#why must we be so obsessed with disliking ourselves | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

arcticdementor · 3 years

Link

“Hey bro! Check out this Nike ad!” This was my entry point into a new world.

…

Since Carlos had lived mostly outside the United States, he was able to follow soccer on a level I’d never encountered in my hometown. Back then, before social media and the advent of scarf-wearing Northwestern fútbol hipsters, big-time European soccer was like the metric system: Known to almost all but ourselves. But Carlos knew, and immediately used LimeWire to curate me a massive archive of 1990s through early 2000s soccer highlights. What was I doing in the world without them?

Oddly enough, in trying to inculcate me in soccer fandom, he started not with game highlights, but with the advertisements. Yes, Carlos was an educator and a voluntary footsoldier for Big Apparel. Going in, I had no clue about high-quality, internationally popular Nike soccer ads. The ads, written by the legendary Wieden+Kennedy firm, were miniature movies, films that were often creatively daring but also quite funny. The most popular of these ads might be “Good vs. Evil,” from 1996, where Nike’s best soccer players team up to play Satan’s literal army. The blending of sacrilege, theology and comedy just worked, like a more ambitious version of Space Jam that somehow took itself less seriously than Space Jam.

…

Yes, I know ads aren’t supposed to be high art. I understand that they are the purest distillation of manipulative greed. And yet, they sometimes are culturally relevant generational touchstones. While Nike was weaving soccer into enduring pop culture abroad, it was having a similar kind of success with basketball and baseball stateside. These ads weren’t just pure ephemera. Michael Jordan’s commercials were so good that, as he nears age 60, his sneaker still outsells any modern athlete’s. “Chicks dig the long ball” is a phrase (a) that can get you sent to the modern HR department and b) whose origins are fondly remembered by most American men over the age of 35.

Modern Nike ads will never be so remembered. It’s not because we’re so inundated with information these days, though we are. And it’s not because today’s overexposed athletes lack the mystique of the 1990s superstars, though they do. It’s because the modern Nike ads are beyond fucking terrible.

…

They’re bad for many causes, but one in particular is an incongruity at the company’s heart. Nike, like so many major institutions, is suffering from what I’ll call Existence Dissonance. It’s happening in a particular way, for a particular reason and the result is that what Nike is happens to be at cross-purposes from what Nike aspires to be.

…

For all the talk of a racial reckoning within major industries, Nike’s main problem is this: It’s a company built on masculinity, most specifically Michael Jordan’s alpha dog brand of it. Now, due to its own ambitions, scandals, and intellectual trends, Nike finds masculinity problematic enough to loudly reject.

This rejection is part of the broader culture war, but it’s accelerating due to an arcane quirk in the apparel giant’s strange restructuring plan, announced in June. Under the leadership of new CEO John Donahoe, Nike is moving away from its classic discrete sports categories (Nike Basketball, Nike Soccer, etc.) in favor of a system where all products are shoveled into one of three divisions: men’s, women’s and kids’. Obviously Nike made clothing tailored to the specificities of all these groups before, but now, Nike is emphasizing gender over sport. Gone is the model of the product appealing to basketball fans because they are basketball fans. It’s now replaced by a model of, say, the product appealing to women because they are women.

And hey, women buy sneakers too. Actually, women buy the lion’s share of clothing in the United States. While women shoppers are market dominant in nearly every aspect of American apparel, the clothing multinational named after a Greek goddess happens to be a major exception. At Nike, according to its own records, men account for roughly twice as much revenue as women do.

You might see that stat and think, “Well, this means that Nike will prioritize men over women in its new, odd, gendered segmentation of the company.” That’s not necessarily how this all works, thanks to a phenomenon I’ll call Undecided Whale. The idea is that a company, as its aims grow more expansive, starts catering less to the locked-in core customer and more to a potential whale which demonstrates some interest. Sure, you can just keep doing what’s made you rich, but how can you even focus on your primary business with that whale out there, swimming so tantalizingly close? The whale, should you bring it in, has the potential to enrich you far more than your core customers ever did. And yeah yeah yeah, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, but those were birds. This is a damned whale! And so you start forgetting about your base.

