more silly teenage angst, intersecting with more rejection of religion and quite a bit of misanthropy. i may make an interesting observation or two, but the reality here is that i sound just as brainwashed as the masses of people i was looking down on...and if i'm going to criticize myself, or feel embarrassed, it's on that level of a lack of originality, rather than the actual content.
this is actually a sort of a neat track, though, musically, i think.
recorded in november, 1996. remastered on oct 21, 2013.
Monday, October 21, 2013
this new melt banana record is going to be insane to see live
the new melt banana disc is phenomenal. the alvin-joins-ministry thing (i suppose there's already an al in ministry, maybe it's a metamorphosis) is still in place, but there's a massive influence from vision/creation/newsun era boredoms, and it's taken it to a completely different level. this is one of the best INDUSTRIAL records i've heard in a long time.
more to the point, this is going to be awesome to see live. i don't think i'm going to get my stupid card in time. if you're near where they're going, though, i think you want to not miss out on this tour....
more to the point, this is going to be awesome to see live. i don't think i'm going to get my stupid card in time. if you're near where they're going, though, i think you want to not miss out on this tour....
at
21:59
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
getting yelled at by incoherent crazy people that seem to know me (and yet i don't recognize them) is sort of a different experience.
it's led me to an interesting question, though. is there any evidence to suggest that wage slaves in our society suffer from a sort of stockholm syndrome?
....and if it's not stockholm syndrome, what other psychiatric condition might cause that kind of absurd behaviour?
it maybe raises an educational point, though: yelling at people on the street generally just makes them wonder what's wrong with you.
so, if anybody here knows who was yelling at me (or what they were talking about) , i'd just request that a discussion be had with that person about treatment options, whether they've been taking their meds recently, etc.
i'm probably not the person in the highest risk category; i didn't even recognize this person.
==
"As our work becomes more unpleasant and unnatural to us, ever greater forms of control are needed to ensure that we do it. As machines take over our labour, forces need to be employed to see that idleness does not give way to mischief. Discipline is employed with sadistic readiness, in ever more complex and powerful ways. The obvious power in the batons of the police is matched by the subtle power contained in the stamp of the benefits adviser. The state which we believe to protect us is actually our captor and master. The worker has developed Stockholm syndrome."
http://libcom.org/blog/man-machine-09102013
it's led me to an interesting question, though. is there any evidence to suggest that wage slaves in our society suffer from a sort of stockholm syndrome?
....and if it's not stockholm syndrome, what other psychiatric condition might cause that kind of absurd behaviour?
it maybe raises an educational point, though: yelling at people on the street generally just makes them wonder what's wrong with you.
so, if anybody here knows who was yelling at me (or what they were talking about) , i'd just request that a discussion be had with that person about treatment options, whether they've been taking their meds recently, etc.
i'm probably not the person in the highest risk category; i didn't even recognize this person.
==
"As our work becomes more unpleasant and unnatural to us, ever greater forms of control are needed to ensure that we do it. As machines take over our labour, forces need to be employed to see that idleness does not give way to mischief. Discipline is employed with sadistic readiness, in ever more complex and powerful ways. The obvious power in the batons of the police is matched by the subtle power contained in the stamp of the benefits adviser. The state which we believe to protect us is actually our captor and master. The worker has developed Stockholm syndrome."
http://libcom.org/blog/man-machine-09102013
at
17:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i think they wrote this for me, i was giving them shit about focusing on expense scandals instead of lobbyist influence.
well, umm, keep up the good works, guys.
*timid smile*
more seriously, it's nice to see a story like this that gets to some real issues published, for a change. but, if the coverage switches back to MP ACCUSED OF BUYING $5 ORANGE JUICE again next week then it's just a pointless blip.
so, if you're serious about covering this topic more than great. *applauds*. but if this is some kind of token story to shut me up....
http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/10/19/how_corporate_ontario_gets_its_way_at_queens_park_cohn.html
well, umm, keep up the good works, guys.
*timid smile*
more seriously, it's nice to see a story like this that gets to some real issues published, for a change. but, if the coverage switches back to MP ACCUSED OF BUYING $5 ORANGE JUICE again next week then it's just a pointless blip.
so, if you're serious about covering this topic more than great. *applauds*. but if this is some kind of token story to shut me up....
http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2013/10/19/how_corporate_ontario_gets_its_way_at_queens_park_cohn.html
at
03:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
hedges is changing his tune a little. revolutions are not lectures, though; he doesn't make a very good orator, relative to the masses that this warped society has produced. rather than cursory dissections of aristotle, what you need to get people to 'grab their pitchforks' are interesting internet-era cartoons full of base sarcasm and what passes as "wit" nowadays. that would get through to people. yes, people in their 30s. even their 40s. i don't know the names of these cartoons...
but, at least he's explaining what's happening to the wealthy, privileged, educated classes?
maybe?
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19527-lets-get-this-class-war-started
but, at least he's explaining what's happening to the wealthy, privileged, educated classes?
maybe?
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19527-lets-get-this-class-war-started
at
02:14
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
in order for this to work, it can't be universal, it has to only go to those who aren't working. otherwise, the rent will just go through the roof.
i wonder if enno schmidt owns any property. 'cause, at the end of the day, that's what this is: a giant hand-out to the rentier class...
...which is precisely the parasitic class....
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10859
"Because I'm against this old position to say the rich people has to give to the poor and we have to make [incompr.] power and violence and all this old class fighting. This class fighting leads us to this situation today where the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. It's not the right way. The result is very horrible."
BAHAHAHAHAHA....
you hear that guys? let's just call this whole class thing off, it's causing all kinds of conflict.
i wonder if enno schmidt owns any property. 'cause, at the end of the day, that's what this is: a giant hand-out to the rentier class...
