Friday, October 10, 2008
Banksy
I know Banksy became supposedly old hat a couple of years ago, after being the media darling for a considerable time, but I still think he's well worth looking at. His new exhibition in New York looks fascinating, a set of meditations on our relations with animals see http://thevillagepetstoreandcharcoalgrill.com/menu.html
Iceland - Communist thugs!
Well here's news - Iceland has nationalised all its banks - Iceland is now effectively a Communist dictatorship the government controlling the entire economy and thus essentially the means of production, distribution and exchange, who'd have guessed!
How marvellous that the contradictions of capitalism across the West are being supposedly solved by socialist intervention.
How marvellous that the contradictions of capitalism across the West are being supposedly solved by socialist intervention.
Baudrillardiana
So thinking further about terrorism, see previous here, I went back, as you do, to old Jean B and his work The Spirit of Terrorism which discusses terrorism specifically in the light of the events of September 11.
He has two things worthy of note:
1.is this sentence
Baudrillard is always the one for the pithy sentence, but surely here he has it the wrong way round, does not the terrorism of the spectacle force the spectacle of terrorism upon us. The spectacle, that distorting intermediary which hinders all forms of communication and destabilises every form of relationship, is surely more pervasive and constant a terrorism than that of singular acts of spectacular destabilisation. The spectacle also surely forces the spectacle of terrorism upon us in 2 ways. 1, by creating a vacuum of hyperreality within which death cults thrive, and 2, by media - would 9/11 exist if it had not been constantly spectacularly replayed.
2. this sentence (fragment) also leads back to discussion of the state or in fact the discussion of the reification of the state.
He has two things worthy of note:
1.is this sentence
The spectacle of terrorism forces the terrorism of spectacle upon us.for full text see here
Baudrillard is always the one for the pithy sentence, but surely here he has it the wrong way round, does not the terrorism of the spectacle force the spectacle of terrorism upon us. The spectacle, that distorting intermediary which hinders all forms of communication and destabilises every form of relationship, is surely more pervasive and constant a terrorism than that of singular acts of spectacular destabilisation. The spectacle also surely forces the spectacle of terrorism upon us in 2 ways. 1, by creating a vacuum of hyperreality within which death cults thrive, and 2, by media - would 9/11 exist if it had not been constantly spectacularly replayed.
2. this sentence (fragment) also leads back to discussion of the state or in fact the discussion of the reification of the state.
… but terrorism is tautalogical, and its conclusion is a paradoxical syllogism: if the State really existed, it would give a political meaning to terrorism. Since terrorism manifestly has none (though it has other meanings), this is proof that the state does not exist, and that its power is derisory.
Dissing my home town
See this piece in the Times Online
it has this:
"Just get on to Friendsreunited and see what happened to all your wayward classmates. The skinhead Sid Vicious fan? Now in computing in Finchley."
- ha! thankfully no longer living in Finchley, it doesn't apply - god but it could so easily - still Finchley's OK, isn't it?
it has this:
"Just get on to Friendsreunited and see what happened to all your wayward classmates. The skinhead Sid Vicious fan? Now in computing in Finchley."
- ha! thankfully no longer living in Finchley, it doesn't apply - god but it could so easily - still Finchley's OK, isn't it?
Nobel
And the winner of the Nobel prize for Literature 2008 is: Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio!
- qui?
I mean its embarrassing when someone gets the Nobel and you haven't read anything by them (hasn't actually happened to me until now), but how is it when you have never even heard of them. I mean has anyone heard of him? I'm sure he's great an all, but who is he?
And anyway, if they wanted to award a grand old man they should obviously have gone for William Trevor, he bloody well deserves it as do numerous US writers I can think of, or if they wanted to reward a Frenchman merely because it was the turn of the French, then naturally it should have gone to Michel Houellebecq who is the only French writer currently of any account and the only one who is at least read outside of their native tongue.
- qui?
I mean its embarrassing when someone gets the Nobel and you haven't read anything by them (hasn't actually happened to me until now), but how is it when you have never even heard of them. I mean has anyone heard of him? I'm sure he's great an all, but who is he?
And anyway, if they wanted to award a grand old man they should obviously have gone for William Trevor, he bloody well deserves it as do numerous US writers I can think of, or if they wanted to reward a Frenchman merely because it was the turn of the French, then naturally it should have gone to Michel Houellebecq who is the only French writer currently of any account and the only one who is at least read outside of their native tongue.