You can see this dynamic in other places. For the NBA, China is its Undecided Whale. It could be argued that the NBA fixates more on China than on America, even if the vast majority of TV money comes from U.S. viewership. The league figures it has more or less hit its ceiling in its home country, so China becomes an obsession as this massive, theoretical growth engine.

…

Here’s the main issue for Nike in this endeavor: The company, as a raison d’être, promotes athletic excellence. While women are among Nike’s major sports stars, the core of high-level performance, in the overwhelming majority of sports, is male. Every sane person knows that, though nobody in professional class life seems rude enough to say so. Obviously, there’s the observable reality of who tends to set records and there’s also the pervasive understanding that testosterone, the main male sex hormone, happens to give unfair advantages to the athletes who inject it.

Speaking of which, there’s a famous This American Life episode from 2002 where the public radio journos actually test their own testosterone levels. The big joke of the episode is just how comically low their T levels are. Sure, you would stereotype bookish public radio men in this way, and yet the results are on the nose enough to shock.

As a nerdy media-weakling type, I can relate to the stunning realization that you’ve been largely living apart from T. Before working in the NBA setting, I was an intern in the cubicles of Salon.com’s San Francisco office, around the time it was shifting from respectable online magazine into inane outrage content mill. Going from that setting to the NBA locker room was some jarring whiplash, like leaving the faculty lounge for a pirate ship. To quote Charles Barkley on the latter culture, “The locker room is sexist, racist, and homophobic … and it’s fun and I miss it.”

…

The “Good vs. Evil” ad boasts a “Like” to “Dislike” ratio of 20-to-1 on YouTube. On June 17th of 2021, Nike put out an ad ahead of the Euro Cup that referenced “Good vs. Evil” as briefly as it could. In this case, a little child popped his collar and used Cantona’s catchphrase. As of this writing, the new ad has earned a thousand more punches of the Dislike than of the Like button.

When you see it, it’s no surprise that the latest Euro Cup ad is disliked. I mean, you have to look at this shit. I know we’re so numb to the ever-escalating emanations of radical chic from our largest corporations, but sometimes it’s worth pausing just to take stock and gawk.

…

But today we are in the land of new football, where we take dictatorial direction from less-than-athletic minors. After her announcement, we are treated to a montage of different people who offer tolerance bromides.

“There are no borders here!”

“Here, you can be whoever you want. Be with whoever you want.”

(Two men kiss following that line, because subtlety isn’t part of this new world order.)

Then, a woman who appears to be breastfeeding under a soccer shirt, threatens, in French, “And if you disagree …”

And this is when the little boy gives us Cantona’s “au revoir” line before kicking a ball out of a soccer stadium, presumably because that’s what happens to the ignorant soccer hooligan. He gets kicked out for raging against gay men kissing or French ladies breastfeeding or somesuch. Later, a referee wearing a hijab instructs us, “Leave the hate,” before narrator girl explains, “You might as well join us because no one can stop us.”

Is that last line supposed to be … inspiring? That’s what a movie villain says, like if Bane took the form of Stan Marsh’s sister. Speaking of which, was this ad actually written by the creators of South Park as an elaborate prank? It’s certainly more convincing as an aggressive parody of liberals than as a sales pitch. Why, in anything other than a comedic setup, is a woman breastfeeding in a big-budget Euro Cup ad?

It’s tempting to fall into the pro-vanguardism template the boomers have handed down to us and sheepishly say, “I must be getting old, because this seems weird to me,” but let’s get real. You dislike this ad because it sucks. You are having a natural, human response to shitty art. This a hollow sermon from a priest whose sins were in the papers. Nobody is impressed by what Nike’s doing here. Nobody thinks Nike, a multinational famous for its sweatshops, is ushering us into an enlightened utopia. Sure, most media types are afraid to criticize the ad publicly. You might inspire suspicion that what you’re secretly against is men kissing and women breastfeeding, but nobody actually likes the stupid ad. No college kid would show it to a new friend he’s trying to impress, and it’s hard to envision a massive cohort of Gen Z women giving a shit about this ad either.

