehend the force o r extremely
difficult ideas: the nomadic war-machine's exterioritv to the state and its ~recise relation to battle: the nomads' territorial
engagement with smooth mace. without "striation." interioritv. or chrono-historical organization: their indifference to
semiolonical svstems and their articular e~istemolo~ical orientations (ornament instead of sign. ballistics and
metall~rgicalscience. numbering. speed. etC.1;the strange relation oC A Thousand Plaleaus to texts that would seem to treat the same
matters in a more disciplinary way -- its relation, for instance, to psychoanalysis and philosophy (and what is the strategic connection between this book and Deleuze's
the verv 0nt010g~of the nomadic idea itself: all of
extraordinary and in many ways quite scholarly treatments of the history of philosophy?); indeed,
these must be explored in considerable detail. without ever descending to anv merelv exegetical commentarv, and
without reducing what is at stake in this book to an intellectual position. Deleuze and Guattari challen~eus to rethink
our whole relation to boos and to writing. to the verv order of our thought -- a task in which they themselves often fail. One must begin by
reading them at a loss, but a loss that is not only the result of their work's difficulty, which careful analysis would eventually overcome; rather, a loss that reaches down into our
deepest epistemological attachments. It will be necessarv. for instance. to reconceive the verv notion of intellectual rigor (the order of
argument, demonstration, pmot) and communicative claritv: not to abandon them for the sake of some imvressionistic indulgence,
but to relocate them outside the striated space of the state apparatus that has alwavs provided their structure. One might
find oneself, for instance. no longer ~ u t t i n zforth positions. outlining, defending. - and identifvinn oneself with them: one

