HA HA!

[Messier Undertree]

I AM POSTING HERE

[Cramulus]

Let's post an ad on the web somewhere saying we're looking for new moderators. Confabulate some reason why we don't want established users as mods - favortism or something. Have random goons from the web submit extensive applications.

We'll play real nice for a while.

Then we can overthrow them!

[Rumckle]

"The Coming Insurrection" is our new book club book, and is available:

http://tarnac9.wordpress.com/texts/the-coming-insurrection/

and a number of PDF's that are good for printing:

http://www.bloom0101.org/translations.html

(Thanks Enki for the links)

There is a tract that originated in France, with some situationist influences, called "The Coming Insurrection".  It is kind of a big deal in radical circles, because the text is associated with the Tarnac 9, French anarchist saboteurs who were arrested in a very high profile case on the Continent, not least because of the use of draconian anti-terrorism legislation against the 9, who never hurt anyone physically with their actions.

Being non fiction I don't think we have to worry about spoilers, so I'm going to post a bit after I read a section or two.

I am going to start with The First Circle: "I AM WHAT I AM", because I want to read up more on the events mentioned and the recent history of France before I say anything about the introduction.



First Circle
"I AM WHAT I AM"


I was reminded of the Law of Eristic Escalation, the more we try to define ourselves, as individuals, the further we get from our "self". We start to define ourselves as our jobs, our race, our gender, our preference in cola, the trainers we wear, but this just leads to us no longer identifying with our self, but identifying with the products we use, and various other meaningless descriptions.

It reminded me of the Apple ad campaign, "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC", while this was a campaign designed for and payed for by Apple, it is not just an advertising campaign for Apple. It creates strong feelings of association for both Apple and Microsoft, depending on which you use. It goes beyond someone who uses Macs, beyond someone who prefers Macs, to the point where the person is identified by the product. And, although the ads were designed to make PCs look dorky, the same identifying idea works just as well for PCs (and by extension Windows).

This leads to people making certain that they are an individual, they have to strive to show how they are special and unique (just like everyone else), rather than just live their lives. Thus we seem to have people wasting their time and energy, running themselves down, not just to differentiate themselves from the group, but to make damn sure that everyone can see how they are different. The problem of course is that everyone is striving to do that, which means that even though everyone's individualism is just different form of the same marketed bullshit, people are shouting louder and louder to get people to pay attention to them.


This chapter brings up two points I found particularly interesting:

1. The way the author refers to the military struggle between the "Empire" and the people.

"I AM WHAT I AM," then, is not simply a lie, a simple advertising campaign, but a military campaign

This partly seems like hyperbole on part of the author, but it also seems like the author wants to get us to consider this "rebellion" in terms of a military conflict (which it is pointed out in the introduction the "Empire" is doing anyway). If we consider it as a military conflict, then, even with the disorganised nature of "our" campaign, we would have a better chance of succeeding with "our" goals.
(As an aside, calling the enemy/machine the "Empire" is in the introduction in one of the bloom0101 PDFs that is not present on the html version of the text, I just like using it because it gives a Star Wars feel to the whole thing)


2. The way in which we are urged to stand our ground, in a way. Consider:

Freedom isn't the act of shedding our attachments, but the practical capacity to work on them, to move around in their space, to form or dissolve them.

and

Contrary to what has been repeated to us since childhood, intelligence doesn't mean knowing how to adapt – or if that is a kind of intelligence, it's the intelligence of slaves. Our inadaptability, our fatigue, are only problems from the standpoint of what aims to subjugate us.

This would be an effective method of standing up to the "Empire", if you have the numbers. But, I feel that this early on in the campaign, there must be some kind of adaptability needed in the way we attempt to take down the "Empire".


Though, I could be reading this wrong, I guess the other option is that we shouldn't have to adapt our "selves", or sacrifice our own individualism, making it become what the "Empire" thinks an individual should be. In which case it would be okay to adapt our techniques and tools of war, as long as we do not compromise our own morals or individualism.


There was one part that I really did not understand however:

The family only exists as a family, that is, as a hell, for those who've quit trying to alter its debilitating mechanisms, or don't know how to.

I can't see what they are trying to get at here, are they saying that our family will only hold us back from our goals, or is "family" another term for the "Empire", or something else entirely?

[Placid Dingo]

I feel like im trying to watch PDTV while Roger stomps on the remote

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I feel like im trying to watch PDTV while Roger stomps on the remote

I didn't STOMP on it.  I put it somewhere, and I allow last night's dinner to push the buttons.

So now you know the truth.