Now juxtapose that ad not just against the classics of the 1990s but also the 2000s products that preceded the Great Awokening. Compare it to another Nike Euro Cup advertisement, Guy Ritchie’s “Take It to the Next Level.”

…

Here’s the problem, insofar as problems are pretended into existence by our media class: The ad is very, very male. Really, what we are watching here is a boyhood fantasy. Our protagonist gets called up to the big show, and next thing you know he’s cavorting with multiple ladies, and autographing titties to the chagrin of his date. He can be seen buying a luxury sports car and arriving at his childhood home in it as his father beams with pride. Training sessions show him either puking from exhaustion or playing grab-ass with his fellow soccer bros. This is jock life, distilled. Art works when it’s true and it’s true that this is a vivid depiction of a common fantasy realized.

Nike’s highly successful “Write the Future” ad (16,000 Likes, 257 Dislikes) works along similar themes.

…

The recent Olympic ads were especially heavy on cringe radical chic, and might have stood out less in this respect if the athletes themselves mirrored that tone on the big stage. Not so much in these Olympics. It seems as though Nike made the commercials in preparation for an explosion of telegenic activism, only to see American athletes mostly, quietly accept their medals, chomp down on the gold, and praise God or country. Perhaps you could consider Simone Biles bowing out of events due to mental health as a form of activism, but overall, the athletes basically behaved in the manner they would have back in 1996.

But Nike forged onwards anyway. This ad in celebration of the U.S. women’s basketball team made some waves, getting ripped in conservative media as the latest offense by woke capital.

…

“Today I have a presentation on dynasties,” a pink-haired teenage girl tells us. “But I refuse to talk about the ancient history and drama. That’s just the patriarchy. Instead, I’m going to talk about a dynasty that I actually look up to. An all-women dynasty. Women of color. Gay women. Women who fight for social justice. Women with a jump shot. A dynasty that makes your favorite men’s basketball, football, and baseball teams look like amateurs.”

When she says, “That’s just the patriarchy,” the camera pans to a bust of (I think) Julius Caesar. At another point, the girl says, “A dynasty that makes Alexander the Great look like Alexander the Okay.” Fuck you, Classical Antiquity. Fuck you, fans of teams. You’re all just the patriarchy. Or something.

Nike could easily sell the successful American women’s basketball team without denigrating other teams, genders and ancient Mediterranean empires that have nothing to do with this. Could but won’t. The company now conveys an almost visceral need for women to triumph over men because … well, nobody really explains why, even if it has something to do with Undecided Whaling. In Nike’s tentpole Olympics ad titled “Best Day Ever,” the narrator fantasizes about the future, declaring, “The WNBA will surpass the NBA in popularity!”

…

There are theories on the emergence of woke capital, with many having observed that, following Occupy Wall Street, media institutions ramped up on census category grievance. The thinking goes that, in response to the threat of a real economic revolution, the power players in our society pushed identity politics to undermine group solidarity. Well, that was a fiendishly brilliant plan, if anyone actually hatched it.

I’m not so convinced, though, as I’m more inclined to believe that a lot of history happens by happenstance. If we’re to specifically analyze the Nike Awokening, there is a recent top-down element of a mandate for Undecided Whaling, but that mandate was preceded by a socially conscious middle class campaign within the company.

This isn’t unique to Nike, either. Given my past life covering the team that tech moguls root for, I’ve run into such people. They aren’t, by and large, ideological. Very few are messianically devoted to seeing the world through the intersectionality lens. They are, however, terrified of their employees who feel this way. The mid-tier labor force, this cohort who actually internalized their university teachings, are full of fervor and willing to risk burned bridges in favor of causes they deem righteous. The big bosses just don’t want a headline-making walkout on their hands, so they placate and mollify, eventually bending the company’s voice into language of righteousness.

…

All the guilt and atonement transference make for bad art. And so the ads suck. There’s no Machiavellian conspiracy behind the production. It’s just a combination of desperately wanting female market share and desperately wanting to move on from the publicized sins of a masculine past. So, to message its ambitions, the exhausted corporation leans on the employees with the loudest answers.

There’s a lot of interplay between Nike and Wieden+Kennedy when the former asks the latter for a type of ad, but the through line from both sides is a lot of cooks in the kitchen. Based on conversations with people who’ve worked in both environments, there’s a dearth of personnel who are deeply connected to sports. In place of a grounding in a subculture, you’re getting ideas from folks who went to nice colleges and trendy ad schools, the type of people who throw words like “patriarchy” at the screen to celebrate a gold medal victory. The older leaders, uneasy in their station and thus obsessed with looking cutting edge, lean on the younger types because the youth are confident. Unfortunately, that confidence is rooted in an ability to regurgitate liturgy, rather than generative genius. They’ve a mandate to replace a marred past, which they leap at, but they’re incapable of inventing a better future.

…

Ironically, Nike mattered a lot more in the days when its position was less dominant. Back when it had to really fight for market share, it made bold, genre-altering art. The ads were synonymous with masculine victory, plus they were cheekily irreverent. And so the dudes loved them. Today, Nike is something else. It LARPs as a grandiose feminist nonprofit as it floats aimlessly on the vessel Michael Jordan built long ago. Like Jordan himself, Nike is rich forever off what it can replicate never. Unlike Jordan, it now wishes to be known for anything but its triumphs. Nike once told a story and that story resonated with its audience. Now it’s decided that its audience is the problem. It wouldn’t shock you to learn that Carlos hated the new Nike ads I texted to him. His exact words were, “I don’t want fucking activism from a sweatshop monopoly.” He’ll still buy the gear, though, just not the narrative. Nike remains, but the story about itself has run out. Au revoir.

#ethan strauss #nike #sports #substack

1 note · View note

wormpoetry · 4 years

Text

dyke memoir

It is December 31, 2021 - 11:59 P.M. I am at the same house I was at this same day two years ago, and my hands are full. In one is a lit firework I am terrified of, and in the other is a hand I am also terrified of but in a heart-pulling way and not a gut-wrenching one. The hand belongs to a girl wearing a brown jacket the same color as her eyes. She is beaming at me, and her smile looks like the rest of my life, sitting atop a neck that is wearing a gilded cross, which I do not notice. Around us there are other young people hollering, downing sparkling grape juice and laughing like this year is the one that will matter in a way none of the others have. The girl and I flash our teeth at each other, a beautifully human gesture that lays just to the side of manic, and she knows that I am drinking her in and staring like I haven’t memorized all of her in the seven months I have been allowed to. We are grinning, in our own world, and when the clock strikes midnight I kiss her like this is all that matters. Because in that moment, it is true and we are eternal.

The firework burns hot in my hand but I ignore it. There are lips on mine in a kind of chimera-conjoined smile, and she is so powerfully right there. I frighten myself by wishing on the pyrotechnics that she always will be.

II.

It is March 7, 2018 - 8:37 P.M. I am in a place where I can do nothing but wait for the other shoe to drop or to be struck down by some ambiguous God everyone claims to know. Likely both. My shoulder is a live wire against hers and I am sure there are fifty volts going through my thigh where we touch. We sit on a ratty couch in a ratty room where the paint has names written across it (ours next to each other with a heart in between, because we are friends) and it is odd, what we are doing, but the amperes in my nerves have a way of dissolving the shame. The fairy lights strung on the walls shine down on her, and although I am young and stupid, every part of my consciousness is rhapsodic about her beauty. She is beautiful and she is telling a story about her new life in a land yonder and far away (by about thirty miles, but any mile is too much for me because I am young and stupid and obsessed and cannot drive). I am trying to get her to pay attention to me, why does she never pay attention to me, who else is she paying attention to, please pay attention to me, you are all I want, you are all I can think about please think about me too, I am terrified, I love you, oh! - the Lord is going to smite me, I can feel it.

The denim jacket I am wearing is burning hot on my back but I ignore it, and someone who I am not sure is my friend takes a picture with the flash on. My smile is terrible, hers is not there. I make the picture my home screen and get accustomed to the fear and the ache.

