Monday, November 23, 2009

liberation is not possible

I'm trying to do Foucault and Derrida here, I would love your feedback. And by feedback I mean argue with me, don't ever tell me i'm right, i'm always wrong, tell me why please. ty

The liberation ideals of Marxism have been elaborated over the years. Not only is human's relationship to production key in systems of oppression, but we have learned that class is not the only apparatus. Race, nationalism, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. Are all structures of oppression that are just as important as class. Marx's arguments have been shown to have different effects in the long term, over production has led to over consumption. Fashionable consumption which sells us shit we don't need made by slaves shipped back and forth across the world in carbon energy wasting airplanes. Your Ipod which needed lithium which was mined by slaves in Bolivia. No there is no social mobility for these slaves, if they ever demand a living wage the multi-nationals will find slaves in another country. In the case of lithium though Bolivia being one of the only real sources, instead of finding new slaves, the IMF owned government will send paramilitaries to gas and kill some slaves to prevent them from organizing. The slave's children will need to be pulled out of school and put to work in order to keep their family alive and then get injured putting them out of work because of unsafe working conditions leading to an endless cycle of poverty and suffering, I mean shit we've all read The Jungle here. For the most part though these slaves are coming from rural areas where their subsistence farming has been ended by the encroachment of massive factory farms, overpopulation(you leave the family farm to two kids, and neither of them will be able to raise a family on half the land), and the endless fight between the peasants and the patrons. Peasants make their way to the city, become proletarianized: separated from the product of their work, selling their life away in one hour increments, and falling prey to the endless scams of the thieves who use a pen to steal.

We all see the immediate effects of the present crisis. We can call it by the umbrella term "globalization" but that means something different to everyone. To me it is the name given to the capitalist project and its' domination of the entire world.

Many of you may self-identify as anarchists, but modern anarchist theory is totally rooted in a para-marxist or neo-marxist analysis. Modern anarchist theory relies on historical materialism, it relies on mindset changes, and it relies on the myth of the rational individual. All liberation theories rely on the myth of the rational person and they all rely on immutable ideals.

There is nothing immutable in this world.

The myth of the rational person is a holdover from the Stoics, we all know now that a person who acts only according to cold rationality is a sociopath.

Liberation is not possible with current methods.

Look at Rome, the USSR, american revolution, french revolution. Things always end up the same. Liberation ideals theorize that this is due to institutions. To destroy the institutions would bring humans liberation. This is where you might find your anarchists, your illichs, your heideggers. . These people are only partially correct. The tools of the human have enslaved the human to a certain extent, but the oppression, coercion, etc. emanating from these institutions only represents efficiency in normalizing. To destroy the institutions, would still leave us at square one dealing with how to liberate ourselves from eachother in a new era of primitivism. A primitivism that cannot help but be born from the norms of a humanity that depended on their Tool Masters. Humans are too fucking stupid to survive without all the shit we at first didn't need, but we all bought it. Now as it turns out we literally cannot survive without it. I guess i'm kind of proving that the normalizing of an entire world to liberate themselves from institutions of states, banks, hospitals, schools, etc etc etc. would basically never happen, but i'm going to fiat its existence just for the sake of the point i'm trying to make in a very roundabout fashion. So anarchists and marxists win, every human has simultaneously stripped the institutions of power, shed the normalizing aspects of the juridico-political system, overcame racism, overcame sexism, overcame homophobism, and just for the hell of it: there is no such thing as an STD anymore.

Will this moment last? NO. NOTHING, NOTHING is immutable, nothing. Absolutely nothing is immutable. Everything changes, the present is an illusion. It is only a fleeting feeling, a sound, a snapshot that will fall in to the next in an endless series of repititions until you die. Nothing is immutable.

We just keep building the same damn thing over and over. Who is to say your(anyone, not just the subjects of these past paragraphs) group will be any different?