might find oneself engaged in an even more severe. more rizorous disciwline of affirming ideas without attaching,
oneself to them. making them appear (as Baudrillard suggested in another context) onlv so as to make them disamear.22 One mieht
find oneself developing a Ionic that is no longer striated and arborescent (a trunk and its branches) but smooth, rhizomatic, turbulent, fractal,
self-interfering, labyrinthine, subterranean. I am fu'ullv aware of how treacherous. how comwlex and self-contradictorv a gesture it is
even to refer to these ideas in such a form and such a forum as this one. how properlv absurd it would be to pursue
writing, to pursue knowledge itself. in the following manner:
The hydraulic model of nomad science and the war machine . . . consists in being distributed bv turbulence across a smooth space,
in producing; a movement that holds space and simultaneouslv affects all of its points. instead of beinn held by space in
a local movement from one suecified ~ o i ntot another. . . . The nomadic traiectorv . . . distributes ~ e o p l (oranima~s, e in an
open space, one that is indefinite and noncornmunicatin~.. . . [Sledentarv space is striated. bv walls. enclosures, and
roads between enclosures. while nomad suace is smooth. marked onlv bv "traits" that are effaced and displaced with the
trajectorv. Even the lamellae of the desert slide over each other, ~roducinean inimitable sound. The nomad distributes
himself in a smooth space; he occuvies. inhabits. holds that suace: that is his territorial princir.de. It is therefore false to
define the nomad bv movement.. . . [Tlhe nomad is on the contrarv he who does not move. Whereas the migrant leaves
behind a milieu that has become amomhous or hostile, the nomad is one who does not depart. does not want to depart,
who c l i n ~ to s the smooth sDace left bv the receding forest. where the stetme or the desert advance. and who invents
nomadism as a response to this challenge. (TP 363,380-81)
How shall we read this passage, which so clearly bears on the organization of thought itself, even in respect to the question of the historical, empirical factuality of its account?
How shall we read work that conceives nomadism in a way that has nothing to do with the s~andarddistinction between stasis and movement, that never defines nomadism sirnpty
as movement opposcd to sedentary positions? Can we o~irselvesmove and distribute our thought across a deterritorialized discursive field, now conceived as smooth space, living
off it without attachment to or suppol? of any state form? And how can one write nomadically, since Deleuze and Guattari consign writing to the state apparatus?23 What then is
writing to them? One's very attempt to appropriate nomadology in a critical essay serves as another instance of the state's never quite successful appropriation of the war machine,
and of the never rully addressed logistical-cconomic order of one's own thought.
Let me advance here -- as a preliminary gesture toward work being carried out elsewhere and precisely in other forms, and perhaps only in order to help put an end to
the delusional use of such terms as nomadology, deterritorialization, and the rhizome in almost every academic forum that tries to employ them -- a tactical figure that has nothing
to do with scdcntary and fortified positions: the assemblage. I am concerned here with the "numerical" organization of intellectual work.24 Such work is of course highly
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 7
intellectuals labor as individuals but their individualism is for the most part the atomic form of
institutional, hicrarchical, rcgimcntal:
social and discursive svstems entirelv reliant on this atomization. The assemblage represents a mode of intellectual
organization auite distinct from the pvramid scheme of individual in the service of disci~line(whatever its ideological orientation)
in the service of institution, etc., under which the ~rofessionalintellectual currentlv labors. The notion of the assemblage can he
traced, along one of its lines, to the nomad on horseback. The constellation "man-horse-stirrup" is a primary instance of an assemblage: a technological extension that transforms
the subject it would seem to have served, installing the subject in another sort of instrumental relation and, in effecf in another ontology. *fTlhereare IlO more
subiects but dvnamic individuations without subiects, which constitute collective assemblages."25 Even so subjectivist a notion as desire is transformed
here: asscrnblagcs are "passional, they are compositions of desire," but desire "has nothing to do with a natural or spontaneous determination; there is no desire but assembling,
assembled, engineered desire" (TP 398). What is at issue is the projective movement of desire, its ballistic force out of anything like a subject-position into something more like a
"relaywon an extensive line of flight across smooth, nomadic space. *?The
~roblemof
the war machine is that of relavin~,even with modest
means. not that of the architectonic model of the monument. ~n ambulent people of reiayers, rather than a model socicty" (377). We are
confronted with a different order of logistics itself: in a sense. the im~ortanceof lines of communication overtakes the
imwortance of the strategic ~ositionsthey were once thought onlv to support. There is clearlv room here for a certain
kind of analvsis of cybernetic developments in critical exchange, although here too one must avoid indulging in any romance of technological
transformation. If the assemblage of writer-software-network offers nomadic possibilities, no one would deny that the state has already recuperated this technology (the Internet is
the home shopping network of the knowledge industries). That is why it is crucial to Uocus not only on the technological assemblage, but on its mode of circulation: the network's
accessibility for packs and bands h a t in their assembling do not serve institutional interests, whatever their day-jobs and unavoidable investments. Clearlv the role of the
hacker is suggestive here. not because of the auite trivial outlaw romance of hacking. nor because of anv articular
damage hackers might manage to inflict on this or that data base. but because of the form and force of the relay itself.
Imagine banding; together with others in tem~orarv.mission-oriented. extra-institutional units. with s~ecific.limited,
tactical and strate~ic~ o a l sNot
. the death or transcendence of the subiect (not any metaphysics at all): not a wost-bourgeois u t o ~ i a
of drifts: surely not the establishment of anv new isms; rather the transitorv Platooning of s~ecificon-line skills and
thought-weapons in mobile strike forces in the net. Perhaps the resurgent interest in the Situationist International will
be less valuable for its polemics against the "s~ectacle."which onlv serve an alreadv over-re~resentedcritique of
remesentation. than for the organizational models offered by its articular forms of intellectual labor: the Situationist
council as a nomadic war machine. The ~racticeof such organization would affect the forms of thought itself.
Assembla~eswill serve as the auto-erosive becoming-machine of what was never exactlv the intellectual " s u b i e ~ tThe .~~
transformation might already be occurring, on-line, even as the network surrenders to the apparatus of the newly transformed state.
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 8
LINKS