Update: see this article which responds to my question and obviously others http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7677013.stm
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Orgone motor
I am thinking of building an Orgone motor, it looks fairly straightforward. I think I will just need some balsa wood and glue. See here for details 
Update
I have now seen plans to build an Orgone Accumulator (see below) from http://www.orgone.org/articles/ax2001-grnfld-aa.htm, which actually looks much simpler to build. And having an accumulation of Orgone energy, will be better than having an Orgone motor, because I have no real use for a motor, but excess Orgone energy, why that I could maybe bottle and sell. The only problem is the use of shellac (not vegetarian) advised as step 8, what the fuck am I going to use instead. I mean I don't want to go to all this trouble and find I'm not getting any Orgone because of lack of shellac. But I am thinking actually this is my chance to begin a conversation with Kate Bush, because she apparently believed in W. Reich for a bit (see Cloudbusting) and she is a vegetarian, so she might know, anyway it's worth a shot.
But, anyway I have time this coming weekend so I think I will build it and just leave out the whole shellac stage for now. So, let me know if you want some Orgone as I could with luck have some for sale Monday.
Update
I have now seen plans to build an Orgone Accumulator (see below) from http://www.orgone.org/articles/ax2001-grnfld-aa.htm, which actually looks much simpler to build. And having an accumulation of Orgone energy, will be better than having an Orgone motor, because I have no real use for a motor, but excess Orgone energy, why that I could maybe bottle and sell. The only problem is the use of shellac (not vegetarian) advised as step 8, what the fuck am I going to use instead. I mean I don't want to go to all this trouble and find I'm not getting any Orgone because of lack of shellac. But I am thinking actually this is my chance to begin a conversation with Kate Bush, because she apparently believed in W. Reich for a bit (see Cloudbusting) and she is a vegetarian, so she might know, anyway it's worth a shot.
But, anyway I have time this coming weekend so I think I will build it and just leave out the whole shellac stage for now. So, let me know if you want some Orgone as I could with luck have some for sale Monday.
Update 2
You would not believe that Kate Bush got back to me almost straight away and suggested I use a plant based violin varnish instead of the shellac. I am so impressed, she knows her instruments obviously, but also the technical aspects of an Orgone accumulator (she gave some good advice on the actual later usage). Apparently I will have to beware of spending too much time in the box, as too much exposure to Orgone can be dangerous. 
This is all going so well, I'm getting really quite excited, but at the back of mind is always the fear that it will end up like the recent planned trip to Rigel which went so badly I don't even want to think about it anymore.
Brooks and Ted Shawn
I was reading Louise Brook's autobiography for any mention of Denishawn, and although she toured with them 1922-23 and went to two of their summer schools, there is really no mention at all. Which is a shame. Still here's a photo.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
What a state you're in
But you may say what is this state you speak of that in the past we were offered liberation from.
Margaret Thatcher said “there is no such thing as the state” the state for her was not a monolithic entity, but a composite of individuals, collected together by force of geography, politics and time. A reasonable argument, and entwined with her insistence that the state did not have nor own any property or wealth, rather there was a joint holding and administration of individual taxpayers wealth. But yet we also know the state does exist and does holds power, is self replicating and acts with representative rather than mandated power. We know this because we can see the outward manifestation of it within politicians and the armed forces which maintain them. So the state is both a collective of ourselves and also has a distinct face that is not ours. We should also say here what the state is not, for we must not fall into the trap of believing that a conspiracy state exists that automatically vests power and interest, as this almost religious view of dark or benign hidden forces at work, is clearly farcical (and those who believe it are generally of the belief also in the Jewish world order lie).
I would say that Thatcher was essentially right today. We are we all now in the position to claim, like Louis XIV who is reputed to have said, ‘Le etat c’est moi’. We cannot escape that conclusion any more, the co-option of the entire population into the idea of a state is complete. We must also realise that the population did not go unknowingly into this compact, but actively sought it out through many years of negotiation, via the destruction of oligarchic power, political enfranchisement and property law. So secure is the apparatus of the state that now you may even with the state’s blessing opt out of the system, but you can rest assured that somewhere down the track a representative of the state will come find you, not to imprison you for your views, but to offer you the golden handcuff of social welfare.
The state rarely if ever acts now against majority will (you may say here what about the second Iraq war, but you would be wrong, there was majority support for such, you just didn’t pay attention enough). But you may think majority opinion is not valid, democracy fails by preferencing the opinion of one group over another, therefore the state does not represent you or your opinion, and thus you are outside of the state, which is valid to a point. But your opposition to the state (or any part of its current orthodoxy) is actually a fundamental part of the functioning of it, the state contains within it all opinion, it allows you to pull it in whatever direction you want, and can thus adapt and grow to incorporate any view. The state is not an agency, with a set of goals or an opinion it is an evolving creation and it develops as you mould it. So you remain a part of the state, and even in your most complete disagreement with one aspect of it, you will continue to support the whole by complicit activities such as taxation, by voting, by obeying the laws, by taking any action that legitimises the state. And actually, even if don’t do these things you will still serve the state’s purpose, by allowing it to project another aspect of its co-operative power, either through violence or beneficence.
