philosophy, quotes

>Situationism, Part 3

Leave a comment

>

Isou believed that the engine of all human evolution was not the survival instinct but the will to create.
Mankind, he said, does not live by bread alone, but also by poetry.
…the situationists attempted to introduce poetry into everyday life understood as something beyond work and economy.
The real revolution would take place beyond need, somewhere closer to desire.

From Guy Debord – Revolution In The Service of Poetry by Vincent Kaufmann (2006)

Click for Part 1 and Part 2.

literature, politics, quotes

>The redneck speaks

Leave a comment

>
Jim Goad writes a great deal about racism and pride in The Redneck Manifesto. Of course, it’s a great deal of fun since Goad is a funny guy, but there’s also a great deal of truth in what he says and I think it’s about time we realised that. A lot of his ramblings work fine as general truths as well.
Since mainstream media of today tend to hide from the most obvious inconvenient truths, we’re forced to find reliable information from other sources. By studying uncensored, clear-thinking individuals who dare to oppose the system we’ve come a long way already.

—

The Redneck Manifesto: How Hillbillies, Hicks, and White Trash Became America’s Scapegoats (1997), p. 208-210

“Societies organize themselves around taboos as if they were religious shrines, and racism is currently no-no numero uno. People, especially my Caucasian kith ‘n’ kin, are flush-faced and shamed about race like they used to be about sex. Racism is the new porno, rated Triple Malcolm XXX. But even though people hate to think about it, they can’t seem to stop. The flashing marquee is just too alluring. When you make something supremely untouchable, you lend it a power it wouldn’t ordinarly have. It almost tempts the more malevolent souls among us to shout out dirty words as if we had Tourette’s syndrome.
…
Sensitivity often rises in inverse proportion to logic. Here’s the point that the lunacy has reached. If a black person or a Jew says that white Europeans were involved in the slave trade (which is true), no one’s upset. But if a black or white person says Jews were involved in the slave trade (which is also true), he’s an oven-building anti-Semite. And if a white European male says African warrior kings were involved in the slave trade (which is also true), he’s a bloated racist warthog. Woo-woo, dat’s sensible. Maybe we’ll have equality when we learn to spread the blame around.
…
This country’s racial.pride policy has always been separate and unequal. Ethnic pride used to be only for whites. Now it’s only for nonwhites. Black pride, like all hues of pride, isn’t inherently good or bad; it’s how it’s used. What’s sociologically curious is that it’s flourishing a climate where ethnic self-esteem is prohibited for whites. Society seems unequipped to deal with UNILATERAL pride. The moment when white supremacy crashed to the ground, black supremacy seemed to rise from the flames. What is this social mechanism that allows for pride in one group only at the expense of pride in another? Ultimately, I think that ethnic pride is dumb. I take credit only for what I’ve done, not what “my people” have done. Ethnic pride reminds me of flabby sport-fan couch potatoes who feel responsible when their team wins. If I were king, I’d get rid of pride altogether.”

philosophy, politics

>Society’s sickness

2 Comments

>Originally posted November 13, 2007.


On April 17th 2007 I wrote the Tool and Die-post about the Virginia Tech Massacre, a school shooting in the USA. I quote myself:
30+ killed this time. And still people ask the same stupid question: Why does this always happen in the United States of America – the land of the free, the biggest and best democracy in the world?

And now the madness has arrived in good old Europe. Actually, school shootings have happened outside the US of A before, for example in Scotland, Canada, Germany… But let’s take a look at a time line of recent world wide school shootings (there’s even a term for this shit, how disgusting…):
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

Since 1996 there’s been over 50 school shootings, most of them in the USA, and since the reasons for these shootings are embedded in the sick society we live in, is it safe to say that USA breeds the sickest society of them all? Maybe so. Over there you have metal detectors at the school door, surveillance cameras, bookbag searches and bar-coded ID badges. Instead of gun control they’re talking about gun rights. Is this what the future holds in its bloody hands for Europe?


Pekka-Eric Auvinen got one thing right, quoted from his Natural Selector’s Manifesto:

Of course there is a final solution too: death of the entire human race. It would solve every problem of humanity. The faster the human race is wiped out from this planet, the better… no one should be left alive. I have no mercy for the scum of earth, the pathetic human race.

So far, so good.
I agree one hundred percent – in theory. But the way he went out together with the people that died is not something I honour at all. Not the least bit. To me the whole thing was just pointless and nothing but a tragedy for those closely related to what happened.

The following text is quoted from Pekka-Erics “Attack Information”-document, which I believe was available on the Internet along with his YouTube-videos long before the actual action began:

—
ATTACK INFORMATION
Event: Jokela High School Massacre.
Targets: Jokelan Lukio (High School Of Jokela), students and faculty, society, humanity, human race.
Date: 11/7/2007.
Attack Type: Mass murder, political terrorism (altough I choosed the school as target, my motives for the attack are political and much much deeper and therefore I don’t want this to be called only as “school shooting”).
Location: Jokela, Tuusula, Finland.
Perpetrator’s name: Pekka-Eric Auvinen (aka NaturalSelector89, Natural Selector, Sturmgeist89 and Sturmgeist). I also use pseydonym Eric von Auffoin internationally.
Weapons: Semi-automatic .22 Sig Sauer Mosquito pistol.
—

Information travels with great speed on the Internet, so I believe quite a lot of folks knew what he was up to. No one seemed to care then. Now there’s a whole different story.
How many thrive on these sickening and sad mass murders – especially during the time it was broadcasted live all over the world – without even reflecting on what’s actually causing these killings and breeding these murderers and their convictions? By browsing the Internet reading various discussions and articles in mass media and alternative forums I’d say there’s a lot of people out there doing just that – thriving on society’s sickness without any reflection whatsoever.
Is this the new ethics? The new moral?


To me it’s quite obvious that Auvinen was a product of a society that once again failed miserably. He was the victim, not the hero.
Weblog Oskorei writes that an intelligent choice for Auvinen would’ve been to engage in politics. I totally agree. I believe in the power of the small man using his mind, spirit and words to make a change. Killing a bunch of people – including yourself – is to surrender to their sickness. “But hey, you think writing a blog and joining a cause on Facebook will make a change?”, I hear you moan. I sure as hell do. I believe in understanding the big picture via alternative media, small scale activism, awareness, resistance and articulating visions. That’s my way of escaping indoctrination. Internet is a great place for this. Use it wisely.

I’d like to end this post by quoting the great mind of Nikanor Teratologen who wrote this as a comment to the Virginia Tech Massacre in Tidningen Kulturen:

Det är förstås möjligt att Cho Seung-Hui hade blivit ”galen”, han var av allt att döma mycket depressiv och kanske led av någon autistisk störning: men är inte också det samhälle han levde i grundläggande sinnesrubbat, ett ormgropskved för utspottandet av gravt störda men smart marknadsanpassade individer? Den sociala struktur, mentalitet och livskultur han desperat men förgäves försökte anpassa sig till är inte frisk och inte människovärdig – civilisationen måste förändras för att händelser likt den på Virginia Tech inte ska äga rum.
…
Det går inte att genom någon sorts överhetskampanjer eller mer omfattande kontroll-, övervaknings-, angivar- och stigmatiseringssystem heltäckande skydda skolor, arbetsplatser, offentliga platser överhuvudtaget mot enskildas planlagda och sedan lössläppta mordiska hämndraseri. Förändringarna måste inledas på individplanet, i människors beteende och attityder mot varandra. Man bör helt enkelt inte kränka och bete sig illa mot andra varelser på jorden. Allt är ett, sammanvävt, förgängligt.
…
Den grandiost sadomasochistiska och Kristusyrande självbilden som tröstande och upplyftande suggererar existensen av en andligt besläktad krets att höra hemma i och betyda något avgörande för har, imaginärt, förintat den invalidiserande känslan av att inte duga, inte räknas, inte vara älskad och inte tillåtas hysa känslor, inte finnas till, – någon kurskamrat har berättat att när studenterna skulle introducera sig själva i klassen genom att skriva sina namn på lappar var Chos reaktion att rita ett stort frågetecken. Fler människor borde kanske försöka förstå det frågetecknets djupare innebörd och ställa sig frågan om inte deras egna liv också är förtvivlat meningslösa frågetecken skrivna i Intet.

movies, philosophy, politics

>Planet Earth and misanthropy

1 Comment

>Originally posted November 01, 2007.


The BBC series Planet Eart is truly amazing. I got it on Blu-ray the other day and wow… 550 minutes of pure brilliance. I’ve seen a lot of these programs before, and the first twenty minutes didn’t quite cut it for me, but then these jaw dropping scenes of fantastic footage, time lapsed stuff and brilliant slow motion sequences began to appear and I was on my knees worshipping.




But since I’m a dystopic kind of guy holding a deep pessisism for the future (which has been nurtured for so many years), I ask you: how can you not be misanthropic after watching this series? How can you not loathe the human race? What better way to save the planet than to end all human life? What better way to end all suffering than to end our profane existence?
We’ve been destroying the earth and ourselves for so long and there is no change up front as far as I see it.






If I could I definitely would.
art, philosophy, politics

>Situationism, Part 2

Leave a comment

>Originally posted September 18, 2007.


Part one of the Situationism series can be found here.
In addition to this you may want to read about Oswald Spengler as well, here (English) and here (Swedish).
—

I take my desires for reality because I believe in the reality of my desires.
(Anonymous graffiti, Paris 1968)

People who talk about revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constraints, such people have a corpse in their mouth.
Raoul Vaneigem, The Revolution Of Everyday Life

The situationist movement was at its peak in the late sixties, but kind of folded after the riots and shit that were trendy at the time. Their ideas live on, though. And mind you, I’m not that much into their art – or anti-art – since most of the times it just sucks. It’s their ideas that I like.

Having concluded that the art and culture of bourgeois society was intellectually fucked, doomed to repetition and soulless, meaningless activities, the situationists referred to art as something that truly could change peoples lives and their way of thinking.
Art to them was not just something to feed the senses for a while, making you feel good and momentarily happy. That way of looking at art is shallow. In the eyes and mind of Guy Debord, art was revolution. Art was war. War against the everyday madness, the everyday slaughter of the soul. Most of all, art was real and goddamn important, and the situationists were determined to see through the lies, myths and bullshit that is being thrown at us every single second of our lives.
“It was about the radiation of art into pure existence, into social life, into urbanism, into action and into thinking which was regarded as the important thing”, as stated in the book Situationister i konsten (1966). Art wasn’t supposed to be a useless medium.


So what do you get when you mix art with politics?
Street art, of course. It’s available for free for everyone to see, and the creator is most of the times totally anonymous. We cannot judge the art and the message by who the creator is, but rather by what the message constitutes and how it is executed. True art. True politics. No names, no games. Well, names in a way, since there’s usually a tag attached somewhere, but close to nobody knows the person behind the tag, and that’s what’s fascinating about graffiti. It’s the deed and action that counts, not who’s done it.
No gods, no masters.

Must erase…all signs of…life by Hop Louie
Banksy at the separation wall in Israel/Palestina

Banksy at the separation wall in Israel/Palestina

Art of Destruction Sweden (AODS)

However, street art to me is not about reclaiming the streets. Well, it is in a way, but since Reclaim The Streets today seem to equal mindless destruction executed by degenerated fuck ups with nothing better to do, I strongly reject that kind of “reclaiming”. And I bet most of the serious situationists of the 60’s would’ve done so too. Such behaviour is nothing but fake and I spit blood on their useless corpses.