The affirmative engages in a false dichotomy between the revolutionary policy ideas in the lac and the old
intellectual order of the status quo, however their position still relies on a central academic thesis for it's success.
This method of thought will never allows us to break free from oppressive modes of thought and action; on1 a
new mode of thought and communication has any hope of escape
Mann 1996 [paul. professor english at pumona college, postmodern culture journal, the nine grounds of intellectual warfare. project muse]
The position is surrounded hy a "border." a "margin." This circular, flat-earth topography mirrors larger discursive models, which slill map everything in terms of centers, lines of
defense. and antagonistic margins. It is little wonder that questions of colonialism have become so pressing: here too we encounter a phenomenalization of the discursive device.
Modern critical wroduction consistentlv sees itself as a matter of hegemonic centers (e.2.. defenses of tradition) and
marginal ow~ositions.But insofar as one wishes to retain this topo~rawhvof margins and centers -- and in the end there
might not be much to recommend it -- it r n i ~ h be t better to see the marginal force as a function and effect of the center,
the very means bv which it establishes its line of defense. Military comlnanders might be unlikely to deploy their most troublesome troops along their
perimeter, hut in intellectual warfare the werimeter is marked out and held primarily bv troops who imagine themselves in
revolt against headauarters. This is the historical waradox of the avant-gardes: thev believe thev are attacking: the armv
for which thev are in fact the advance euard. The contradiction does not dissolve their importance, it marks their precise task: the
dialectical defense and advance of discursive boundaries. It might therefore indicate the fundarnenlal instability of cultural positions, but it does nothing to support the strictly
oppositional claims of marginal forces. That
is whv uostcolonial criticism remains a colonial outpost of an older critical form.
Without exce~tion.all ~ositionsare oriented toward the institutional aw~aratus.Mar~inalitvhere is onlv relative and
temporarv: the moment black studies or women's studies or aueer theorv conceives of itself as a discipline. its primarv
orientation is toward the institution. The fact that the institution might treat it badlv hardlv constitutes an ethical
privile~e.Anv intellectual who holds a position is a function of this apparatus: his or her mar~inalitvis. for the most
part. onlv an owerational device. It is a critical common~lacethat the state is not a monolithic heeemonv but rather a
constellation of disorganized and frapmentarv a~enciesof production. This is often taken as a validation for the political potential of marginal
critical movements: inside-outside relations can be facilely deconstructed and critics can still congratulate themselves on their "resistance." But the contrary is clearly the case.
The most profitable intellectual wroduction does not take wlace at the center (e.g., Romance Philology), where mostlv obsolete
weaDons are produced; the real growth industries are located wreciselv on the self-proclaimed mar~ins.It will be argued
that resistance is still possible: nothing I wropose here argues against such a wossibilitv. I wish onlv to insist that
effective resistance will never be located in the position, however o~positionalit imagines itself to be. Resistance is
(
agencies as certain orders of gender criticism might demonstrate the entrowv of the institution. but it does nothine to
prove the countemolitical claims of the ~osition.Fantasies of resistance often serve as alibis for collusion. Anv position
is a state agencv. and its relative marginalitv is a mode of orientation. not an exce~tion.Effective resistance must be
located in other tactical forms.
 WAR RHETORIC KI
Page 9 1
LINKS

Holding onto fundamental ideas as sacrosanct ensures the victory of the dominant mode of thought. Only by
constantly moving through positions can we resist the war discourse on its own level
Mann 1996 [paul, professor english at pomona college, postmodern cul~urejournal, the nine grounds of intellectual warfare, project muse]

The stand~oint.identification with and defense of one's own thought, the demand that one be on one's own side. that
one stand bv one's word. is so standard a feature of intellectual ethics and politics that it has been taken com~letelvfor
granted. But the entrenched ~ositionis a vestige of archaic forms of warfare. The Tofflers argue that the Gulf War
demonstrated the failure of entrenchment -- Iraq's older, industrial, sedentary strategy -- against advanced rnilitarv technologies of
meed, stealth. and coordinated intellirrence. "[Tlhe allied force was not a lconvcntional military1 machine, but a system with far greater internal feedback,
communication, and self-regulatory adjustment capability. It was . . . a 'thinking system"' (80). For Napoleon as well, Virilio notes, nzhe CaDacitv for War [was1 the
ca~acitvfor movement" (WC LO). In the same manner. those bound to intellectual ~ositionsremain blind to the tactical
advantages of mobility and secrecv. and the new war studies will be used to suszzest strategic f i ~ u r e outside s the
position's fortified walls.
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 10
LINKS

The affirmative structures the basis of their lac on the arbolescent hierarchies of logic and objective truth;
appeals to rhizomatics allow us to gain hold on the cracks of society and exploit those for change
ZZlyani, associate prcli.essor o r critical theory, 2000 [mohanled, gilles deleuze, felix guattari and the total system. philosophy and social criticism,
http://psc.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/26/1193.pdfl