So if you take the argument that you are the state, how then is the state opposed to your freedom and why should you seek liberation from it? Firstly I would say that the state is not opposed to your freedom - you are, and secondly, you have brought the state into being and given it power merely to draw an intercessionary mask between what you may think you want and what you really want. Funny that. Sorry did you want a real answer?
p.s. the you is a universal you.
p.p.s is clear I is joking, yes.
Margaret Thatcher said “there is no such thing as the state” the state for her was not a monolithic entity, but a composite of individuals, collected together by force of geography, politics and time. A reasonable argument, and entwined with her insistence that the state did not have nor own any property or wealth, rather there was a joint holding and administration of individual taxpayers wealth. But yet we also know the state does exist and does holds power, is self replicating and acts with representative rather than mandated power. We know this because we can see the outward manifestation of it within politicians and the armed forces which maintain them. So the state is both a collective of ourselves and also has a distinct face that is not ours. We should also say here what the state is not, for we must not fall into the trap of believing that a conspiracy state exists that automatically vests power and interest, as this almost religious view of dark or benign hidden forces at work, is clearly farcical (and those who believe it are generally of the belief also in the Jewish world order lie).
I would say that Thatcher was essentially right today. We are we all now in the position to claim, like Louis XIV who is reputed to have said, ‘Le etat c’est moi’. We cannot escape that conclusion any more, the co-option of the entire population into the idea of a state is complete. We must also realise that the population did not go unknowingly into this compact, but actively sought it out through many years of negotiation, via the destruction of oligarchic power, political enfranchisement and property law. So secure is the apparatus of the state that now you may even with the state’s blessing opt out of the system, but you can rest assured that somewhere down the track a representative of the state will come find you, not to imprison you for your views, but to offer you the golden handcuff of social welfare.
The state rarely if ever acts now against majority will (you may say here what about the second Iraq war, but you would be wrong, there was majority support for such, you just didn’t pay attention enough). But you may think majority opinion is not valid, democracy fails by preferencing the opinion of one group over another, therefore the state does not represent you or your opinion, and thus you are outside of the state, which is valid to a point. But your opposition to the state (or any part of its current orthodoxy) is actually a fundamental part of the functioning of it, the state contains within it all opinion, it allows you to pull it in whatever direction you want, and can thus adapt and grow to incorporate any view. The state is not an agency, with a set of goals or an opinion it is an evolving creation and it develops as you mould it. So you remain a part of the state, and even in your most complete disagreement with one aspect of it, you will continue to support the whole by complicit activities such as taxation, by voting, by obeying the laws, by taking any action that legitimises the state. And actually, even if don’t do these things you will still serve the state’s purpose, by allowing it to project another aspect of its co-operative power, either through violence or beneficence.
So if you take the argument that you are the state, how then is the state opposed to your freedom and why should you seek liberation from it? Firstly I would say that the state is not opposed to your freedom - you are, and secondly, you have brought the state into being and given it power merely to draw an intercessionary mask between what you may think you want and what you really want. Funny that. Sorry did you want a real answer?
p.s. the you is a universal you.
p.p.s is clear I is joking, yes.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Recuperation
Look about the Internet, is it strange that all the old style European 'terrorist' liberation forces have websites now by or for them. The CCC funsters have their own at http://www.cellulescommunistescombattantes.be/ there are of course a number for the RAF/Baader-Meinhof, one such at http://www.baader-meinhof.com and for Action Directe http://www.action-directe.net.
I presume this means that they are now historical and we are seeing their abstraction and abnegation from currency.
But this is true I suppose, the terrorist today is the representative of some state (or an irredentist excuse for one), or some sad religious farce, their targets are the public, because obviously both the state and religion are irretrievably and absolutely opposed to the possible happiness and freedom of people.
The communist/anarchist vanguardist adventurers were never motivated by such hate, nor sought indiscriminate violence against the people they wanted, by example, to liberate. That which is used today, the bomb in a public place is relatively easy and uses brute force to punish and threaten a population. The radical Left of the 1970-1980s was never indiscriminate and targeted specific companies, institutions or people, a much harder task - one for which they got caught.
So is it OK now that we can recuperate them ourselves, now that Baudrillard has shown us that the time of ideology has permanently ceased, now we know they are a part of the past.
