Re: Nein, danke [was Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy]
So far, the only parts of my initial message I'd retract is "that, I think, was based on psychological modeling" and the word "bamboozle." Aside from those mistakes — which admittedly carry real freight — my analysis was precise and my conclusions were cautious. In particular, the conspiratorial theories about how the site is 'really' alt.right trolling is people wrestling with their own sloppy reading and straw men. I went out of my way not to say things like that, which was easy because I don't believe them. What I *do* believe is that looking carefully at projects like this site is a good way to cut through the frontal PR and learn more about where they came from (which is *not* reducible to who wrote them — in part because they aren't just texts). For example, the authors seem to be plucking pictures from sites that sell college essays about police corruption, and at some point there was a section called "Let them hang..." (Bad combo, imo.) This is nothing more than the kind of critical analysis you'd apply to any text you take seriously; but when it's applied to visual and technical objects, text-fetishists throw tantrums, condescend, etc. YOU'RE JUST OBSESSING OVER A FONT!!! No. The font caught my attention and then I looked at the rest of the site. Brian's comments are most helpful — not a very high bar, given Ian's threats to take his radical manifestoes home with him and Nina's 'splainy review of the last decade in Good German fashion. But even so, it's a sorry state of affair when it takes a contentious thread to arrive at conclusions like "violent leftist protest can backfire" and we "should beware the consequences." Those should be starting points, not conclusions. And if loud vices on the US radical left are drifting toward the belief that they can light the match that'll spark a conflagration of unicorn farts, then count me a moderate centrist. That's why I'm skeptical about explicit intentions. It's great that the authors throw all the right gang signs in a sympathetic podcast, but why is that the final word? If they talk about warm-fuzzies but devote half the photos on their site to violent fantasies, that's worth knowing. And if their aesthetic choices contribute to muddying basic distinctions between left and right, does it really matter how 'good' their intentions are? Cheers, Ted # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: Nein, danke [was Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy]
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 4:48 PM tbyfield wrote: > Let's add 2 + 2, shall we? We have a site largely organized around white > subjectivity and visuality that plays footsie with fascist aesthetics. > But that's supposed to be OK because the authors' attraction to "the > passions of war" — what a turn of phrase — is unconscious, > sexualized, or somehow symbolic. Anyone who buys that might want to > brush up on their Klaus Theweleit. > Oh, sorry, I have to be much more explicit here. My point was that the pamphlet we are discussing has a clear ideological orientation, toward a specific kind of anarchy, and one should beware the consequences. I think that in the US, the fascination with Tiqqun, especially "Civil War," plus the whole Invisible Committee trend, has become flat-out dangerous. The main reason is that the American followers of those French and Italian writers are naive about the consequences of insurrection. They think, like Sorel long ago, that if you light the spark, the world will explode into leftist revolution. Whereas it seems obvious to me that today, any kind of urban-scale violence runs a strong risk of legitimating vigilante-type actions by far-right militias, which are numerous, well-armed and pumped up to high levels of fury by the fact that for eight years we had a black president. In the worst case, these far-right militias could receive overt support from Trump, who already encourages them in vague terms. They would also get a lot of overt support from racist elements in the police. Then you would have a situation even worse than the horrific murders that just happened in Pittsburg, because it could be supported by up to forty percent of the population, as well as the executive branch of the government. This is a worst-case scenario, for sure: but don't dismiss it before you read the recent New York Times article, "US Law Enforcement Failed to See the Threat of White Nationalism. Now They Don't Know How To Stop It." The Intercept has a more pointed article on this, "The FBI Has Quietly Investigated White Supremacist Infiltration of Law Enforcement," which they published over a year ago. The idea that violent leftist protest can backfire is not new to me: under much less tense conditions, around 2011 or maybe a bit earlier, I argued the same thing against Joshua Clover, whose line at the time was "the riots are coming," and who likes to have himself photographed in a very cool Walter Benjamin pose from the 1930s. Which brings us to aesthetics. I think the followers of this kind of anarchy are more or less unconsciously attracted to the sexualized passions of war, which is insane given the rising level of armed violence inside the US, plus the rising likelihood of full-on wars internationally. The attraction works through a certain kind of aesthetics which is on full display in the pamphlet. It feeds on a heroic myth that goes back through history to the origins of anarchy; but the most readily available source is the imagery and narrative of the 1930s. The fantasmatic element of this passion allows for right and left elements to be blurred; probably it's something like the blurring of subject-positions that Freud describes in "A Child Is Being Beaten." Anyway, I think that blurring is quite likely the source of the weird neogothic typeface used in the pamphlet. That particular detail is so strange that it has led Ted to think the whole thing has been carefully crafted to draw people into the alt-right, an idea that does make sense in the context of alt-right rhetorical strategies. But I wanted to point out that you don't need to go to the alt-right to explain this stuff. It has been in the left-anarchist street-fighting culture for a long time. That kind of anarchy already inhabits a shared space with the extreme right, and it is time for everybody, especially other anarchists, to understand this. I am not against every kind of anarchy, not by any means. The variety in question goes back to Italy in the Seventies, during the so-called Years of Lead, which inaugurated modern street-fighting in Europe. I know about this from working with Toni Negri and the journal Multitudes in Paris: we were always viciously criticized by rival Italians and die-hard Situationists who thought we were reformist! Which we were, we actually wanted to change laws and social norms on the basis of the new productive possibilities inherent in networked society. If you read "Civil War," published in English by MIT Press, you will discover something quite different: a very Nietzschean philosophical orientation that exalts violent conflict as the only way to break free from the all-pervasive norms of the imperial order. (You'll also see a more sophisticated version of the pamphlet aesthetic in the pages of Tiqqun, by the way.) This nihilist philosophy has informed the current cycle of violent street conflicts that began in the Exarchia neighborhood of Athens way back in 2008. I started to catch a hint of