In A Thousand Ptntsous, this

heterogenesis is emphatically invested in a vegetal model which favors the rhizome over the tree.5
The ow en in^ cha~ter.which forcefullv sets the tone for the book. is a vehement attack against. and an adamant reiection
of, the wrinci~leof arborescent descent. For Deleuze and Guattari, the tree-root, radicle model, which is wedded to classical
reflection, has molded our wav of thinking. The tree alwavs designates a point of origin: it emanates out of a seed or a
center. develows an axis of rotation. and branches off its concentricitv according to a principle of dichotomv which
evolves into a hierarchical svstem. In fact, the tree model is based on the binarv logic of dichotomv which makes it
impossible to reach an understanding of multiplicitv that is not recouped within a transcendental model. To break awav
from the confines of dualism. Deleuze and Guattari advocate a mode of thought modeled on the adventitious growth
and the wropitious movement of rhizomes. bulbs and tubers, The rhizome is governed bv a number of interconnected
characteristics. To start with. the rhizome. which is a subterranean stem, is an a-centered. non-hierarchical. anti-
genealo~icalnetwork of all kinds.6 Unlike the tree which glots a point, unlike the root which fixes an order. unlike the
structure which frames a set of relations. the rhizome can and must be connected to anv other point. The rhi~omeoperates by
variation, expansion, conquest, capture and offshoots, which makes it not only heterogeneous, but also multiplicitous in the sense that it always has multiple entryways. In a
rhizome, multiplicities constantly change in nature and connect to other n~ultiplicitiesin order to form collective assemblages, so much so that it has neither a beginning nor an
end, but always a middle from which it grows and which it overspills. Thus aligned with cracks. ruptures. breaks, intersections and crossings. a
rhizornatic movement does not designate a localizable relation but a movement which glides between. i.e. in the middle
of a ~ a t hits ; underlvin~model is not punctual. but linear; it is not about being (the indicative 'is'). but about becoming
[the associative 'and'): 'the tree is filiation, but the rhizome is alliance. uniauelv alliance. The tree impuses the verb "to be." but Lhe
fabric of the rhizome is the conjunction, "and. . . and . . .and. . ." [which] can overthrow ontology, do away with foundations, nullify endings and beginnings' (TP 25). Rather
than filiation. the rhizome grows bv means of exwansion. ~ r o a a ~ a t i ooccu~ation n, and contarrion o~erating; at the
surface - all of which Deleuze and Guattari find encawsulated in what Gregory Bateson calls a ,v/arsnu. A differently
comwosed but that can be connected to each other. and wartici~atein a process of co-creation. The conceut functions
along a model of dissemination. bifurcation and vroliferation: it engenders ~olvvalence.asvmmetry. heterogeneitv and
dvnamism. so much so that ~hilosophvbecomes a nomadolow or, as Deleuze confides in a letter to ~ean-cletMartin. 'a he~eroycnesis'(1993: 7).
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 11
IMPACTS

And while we waste our time babbling about policy options, integrating warfare into our discourse, technocrats
are coming up with means of war that evade any geopolitical discourse against them
Mann 1996 [paul, professor english at pomona college, post~nodernculture journal, the nine grounds of intellectual warfare, project muse]

It would be a mistake to assume that this metamor~hosisof discourse as war into discourse on war has occurred
because criticism has become more volitical. On the contrarv. criticism has never been more than a ~oliticaleffect --
"volic~"carried out. and in our case dissipated. bv other means. The long vrocess of s e i z i n ~wolitics as the Drouer
obiect of criticism is one more tardv vhenomenalization of the device. What we witness -- and what ditference would ~t makc even i f 1
were right? -- is not roof of the ~oliticizationof criticism but an after-image of its auite werbheral integration with forms
of peo~oliticalconflict that are. in fact. alreadv being dismantled and remodeled in war rooms, defense institutes. and
multinational cor~orateheadauarters. War talk. like politics talk, like ethics talk, like all critical talk. is nostalgic from
the start. While we babble about territories and borders. reallv still caught uw in nothin~more than a habitual
attachment to discivlinarv "s~ace"and anxious dreams of "agencv." the technocrats of warfare are develo~inestrategies
that no lonrrer depend on any such t o ~ o g r a ~ h strategies
v. far more sovhisticated than anvthine we have imagined. And
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 12
IMPACTS