So maybe you've gotten point number one by now: Immutability is a lie. Anyone or anything that claims to know the truth is lying, because the truth does not exist. The closest to the truth we can get is a series of snapshots, and endless parade of truth. A constant study, a constant worldwide dissemination. I will not sully such an idea with a broken down word like democracy. What I speak of is a global web of connections where information is completely liberated, and that we all work together in a constant process of interpretation and opinion. The more people that hear truth(not universal truth, the truth I speak of above) the more people will be correct in how we handle anything. Is the issue human extinction? Is the issue Justice? Who the fuck knows, the question will always change, the truth will always change, and jesus will never fly down with a sword to seperate the non-believers. There is no light at the end of the tunnel, there is no winner's circle, and there is never a point in time where humanity can be liberated. Liberation would be an endless process itself, in which no immutability would exist. The word liberation would change its' meaning, what it signifies would be understood to be something different, in the process certain norms might be established that give rise to a counter-hegemony that would flip the idea of liberation upside-down. There is always an agent in modern ideals of liberation. Someone always must lead, there must be a spark for the powder keg, there must be an intellectual class, there must be some sort of leader of the biggest brigades, there must be someone that is the least hated of everyone, any random person who is seen as charismatic, intelligent, or attractive. Always a leader in ALL modern liberation movements. Always an ideology, who helped reproduce that ideology in order to normalize it as knowledge to a broad enough base that such an ideal for liberation became widespread? A newspaper? Internet Site? journalist? artist? There is always an agent in these broad liberation movements, there is always someone willing to seize the rein of power and thousands others to support it.

So that was supposed to be my conclusion but I didn't mean to skip point two. All modern liberation ideals derive from a rational choice model. Humans who act entirely rational are sociopaths. Humans make decisions through a combination of socio-emotive and material(rational) motivators. There is very good evidence of this, social psychology is filled with it, any mid-size group is evidence of it, the many "phineas gages", sports teams, any altruistic act, etc. Essentially you're going to have to market the revolution. And it seems that most modern liberation movements are based on repressions: capitalism represses empathy, marxism represses greed, anarchy represses the impetus to create the state, primitivism represses technological discoveries, feminism represses masculinity. I mean how long do I have to keep this up for. There is always an enemy.

So I figured out how to create a new conclusion, and this will be even more betterer than the last one.

Human brains are made to exist in an environment filled with other human brains. Humans have evolved as social animals, depending on eachother to survive against stronger foes. This is only a suggestion I do not claim it to be fact, but it seems that humans are stuck in the way their brains function, due to evolving in social groups, to identify with a group identity.

If any of you don't know what "alterity" means I suggest you check it out. The ideal of anarchism is to bring the entire global humanity in to the unity of a better idea. This idea that we are all the same, we're all in this together, we can survive without oppression and war, to make all humans value eachother as humans. This is intelligent, because alterity is necessary for murder. One does not kill a human without othering them first.

By removing the other from the political equation, anarchists intend to create a world better suited to survival and justice.

But without an other, any one individual has no identity. Without an other, you are not a self. Or at least cannot construct an identity without something to define yourself as NOT. You demarcate a boundary between self and other those boundaries are important for your identity.

"There is no universal truth" is an untrue statement. It seeks to disprove what it proves simply by being posited. Immutability being a constant is the exact same idea. Alterity may be an anomaly that is a result of some universal normalizing process that possibly can be changed, but unless it can be changed humanity is fucked. If it cannot be changed than othering is what makes us human, and humanity won't be able to survive without.....whos read Watchmen?

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Habeas Corpus again

This is a draft I never finished, but I'm gonna publish it anyway without reading it over. There may be a link or piece of info that is interesting.,0,4700402.story

I would like to do something with this text: deconstruct, dissect, analyze, interpret, etc.

The first Sentence is "Setting the stage for a historic criminal trial, Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Friday that the government would prosecute the self-proclaimed architect of the Sept. 11 attacks and four others in a civilian courthouse just blocks from the scene of their alleged crimes."
The first part of the sentence argues that this is a "historic criminal trial", this is not true with a basic look at verifiable facts. When the law is broken by a person in the United States they are tried for their crimes and the decision of the individuals guilt or innocence is decided by a jury of his or her's peers.

The individuals being tried are not part of a war. I understand that the idea was packaged as a war, but just like the war on drugs and the war on poverty. It seems to just be an effective way to rally political capital, by attaching the significance and all the weight of the word "war". There was no war declared, congress passed the authorization to use military force. The AUMF authorized the executive to send the military anywhere it deemed necessary to find terrorists. OIF and OEF were not wars that were ever declared, there is no actual "war on terror", because war can only take place between two state entities. War cannot take place between two guys standing on the street. When Scarface yells "do you want to go to war?" he does not actually mean hes going to fight a conventional war, because he is not a state entity.

If these individuals have committed a crime they should be tried in a court. This is not historic the United States has prosecuted numerous "terrorist" trials. Even though the word "terrorist" is not a crime, one cannot be charged with one count of terrorism anywhere. If these individuals are responsible for 1st degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and I bet a whole mess of further crimes then bring them to trial and convict them just like we have always done. How is this trial historic? Google FLorence ADX (I think thats what it is) its a supermax prison which is basically the real life arkham asylum. Its got every "terrorist" your friend teevee ever showed you. This trial is not historic.

The other statement I have an issue with is "self-proclaimed architect of the sept. 11 attacks". I'm not a doctor or anything, but I'm preeeeeety sure any human alive would say anyfucking thing in the world in order to stop being tortured. The paper already told you he is guilty. Do you truly believe he is guilty without seeing any of the evidence? I will only believe he is guilty after he is given a trial and I can see the information the jury saw, and decide for myself. Hes already convicted, its a media circus before its even started.

So Holder did good he brought some people to trial, but it really isn't good enough. Everyone who committed crimes in violation of United States law should be tried. But of course if john mccain had won NOBODY would have gotten a trial. So if I conclude that this decision would rest with the executive, and our choice for executive is always limited to two, then isn't this the best possible outcome we could hope for? But its still not everyone, gitmo is still up, they're going to use the archaic death penalty and make everyone a martyr. Things could be better, but at least Holder did a little.

Then the article goes to this guy " Pentagon lawyer in the George W. Bush administration...". oh noo!! they're gonna use counterintelligence!! pew pew, spies and stuff, its like totally super secret. WTF is it, its been 8 years you dumb bastards, is there seriously still shit in there that compromises counterintelligence 8 years later? What kind of crazy deep cover shit are you doing and why does it suck so much fucking ass? What is your counterintelligence worth in balance with the U.S. constitution, fuck your counter-intelligence. Give the information to the public, don't do this bullshit.

top Pentagon lawyer in the George W. Bush administration: They're guilty! But the damning evidence is really super secret!

defense attorney: Secret evidence is awesome! just take his word for it, why would he lie? He doesn't have any type of legal questions surrounding his administration's treatment of prisoners.

top Pentagon lawyer in the George W. Bush administration: Jury, look at that guy, hes clearly a Muslim. And like I said I've got awesome evidence, its like 100% completely conclusive evidence, and I would show it to you I would...but its just this national security. Its counterintelligence, let me just give you a taste of how deep our cover goes, we have an inside man at the top rung of the ladder. I mean Bin Laden is actually our guy hes just spying on whos going to follow him after he did a big attack. That way we'd know who the next bin laden was if we created the first one, I mean thats how deep that cover is. We can't be blowing that type of cover can we?

Defense Attorney: And if we let people know who the snitches are, then nobody will trust us with their snitching needs. Then how are we supposed to tell who to torture until they confess? answer me that mr. big shot jury!

Oh they will spew propaganda!! oh no!!! fuck, grow up. The judge will do what they always do with disruptive defendants.

A few more paragraphs down the article contradicts itself. "The detainees are expected to be held at the same federal prison in New York that housed other suspected Al Qaeda operatives before trials related to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the embassy bombings in Africa and other terrorist plots. Virtually all of those men were convicted in trials marked by heavy security and now are serving long sentences in federal prisons around the United States."
Well damn that sounds pretty similar to this trial...why the fuck is it historic, why does the text separate this trial with historic

not gonna finish his here are the 5 that aren't getting trials
The other detainees slated to appear before military commissions are Ahmed Mohammed al Darbi, Omar Khadr, Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi and Noor Uthman Muhammed.

the 5 getting trials: ksm
Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali will do the same in civilian court.

I look forward to the information that will be made public by this trial. I look forward to the chance for the United States to re-affirm its values if only in a half assed way.