The moment of revolt is childhood rediscovered, time put to everyone’s use, the dissolution of the market and the beginning of generalised self-management.
The long revolution is creating small federated microsocieties, true guerilla cells practising and fighting for this self-management. Effective radicality authorises all variations and guarantees every freedom. That’s why the Situationists don’t confront the world with: “Here’s your ideal organisation, on your knees!” They simply show by fighting for themselves and with the clearest awareness of this fight, why people really fight each other and why they must acquire an awareness of the battle.
Raoul Vaneigem, The Revolution Of Everyday Life
Mindless scribbling on walls is not about reclaiming the streets,
it’s about mindless scribbling on walls.

On a sidenote:
Scribbling is for children (and adults!), and we should strongly encourage them here. Marvin Bartel has written an essay entitled “Working with children who scribble on walls” here. You should read it! And when reading, try to relate to graffiti…


Debord et al argued that the great Spectacle, the world’s greatest soap opera, is so influental that not only does it superficially bomb us with commercials, but it possesses such power that it shapes almost all human life (this Spectacle being a small ruling minority dominating the masses, forcing the individual only to consume and participate in society as an alienated, passive idiot).

In this consumer’s society, everything is always “getting better and better”. There’s no end to perfection. Just think about it; how will Gillette’s razor blades look in a year or two? Like a rocket ready to be sent into outer space? It seems like they’re inventing a new revolutionary shaving system every year.


When will this madness end? Not until we say so. And that’s where the passive idiot thing enters the scene. The Spectacle is by no means a dialogue. It is in fact the exact opposite – a monologue, talking to itself, about itself. And as we all know, opposition (for example, in the form of street art) is not looked upon with keen eyes. This artificial “evolution” of Gillette’s shaving systems is a lethal blow to our own evolution. We’re trapped and cannot evolve at all. The situationists labelled this forced existence “a colonization of our everyday lives”.

In a future post I’ll probably write something about the situationist critique against urbanism, which in some ways touches upon what Spengler had to say about cities and such.

philosophy, politics

>Situationism, Part 1

Leave a comment

>Originally posted August 13, 2007.


Looking at political critique today, the usual opinion is that it’s an attack against the state, and debating sacred subjects is looked upon as something suspicious, odd and even dangerous. In my sinister and pure way of looking at things, it definitely should be dangerous! I love it when independent thinking is considered a threat, for to combat blindness and stupidity one has to think for himself.
Independent thinking all comes down to one thing: trying to understand your situation.

Irreverence, blasphemous thoughts, depriving something of its sacred character… That’s disgusting! You should go to work, consume and obey, and that’s it. Shut up. Do not speak your mind. Preferably, do not think at all. Because if you do, you might want to change things. And change is dangerous!

Shallow thinking means you’re subject to lies – or for the sake of it, let’s just call it “illusions”. Sounds less… dangerous.
I’m talking about everyday illusions, like meaningless “any friend of yours is a friend of mine”-clichés, or commercials, where happiness is the latest mobile phone. They soothe your mind. They are there so you won’t have to think for yourself, because if you did chances are you might go berserk with a loaded gun.


There’s an old saying:
“When faced with two options, choose the third”, meaning you should look for new perspectives instead of having to choose between two forced options.

We live in a world so dominated by consumer goods that even our social relations are “commodified”. We relate to others through cars, stereos, mass-produced music, TV shows and vacation packages.


Guy Debord and the situationists had some great ideas, mainly regarding consumer society and the human condition therein.

“The situationists see modern consumer society as a society of the spectacle where our selves are absorbed into the mass entertainments provided by film, TV, music, advertising, and consumer goods. The spectacle breeds isolation, and alienates us from meaningful work, play and communities. We are caught up in false choices between spectacles in a society which offers us spectacular abundance, yet at the same time separates us from each other and from active resistance to the cultural alienation this society represents.”

But then again, commercials and buying stuff can be damn fun! I’m a big fat sucker for records, books, movies and everything Adidas, but still; some awareness might be good if you want to make a change.
Independent thinking is revolutionary thinking.