III.

It is April 4, 2019 - 10:08 A.M. I am sitting on a too-high stool and drawing on a cold black table. I am not supposed to draw on it, but I am, because half of my existence is a game of truth or dare and none of the options are things I am supposed to do or say. The air is close and has a stench, and I hear someone say something about an experiment involving boiled cabbage. I hate science and that is not necessarily why, but it adds to my growing hatred for this room and the minutes I spend in it. There is a girl sitting next to me and I cannot look at her because the day before I had the gall to ask myself if I love her, and the nerve to answer back that I did. She has a brow like Athena, the same stolid ocean-grey eyes, too, and I cannot look at her, but I can show her the drawing I made of a lightning bolt held in a strong hand. I tell her it is Zeus because she read Edith Hamilton’s mythology one time and liked it and really I am just trying to pander, here. She gives it a small smile and adds a wrist cuff onto Zeus’ arm. My lungs clench, my hands begin to sweat even more, and I feel so guilty for the things I am thinking about her because I am polluting her, in a way. The Word isn’t conclusive on whether shame and wretchedness are transferable, but why take chances. Think no evil, and etcetera. I panic and butt into someone else’s conversation with a differing opinion, acutely aware that this is why they dislike me. They voice their dislike. I voice something young and stupid and guilty about educated opinions. I walk into the torment I receive and I blame everyone.

My guilt sits hot on my back but I ignore it through the beginning of class and a prayer I tune out. I sink my pen into my notes twenty or so times just to see the ink spill out. There is nervous energy in the air and I am glad I cannot read auras because having that intimate a window into a person’s (almost-Athena’s) soul would be embarrassing. I pass almost-Athena a note with a game on it and she immediately passes it back, unedited. I tell myself it is not a rejection and then remember to think no evil, and etcetera and tell myself it is better if it is.

IV.

It is December 11, 2019 - 5:24 P.M. There is a boy. He is kissing me and trying to put his tongue in my mouth, but it stopped being interesting after the second kiss so I make an excuse about needing to be home early. He whines and I am infinitely annoyed by him and his gross breath and his gross grasping hands and his gross mouth, but I must be a good girlfriend so I push the thoughts away and placate him with words and promises I hate myself for making. They are stifling, the expectations we give ourselves. He loves me so I must love him, he drives me around in his dirty truck so I must let him touch me, he tells me I do not give enough of myself away so it must be true. Later, I tell him that I like girls, that I have liked lots of them and will probably never stop liking them. He takes it in stride, adding it to his arrogant collection of secrets I should never have gifted to him, and tells me he is glad that I deigned to like a boy for once. I laugh, but the veil in the confession booth is broken and he is not the priest on the other side; he never has been. I am not sure there ever has been someone listening to my unspoken words, but the rosary beads laying on the chair where the priest would be are not strung with a cross. This is the only place God cannot see me, and in the velvet-walled booth I tell the empty air that I have never loved the boy I have enslaved myself to. I recount the list of girls who have stolen my air and replaced my capillaries with lyrical bullhorns, and oh, is that feeling the difference?

The confession burns the palms of my hands and scorches my throat, but there is no penance I must pay. The weight of a howl builds in my larynx and I swallow it away, thinking not of the boy but of the cashier I saw yesterday at the coffeeshop and the way our eyes met - hers were hazel ringed with verdant green. I summon the howl and tell it not to go, that I will need to use it later against someone who thinks love is a series of debts owed and payments acquired. That night I dream of kissing a Catholic girl and being surprised that her crucifix doesn’t burn me. Her sighs sound like a choir of Cherubim and I give myself to her melodies freely.

#original poem #original poetry #young poets #religious guilt #wlw poetry #queer prose #original prose #prose poetry #poets of tumblr #spilled ink #spilled truth #spilled thoughts #poetry #poem #queer poetry #wlw art #I love women can you tell

15 notes · View notes

purplercrayon · 4 years

Text

Pro-life or Pro-Choice?

Here's a disclaimer for people, particularly men, out there giving opinions about bodies that do not belong to them;

Your opinion doesn't matter and we don't care what you think.

