I type “sovereignty” into z-library and am surprised to find mostly theology books. Then I recall Bataille’s third volume of the Accursed Share is titled “Sovereignty” and he echoes the sentiment that this concept in the past was ordinarily applied to divinities, and he also adds kings and priests. And he says all men in general have the possibility to be sovereign, noting that the bourgeois is furthest removed.

Bataille was not an academic, though he was part of the cognitive elite, and he had a wild side, so he’s just the sort I’d want to ask about the meaning of sovereignty. Still, it is with sorrow that I recognize how much of a Frenchman of his time he was when observing how he begins this study with a Marxist frame of reference–i.e. is someone who proceeds in such a way sovereign himself? Or was he one of King Karl’s loyal subjects? Well, Marx was more of a God than a king in France during those years. Let’s just suffice to say he was a loyal subject of the zeitgeist.

I love Bataille though- there’s a trace of him in the darkness of my previous post. He’s one of the few Dionysians I know of. Reading him now is a different experience from when I was naive and read him initially, that’s all. Despite his subordinance that I allege, you can tell from every sentence that he writes that he is not an academic. So relatively speaking he is a palpably sovereign individual. And keep in mind that had he been TOO sovereign I likely never would’ve heard of him in the first place. So there’s a balance you can detect, in pretty much anything anyone says. If you had to choose, wouldn’t you select to have this feature known as sovereignty that historically has been attributed to kings and gods? Bataille says it himself that regular people CAN possess it, and I think he’s right.

I think in most cases people ARE possessed rather than possess IT. You give yourself, or you at least give part of yourself, parts of yourself, to “the government” and to family, your spouse. It isn’t just historical that the king is sovereign- our version of a king today is sovereign, and you are not.

Maybe this is you

Sometimes the bourgeois has resources at his disposal that would allow him to enjoy the possibilities of this world in a sovereign manner, but then it is in his nature to enjoy them in a furtive manner, to which he strives to give the appearance of servile utility.

Yess, I’m remembering now- Bataille was off the reservation

I spoke of the matter in a lecture attended by some eminent philosophers and no one seemed to know any more about it than I did.

“So… what does sovereignty have to do with this psycho shit of eating human steaks?” Everything. It’s real. It’s a real mood. The secrecy Talmudists have about their pathos of distance is a mark of their lack of sovereignty. You might think of Hegel’s master/slave dialectic- they’re themselves beholden to their own servants, because their continued servitude requires the Talmudist to put on a certain deceptive “act”. Wouldn’t you love to see some prominent Jew exclaim something like “I’m going to make you goyim into steaks!” They never will, because that would blow their cover, thus they’re enslaved to goyim perception in a certain way. I’m not at all, I tell you exactly what I think- that many people strike me as a form of life that wouldn’t bring me guilt for consuming. This “way of knowing” could probably be learned by even a black woman if she put effort into it. If she can learn to see Jews as a meal she might as well be the queen of the galaxy. I’m not going to hold my breath that she’ll be able to do that without the typical bitterness one has about one’s betters.

Heh Bataille is giving me nothing. Usual case with the pomo (/) adjacent French.

Wait a second, was it just me or did the establishment gang up on me, and several times? Was that a dream? People do not like sovereign individuals. They don’t like their servility to be made known. And, now it is. Whoops, sorry. And the supposed “counter-establishment” has never been happy with me either, so I wonder what that tells you about them too? Thus the counter-establishment cannot even laugh at the establishment’s humiliating condition of bondage- I can only laugh at both of them, all the laughter is for me I suppose. HA HA! Don’t be mad, I suggest you live vicariously through me laughing at you instead.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: