[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

small victories are still important.

what you have, even though you feel defeated, looks like utopia compared to the place i live. and where i live almost IS utopia compared to some other places in the world

rome wasn't built in a day. likewise a technologically advanced post capitalist society free from militarism and poverty won't spring up over night.

Oh, we don't feel defeated quite yet, just some of the teeth of our attack have worn down.. In 1992 Los Angeles was a frightening place. In 1993 it seemed like we just came out of the bottom of the deep side of the pool. By the last 1990s so much was improving and changing so fast. I'm talking substantive improvements in housing, employment, and education along with significant reduction in crime that was at war-zone capacity. Yet much like the high water mark Hunter Thompson spoke about, it seems like 2000 was the point when this collective cultural wave crested and began to recede back towards what it had been replacing. You can even document across Rage albums the progress. Where Self-Titled was fierce, Evil Empire was more optimistic and reflected this cultural shift towards awareness in Los Angeles (a rise in culture centers, the arts, community projects, street music, food, activism in local politics, significant curricula shift).. Battle For Los Angeles then reflected the progress by 2000. It was a bit more mature, toned down. Almost like a victory lap. Perhaps we celebrated too soon yo..

On the plus side, we didn't totally lose all that we had gained, rather the problem is we kind of just stopped midway and settled for that. We still got work to do.

[dead_battery]

CUPCAKE FASCISM

If a fascist reich was to be established anywhere today, I believe it would necessarily have to exchange iron eagles for fluffy kittens, swap jackboots for Converse, and the epic drama of Wagnerian horns for mumbled ditties on ukuleles.

i've been talking about this (in far less coherent terms) on syg for years now

[dead_battery]

html giant explains what a literary career means in 2014 and how you can (never) get one:

20) Laconically lose your virginity, partially peruse Nietzsche, go and graduate from college, and move into a cheap apartment at the cheap side of town; now start a Tumblr, using one of their free minimalist themes, and begin liking the posts of whom you perceive to be your ideal peers, the ostensible “in crowd” to which you wish to gain entry; begin liking, favoriting, reblogging, and retweeting the respective content of these people, all of these people, all of the time, consistently for 2-3 months until you garner reactionary clicks to your own Tumblr, whose most recent post (at this point) should be a 0:46 second clip of you eating a mango alone in your room, with contemporary rap in the background. Click on the avatar of the first person to like your video, who may be on the masthead of a new literary journal. Do not open Microsoft Word, or Google docs; simply compose a new Gmail and begin writing down any erratic thoughts or feelings you may be having, using a line break every time a particular thought or feeling has ended. If you are on any drugs, please list them. If you have just binged on calorically dense food, or if you are starving yourself, please include those details. At the end of 16-18 of these thoughts or feelings, title the poem—call these sets of thoughts or feelings “poetry” from now on—by the most evocative or oblique line therein, and email the poem to the editor who liked the clip of you eating a mango; when, five days later, your poem is published, take a screenshot of the poem and post it to your Tumblr, Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, whose subsequent journey of likes, favorites, reblogs, and retweets will legitimize, perhaps even historicize, the publishing of the poem as some kind of formidable event. You will shortly be invited to read at a reading in New York City, reasonably located within a three hour radius of your current residence. Take a train to the reading, live-tweeting sardonic remarks about your fellow riders, and optimally arrive some four hours earlier so that you can indiscreetly have upwards to seven Pabst Blue Ribbons at the host’s apartment, gleeful footage eventually captured into a 6:13 min Vimeo whose main conceit is the pre- and post-reading fun times that everyone had, shot, edited, and posted by the host, who wanted you there because you are beautiful.

[dead_battery]

the unknown known

10/10

-

the definitive masterpiece of post modernity. american experimental arthouse film.

a lying war criminal plays donald rumsfeld, former bush admin defense sectary, who in this documentary interview questions the possibility that truth is knowable while interspersed footage of his press conferences disprove the truth of the very things he previously says.

the film cost the lives of over half a million iraqis to make and is definitive proof of the unknowability of all knowledge and the nihilistic chaos of existence, the failure of morality and the essence of human thought being opportunistic, biased, and unafraid of hypocrisy.

heavily influenced by zen philosophy, illustrating such truisms as "the more delusions are recognized, the more deluded a man is".

[dead_battery]

No matter how we feel, we abide in the nature of mind;
No matter how we live, we stay in the nature of mind;
No matter how we move, we move in the nature of mind.
In luminous spaciousness, coming and going are impossible –
No movement in the victors’ dimension!
Whatever we say reverberates as mind's nature;
Whatever is expressed is articulated as mind's nature:
In luminous mind no verbal expression manifests,
For the speech of the victors is ineffable.
Whatever ideas emerge are thought as the nature of mind;
Whatever concepts emerge are conceived as the nature of mind:
In luminous mind ideas and concepts never truly exist
For the mind of the victors is a thoughtless mind.