The discuss about reproduction and abortion has finally made its way to my household, and you can bet on Delta-igbo men to give misogynist and aggravating opinions about bodies that do not belong to them.

With Ben Shapiro as the colloquy, controversy was certain to make an appearance and inherently fuel an argument. It's no secret that Ben Shapiro is one of the most problematic media personalities out there, but he is loved by many (dumb fucks) for his "I give no fuck" attitude, and his ability to "say what many are afraid to say."

It is also no secret that this cis male figure does not like the idea of abortion. As my siblings spoke on their disapproval of women "murdering babies with potential futures", I remained silent for a while, inhaling the bullshit like a blunt...a very bad blunt I must say.

I took it upon myself - after taking in so much more blunts that did not get me high, rather, it sobered me up - to clear their obvious doubts on abortion and why their opinions are irrelevant and do not matter.

It started a bit like this;

" Are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?"

I said;

"I'm pro whatever the fuck she wants to do with her body"

And it got me thinking.

Why do men think they have a say when it comes to women and the choices we make for ourselves? The decisions we make for our bodies is certainly not your business, nor is it Ben Shapiro's.

It is so easy to condemn women who have gone through abortion(s) simply because it is not your body going through such. It is very easy to look outside the window of the home of an unsuspecting homo sapien and condemn the furniture choices of said homo sapien, but ask yourself this, "Why does the color of the blinds irk me? It is not my house to have opinions that count."

Your opinion on what a woman does with a body should not be uttered, much less praised.

Have you thought about the "Why" behind the actions? Have you considered the factors in play? Do you have to consider the factors? Do you have to care? Can't you just mind your business?

"Ooh she had an abortion ew she's disgusting for killing a child, that's why she can't get pregnant anymore ugh"

Please. Shut up.

Consider rape cases, incest, financial instability, psychological incapabilities, or wait! What if she just doesn't want the baby? Is that too bizarre a case to consider? Is the thought of a woman who is not obsessed with the socially accepted idea that women are mothers so far fetched and irritable for it to not be considered?

But trust men in power to make laws about bodies of women and their "responsibilities" to birth children regardless of what might have transpired during the baby-making process by making abortion illegal. Let's take away a woman's ability to choose whether or not she wants to keep a baby because we just don't like the idea of murdering cells.

Why do they dislike it? We ask?

I have not heard one tangible reason to back up the alarming increase of "dislike" for abortion. This is where religious beliefs and cultural norms and values slaps your brainwashed minds with sentimental and emotional bullcrap that passes as okay excuses for you all to swallow, digest and feed others with.

#pro chocie #pro life #abortion #reproductive freedom #reproductive choice

9 notes · View notes

tigerlilyhasablog · 4 years

Photo

What I’ve Been Watching

Hello everyone! If you read my comeback post, you know that I promised a round-up of the movies I’ve seen so far in 2020. This post has taken WAYYYY too long for me to get around to writing, but now I’m self-isolating and have plenty of time on my hands, so hopefully I should be writing more! So let’s get into it. Before I talk about films from this year, I’ve got to sneak in my thoughts about my absolute FAVORITE film of 2019…

Knives Out – 5/5

I cannot tell you how much I love this movie. I’ve seen it three times in the theater since it came out! I knew that I wanted to see it the moment that I saw the trailer, and I had heard good things about it, but I was worried that it wouldn’t live up to the hype. Turns out I had nothing to worry about. Everything about this movie is just so. Damn. Good. The characters, the storytelling, the aesthetic setting and costume design… perfection, perfection, perfection. The cast, of course, is incredible. This movie is just so much FUN, and I’m obsessed. If you haven’t seen it already, GO SEE KNIVES OUT GODDAMMIT!!!