The great band Counterblast put it this way in their song Independence:
There’s no point in life, but a big point in living.

politics

>Political tests

1 Comment

>Originally posted September 02, 2007.

Ny Moral, along with bloggers Dan Eriksson, Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum, Becqon, Fas and Robsten, was encouraged by Oskorei to take some political tests. Read about Oskorei’s results here, and about some of his views here and here (Swedish only).
Oskorei… A very interesting character, indeed.

I took the tests, but first some disclaimers:

I tend to think too much sometimes, and that’s exactly what happens when I do these tests. They come off very stiff and are simply not made for my kind of mind. Some are very confusing. Some I cannot even answer properly because I don’t have enough knowledge, facts and/or understanding (for example, my knowledge about political economics is pretty slim…), or sometimes I may have chosen the “wrong” answer because I may have misunderstood the question. Also, these tests seem to be made for Americans.
And let’s face it, some questions are just plain stupid.

However, the tests may reveal some mindbending information about the moral and political stance that you may not know you had inside. They may help you understand why you think what you think, and since independent thinking is about trying to understand your situation everybody should give it a serious try.
Don’t take the results too serious though…

For your information:
I consider party politics to be extremely one dimensional, and thus not very creative or useful. The left and right bullshit told by those in power has lost its true meaning (and power) a long time ago. That way of defining political views is by no means applicable to the world and the societies we live in today.

Now let’s get on with the tests.

—

Political compass
This test is introduced with the following words:
The old one-dimensional categories of ‘right’ and ‘left’, established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today’s complex political landscape. For example, who are the ‘conservatives’ in today’s Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It’s not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can’t explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as ‘right-wingers’, yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.

My results:

Economic Left/Right: -7.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77

Moral politics
This test explains why you think what you think by mapping your personal moral system. Moral views are the major factors that influence political opinions. Every political stance can be explained by one’s moral position on the inner value of human beings and their role in society.

My results:

You scored -7 on the Moral Order axis and 1.5 on the Moral Rules axis.

The following items best match your score:
1. System: Socialism
2. Variation: Moral Socialism
3. Ideologies: Activism, Libertarian Socialism
4. US Parties: Green Party
5. Presidents: Jimmy Carter (85.18%)
6. 2004 Election Candidates: Ralph Nader (95.06%), John Kerry (76.51%), George W. Bush (39.69%)

PoliticsForum Quiz 2.0

My results:

Overall, the PoliticsForum quiz considers you a small-government, internationalist, protectionist, non-absolutist, kind of person.
These characteristics would put you in the overall category of social conservative protectionist. Your natural home at PoliticsForum would be the Conservatism area.

You scored 50 out of 100 on a scale of Individual vs Social. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to value the need for group actions and group benefit over individual enterprise and benefit.

You scored 55 out of 100 on a scale of Theist vs Materialist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that religion and spirituality are superstitions that should not inform political debate.

You scored 72 out of 100 on a scale of Big Government vs Small Government. This means that politically you are more likely to believe that government should keep out of legislating social policies, leaving such decisions to individuals.

You scored 61 out of 100 on a scale of Nationalist vs Internationalist. This means that politically you are more likely to favour international bodies over national ones.

You scored 36 out of 100 on a scale of Protectionist vs Free Trader. This means that politically you are less likely to favour free trade over protectionist policies.

You scored 65 out of 100 on a scale of Absolutist vs Non Absolutist. This means that politically you are less likely to believe that there is an absolute truth that may guide your ideological beliefs.

You scored 40 out of 100 on a scale of Controlled Market vs Liberal Market. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to believe that there is need for government regulation of industry.

You scored 50 out of 100 on a scale of Marxist vs Non-Marxist. This means that politically you are neither more nor less likely to follow the philosophies of Marx.

—

Phew! Interesting stuff. I’ll leave you without commenting any further and let you draw your own conclusions about my political stance and moral views, if you’re at all interested…

by Mattias Indy Pettersson