Now that I’ve been banned by the 1.3 billion citizens of China, I’ve finally come to realize that I have a problem and am in need of treatment. After all, when you manage to upset an entire country it is necessay to take a step back, reflect on your life and actions, and take a careful look at yourself in the mirror. Are there things, perhaps, that I do to provoke such rejections and responses. As I look at my life, I notice that there’s something of a pattern here. For instance, over the last couple of days I’ve been engaged in a discussion with Foucault is Dead over Deleuze’s transcendental empiricism. At a certain point, FiD simply terminated the discussion no longer wishing to talk to me about these issues. Perhaps I could dismiss this as a minor blip on the radar, but unfortunately something similar had happened yesterday with Anthony Paul Smith in another discussion about Deleuze.
Indeed, now that I think about it, I’m coming to see that just about anyone I interact with intimately in discussion has had to endure my periodic blow ups or tantrums when I get frustrated and don’t think dialogue is going my way. This too is how things went down with China. This is a serious problem that effects my personal relationships and the future of my career, so I think I need to do something about it. Hopefully just admitting I have a problem– Thank you China! –is a step in the right direction. Yet I’m now worried, as my years in analysis haven’t seemed to touch this symptom. Indeed, I wasn’t even aware of this symptom until the China affair. Consequently, I wonder if blog readers might have recommendations. Are there medications for this sort of thing? What about electro-shock therapy or a minor lobotomy? Is there some sort of 12 Step Program that I can attend? Is there some kind of program I can enter similar to that depicted in Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange? Can anyone attest to the quality of new age therapies involving Shamens and acupuncture? I see that there’s a sea otter named The Big Calabaza that is offering free online cognitive therapy, but I’m really not sure how cognitive therapy with a sea otter would work or whether it’s effective.
I know that the best help comes from those who help themselves, but I really don’t think I can do this alone.
Larval Subjects . 
March 3, 2007 at 6:51 pm
This is pretty funny, but if you are at all serious my comment says more about my current mental health than yours. I wouldn’t worry about it. You did hit a nerve earlier in the thread, but I may have deserved it.
March 3, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Dammit, APS! This could have been particularly funny if no one had bothered commenting or responding to it :P
March 3, 2007 at 7:14 pm
My bad!
March 3, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Dr. Sinthome, it’s beyond repair. You are an obsessive control kitten with a nasty temper. But that’s precisely what we like about you.
the Cultural Parody Center
March 3, 2007 at 7:52 pm
Anthony I think at this point you and dr. Sinthome should go to a private room and bond.
March 3, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Sinthome, I ended my engagement in the discussion because you know this material better than me, and your intervention taught me that perhaps I should choose my topics more carefully.
The only thing intimidating about you is your scholarly knowledge of Lacan and Deleuze!
March 3, 2007 at 9:30 pm
We, too, are sorry, Dr. Sinthome. We will embark on a closer reading of Lacan’s Seminar XX to be sure we understand where you’re coming from. Perhaps then there can be a dialogue between yourself and our 1.3 billion citizens.
March 4, 2007 at 2:13 am
Mr. Larval Subjects:
First and foremost, thank you for the pingback. Second, it sounds like you have some concerns about the effectiveness of the cognitive therapy I’m offering. Sometimes potential clients are frightened or skeptical about entering a therapeutic relationship with another species. Most clients are relieved to know that although I am a sea otter, I am a licensed clinical professional counselor with ten years of treating intermittent explosive disorder (your condition). I would encourage you to visit my site, and, if you feel comfortable, share with me some of the negative thoughts that lead you to have tantrums.
March 4, 2007 at 2:18 am
Calabazanova, Thank you! I’ve already found some solace in the fact that I haven’t soiled myself today and China is making some efforts to communicate with me. I worry that a sea otter might steal my abelone as I’ve heard they’re not particularly trustworthy as a species.
March 4, 2007 at 2:19 am
Ken, you’re a downright sadist!
March 4, 2007 at 2:20 am
Dejan, you would thank that. Anthony just wants to beat me up. That’s okay though, an analyst must be willing to occupy objet a for his analysands.
March 4, 2007 at 3:06 am
Larval Subjects, Congratulations for not soiling yourself. This is a first, small step toward recovery. When you say that sea otters are not trustworthy as a species, I wonder if you are really referring to your mistrust of mental health professionals. I would never violate your confidentiality or steal any of your seafood.
March 4, 2007 at 3:50 am
While I find the cultural not-funny center deeply stupid and Le Colonel Chabert deeply idiotic, I don’t want to beat you up. Never even entertained the notion, despite my status as a rat fink. At worst I’ve considered never visting the site again and, at base, you’ve made me deeply depressed. But, I suppose, at best you’ve given me lots to think about and that ain’t all bad.
March 4, 2007 at 4:11 am
Anthony, you know I’d be deeply upset if you were never to visit again! Besides, anyone who can depress, irritate, and enrage you as much as me, driving you to consider never visiting again, must really be of value. That’s chemistry!
March 4, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Anthony, thank you. At the Cultural Parody Center we take pride in both our stupidity and our idiotic irreverence; whatsmore, these are our core parodic values.
Dr. Sinthome, I have no problem with your being my objet a, as long as the objet a is not PETIT.
March 4, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I’d be fine with the stupidity and the arrogance if only something there was funny.