If the face of that filthy concentration camp commandant Che Guevara can be on numerous products can we use the most beautiful image of all, not as cliche but as iconography.
Can we celebrate them if only for this reason:
from here
Today there is no conceivable concept of liberation, we can imagine creating revolutionary events in everyday life, but they have all become subsumed within art. Art having replaced politics as the arena for ideas, think of the concept of the flash mob, the sudden eventuality of people coalescing for a purpose to detourn a space for a moment in time, 'a happening' as was the old term. We can all prank now like the yippies - but only now that the context is gone.
I presume this means that they are now historical and we are seeing their abstraction and abnegation from currency.
But this is true I suppose, the terrorist today is the representative of some state (or an irredentist excuse for one), or some sad religious farce, their targets are the public, because obviously both the state and religion are irretrievably and absolutely opposed to the possible happiness and freedom of people.
The communist/anarchist vanguardist adventurers were never motivated by such hate, nor sought indiscriminate violence against the people they wanted, by example, to liberate. That which is used today, the bomb in a public place is relatively easy and uses brute force to punish and threaten a population. The radical Left of the 1970-1980s was never indiscriminate and targeted specific companies, institutions or people, a much harder task - one for which they got caught.
So is it OK now that we can recuperate them ourselves, now that Baudrillard has shown us that the time of ideology has permanently ceased, now we know they are a part of the past.
If the face of that filthy concentration camp commandant Che Guevara can be on numerous products can we use the most beautiful image of all, not as cliche but as iconography.
Can we celebrate them if only for this reason:
It doesn't matter if their choice for the armed struggle is
right or wrong - morally or empirically (politically or
strategically) - what matters is the fact that people had the
courage to act in consequence with their ideas and convictions,
in other words people had the courage to be free. Let's not
forget that those who have chosen to go underground in the
resistance are fully aware as an ever present probability that
one day they will be arrested, or possibly killed.
from here
Today there is no conceivable concept of liberation, we can imagine creating revolutionary events in everyday life, but they have all become subsumed within art. Art having replaced politics as the arena for ideas, think of the concept of the flash mob, the sudden eventuality of people coalescing for a purpose to detourn a space for a moment in time, 'a happening' as was the old term. We can all prank now like the yippies - but only now that the context is gone.
The Prophecies of William Blake
from - There is no natural religion
It is worrying when reading Blake just how close he comes to saying that I am god because he is not subtle in his estimation - it is lucky indeed I am not prone to delusions of grandeur.
As to creation he has these words for me:
That the poetic genius is the true man, and that the body or outward form of man is derived from the poetic genius. Likewise that the form of all things are derived from their genius, which by the ancients was called an angel and spirit and demon.
It is worrying when reading Blake just how close he comes to saying that I am god because he is not subtle in his estimation - it is lucky indeed I am not prone to delusions of grandeur.
As to creation he has these words for me:
I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's. I will not reason compare. My business is to create.
Friday, October 3, 2008
kangaroo culling - Australian policy?
Ross Garnaut's long awaited Climate change report has arrived. There was some hope that he would make some recommendations against the keeping and slaughter of animals, and he has somewhat, admitting that raising millions of sheep and cattle for slaughter is not in any way good for the environment or climate change. However, all he has done is say that these animals numbers should be slightly reduced and the meat from them replaced by slaughtering more Kangaroos. No win then for animals, but then when is there.
I am in agreement with something - yes
This Manifesto by Free Culture at http://freeculture.org/manifesto/ is pretty much exactly where I stand as an Internet user/creator and Librarian.
OK "with a truly active, connected, informed citizenry, injustice and oppression will slowly but surely vanish from the earth." is just the sort of hyperbole I would use, and is obviously wrong, because oppression exists on so many levels and knowledge does not in itself combat it, but anyway it is a very nice manifesto.
OK "with a truly active, connected, informed citizenry, injustice and oppression will slowly but surely vanish from the earth." is just the sort of hyperbole I would use, and is obviously wrong, because oppression exists on so many levels and knowledge does not in itself combat it, but anyway it is a very nice manifesto.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Guitar Hero
So I was talking about the computer game Guitar Hero (yep I was, just maybe not with you) and it reminded me of this picture from Destroy by Dennis Morris (cept mine is the 1998 edition not same as Amazon, and mine is a signed copy). The book is of photographs of the Sex Pistols from 1977.
National Vegetarian Week
OK Kids, it is day 3 of National Vegetarian Week.
I have been really good, so far, and haven't eaten any meat at all. I just hope I can last through the entire week.
I have been really good, so far, and haven't eaten any meat at all. I just hope I can last through the entire week.
But also, does rat count?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)