...which is precisely the parasitic class....
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10859
"Because I'm against this old position to say the rich people has to give to the poor and we have to make [incompr.] power and violence and all this old class fighting. This class fighting leads us to this situation today where the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. It's not the right way. The result is very horrible."
BAHAHAHAHAHA....
you hear that guys? let's just call this whole class thing off, it's causing all kinds of conflict.
at
01:44
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
what i find intriguing about this article is it's apparent rejection of communism in favour of perpetual socialism. which is to say that these are the types of arguments that necessitate smashing the state yesterday.
...and what to suggest to the guy that argues against superproduction, other than to go to the library?
http://jacobinmag.com/2013/10/delusions-of-the-tech-bro-intelligentsia/
...and what to suggest to the guy that argues against superproduction, other than to go to the library?
http://jacobinmag.com/2013/10/delusions-of-the-tech-bro-intelligentsia/
at
00:56
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the article overall is correct, but this is a misunderstanding of existing british law:
" That Elsipogtog still owns, in fact, what SNW Resources now covets. And that the injunction order by a provincial judge is a convenient legal fiction, backed only by the power of brute police force."
i point this out only to correct bad assumptions in various resistance movements. i do all this all the time. it's not to uphold the crown claims as morally correct, but simply to explain them so that they can be better fought against. if natives or other friends of the earth create court cases based on a bad understanding of the law, they will lose those cases. i've seen this more than once, and it's unfortunate. maybe we could have a discussion about modernism, about interpreting things differently than the court, etc...fine...but the judges have to rely on existing statute and case law, as well as imperial decree - which is still legally binding.
the way that the natives own their land and resources - legally, under british law, not ideally under native claims or morally, whatever that means - is in a title relationship. yes, aboriginal title. and, yes, aboriginal title stems from ancient usage. what that means is that aboriginals can only claim land they used before the english arrived. it's a restriction, not a trump. it doesn't mean it supersedes crown ownership due to some kind "here first" rule. legally, under british law, the crown still owns the land, it's just been granted for use under aboriginal title. that's logically a little difficult, but the logic of imperialism is power. the article gets *that* point right.
so, legally, the crown can do the same things to land held under aboriginal title that it can do to land held under other title, like fee simple. it can seize the land. it's supposed to consult about seizure, but that's not meant to provide for sovereignty either, it's just meant to give the crown a fiduciary duty to ensure it takes responsibility for things like resettlement, and that it takes the path of least disruption. so, it means running roads in places that are least problematic. in practice, the duty to consult is, in truth, a sort of cruel joke.
so, the claim is wrong - relative to british law. there's nothing allodial or radical about the state's acknowledgement of aboriginal title. activists at whatever level *have* to understand that if they're to launch legal challenges.
but it ultimately merely points out the necessity of extra-legal resistance. there's no legal path to victory, here, other than producing modern treaties, which the state has no prerogative to actually do.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/21/new-brunswick-fracking-protests
legally speaking, the way to reverse crown ownership of native lands is to reverse the 1763 declaration, which has built up a ridiculous mythology around it. i don't even know if canada *can* reverse that...
i guess the queen could produce a new proclamation. but i somehow doubt the government here in canada would acknowledge the validity of such a thing. it would be more likely to lead to an exit of the commonwealth than legitimately give the land back.
" That Elsipogtog still owns, in fact, what SNW Resources now covets. And that the injunction order by a provincial judge is a convenient legal fiction, backed only by the power of brute police force."
i point this out only to correct bad assumptions in various resistance movements. i do all this all the time. it's not to uphold the crown claims as morally correct, but simply to explain them so that they can be better fought against. if natives or other friends of the earth create court cases based on a bad understanding of the law, they will lose those cases. i've seen this more than once, and it's unfortunate. maybe we could have a discussion about modernism, about interpreting things differently than the court, etc...fine...but the judges have to rely on existing statute and case law, as well as imperial decree - which is still legally binding.
the way that the natives own their land and resources - legally, under british law, not ideally under native claims or morally, whatever that means - is in a title relationship. yes, aboriginal title. and, yes, aboriginal title stems from ancient usage. what that means is that aboriginals can only claim land they used before the english arrived. it's a restriction, not a trump. it doesn't mean it supersedes crown ownership due to some kind "here first" rule. legally, under british law, the crown still owns the land, it's just been granted for use under aboriginal title. that's logically a little difficult, but the logic of imperialism is power. the article gets *that* point right.
so, legally, the crown can do the same things to land held under aboriginal title that it can do to land held under other title, like fee simple. it can seize the land. it's supposed to consult about seizure, but that's not meant to provide for sovereignty either, it's just meant to give the crown a fiduciary duty to ensure it takes responsibility for things like resettlement, and that it takes the path of least disruption. so, it means running roads in places that are least problematic. in practice, the duty to consult is, in truth, a sort of cruel joke.
so, the claim is wrong - relative to british law. there's nothing allodial or radical about the state's acknowledgement of aboriginal title. activists at whatever level *have* to understand that if they're to launch legal challenges.
but it ultimately merely points out the necessity of extra-legal resistance. there's no legal path to victory, here, other than producing modern treaties, which the state has no prerogative to actually do.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/21/new-brunswick-fracking-protests
legally speaking, the way to reverse crown ownership of native lands is to reverse the 1763 declaration, which has built up a ridiculous mythology around it. i don't even know if canada *can* reverse that...
i guess the queen could produce a new proclamation. but i somehow doubt the government here in canada would acknowledge the validity of such a thing. it would be more likely to lead to an exit of the commonwealth than legitimately give the land back.
at
00:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)