March 4, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Anthony, at the Cultural Parody Center we hold the opinion of our audiences in highest esteem; we appreciate your feedback greatly. Admittedly our humoristic performance has been way below par lately. We would like to ask your patience in this regard. It is not easy to maintain a consistent level of parodic potency under the conditions of the general Decline of Symbolic Efficacy ™.
But we can assure you that in the future, you will be parodied with more cunning, more pizzazz, more bite, until you are finally able to laugh at yourself.
March 4, 2007 at 5:17 pm
This is a perfect example of what is wrong with you.
Though you attempt to respond in a way that is funny, you fail because you lump me in with whoever it is that has declared a Decline of Symbolic Efficacy. I’m sure lots of things are in decline, and symbolic efficacy may be one of them, but I sure as hell have not made any statement to this effect. You also assume that I can’t laugh at myself when in reality we at The Weblog have always made fun of ourselves. One of your biggest failings is that you just showed up and found some blogs that you thought you could make fun of. No research appears to have gone into this. No understanding of the wider issues at play. Nothing but a few badly edited graphics and assumptions about our political positions – this, young would-be overlord of the internets, does not equal comedy.
March 4, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Anthony, if you wish to discuss this outside, we are more than willing to meet your request. We are now at dr. Sinthome’s blog, whose counterrevolutionary campaigning in China has caused a world-wide notoriety, and who needs moral support now instead of listening to our argument.
We did not find your blog (the Weblog); the Weblog came to us with numerous Trolling messages relating to Le Colonel Chabert and later, with the assumed evil conspiracy between her and the Cultural Parody Center. Our parody intelligence unit subsequently discovered that the Weblog is aligned with the site I CITE, I DELETE, I BAN, who is one of the prime-time ideological supporters of dr. Slovenly Zizek in the US and therefore the regular subjet of our parody, for reasons academic as well as political. The WEBLOG and I DELETE apparently work together under the banner of a debate site called LAWNG SUNDAY. When the Parody Center tried to investigate what the matter with Chabert was all about, it was banned from commenting by your correspondent Adam Kotsko. We believe you know this because you were present in the room and joined Mr. Kotsko in the banning.
The Dekline of Simbolik Efikasy is a term coined by Dr. Zizek as Hegellian-Lacanian psyop designed to mask, or cover up, his true political allegiances. Because we feel this term distorts the teachings of dr. Lacan, and plugs them into a dangerous kind of political ideology, we strive to ridicule it every chance we get.
If you wish to discuss this further, you are always welcome to do so at the Parody Center (which by the way was also banned by the Chinese government, probably due to profanities).
March 5, 2007 at 5:01 am
I honestly don’t understand the parodycenter comments. So they don’t like Zizek (obviously fine), and they’re upset they got excluded from the conversation. But so far I’m not sure I understand what they’re adding to the conversation, here or in previous locales. I’d like to look at their site, but it says it’s been deleted. So anyone want to fill me in as to why or if I should care?
March 5, 2007 at 6:46 am
Kenneth, our address is http://www.parodycentrum.wordpress.com. Dr. Sinthome’s blogroll contains our old address.
It’s not like we want to contribute to discussions about Zizek – we want to disrupt them and confront the Western left academia with his lies and deceptions, being perpetuated in places ranging from I CITE across K-PUNK and all the way to LENIN’S TOMB. We don’t see these places as ideological, but we do feel they are being coerced by dr. Zizek into further obfuscations of some very topical and important themes.
The reason is neither Nietzschean ressentiment nor a personal vendetta, nor a disruption of dr. Sinthome’s jouissance, but the political fact that the West – in the moment of its deep ideological crisis – is relying on an intellectual charlatan with an insidious neoliberal agenda alternately posing as ”Marxism”
and ”Psychoanalysis”.
That would be our goal presented in short. We are more than willing to answer any questions.
March 5, 2007 at 8:43 am
I hate to break it to you, but you suck at it. It’s all very nice in your head, I’m sure, but you just aren’t really all that funny and you came on so strong at the beginning that I for one will never listen to you. That and the semi-homophobic musings you get going, well, it all reminds me of Rush Limbaugh.
March 5, 2007 at 9:55 am
anthony we’ve been here before. in your quasi and semi, self-ironic-champagne-liberal-PoMo-wanker-passive-aggressive ignorance you are the perfect audience for a dialektik hydra like zizek. he thrives on buggering lame young asses like your own, because in your decultured american bipolar semi-discourse the world is divided between ”rush limbaugh” and ”jodi dean”, so you read my psychoanalytic take on homosexuality as semi-homophobia. the world doesn’t begin or end in your anglosaxon village, anthony. on top of that you’re misconstruing my words and deleting my comments again, while the way you talk clearly confirms colonel chabert’s characterization of you as a vicious little twerp. i have made a mistake in responding to this as i don’t usually talk to pussies who don;’t have the guts to take the discussion outside. for this i apologize to dr. sinthome.
March 5, 2007 at 11:05 am
Rufo, re: your inquiry
I understand the parody center declares itself devoted to disrupting the spread of a certain fashionable irrationalism.
This irrationalism might be perceieved as worth battling because –
a) it creates a class of expensively educated but confused people who are willing to accept the empty set as ‘a proper name for the void’.
or
b) it creates a class of expensively educated people who are such putty in the hands of power they pose a mortal danger to their neighbours near and far.
– depending on whom you ask.
March 5, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Please cease this discussion on my blog. I do not wish to ban anyone.