When intellectualism becomes driven to further its own goals, it destroys all possibility of education
Mann 1996 [paul, professor english at pomona college, postmodern culture journal, the nine grounds of intellectual warfare, project muse]

War is sublirne.3 I The theory-war in ~lausewitz'stext. the war between knowledge and eventhing. prover to it that surpasses and
destrovs it. signals the wav war takes its lace beside traeedv as a sublime for philosophy. theorv, and critical studies.
The sublime of war studv is one of theorv's recuwerated figures of its own imaginarv abvss, an abvss in which it seeks
its deepest reflection. Whatever the truth of war. what we witness here first of all is thought's fascination with an
imaginarv and auite compelling depth ~roiectedout of an obscure "drive" for its own "death." If the self-destruction of
the familv in classical trag-edv is an interior form of this DaDer abvss. the contemplation of warfare serves as one of its
public forms, as the sublime for a ~oliticalcriticism. alreadv scaled down from the recent, imaginary apocalvpses of
IlLlclear critici~m.32"The issue," Rose writes, seems to be not so much what might be the truth of war, hut the relationship of war to the category of truth.. . . Friction,
dissolution, fluidity . . . surface in defiance of a resistant totalization. . . . In Clausewitz's text, war seems to figure as thc violent repressed of its own rationaliration. It becomes,
so to speak, the unconscious or itselr . . . an intruder or foreign body that fastens and destroys. It is the perfect image o f the alien-ness lhat Freud places at the heart of human
subjectivity, the alien-ness whose denial or projection leads us into war. In Clausewitz's text, the theorization of war seems finally to be taken over by irs object. Thc attempt to
thcorizc or master war, to subordinate it to absolute knowledge, becomes a way of perpetuating or repeating war itself. (23-24)
Under the aegis of a critiaue of war technoloav. critical discourse becomes a machine that both rationalizes the contests
of thought and sumasses rational control. The end of this conflict. of intellectual warfare as such, is a terminal image of
reason's self-destruction, of the Endlightenment. an ideal we will fight to the death to fall short of. Hard critical
knowledge will no more lead us past this end than knowledpe of war leads humanitv past armed conflict.
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 13
ALTERNATIVE

Engaging in the system of critical diuscourse is the only way we can hope to disrupt it
Mann 1996 [paul, professor english at pornona college, postmodern culture journal, the nine grounds of intcllcctual warfare, project muse]

Michel dc Certeau points out that, for Clausewitz. the distinction between stratem and tactics is determined not onlv bv scales of
conflict (war vs. battle) but bv relative magnitudes of Dower. Strategy is for the strong. and it is deuloved in known,
visible, ma~wedswaces; tactics is "an art of the weak." of those who must operate inside territorv controlled bv a greater
power: it takes place on the ground of the "other." inside alien s~ace.35It must therefore detllov deception in the face
of a Dower "bound bv its verv visibilitv.~Decerteau suggests thateven in cases where the weak force has alreadv been sighted. it
might use deception to great advantage. This is another lesson from Clausewitz: "trickerv is possible for the weak. and
often it is his onlv uossibilitv. as a 'last resort': The weaker the forces at the disposition of the strategist, the more the
strateeist will be able to use deception." In the "uractice of dailv life." in spaces of sienification, in the contests of
critical argument. such a tactics of the weak would also a u ~ l y :
Lacking its own place, lacking a view of the whole, limited by the blindness (which may lead to perspicacity) resulting from combat at close quarters, limited by the possibilities
ofthe moment, a tactic is determined bv the absence of wower iust as a strate~v is organized bv the postulation of Dower. From
this point of view, the dialectic or a tactic may be illuminated by the ancicnt art of sophistic. As the author nf a great "strategic" system, Aristotle was also very interested in the
procedures of this enemy which perverted, as he saw it, the order of truth. He quotes a formula of this protean. quick, and surprising adversary that, by making explicit the basis of
sophistic, can also serve finally to define a tactic as I understand it herc: it is a matter, Corax said, of "making the worse argument seem the better." In its paradoxical concision,
this formula delineates the relationship of forces that is the starting point [or an intellectual creativity that is subtle, tireless, ready for every opportunity, scattered over the terrain
of the dominant order and foreign to the rules laid down and imposed by a rationality founded on established rights and property. (38)
And vet it is rare that anv of this ever occurs to critics. who seem to believe that "subversion" consists of vicarious
identification with subversives, and of telline evervthing one knows to one's enemies.
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 14
ALTERNATIVE

