There is something that is absolute difference. Deleuze sees it in what he calls the War-Machine. It is without respect or reason, without emotion or attachment. It borders on the suicidal and self-defeating. It is always and absolutely conflictive difference. It does not accept “community” or the contemporary notion of “diversity.” It rejects the Hegelian subsumption of difference under identity. It does not believe in “unity in diversity.” It engenders hate. It follows no rules, no laws, no structures. It does not act for some “good.” It does not even act for some “evil.” It simply acts.
Deleuze believes that the best example of the War-Machine is Genghis Khan and his Mongolian warriors. Even though they conquered the Chinese empire and large portions of the Muslim one, they slept in tents. They razed cities, drove around the Great Wall, and killed for kicks. Yet they never built (or rebuilt) cities, did not institute a new government, nor even made it mandatory for the people they destroyed to adhere to their laws. This is because they had none. There was no hierarchy. They were rhizomatic….like weeds. Yet, because of their lack of respect for laws, rules, and structures, they were also suicidal. At any moment, they could have brought about their own destruction. Yet they would still act without remorse.
Another example is that of Geronimo. Here was a man upset at the Spanish. Along with just two troops, he snuck past the guards and into the center of the Spanish encampment…and opened fire. They were able to shoot 20 people dead. It was a massacre by three. That is the intensity of the War-Machine.
Today, there are many groups surfacing in this mode. I say “mode” because it is not something one can always avoid. Currently, the Christian Right, as well as other groups of neofundamentalists (e.g. the al Qaeda brand), are becoming machinic. They are moving towards that suicidal grasp. The recent problem with Ted Haggard is one such example. One cannot become the War-Machine without losing control, ethics, and morality. The War-Machine is pre-philosophic, pre-ethical, pre-morality. It is passion and intensity. It deterritorializes its past (i.e. removes the context of its past in which it is situated) and creates a new context which disregards both its contemporary locality and its historical context. As Nietzsche said (On the Genealogy of Morals, of which Deleuze quotes often), “They come like fate, without resaon, consideration, or pretext…” The War-Machine becomes the face of the other: a blank wall with two dark eyes. It is the completely unknown.
This is really good. It’s almost as if the “war machine” has believed so whole-heartedly in their goal that no matter what they come across, they’ve attached blinders as to be not affected. They are singular in their goal, regardless of contrarian evidence. It’s where the Mujihadeen meets Jerry Falwell.
It’s beyond that. The W-M is pre-philosophic, pre-ethical. It does not feel. It does not attach moral value to anything. It’s not “blinders” because the W-M knows what it is doing.
People aren’t machines. Genghis Khan, besides probably enjoying the power, viewed his accomplishment of uniting the steppes people as a moral one, since it ended warfare between themselves. He knew warfare was a dominate part of their culture, he didn’t reject that, and so he launched them at one foreign enemy after another. He also came up with the first written law code in Mongolian history and enforced it (on Mongolian and allied steppes people).
The steppes people followed him because the were getting rich from plunder and tribute and they probably just enjoyed it. Allowing local governments and cultures to remain as long as they paid tribute and behaved themselves was a fairly standard practice, and was very often a beneficial practice for the conquerors. They also ruled China directly for about 100 years. That’s hardly anything like the War Machine as described.
And Geronimo was “upset”, that’s not without emotion, and he was very attached to his people in their way of life.
The War Machine sounds like it’s just characterizing other groups we don’t understand and often discriminate against, viewing them as something less than as human as ourselves (ie. like the US’s labeling of Japanese as the “Yellow Peril”).
Ted Haggard is the latest evidence of the adage that power corrupts. More generally the Christian Right certainly does believe in a morality, although I believe many leaders in its ranks are now seeking power for powers sake.
Hmm…it’s not that the people are without emotion. Neither is it the case that a person or group is always the War-Machine. It is a mode of relationships that is both powerful and suicidal. It is the doing for the sake of doing (or, as you just mentioned, seeking power for power’s sake). What was remarkable about Khan is that he didn’t just let those he conquered remain as they were, he never established a system of oversight (cf the Romans and Greeks who established political leaders in the areas they conquered). Alexander didn’t live in tents unless he was on the move. Khan always lived in tents as a nomad.
The State could never create (or become) a War-Machine because it seeks to control whatever it is. The Mongols were a War-Machine because they lacked this sort of control.