Yes please - was: Nein, danke [was Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy]
Oh nice, a smelling [con]test. Want to participate. It’s very sweet how much effort you put into analysing this „piece of work“, Probably wanting to be on the right side on this one. It’s very honorable you want to find The fly after not seeing the elephant. (Sorry, couldn’t help myself going for this one. ;)) But why didn’t anyone simply do some actual research before making the effort of scouring their mental Image libraries equipped with knowledge that potentially isn’t compatible with the younger generations’ ((mainstream-meets-counter-culture-meshup)) aesthetics anymore? To be fair, as someone raised in Germany, it’s also my first reaction to go yikes when I see 1930s fonts Combined with such warfare imagery and fuzzy pseudo-theory. On the other hand it’s common knowledge that the re-appropriation of fascist aesthetics is already last Decade’s news. „Fascist“ haircuts have been en vogue again for ages, just as well as similar fonts which Have been used, for example, by mainstream art institutions like Volksbuehne Berlin and Kunsthalle Vienna, Which are not exactly under suspicion for being right wing. And even though such paramilitary kind of anarchism usually doesn’t appeal to me, I have seen how the American antifa dresses up when currently going to protests - shields and all. I mean, no surprise, Trump’s reaction to Charlottesville was an open call to regard them as fair game. And this also relates to those who didn’t choose to "be political" in the first place, but who involuntarily Got thrown into being state enemy number one just by birth, gender, religion, etc. Imagine all you want to Do is going skating, like any other teenager or twen. And you don’t live in Saudi-Arabia, but a country that P r o m I s e d you could. Wouldn’t you set up your protest with the deepest contempt you can possibly Express, which would be applying all of your skills to do it the most powerful way know: With the dignity of Aesthetic radicality, in other words, w I t h s t y l e ? This style - that is this generation’s Tyler Durden. (So yes: Fight Club.) It’s this generation’s Willow-going- full-on--black-eyes. It’s Sarah Connor’s determination meeting the reality of Rojava - and yet not minding instagramming it. So the results of my research are: While one cannot exactly know what the makers of the „pamphlet“ really think, the people who post In an appreciative way about the website / booklet on social media - advocate events with Kimberly Crenshaw, Dorothy Roberts and Anita Hill - bragg about IWW belts as birthday presents - shout #makeracistsafraidagain - promote phone numbers of legal teams before the „fight gainst white supremacy“ - share booklets on Black resistance and on Dis/Ability Topics written by Muslim Women of Trans Experience - celebrate Murray Bookchin (hilarious pic) - chant „MAGA - Make AmeriKKKa go away“, - call themselves „experimental anti-fascist hip hopers“ and their music „revolutionary new anarchistic hiphop“, - agree with Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance (yes that one that says no to Nazis) - and they announce workshops for civil disobedience in relation to #abolishICE. I didn’t copy the links because I didn’t want to expose the accounts of individuals - the nettime archive is public. So in case they are serious and not just hipsters wanting to look dangerous and accidentally end up depoliticizing a Certain public atmosphere by aesthetization, as it was suspected here, it might not be helpful to them to keep Discussing it here. Best N > Am 11.11.2018 um 23:47 schrieb tbyfield : > > I'd be happy to be wrong about that site, and if I am I'll acknowledge it as > plainly as I answered Angela's question about fascist recruiting. > > If a cartoon neo-nazi posted a message to this list saying "I'm a fascist and > I'm recruiting!" there wouldn't be much need for debate. But someone actually > did post a manifesto C from a site put together by people who find Nazi > aesthetics somehow 'resonant' or 'inspiring,' and a bunch of nettimers want > to have scholastic debates. > > Ian Alan Paul wrote: > >> Unfortunately I don't have the time to fully respond to every claim of this >> larger analysis/investigation except to simply say that I think the >> projection of a white male subject onto a collectively written text (which >> has happened twice now) is a tired critique of militancy that isn't helpful >> in the sense that it actively erases the explicitly feminist movements >> which have adopted and practiced similar kinds of political thought. Of >> course it's fine to be critical of militant politics, and indeed we must be >> having these kinds of debates more often, but to do so on the grounds that >> there is something irrevocably masculine about militancy is to simply echo >> right wing talking points about gender. > > Ian, if you want to argue that I projected white male subjectivity onto a > picture of two white guys
Re: Nein, danke [was Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy]
Charles, Brian :
There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear . . . --
Buffalo Springfield (For What It's Worth,1967)
The inhabit.global website begins with the words, "The End of the World: It's
over. Bow your head and phone scroll through the apocalypse. Watch as Silicon
Valley replaces everything with robots . . . "
This isn't "right" or "left" in any sense understood by nettime ("alt" or
otherwise) -- no matter how detailed Ted's "aesthetic" analysis of the graphics
might suggest. Indeed, as described by Emaline, "20-something Americans" (some
of whom I know quite well), simply don't think in those terms anymore. No
wonder Ted is upset. Recruitment, indeed.
The 60s "counter-culture" (which I'm old enough to have lived through)
generated the same effects -- leading to charges that the CIA was spreading LSD
(using the Grateful Dead , according to FAIR's Marty Lee) to undermine the
"anti-war movement" (which, in fact, was being "managed" by the CIA, through
their 4th International agents-in-place at the SWP and elsewhere.) At the same
time, in fact, the KGB was supplying the LSD for May '68 in Paris. What a long
strange trip that was . . . !!
Today, we are once again in the middle of a "counter-culture" -- also driven by
new technologies, just like the ones c. 1789, 1848, 1917 -- none of which
can be understood by those committed to "social constructivism" (appropriately
described by AB as following Rousseau, the inventor of "civil religion," today
celebrated as "globalism" at the Arc de Triomphe de l'Etoile), given, as they
are, to denouncing "technological determinism." I can just hear the
sociological knees "jerk" now. Where's Leo Marx (now 99) when we need him?
What relevance nettime has in all this is fascinating. How will this group,
born as the child of East-West cyber-dialogue, deal with the "robot problem"
(which it has ignored until now)? Alas, my friends in Russia probably aren't
paying much attention to this list anymore. As an early member of the Zentral
Kommittee -- inducted by Diana at MetaForum III in Budapest in 1996 -- I'm
looking forward to the deliberations of the "politburo" . . .
Mark (Jersey City Heights)
P.S. As it turns out, "fascist alt-right troll" spells out FART. Yes, I do
find that funny. Does that make "antifa" Anti-FART (with all that implies,
including self-combustion)?
-Original Message-
From: Justin Charles
To: bhcontinentaldrift
Cc: nettime
Sent: Sat, Nov 10, 2018 10:07 pm
Subject: Re: Nein, danke [was Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy]
I agree with Brian. These folks aren’t alt-right. I can’t pin down the politics
precisely but Brian gets the Invisible Committee thing right. They’re probably
somewhere around leftcom/anarcho-communist/communization. I’m pretty sure
they’re somehow connected to the Woodbine collective in Ridgewood, Queens. I
picked up a copy of the pamphlet when I was at a workshop there.
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 7:26 PM Brian Holmes
wrote:
This pamphlet reads like an American redux of The Invisible Committee. Its
concepts and general outlook go back to a text like "Civil War" in Tiqqun #2.
Its production values are within reach of anyone who can afford a laptop, an
Amazon bucket and a domain name. Its imagery is of a piece with the rest; and
by looking around on the web you can see that it was originally published as an
orange-tinted book, so maybe the pseudo-print aesthetic has a simple
explanation.
The idea that it's a psychologist's honey-pot crafted to catch the naive is
far-fetched. This is anarchy. The positions codified by Tiqqun and popularized
by the Invisible Committee have become widespread through the experiences of
Exarchia, the ZAD, Standing Rock and many others, with the Palestinian
resistance and the Kurdish war of independence blazing in the background. The
elemental question to be asked is, do I make common cause with these authors? A
corollary line of questioning would be: Is civil war inevitable in the
capitalist democracies? Could it have positive effects?
I say no on all three counts. The serious threat of civil war comes from the
extreme right, they have both the numbers and the guns. Throw gasoline on that
fire and it will explode in your face. Punching a Nazi has become legitimate,
yes, and it's a good thing. The legitimacy, I mean. That makes it possible to
gather large numbers for anti-fascist demos and to seek criminal prosecution
against the extremists, while city governments topple the statues of racists
and carry out investigations of police abuse, etc. The rule of law is
definitely not all it's cracked up to be, but its absence would be worse. The
potential of life degrades exactly
Re: Nein, danke [was Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy]
Some links to Woodbine: https://woodbine.website/ https://twitter.com/woodbinenyc/ https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/woodbine-into-the-future On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 10:06 PM Justin Charles < justinrobertchar...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Brian. These folks aren’t alt-right. I can’t pin down the > politics precisely but Brian gets the Invisible Committee thing right. > They’re probably somewhere around leftcom/anarcho-communist/communization. > I’m pretty sure they’re somehow connected to the Woodbine collective in > Ridgewood, Queens. I picked up a copy of the pamphlet when I was at a > workshop there. > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 7:26 PM Brian Holmes > wrote: > >> This pamphlet reads like an American redux of The Invisible Committee. >> Its concepts and general outlook go back to a text like "Civil War" in >> Tiqqun #2. Its production values are within reach of anyone who can afford >> a laptop, an Amazon bucket and a domain name. Its imagery is of a piece >> with the rest; and by looking around on the web you can see that it was >> originally published as an orange-tinted book, so maybe the pseudo-print >> aesthetic has a simple explanation. >> >> The idea that it's a psychologist's honey-pot crafted to catch the naive >> is far-fetched. This is anarchy. The positions codified by Tiqqun and >> popularized by the Invisible Committee have become widespread through the >> experiences of Exarchia, the ZAD, Standing Rock and many others, with the >> Palestinian resistance and the Kurdish war of independence blazing in the >> background. The elemental question to be asked is, do I make common cause >> with these authors? A corollary line of questioning would be: Is civil war >> inevitable in the capitalist democracies? Could it have positive effects? >> >> I say no on all three counts. The serious threat of civil war comes from >> the extreme right, they have both the numbers and the guns. Throw gasoline >> on that fire and it will explode in your face. Punching a Nazi has become >> legitimate, yes, and it's a good thing. The legitimacy, I mean. That makes >> it possible to gather large numbers for anti-fascist demos and to seek >> criminal prosecution against the extremists, while city governments topple >> the statues of racists and carry out investigations of police abuse, etc. >> The rule of law is definitely not all it's cracked up to be, but its >> absence would be worse. The potential of life degrades exactly to the >> extent that societies are not able to keep violence of all kinds in check. >> In militarized countries like the US it has degraded a lot, and the point >> is to reverse the process, not accelerate it. >> >> The really weird thing here is the typeface, for sure. I think that in >> the age of atrophied thought and controlled imaginations there is an >> unconscious sexualized attraction to the passions of war, symbolized by the >> aesthetics of the 1930s. In this sense I agree with the gist of Ted's >> analysis: the intention is that of normalizing a largely fantasmatic >> violence, without realizing how enabling the practice of that fantasy can >> be for the hard right. >> >> Where I agree with Ian is that we do have to discuss these things. Energy >> companies ARE expanding their operations. Cities ARE being smashed by >> hurricanes. US troops ARE camped at the border with Mexico (and possibly >> militias too). How do you respond to a dystopian reality? What is the best >> strategy? With whom can you carry it out? How can you bring it up to scale? >> These are the questions we should be answering. >> >> best, Brian >> # distributed via : no commercial use without permission >> #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l >> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org >> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > > -- > Justin Charles > 862.216.2467 > -- Justin Charles 862.216.2467 # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: Nein, danke [was Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy]
I agree with Brian. These folks aren’t alt-right. I can’t pin down the politics precisely but Brian gets the Invisible Committee thing right. They’re probably somewhere around leftcom/anarcho-communist/communization. I’m pretty sure they’re somehow connected to the Woodbine collective in Ridgewood, Queens. I picked up a copy of the pamphlet when I was at a workshop there. On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 7:26 PM Brian Holmes wrote: > This pamphlet reads like an American redux of The Invisible Committee. Its > concepts and general outlook go back to a text like "Civil War" in Tiqqun > #2. Its production values are within reach of anyone who can afford a > laptop, an Amazon bucket and a domain name. Its imagery is of a piece with > the rest; and by looking around on the web you can see that it was > originally published as an orange-tinted book, so maybe the pseudo-print > aesthetic has a simple explanation. > > The idea that it's a psychologist's honey-pot crafted to catch the naive > is far-fetched. This is anarchy. The positions codified by Tiqqun and > popularized by the Invisible Committee have become widespread through the > experiences of Exarchia, the ZAD, Standing Rock and many others, with the > Palestinian resistance and the Kurdish war of independence blazing in the > background. The elemental question to be asked is, do I make common cause > with these authors? A corollary line of questioning would be: Is civil war > inevitable in the capitalist democracies? Could it have positive effects? > > I say no on all three counts. The serious threat of civil war comes from > the extreme right, they have both the numbers and the guns. Throw gasoline > on that fire and it will explode in your face. Punching a Nazi has become > legitimate, yes, and it's a good thing. The legitimacy, I mean. That makes > it possible to gather large numbers for anti-fascist demos and to seek > criminal prosecution against the extremists, while city governments topple > the statues of racists and carry out investigations of police abuse, etc. > The rule of law is definitely not all it's cracked up to be, but its > absence would be worse. The potential of life degrades exactly to the > extent that societies are not able to keep violence of all kinds in check. > In militarized countries like the US it has degraded a lot, and the point > is to reverse the process, not accelerate it. > > The really weird thing here is the typeface, for sure. I think that in the > age of atrophied thought and controlled imaginations there is an > unconscious sexualized attraction to the passions of war, symbolized by the > aesthetics of the 1930s. In this sense I agree with the gist of Ted's > analysis: the intention is that of normalizing a largely fantasmatic > violence, without realizing how enabling the practice of that fantasy can > be for the hard right. > > Where I agree with Ian is that we do have to discuss these things. Energy > companies ARE expanding their operations. Cities ARE being smashed by > hurricanes. US troops ARE camped at the border with Mexico (and possibly > militias too). How do you respond to a dystopian reality? What is the best > strategy? With whom can you carry it out? How can you bring it up to scale? > These are the questions we should be answering. > > best, Brian > # distributed via : no commercial use without permission > #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: -- Justin Charles 862.216.2467 # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: Nein, danke [was Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy]
This pamphlet reads like an American redux of The Invisible Committee. Its concepts and general outlook go back to a text like "Civil War" in Tiqqun #2. Its production values are within reach of anyone who can afford a laptop, an Amazon bucket and a domain name. Its imagery is of a piece with the rest; and by looking around on the web you can see that it was originally published as an orange-tinted book, so maybe the pseudo-print aesthetic has a simple explanation. The idea that it's a psychologist's honey-pot crafted to catch the naive is far-fetched. This is anarchy. The positions codified by Tiqqun and popularized by the Invisible Committee have become widespread through the experiences of Exarchia, the ZAD, Standing Rock and many others, with the Palestinian resistance and the Kurdish war of independence blazing in the background. The elemental question to be asked is, do I make common cause with these authors? A corollary line of questioning would be: Is civil war inevitable in the capitalist democracies? Could it have positive effects? I say no on all three counts. The serious threat of civil war comes from the extreme right, they have both the numbers and the guns. Throw gasoline on that fire and it will explode in your face. Punching a Nazi has become legitimate, yes, and it's a good thing. The legitimacy, I mean. That makes it possible to gather large numbers for anti-fascist demos and to seek criminal prosecution against the extremists, while city governments topple the statues of racists and carry out investigations of police abuse, etc. The rule of law is definitely not all it's cracked up to be, but its absence would be worse. The potential of life degrades exactly to the extent that societies are not able to keep violence of all kinds in check. In militarized countries like the US it has degraded a lot, and the point is to reverse the process, not accelerate it. The really weird thing here is the typeface, for sure. I think that in the age of atrophied thought and controlled imaginations there is an unconscious sexualized attraction to the passions of war, symbolized by the aesthetics of the 1930s. In this sense I agree with the gist of Ted's analysis: the intention is that of normalizing a largely fantasmatic violence, without realizing how enabling the practice of that fantasy can be for the hard right. Where I agree with Ian is that we do have to discuss these things. Energy companies ARE expanding their operations. Cities ARE being smashed by hurricanes. US troops ARE camped at the border with Mexico (and possibly militias too). How do you respond to a dystopian reality? What is the best strategy? With whom can you carry it out? How can you bring it up to scale? These are the questions we should be answering. best, Brian # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: Nein, danke [was Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy]
Unfortunately I don't have the time to fully respond to every claim of this
larger analysis/investigation except to simply say that I think the
projection of a white male subject onto a collectively written text (which
has happened twice now) is a tired critique of militancy that isn't helpful
in the sense that it actively erases the explicitly feminist movements
which have adopted and practiced similar kinds of political thought. Of
course it's fine to be critical of militant politics, and indeed we must be
having these kinds of debates more often, but to do so on the grounds that
there is something irrevocably masculine about militancy is to simply echo
right wing talking points about gender.
Relatedly, a larger debate can be had about the role of
transparency/publicity and obscurity/secrecy in political life in relation
to accountability, security, difference, and intimacy (I would side with
Glissant here), but that's also a debate for another time and place.
After having circulated various anarchist / communist / autonomist texts on
nettime, of which I have varying degrees of affinity with as well as
substantive critiques of, it's become rather obvious that nettime is not
interested in these ideas and so I don't think it's worth anyone's time to
post them any longer.
Following the debacle with AB, to be honest I'm not sure nettime is a
productive place for meaningful political discussion at all, simply because
the actual stakes, responsibilities, and investments are all so low as to
be functionally nonexistent, leading the discussions nowhere except
abstraction and generalization, and so I think I'll refrain from starting
or participating in such political debates on nettime going forward as well.
Regardless of all of the above, I hope it's strikingly clear to everyone
how incredibly urgent our political moment is, and as such how critically
important the task of clarifying political strategies is with people who
you can actually organize and take political action with. I sincerely hope
to encounter some of you in these other times and spaces where such
discussion is actually possible.
In solidarity,
~i
On Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 11:07 AM tbyfield This thing didn't pass the initial smell test, and after spending some
> time with it I can say: it stinks.
>
> tl;dr: It's provocateur agitprop made by Americans for Americans, and
> it's crafted to blur distinctions between left and right — more
> specifically, to lure progressive/leftists into a rightist fantasy
> world, with — I think — the intention of normalizing and fostering
> consideration and discussion of violence. In part, it's a visual
> exposition of the "but Nazis were SOCIALISTS" nonsense that's going
> around in rightist circles; but unlike that pseudo-factual claim, this
> site is intended to be obliquely persuasive. There are signs that it's
> tied to murky efforts to identify leftist college students. Whoever
> developed it has put some serious time into studying Nazi aesthetics
> and, more than that, has a subtle sense of how to evoke them without
> being obvious about it. The fact that it comes in three languages,
> English, Spanish, and French is mostly pseudo-'internationalist'
> window-dressing. There are signs of a layered, deliberate editorial
> development process that, I think, was based on psychological modeling.
> This isn't a one-off project made by a band of nutters: it's planned and
> executed with subtlety and sophistication, with *very* high production
> values. We'll see more efforts that look and sound like it.
>
> Here's why I think so:
>
> It was inevitable that we'd start to see manifestoes/etc whose
> philosophy and production values are inversely proportional: as the text
> becomes hsallower, the visuals become deeper. They'll require two kinds
> of 'reading,' textual and (for lack of a better word) visual. As the
> philosophy falls way the value of close readings diminishes, and as the
> visuals become more sophisticated the value of 'close looking'
> increases. So let's take a close look at the website Ian pulled this
> text from: https[colon]//inhabit[dot]global/ — URL mangled because I
> don't want anymore links to it in the nettime archive.
>
> The text casts future history as a 'choose your own adventure' exercise.
> It uses red-pill/blue-pill rhetoric ("there are two paths") to dress up
> a binary choice — which, tellingly, explicitly uses the language of
> A/B testing. Not very interesting, imo, except maybe as some sort of
> obligatory web-analytics gesture.
>
> Much more interesting is the visual style, which is self-consciously
> modeled in several ways on print.
>
> First image: an eagle flying above it all, against threatening clouds
> — but they're too close and detailed to be storm clouds, so maybe it's
> smoke? Hard to tell, in an almost perfect way.
>
> The color palate, which is *very* unusual in terms current trends,
> mimics faded print — and not just any print but the kind you might
>
Re: Nein, danke [was Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy]
Left doesn't abstract. Left lays fiber. On 11/10/18, 08:06, tbyfield wrote: to lure progressive/leftists into a rightist fantasy world # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Nein, danke [was Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy]
This thing didn't pass the initial smell test, and after spending some
time with it I can say: it stinks.
tl;dr: It's provocateur agitprop made by Americans for Americans, and
it's crafted to blur distinctions between left and right — more
specifically, to lure progressive/leftists into a rightist fantasy
world, with — I think — the intention of normalizing and fostering
consideration and discussion of violence. In part, it's a visual
exposition of the "but Nazis were SOCIALISTS" nonsense that's going
around in rightist circles; but unlike that pseudo-factual claim, this
site is intended to be obliquely persuasive. There are signs that it's
tied to murky efforts to identify leftist college students. Whoever
developed it has put some serious time into studying Nazi aesthetics
and, more than that, has a subtle sense of how to evoke them without
being obvious about it. The fact that it comes in three languages,
English, Spanish, and French is mostly pseudo-'internationalist'
window-dressing. There are signs of a layered, deliberate editorial
development process that, I think, was based on psychological modeling.
This isn't a one-off project made by a band of nutters: it's planned and
executed with subtlety and sophistication, with *very* high production
values. We'll see more efforts that look and sound like it.
Here's why I think so:
It was inevitable that we'd start to see manifestoes/etc whose
philosophy and production values are inversely proportional: as the text
becomes hsallower, the visuals become deeper. They'll require two kinds
of 'reading,' textual and (for lack of a better word) visual. As the
philosophy falls way the value of close readings diminishes, and as the
visuals become more sophisticated the value of 'close looking'
increases. So let's take a close look at the website Ian pulled this
text from: https[colon]//inhabit[dot]global/ — URL mangled because I
don't want anymore links to it in the nettime archive.
The text casts future history as a 'choose your own adventure' exercise.
It uses red-pill/blue-pill rhetoric ("there are two paths") to dress up
a binary choice — which, tellingly, explicitly uses the language of
A/B testing. Not very interesting, imo, except maybe as some sort of
obligatory web-analytics gesture.
Much more interesting is the visual style, which is self-consciously
modeled in several ways on print.
First image: an eagle flying above it all, against threatening clouds
— but they're too close and detailed to be storm clouds, so maybe it's
smoke? Hard to tell, in an almost perfect way.
The color palate, which is *very* unusual in terms current trends,
mimics faded print — and not just any print but the kind you might
expect from, say, 1930s Germany. The solid color fields, in particular,
are reminiscent of propaganda from the period — close enough to hint
at it, but not so close as to be too obvious.
The display type ("Lydia-BoldCondensed," if you chase down the CSS) is
the typographic equivalent of alt.right rhetoric: it evokes Walter
Höhnisch's National and Schaftstiefelgrotesk (literally, "Jackboot
Grotesk") without quite going there, as they say.
https://www.colophon-foundry.org/typefaces/lydia/
http://luc.devroye.org/fonts-24194.html
http://de.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dewiki/1241667
The photographs are all black-and-white, which places them in an obvious
historical register — pre-color photography. But, more than that,
they're processed to mimic paper tinted with age: again, almost *but not
quite* like the discoloration you get from early mass-produced paper
from the '30s, a time when the production of cheap new kinds of paper
skyrocketed but the chemistry hadn't been worked out.
Odd detail: there's enough diversity in how the images were processed
— cropping, blurring, and adding color gradients (in the first and
last images) — to suggest that the art director knew what he (pretty
sure of the gender there) has real experience.
And then there's the substance of the photographs... This part gets
geeky, but bear with me because it's very telling. These images have
been deliberately curated to
* balance racial/ethnic and gender
* appeal to indigenous struggles (Latin America, Dakota Access)
* make reference to internationalist militance
* make reference to survivalist training
I'm pretty sure the ~curator was a white guy.
Below is a list of the photos in order. Here's the legend:
* '+' means a pictures with an identifiable person
* '-' means a pictures with with faces obscured by cropping or
photoshop
* '[+]' means the photo is widely available
* '[ ]' means the photo does NOT turn up in reverse images searches.
— that last category is interesting, because it narrows the scope of
where the images come from.
* [#] means there's some interesting detail (below the list) about
its origin
The photos, in
Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy
Dear all, To be honest, I did not get vey far reading this text. I found its enflamed sales-pitch rhetoric counter-productive. And to be honest, it is only one of many, many texts that have been going around for years that call for the same thing: denunciation of the system, creating alternatives, in the vein of "L'Insurrection qui vient". I have, at different periods, participated in the writing of such-like manifestos. Worse, concerning this text, is that it is unsigned. Who is behind it? Does not say. "Contact" allows you to email an anonymous addressee. "For Clark" is written at the bottom, as a teaser. It DOES conclude: "They tell us heroism is dead, when nothing is more disputed by our century." Could be AB, for all we know. Joseph Rabie. > Le 9 nov. 2018 à 19:44, Ian Alan Paul a écrit : > > I think the reference to indigenous families is meant to point to some of the > indigenous-lead pipeline protests in the U.S. and Canada. > > Regarding fight clubs, i'm not sure that equating all militancy with > masculinity is very helpful either, especially considering the rich tradition > of women's participation in antifascist movements, autonomist mobilizations, > etc.. (although of course the way that the book/film "Fight Club" has been > uncritically taken up in popular culture deserves all of this crutique). > > Best, > ~i # distributed via : no commercial use without permission #is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy
I think the reference to indigenous families is meant to point to some of the indigenous-lead pipeline protests in the U.S. and Canada. Regarding fight clubs, i'm not sure that equating all militancy with masculinity is very helpful either, especially considering the rich tradition of women's participation in antifascist movements, autonomist mobilizations, etc.. (although of course the way that the book/film "Fight Club" has been uncritically taken up in popular culture deserves all of this crutique). Best, ~i On Fri, Nov 9, 2018, 1:32 PM Florian Cramer That pamphlet is another piece of male fantasies and cyberlibertarian porn > that might very well come from the Alt-Right. (Note the invocations of > "fight clubs", "indigenous families" etc.) > > -F > > > -- > blog: *https://pod.thing.org/people/13a6057015b90136f896525400cd8561 > <https://pod.thing.org/people/13a6057015b90136f896525400cd8561>* > bio: http://floriancramer.nl > > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 5:10 PM Ian Alan Paul > wrote: > >> I thought some on the list interested in infrastructural / ecological >> politics might find this of interest: >> >> Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy >> (online: https://inhabit.global/ , español: https://es.inhabit.global/ , >> français: https://fr.inhabit.global/ ) >> >> There are two paths: The end of the world or the beginning of the next. >> >> The End of The World: >> >> It’s over. >> >> Bow your head and phone scroll through the apocalypse. >> >> Watch as Silicon Valley replaces everything with robots. New >> fundamentalist deathcults make ISIS look like child’s play. The authorities >> release a geolocation app to real-time snitch on immigrants and political >> dissent while metafascists crowdfund the next concentration camps. >> Government services fail. Politicians turn to more draconian measures and >> the left continues to bark without teeth. Meanwhile glaciers melt, >> wildfires rage, Hurricane Whatever drowns another city. Ancient plagues >> reemerge from thawing permafrost. Endless work as the rich benefit from >> ruin. Finally, knowing we did nothing, we perish, sharing our tomb with all >> life on the planet. >> >> The Beginning of The Next: >> >> Take a breath, and get ready for a new world. >> >> A multiplicity of people, spaces, and infrastructures lay the ground >> where powerful, autonomous territories take shape. Everything for everyone. >> Land is given over to common use. Technology is cracked open–everything a >> tool, anything a weapon. Autonomous supply lines break the economic >> strangle hold. Mesh networks provide real-time communication connecting >> those who sense that a different life must be built. While governments >> fail, the autonomous territories thrive with a new sense that to be free, >> we must be bound to this earth and life on it. Enclaves of techno-feudalism >> are plundered for their resources. We confront the dwindling forces of >> counter-revolution with the option: to hell or utopia?–either answer >> satisfies us. Finally, we reach the edge–we feel the danger of freedom, the >> embrace of living together, the miraculous and the unknown–and know: this >> is life. >> >> Our time is tumultuous and potent. >> >> Upheaval, polarization, politics as bankrupt as the financial markets–yet >> under crisis lies possibility. This epoch forces us to consider how each of >> us forms a kernel of potential, how individuals can follow their wildest >> inclinations to gather with others who feel the call. People learn lost >> skills and warriors return fire to the world. Farmers and gardeners >> experiment with organic agriculture while makers and hackers reconfigure >> machines. Models escape the vacant limelight and break bread with Kurdish >> radicals and military veterans taking a stand for communal life. Those with >> no use for politics find each other at a dinner table in Zuccotti park, >> Oscar Grant Plaza, or Tahrir Square, and the barista who can barely feed >> himself alone learns to cook for a thousand together. A retired welder and >> a web designer learn they are neighbors at an airport occupation and commit >> to read The Art of War together. An Instagram star whose anxiety usually >> confines them to their apartment meets a battle-scarred elder in Ferguson, >> where they are baptized in tear gas and collective strength, and begin to >> feel the weight lifted from their soul. People everywhere, living through >> the greatest isolation, rise together and find new modes of life. But when >> these kern
Re: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy
That pamphlet is another piece of male fantasies and cyberlibertarian porn that might very well come from the Alt-Right. (Note the invocations of "fight clubs", "indigenous families" etc.) -F -- blog: *https://pod.thing.org/people/13a6057015b90136f896525400cd8561 <https://pod.thing.org/people/13a6057015b90136f896525400cd8561>* bio: http://floriancramer.nl On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 5:10 PM Ian Alan Paul wrote: > I thought some on the list interested in infrastructural / ecological > politics might find this of interest: > > Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy > (online: https://inhabit.global/ , español: https://es.inhabit.global/ , > français: https://fr.inhabit.global/ ) > > There are two paths: The end of the world or the beginning of the next. > > The End of The World: > > It’s over. > > Bow your head and phone scroll through the apocalypse. > > Watch as Silicon Valley replaces everything with robots. New > fundamentalist deathcults make ISIS look like child’s play. The authorities > release a geolocation app to real-time snitch on immigrants and political > dissent while metafascists crowdfund the next concentration camps. > Government services fail. Politicians turn to more draconian measures and > the left continues to bark without teeth. Meanwhile glaciers melt, > wildfires rage, Hurricane Whatever drowns another city. Ancient plagues > reemerge from thawing permafrost. Endless work as the rich benefit from > ruin. Finally, knowing we did nothing, we perish, sharing our tomb with all > life on the planet. > > The Beginning of The Next: > > Take a breath, and get ready for a new world. > > A multiplicity of people, spaces, and infrastructures lay the ground where > powerful, autonomous territories take shape. Everything for everyone. Land > is given over to common use. Technology is cracked open–everything a tool, > anything a weapon. Autonomous supply lines break the economic strangle > hold. Mesh networks provide real-time communication connecting those who > sense that a different life must be built. While governments fail, the > autonomous territories thrive with a new sense that to be free, we must be > bound to this earth and life on it. Enclaves of techno-feudalism are > plundered for their resources. We confront the dwindling forces of > counter-revolution with the option: to hell or utopia?