Temporarily resisting oppressive assemblages allows us to interrupt modern flows of power by subverting the
order of rational thought on which they depend
Blissettt and Brunzels 2000 [luther and sonja, autonome a.f.r.i.k.il. gruppe. communication guerilla; n rnessagc out of thc deeper german backwoods,
http:llwww.contrast.oglkglnett20.htm~

The bourgeois svstem takes it's strength - bevond other things - from it's abilitv to incor~oratecritiaue. Anv democratic
government needs an owposition. Everv o~inionneeds to be balanced with another one. since the conceDt of
re~resentativedemocracv relies on the fiction of eaual exchange. Criticism which doesn't fundamentallv shatter the
legitimacv of the ruling svstem tends to become art of it. Communication puerrilla is an attempt to intervene without
petting absorbed bv the dominant discourse. We are experimenting with wavs to eet involved i n situations and at the
Same time to refuse anv constructive ~artici~ation.
Power relations have a tendencv to amear as normal. even natural and certainIv inevitable. Thev are deewlv inscribed
into the rules of evervdav life. Communication guerrilla is one of the wavs to create those short and shimmerinq
moments of confusion and distortion, moments which tell us that evervthine could be completelv different: a
fragmented utonia as a seed of change. The svmbolic order of western capitalist societies is built around discourses of
rationalitv and rational conduct. Guerrilla communication relies on the powerful possibilitv of exwressinrr a
fundamental critiaue throuoh the non-verbal, waradoxical and mvthical.
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 15
ALTERNATIVE

Modern political movements have been subverted to totalitarian ideas, distributed in mundane methods like
pamphlets, and debate. Subverting the message of these mediums is critical to make any meaningful change in
the world
Blissettt and Brunzels 2000 I.luther and sonja, autonome a.f.r.i.k.a. gruppe, communication guerilla; a message out of the deeper german backwoods,
http:llwww.contras1.orgkglnett20.ht1n)

The starting point for our reflections on com~nunicationguerrilla is a rather trivial insight from our own actions: information and political education are colnpletely useless if
nobody wants LO listen. After years of distributing leaflets and brochures about all kinds of disgraces. of oraanising
informative talks and ~ublicisine;texts. we have come to auestion the common belief in the strength and dorv of
information. Traditional radical ~oliticsstrongly relies on the ~ersuasivewower of rational argument. The belief in the
power of wlain information as an effective form of ~oliticalaction is almost unshakeable. In a theoretical framework
that constructs a maniuulative network of media messages influencing the consciousness of the masses, critical content
and the unimpeded spread of 'truth' is seen as a sufficient tool to set the false consciousness right. Since the
declaration of ~ostmodernismit has become a bit unfashionable to insist on The One And Onlv Truth. Yet still,
traditional concepts of radical political communication are still acting according to the saying: 'whoever possesses the
senders Can control the thoughts of peo~le'.This hypothesis relies on a very simple model ~Tcornrnunication.It only rocuses on the 'sender' (in case of miss
communication usually centrally and industrially organised). the 'channel' which transports the information, and the 'reccivcr'. The hissing sounds in the channels
of information are almost neglected. Neither the euphoria around information societv nor its ~essimisticcritics - who
worrv about information overkill - are facing one of the most crucial wroblems of bourgeois re~resentational
democracies: factual information. even if it becomes commonwlace, does not necessarilv trigger anv conseauences.
Even if stories of disasters. iniustice. social and ecoloeical scandals are being; ~ublished.this rarelv leads to much
conseauence.
In recent years, thcrc has been much reflection on the interrelations between the reception of information, knowledge production and the options to act within a social context.
The Cluestion Was - and is: how Can
More emphasis is given to the codes which senders and receivers are using in writing and reading messages.
information become meaningful and how can it then become sociallv relevant. Information bv itself has neither
meaning nor consequences - both onlv evolve from active recewtion and depend on the scope of action of the audience.
But this basic banalitv has far too rarelv been taken into consideration within the framework of radical politics.
Guerrilla communication doesn't focus on arguments and facts like most leaflets. brochures, slogans or banners. In it's
own wav. it inhabits a militant political Dosition. it is direct action in the saace of social communication. But other
than manv militant positions (stone meets shop window), it doesn't aim to destrov the codes of Dower and s i ~ n of
s control. It
prefers to counteract the omnipotent ~rattlingof wower bv distorting and disfiguring the meanings. ~ommunication
guerrillas do not intend to occuuv. interrupt or destrov the dominant channels of communication, thev focus on
detournine, and subverting the messages transported.
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 16
A2: PERM