Sunday, November 01, 2009


Apparently I need to write in order to survive. Not for any economic reasons, but for sanity? I’m not sure if it is that or fostering a delusion of meaning in my mind. If this life is all there is, ha I ask like the answer can ever be found. I will never know if this life is all there is, but I can use rational thought to look at the scurrying homicidal humans and understand where some of the ideas come from. I can see that they coddle eachother and manipulate with ideas like religion, so this life most likely is all that there is. The entire idea that this life is not all there is was created in order to sell religion. The religion was sold so well, because of our epistemological limitations on knowledge. We can never know if this is all there is, we will never know when consciousness first manifested or even if consciousness is just reified human superiority complexes. What if all animals possess a consciousness, why can I read the facial language of a dog or cat? Haven’t I seen a dog’s attempts at stifling their expression of guilt in order to avoid being blamed for something they thought they could get away with? How did life come about, we have good rational ideas on this, some good theories. But the fact of the matter is that we can never have the answers to these questions.
If this ignorance is a part of the human condition, then I can see why religion springs up. By looking at the lessons of religion, by looking at the stories of gods and goddesses, and through etymology of deity’s names we can see the imprint of family. Although these stories come to us only because they have been transcribed, which besmirches them with an earthly impurity, this means that the individual was literate which represents a class indication. We each have our own creators our own Mom and Dad. Our own mother earth and father sun in each of our subjective worlds. Odds are our creators will die before we the offspring have died. The creators of the past on most occasions would teach their offspring how to survive and would pass on their mythos. Where did these mythos come from? The creator’s creator of course! Contemporary forms of ancestor worship such as Shintoism represent a background of one of the first examples of sacred ideas.
The reason these stories must have been told is in order to focus the mind on survival in order to continue the process of creation. If the human condition is uncertainty(epistemological limitation that science claims to have overcome), passionate ambivalence(Philip k. Dick’s short story The Chromium Fence), or contradiction(Dostoevsky’s theme); then it seems reasonable to understand the mythos of humanity as a survival tool. First of all to encode key cultural rituals of a certain time/space in to a sacred mythos(such as a prohibition on the eating of pig) is in order to protect the family/tribe. Humans are not eating if they are paralyzed by uncertainty.
Parents are gods, after all they created you. If living gods tell you a sacred idea, how can you disparage it? This worship of ancestors, because our creators are most often our teachers became canon. As the cycle continues down the line, until someone codifies the sacred idea and the idea becomes a millstone necklace. The idea is used as a cudgel and the idea is used as a mask for its’ antithesis. The codification of the idea transmutes it from sacred to profane.
What was once the internal strength of a tribe/family and a set of encoded morals and survival rituals becomes a tool used to fight the world outside the tribe/family. To seek power in the classical realist terms, to subjugate other families. The families at this point are controlled by the class of people that could codify the ideas in the first place.
But it doesn’t fucking work. There is idea trading, there is language trading, there is genetic material traded in the form of miscegenation, a word that would not exist if it weren’t for man’s innately(for lack of a better contemporary word) racism. It becomes apparent that we don’t have a good word to unmask the idea of racism. Which in a dictionary means prejudice, discrimination, or hatred towards a different “race” I am using this word here to mean the hatred of any “other”.
The tribes are illusory they were a necessary construction for humans’ early survival along with their mythos. Survival tools, tools meaning they were created by humans for humans. It is not a tool that humans innately respond to group identities. Response to group identities is an a priori or instinctual feature of the human condition.
The “race” is illusory, to argue that the 200,000 years that represent the human diaspora and subsequent collapsing back in have left some kind of different “races” is based on a confluence of nationalism(which I use as synonymous with group identity in the context of this crap) and fear of those different than self. Language is a very strong divider among humanity, but we all speak a language that is derived from the same source. Physical appearance is a very strong divider among humans, but we all came from the same original adam in Africa and eve in southeast Asia. The idea that the social construct of “race” can first of all be readily identified, and that second of all it should be considered sacred is as old as human tribes/families. Who is the one making these judgments? Who decides who is what race?
Race is not a social construct they say! DNA they say! Well how many races are there? Then you must elect a single person’s genetic structure THE structure of the (insert racial label here), then what? Is it a spectrum? The idea is absurd. I only obsess about race because it is one of the tools that is pervasive in this time/space I exist in. Many will say otherwise, the country I am a citizen of outlawed slavery over one hundred years ago, my country outlawed de jure segregation 65 years ago, my country outlawed de jure discrimination 45 years ago. But in that past 45 years the prison population has quadrupled. The joke that a “black” human says to another “black” goes something like this: “Justice? Yep, go to prison and you’ll see that: just Us”.
The idea of an Us and Them, is not a tool. The idea of statehood, sovereignty, the western conception of the social contract; they’re all constructs. They are tools created to achieve some end. There are those that argue our institutions as tools have failed us. That the institutions we have created are not like the Golem or the Frankenstein monster, but instead like a fleet of slave machines that slowly gained self-awareness. What if the human brain just represents a controlled set of patterns? If a tool we created was stuck in its’ own loop or pattern, couldn’t this be understood as simulated brain activity?
Because it is na├»ve to believe that some one or some cohesive group is controlling these patterns. Why in 2001 were 74% of people incarcerated for drug crimes “African-American” when this social category makes up 13% of the United States population?
There is not some demagogue out there paying off police, judges, and juries to bust dark skinned united statesians. They are not told at their jobs(at least in most situations, and it is prosecutable) to seek out dark skinned united statesians. Then why is it this systematic re-enslavement of dark skinned united statesians is taking place?
It is my belief that the phenomenon referred to as “racial profiling” is a scar left on the psyche of the united statesian. A people were taught to believe it was ok to enslave other people that were proclaimed “others”. They were taught that these humans were actually sub-human, they were animals so it is ok to treat them as such with slavery. Then when justice was sought, in the babysteps justice takes(which I am not criticizing, if a few things had been different we would still be living under the totalitarian spectre of “racial hygiene”), when these sub-humans were given equal protection under the law, the group did not internalize the change. To many these dark skinned united statesians represented animalistic tendencies, sub-human qualities. They had been taught this for so many years and this assumption was used to justify social control measures such as narcotic and anti-immigrant laws, the dark skinned united statesian retained its image as the model of the criminal.
Now we are stuck, we are mired in the reified diarrhea of our ancestors’ mythos. How are we to break away from this social construct of race in order that it not be used to prosecute ends of murder and oppression if we are still so stuck in it that we need to reform what the idea of justice means?
Has not the institution of slavery then enslaved or at least imprisoned our minds? We cannot let people be incarcerated because of their race, this is genocide in the long term. But if we must remain ever vigilant how are we to transcend race?
I just used the word genocide, but if race is a social construct doesn’t that make genocide an obsolete idea? My response to this is that race being a social construct, it can only be ascertained through self-identification. Of course the limitations on this are myriad, and the most pronounced of which is that in order to self-identify the category must already be an idea. Most likely in the process of self-identification an individual(in our mechanized world) would be choosing a box next to words that represent a “multiple choice” of racial identity. For many years there was not a “multiracial” box on these forms.
It is much easier to understand my main point by looking at the idea of the multiracial box. An individual with one parent who self-identifies as “black” and another parent who self-identifies as “white” is presented with an insurance application/job application/tax form/loan application/housing application/driver’s license application. This form has options for black or white, but what is he/she?
The individual either chooses one thusly attempting to suppress part of their own self-identity and fosters an idea that this individual is an “other”. They are an other in their own home, they do not have a “race”. Thus implying that the institution who created the form judges multiracial individuals as less than human, because they do not have something every other human has: a race.

