[D-G] deleuze and benjamin on violence

[NZ]

if you do study the passions and the techniques on manipulating the
soul you will find aninteresting assumption therein, that "anger"
specifically (and not necessarily the other 8 passions) is bound to
logos, meaning language here. This idea that words "create" angry
characgteristics in man, is very old and can be found everywhere from
prometheus (and the laws that followed) to freud and the talking
method of pychoanalysis.
as logos changes historicallly we can see the variety of temperments
of angry colors in people.
whethere its statements on unenclosed property as having justified the
displacement of the Native Americans in the 1700s or rousseau's
contract for poland, the language itself defines the violence allowed
to be commited.

Yes there are some inuit tribes today(or was it yesterday?) that do
not have words for anger and lo and behold... they do not even
physically express anger to each other... or have expressions for
anger either.
Is anger as so-called  universal expression? (re: botox) their word
for anger = "childish whit woman"
note:
(this is an expression as in actor's expressed hydraulic emotions...
re:Narravitv of history))

what HWenk is suggesting to do is use "source" as critique of pure
violence. where going back and using the "correct" words for things,
why now? so that a better philosoohy-machine can be built? a more
moral machine?
that is one question...

the other is...
why not use the technique of logos building and make up new words for
these very important things... new words like BwO and rhyzome (though
I believe this words is not new to philos. from dyG but from 1830s
somewhere in england I think, must look this up still..) detentional
(as agaist intention) is one of my personal favorite new words.

anyway..  "confusion" is better then anger as a response, but I am
aware that it will lead to anger very soon... expecially if i keep
spiraling into a discussion of logos, buyt why am i alone?