When the nomadic process allows aspects of itself to be incorporated into the state apparatus, it becomes
entirely a vessel of the states goals, and is used towards the states wars. Resistance then flight is our only option
Deleuze and Guattari, professor of philosophy at u paris and psychoanalyst, 1987 lgilles and felix, a thousand plateaus, 416-4171]

This question of appropriation is so varied historically that it is necessary to distinguish between several kinds of problems. The first concerns the possibility of the operation:
is ~reciselvbecause war is only the suu~lementarvor svnthetic obiect of the nomad war machine that it exueriences the
hesitation that proves fatal to it, and that the State amaratus for its part is able to lay hold of war and thus turn the war
machine back against the nomads. The hesitation of the nomad is legendary: What is to be done with the lands
conauered and crossed? Return them to the desert, to the steppe, to open pastureland"? Or let a State aeparatus survive that is capable of
1
later because Genghis Khan and his followers were able to holdout for a long time bv partiallv inte~ratinrrthemselves
into the conauered empires while at the same time maintaining-a smooth mace on the steuues to which the im~erial
centers were subordinated, That was their genius. the Pax Mongolica. It remains the case that the integration of the
nomads into the conauered empires was one of the most powerful factors of appropriation of the war machine bv the
State apparatus: the inevitable danger to which the nomads succumbed. But there is another danger as well. the one
threatening the State when it au~ropriatesthe war machine (all States have felt the wcighr of this danger. as well as the risks this appropriation
represents for them). Tamerlane is the extreme example. Hc was not Cenghis Khan's successor but his exact opposite: it WaS Tamerlane who constructed a
fantastic war machine turned back against the nomads. but who. bv that verv fact. was obliged to erect a State aumratus
all the heavier and more unr~roductivesince it existed onlv as the emutv form of appropriation of that machine. 105
Turning the war machine back against the nomads mav constitute for the State a daneer as great as that uresented by
nomads directing the war machine against States.
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 17
AFF ANSWERS

The intellectual forum they chose to engage in ensures cooptation of their change
Mann 1996 [paul, professor english at pomona college, postmodern culture journal, the nine grounds of intellectval warfarc, projcct muse]