[dead_battery]

Automatic Nothingness

[dead_battery]

im done reviewing stuff. like putting good adjectives in front of it.

so just take this thread as my directions of what you should do. follow the commands without judging them or questioning them. it will work if you are prepared to let it.

krokers exits to the post human future is worth buying. drones, tech and possibly the only serious analysis of the obama era war state that ive seen.

baudrillard books i now own:

system of objects
ecstacy of communication
screened out
paroxysm
radical alterity
the perfect crime
impossible exchange
passwords
exiles from dialogue
spirit of terrorism
telemorphosis
cool memories 4
agony of power
carnival or cannibal

i will have them all and they will sit on a shelf. because noone is smarter than an object.

 

[dead_battery]

 

this badass abandoned the subject back in the 60's. yall aint even catched up yet except for scott bakker.

OOO think they have but they jus wanna enter totally into simulation. fools.

[!@#$%!]

^ he's very good at dissecting the vortex of signs, but my problem with him is that he seems to believe that all that's out there is just signs

it's berkeley's idealism all over again

sorry, no. reality cackles at language, at culture, at human understanding, etc.

this is an 18th century fable that i don't care to translate but here's the copypaste of it

Por entre unas matas,
seguido de perros,
no diré corría,
volaba un conejo.

De su madriguera
salió un compañero
y le dijo: «Tente
amigo, ¿qué es esto?».

«¿Qué ha de ser?», responde;
«sin aliento llego...;
dos pícaros galgos
me vienen siguiendo».

«Sí», replica el otro,
«por allí los veo,
pero no son galgos».
«¿Pues qué son?» «Podencos».

«¿Qué? ¿podencos dices?
Sí, como mi abuelo.
Galgos y muy galgos;
bien vistos los tengo».

«Son podencos, vaya,
que no entiendes de eso».
«Son galgos, te digo».
«Digo que podencos».

En esta disputa
llegando los perros,
pillan descuidados
a mis dos conejos.

Los que por cuestiones
de poco momento
dejan lo que importa,
llévense este ejemplo.

[dead_battery]

he thinks the world is an illusion.

he isn't saying that it's "just signs". he's saying that we don't have access to the "real" beneath the signs either.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

he thinks the world is an illusion.

he isn't saying that it's "just signs". he's saying that we don't have access to the "real" beneath the signs either.

right-- but the real has access to us-- all the time.

he really lost me when in the post-mortem condition when he tries to talk about science.

[dead_battery]

i dont think idealism is quite right. there was a time in structuralism/post structuralism when some of those guys literally thought everything was made out of language. baudrillard was beyond that.

[!@#$%!]

in that fable, two rabbits are arguing about what kind of dogs are chasing one of them.

while they're at it, the dogs eat them.

[dead_battery]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

right-- but the real has access to us-- all the time.

he really lost me when in the post-mortem condition when he tries to talk about science.

post mortem condition lol

yeah some of the things he says are just - you know - not true or whatever. made up stuff.

i recommend reading agony of power.

[dead_battery]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

in that fable, two rabbits are arguing about what kind of dogs are chasing one of them.

while they're at it, the dogs eat them.

you still gonna get got even if you cling to your (illusiory) grasp of the real.

[dead_battery]

noone reads him anymore.

they all HATE him. all those crit theory uni upper class marxist douches.

they bitch about his nihilism, or they ignore him. they really really dont like him.

which is a good endorsement as far as im concerned.

they think the sneering that comes out of their little clique constitutes some sort of radical political engagement so fuck 'em.

its interesting how he has been (mis)interpreted. accused of saying the gulf war didn't actually happen (nope), accused of being some sort of solipsist that claimed we cant know whats real because of tv. the fact he was accused of this says a lot about the secret desires of the accusers.

he's actually more rational and level headed than those people are.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

post mortem condition lol

yeah some of the things he says are just - you know - not true or whatever. made up stuff.

i recommend reading agony of power.

well, yes, he could be entertaining. he was a great bullshitter!

[dead_battery]

i came across an old leninist blog from the UK - from like 2004 or something. and it has this little aside dissing baudrillard for going 'too far' and then it says we're gonna get together and bring george bush to trail for war crimes. like it literally said it would do this.

vindicated.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by dead_battery

noone reads him anymore.

they all HATE him. all those crit theory uni upper class marxist douches.

they bitch about his nihilism, or they ignore him. they really really dont like him.

which is a good endorsement as far as im concerned.

they think the sneering that comes out of their little clique constitutes some sort of radical political engagement so fuck 'em.

its interesting how he has been (mis)interpreted. accused of saying the gulf war didn't actually happen (nope), accused of being some sort of solipsist that claimed we cant know whats real because of tv. the fact he was accused of this says a lot about the secret desires of the accusers.

he's actually more rational and level headed than those people are.

oh, the gauche caviars! well… sure. anyone compares positively to those charlatans.

[dead_battery]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

well, yes, he could be entertaining. he was a great bullshitter!

he did a lot less bullshitting than people want to credit him for.

makes some pretty direct statements about the future of humanity in the agony of power.

a serious thinker who people wanted to bring down to the level of exactly the kind of nonsensical media bs that only he seemed to TRULY see through.

he's saying the opposite of what people think he is. they are really the ones being fooled.