–either answer > satisfies us. Finally, we reach the edge–we feel the danger of freedom, the > embrace of living together, the miraculous and the unknown–and know: this > is life. > > Our time is tumultuous and potent. > > Upheaval, polarization, politics as bankrupt as the financial markets–yet > under crisis lies possibility. This epoch forces us to consider how each of > us forms a kernel of potential, how individuals can follow their wildest > inclinations to gather with others who feel the call. People learn lost > skills and warriors return fire to the world. Farmers and gardeners > experiment with organic agriculture while makers and hackers reconfigure > machines. Models escape the vacant limelight and break bread with Kurdish > radicals and military veterans taking a stand for communal life. Those with > no use for politics find each other at a dinner table in Zuccotti park, > Oscar Grant Plaza, or Tahrir Square, and the barista who can barely feed > himself alone learns to cook for a thousand together. A retired welder and > a web designer learn they are neighbors at an airport occupation and commit > to read The Art of War together. An Instagram star whose anxiety usually > confines them to their apartment meets a battle-scarred elder in Ferguson, > where they are baptized in tear gas and collective strength, and begin to > feel the weight lifted from their soul. People everywhere, living through > the greatest isolation, rise together and find new modes of life. But when > these kernels grow to the surface, they are stomped out in a frenzy of > banality and fear. Openings are forcefully shuttered by riot police, > private security forces, and public relation firms. Or worse, by the lonely > ones–politically right or left–who have nothing to gain but another like on > their crappy Twitter. All this while smug politicians and CEOs hover. The > revolutionary character of our epoch cannot be denied, but we’ve yet to > overcome the hurdle between us and freedom. > > We come from somewhere broken, yet we stand. > > Our epoch’s nihilism is topological. Everywhere is without foundation. We > search for the organizational power to repair the world, and find only > institutions full of weakness and cynicism. Well-meaning activists get > digested through the spineless body of conventional politics, leaving > depressed militants or min
Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy
I thought some on the list interested in infrastructural / ecological politics might find this of interest: Inhabit: Instructions for Autonomy (online: https://inhabit.global/ , español: https://es.inhabit.global/ , français: https://fr.inhabit.global/ ) There are two paths: The end of the world or the beginning of the next. The End of The World: It’s over. Bow your head and phone scroll through the apocalypse. Watch as Silicon Valley replaces everything with robots. New fundamentalist deathcults make ISIS look like child’s play. The authorities release a geolocation app to real-time snitch on immigrants and political dissent while metafascists crowdfund the next concentration camps. Government services fail. Politicians turn to more draconian measures and the left continues to bark without teeth. Meanwhile glaciers melt, wildfires rage, Hurricane Whatever drowns another city. Ancient plagues reemerge from thawing permafrost. Endless work as the rich benefit from ruin. Finally, knowing we did nothing, we perish, sharing our tomb with all life on the planet. The Beginning of The Next: Take a breath, and get ready for a new world. A multiplicity of people, spaces, and infrastructures lay the ground where powerful, autonomous territories take shape. Everything for everyone. Land is given over to common use. Technology is cracked open–everything a tool, anything a weapon. Autonomous supply lines break the economic strangle hold. Mesh networks provide real-time communication connecting those who sense that a different life must be built. While governments fail, the autonomous territories thrive with a new sense that to be free, we must be bound to this earth and life on it. Enclaves of techno-feudalism are plundered for their resources. We confront the dwindling forces of counter-revolution with the option: to hell or utopia?–either answer satisfies us. Finally, we reach the edge–we feel the danger of freedom, the embrace of living together, the miraculous and the unknown–and know: this is life. Our time is tumultuous and potent. Upheaval, polarization, politics as bankrupt as the financial markets–yet under crisis lies possibility. This epoch forces us to consider how each of us forms a kernel of potential, how individuals can follow their wildest inclinations to gather with others who feel the call. People learn lost skills and warriors return fire to the world. Farmers and gardeners experiment with organic agriculture while makers and hackers reconfigure machines. Models escape the vacant limelight and break bread with Kurdish radicals and military veterans taking a stand for communal life. Those with no use for politics find each other at a dinner table in Zuccotti park, Oscar Grant Plaza, or Tahrir Square, and the barista who can barely feed himself alone learns to cook for a thousand together. A retired welder and a web designer learn they are neighbors at an airport occupation and commit to read The Art of War together. An Instagram star whose anxiety usually confines them to their apartment meets a battle-scarred elder in Ferguson, where they are baptized in tear gas and collective strength, and begin to feel the weight lifted from their soul. People everywhere, living through the greatest isolation, rise together and find new modes of life. But when these kernels grow to the surface, they are stomped out in a frenzy of banality and fear. Openings are forcefully shuttered by riot police, private security forces, and public relation firms. Or worse, by the lonely ones–politically right or left–who have nothing to gain but another like on their crappy Twitter. All this while smug politicians and CEOs hover. The revolutionary character of our epoch cannot be denied, but we’ve yet to overcome the hurdle between us and freedom. We come from somewhere broken, yet we stand. Our epoch’s nihilism is topological. Everywhere is without foundation. We search for the organizational power to repair the world, and find only institutions full of weakness and cynicism. Well-meaning activists get digested through the spineless body of conventional politics, leaving depressed militants or mini-politicians. Those who speak out against abuse end up bearing witness to sad games of power playing out on social media. Movements erupt and then implode, devoured internally by parasites. Cities become unlivable as waters rise and governments scramble to maintain their legitimacy. Each disaster feels more and more intimate, whether we scroll through it or receive the dreaded text did you hear? Accidents feel like massacres. The names of the dead, an index of a civilization in decline. We’ve lost family and friends to addiction, poverty, and despair. We watched the police exercise their freedom to murder, at a loss for how to quench our rage. We held each other through it all, and remain standing. We sense the present that has been stolen from us, imagine the future we are fated. No one is coming to save us. We have