Let me advance here -- as a preliminary gesture toward work being carried out elsewhere and precisely in other forms,
and perhaps only in order to help put an end to the delusional use of such terms as nomadology, deterritorialization, and
the rhizome in almost every academic forum that tries to employ them -- a tactical figure that has nothing to do with
sedentary and fortified positions: the assemblage. I am concerned here with the "numerical" organization of intellectual
work.24 Such work is of course highly institutional, hierarchical, regimental: intellectuals labor as individuals but their
individualism is for the most part the atomic form of social and discursive systems entirely reliant on this atomization.
The assemblage represents a mode of intellectual organization quite distinct from the pyramid scheme of individual in
the service of discipline (whatever its ideological orientation) in the service of institution, etc., under which the
professional intellectual currently labors. The notion of the assemblage can be traced, along one of its lines, to the
nomad on horseback. The constellation "man-horse-stirrup" is a primary instance of an assemblage: a technological
extension that transforms the subject it would seem to have served, installing the subject in another sort of instrumental
relation and, in effect, in another ontology. "[Tlhere are no more subjects but dynamic individuations without subjects,
which constitute collective assemblages."25 Even so subjectivist a notion as desire is transformed here: assemblages
are "passional, they are compositions of desire," but desire "has nothing to do with a natural or spontaneous
determination; there is no desire but assembling, assembled, engineered desire" (TP 398). What is at issue is the
projective movement of desire, its ballistic force out of anything like a subject-position into something more like a
"relay" on an extensive line of flight across smooth, nomadic space. "The problem of the war machine is that of
relaying, even with modest means, not that of the architectonic model of the monument. An ambulent people of
relayers, rather than a model society" (377). We are confronted with a different order of logistics itself: in a sense, the
importance of lines of communication overtakes the importance of the strategic positions they were once thought only
to support. There is clearly room here for a certain kind of analysis of cybernetic developments in critical exchange,
although here too one must avoid indulging in any romance of technological transformation. If the assemblage of
writer-software-network offers nomadic possibilities, no one would deny that the state has already recuperated this
technology (the Internet is the home shopping network of the knowledge industries). That is why it is crucial to focus
not only on the technological assemblage, but on its mode of circulation: the network's accessibility for packs and
bands that in their assembling do not serve institutional interests, whatever their day-jobs and unavoidable investments.
Clearly the role of the hacker is suggestive here, not because of the quite trivial outlaw romance of hacking, nor
because of any particular damage hackers might manage to inflict on this or that data base, but because of the form and
force of the relay itself. Imagine banding together with others in temporary, mission-oriented, extra-institutional units,
with specific, limited, tactical and strategic goals. Not the death or transcendence of the subject (not any metaphysics at
all); not a post-bourgeois utopia of drifts; surely not the establishment of any new isms; rather the transitory platooning
of specific on-line skills and thought-weapons in mobile strike forces in the net. Perhaps the resurgent interest in the
Situationist International will be less valuable for its polemics against the "spectacle," which only serve an already
over-represented critique of representation, than for the organizational models offered by its particular forms of
intellectual labor: the Situationist council as a nomadic war machine. The practice of such organization would affect the
forms of thought itself. Assemblages will serve as the auto-erosive becoming-machine of what was never exactly the
intellectual "subject." The transformation might already be occurring, on-line, even as the network surrenders to the
apparatus of the newly transformed state.
SEVEN WEEK JUNIORS WAR RHETORIC K
Page 18
AFF ANSWERS

When the war machine comes into contact with the state apparatus, it begins to attack the state
(this also provides the link to hege good)
Deleuze and Guattari, profes~orof philosophy at u paris and psychoanalyst, 1987 [gilles and felix. a thousand plateaus. 31641711

But more generally, we have seen that the war machine was the invention of the nomad, because it is in its essence the
constitutive element of smooth space, the occupation of this space, displacement within this space, and the
corresponding composition of people: this is its sole and veritable positive object (nomos). Make the desert, the steppe,
grow; do not depopulate it, quite the contrary. If war necessarily results, it is because the war machine collides with
States and cities, as forces (of striation) opposing its positive object: from then on, the war machine has as its enemy
the State, the city, the state and urban phenomenon, and adopts as its objective their annihilation. It is at this point that
the war machine becomes war: annihilate the forces of the State, destroy the State-form. The Attila, or Genghis Khan,
adventure clearly illustrates this progression from the positive object to the negative object. Speaking like Aristotle, we
would say that war is neither the condition nor the object of the war machine, but necessarily accompanies or completes
it, speaking like Derrida, we would say that war is the "supplement" of the war machine. It may even happen that this
supplementarity is comprehended through a progressive, anxiety-ridden revelation. Such, for example, was the
adventure of Moses: leaving the Egyptian State behind, launching into the desert, he begins by forming a war machine,
on the inspiration of the old past of the nomadic Hebrews and on the advice of his father-in-law, who came from the
nomads. This is the machine of the Just, already a war machine, but one that does not yet have war as its object. Moses
realizes, little by little, in stages, that war is the necessary supplement of that machine, because it encounters or must
cross cities and States, because it must send ahead spies (armed observation), then perhaps take things to extremes (war
of annihilation). Then the Jewish people experience doubt, and fear that they are not strong enough: but Moses also
doubts, he shrinks before the revelation of this supplement. And it will be Joshua, not Moses, who is charged with
waging war. Finally, speaking like Kant, we would say that the relation between war and the war machine is necessary
but "synthetic" (Yahweh is necessary for the synthesis).