Trusting the past and not scrutinizing the tools is has left us may turn us in to the machine.

I do not offer this critique without an alternative. The alternative I offer is a way to use our tools to sublimate our nature. A world government, a supranational entity much like the EU(before the EU created an office for a president[big mistake]). An entity founded upon a written set of laws limiting the power of the entity. The entity would be incorporated through plesbicites in any country that wanted to participate. In this fashion we could use the tool of the state to harness the power of nationalism in order to foster the idea that all humanity is one family/tribe.
This is of course just another crusade or religion. This idea is just another idea that if it took hold in a few countries would not be voluntarily adopted by so many countries that it would just create another division. This division would be used to prosecute wars in the furtherance or “defense” of the supranational entity. Although this idea seems to be the antithesis of anarchism, it seems to have a lot in common with anarchism. Both ideas would need a mindset change among humanity as a whole, the only difference being that in order for anarchism to work every human would have to experience a mindset change, in order to establish a supranational world government only a majority of each state would have to experience a mind change. Both options are idealistic unfortunately.
How would one cause a mindset change? We argue and disseminate ideas, we convince and evangelize. We’ll reason with people and show them logic. This is all fucking bullshit, its propaganda and it always is. The only way a mindset change like either of these things would happen is with a massive and I mean MASSIVE media apparatus to condition humans over and over and over. You can call it convincing, or marketing, or preaching, but its all conditioning. Every one of us in our own little skinner box, in our case pushing the button to change the channel rather than get the cheese.
So if you ever see anarchy or world government on the rise, just remember that the only way that is possible was with a huge effort at mind control/marketing/conditioning. The only way such an effort is possible in our current reality is with huge amounts of “money” another tool that has imprisoned us. So question their motives, because the people at the helm of such an effort are the same ones destroying the world in furtherance of greed.
Any solution I have of course is just from the frying pan in to the fire. I just see that our current system is clearly broken, capitalism is so inherently contradictory its sickening. While we think that we’re fine tuning this institution, there are so many suffering that the institution must be broke. The organizational basis of humanity at this point in space/time is personal greed/objectivism. If we came up with another way, wouldn’t that way still be rife with contradictions?
Then am I at odds with our means of social organization, or am I at odds with humankind because of the epistemological limitation on our knowledge that is a universal feature of the human condition?
Is my ambivalence and disillusion in itself a microcosm of the globicidal social organizing principles whether they be based on greed, love, hate, etcetera?
Then is this all just my own simulated brain pattern/loop of solipsist masturbation?