@Freddygray31 @MassimoFaggioli When Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury, one of the world’s most highly regarded moral and intellectual voices—known for his measured restraint—describes Hegseth’s language as “diabolical” and US political culture as “demonic,” and no US news outlet reports it.
Image description
Extended description
I’d say a compounding problem is our techno-nationalist significance-allocation regime: not just geopolitical hubris, but an epistemic substrate of religious and political exceptionalism insulated from planetary moral and ontic valence, amplified by evolving media-ecology trends. Jung, Arendt, Ellul, Girard, Voegelin et al identify the nation-state as the supreme technology for encoding psychological disorder at scale. We're now seeing that madness becoming infrastructural in media systems, destroying the capacity for moral address to cross enemy lines. 2/ Media for McLuhan are not channels carrying “content”; they’re world-forming structures. The demonic complex doesn’t merely exploit reality; it configures what counts as reality—'the way things are'— by recalibrating our senses, habits, and technical conditions of perception. 3/ He recognized that environments are subliminal because they saturate. The demonic complex is just such an environment _weaponized_: a total media-sacramental order securing a mimetic, imaginative vice keeping us from seeing any politic other than one undergirded by violence.
Open original document@craigmod Deeply lucid, Craig. Thank you. On the power of precise naming, Wink, Barth, Illich, Moltmann, Girard, Ellul, Jung and Hillman among others, are clear: naming the demonic delivers diagnosis to its decisive edge—"the first act of exorcism". Naming as counterforce to black magic.
View this post’s context →