Now for 2020…

Richard Jewell – 4/5

I went back and forth on whether to give this a 3.5 or a 4, because its been a minute since I watched it, and honestly, I had kind of forgotten about it. Upon reflection, I’ve decided that is because of how many really good films I’ve seen so far this year, not because Richard Jewell is a forgettable movie. I really enjoyed it at the time… it has just gotten overshadowed by things I’ve watched since. The performances are great; Paul Walter Hauser was not someone I was super familiar with before this film, but he seriously impressed me as the titular character. It is just a very solid film about an important story that I really should have known more about since it happened in my home state.🤷‍♀️

Just Mercy – 4/5

Oh boy, bring some tissues for this one. What can I say, this is just a really good movie: its a well-told story of a real-life issue, its hard-hitting and tear-jerking af, the performances are great (Michael B Jordan, man🙌🏻), its just super solid all around. If you don’t cry your eyes out watching this, then sorry, you have no heart.

1917 – 4.5/5

Whoa. Okay, this is an absolute must-see. Holy shit, this movie is something else. As you have probably heard, this movie is shot and edited in a way that makes it look like it was one long take. Not only is this seriously impressive, but it is also effective as hell. There is never a break from the intensity of the film, and you will be on the edge of your seat every second (I’ve seen it twice, and I was completely on edge the entire time even during the second watch.) That’s not the only thing that makes ‘1917’ super impactful, though. The actors are fantastic… I was really impressed by George MacKay. This movie really doesn’t hold back; it is an honest, horrific, emotional depiction of war, and wow, it really isn’t like any war movie I’ve ever seen before.

Like A Boss – 3/5

Okay, time for a drastic change of tone from the last few movies! Not gonna lie, I went into this movie with basically no expectations, as I had heard nothing good about it. But you know, I liked it better than I thought I would. It was funnier than I expected, though not all the jokes hit, and it was overall incredibly silly. But it’s also a fairly sweet story about female friendship. I went to see it with one of my own female friends, we had the theater to ourselves, we laughed at all the stupid parts and we had a good time. So yeah, I didn’t hate it.😅

Dolittle – 3/5

This movie was… weird. Not necessarily a bad weird, but like, really, really bizarre. It’s hard to explain exactly why without giving plot points as examples, but I’ll tell you that there were numerous times throughout the movie where I turned to my sister and said “what the fuck??” I think that there were some drugs involved in the making of this film. On the plus side, I kinda enjoyed it. There were some parts that were genuinely funny, and overall it was something fun to watch with my younger siblings. My 12-year-old brother loved it, and that’s the real test, isn’t it?

The Gentlemen – 4.5/5

Ok, this movie was fucking GOOD. Not gonna lie, when I first saw the poster and trailer for this film, my first thoughts were, god, do we really need another cool-guy crime comedy with an almost entirely white male cast? The answer is no, no we don’t. But damn, if this isn’t a great movie anyway. It surpassed my expectations in every way… I loved it. The humor is not going to be for everyone; it is very British and often extremely crude, but I fucking cried laughing, it was hilarious. The laughs alone were enough for me to like this movie, but there is more to it than that. The plot is engaging, and although I’ve heard some people complain it was slow or too hard to follow, I liked it and enjoyed the story-telling elements. I also found myself caring way more about the characters than I thought I would. Oh, and there are some gorgeous cinematic elements to it as well. Overall, great movie. I guess I need to go and educate myself on some other Guy Ritchie films.

Birds of Prey – 4/5

So, I’ve given this a 4, but this is another one that I debated giving a 3.5. I had wanted to see it again before I reviewed, but the coronavirus screwed that plan up. I decided to round up, however, because my overall feeling about this movie is that I enjoyed it. It isn’t perfect… There were some odd plot decisions, and some so-so action, but you know, I liked it. It’s just FUN. The characters are all bad-ass, the music is on point, it’s funny, it’s colorful, it’s just really enjoyable. The cast are all great, and I thought Ewan McGregor made a great villain. Also, in amongst the mediocre action there were some really great scenes (small spoiler: I’m obsessed with Harley breaking people’s legs.) Like I said, I feel like I need to watch it again to really decide how I feel about it, but overall it’s a thumbs up from me.

The Photograph – 3/5

Huh, this movie was an odd one. I really wanted to like it, and I mean, I didn’t dislike it, but I just wasn’t feeling it, you know? I confess, romance is not really my genre (I like a good rom com, but just straight up romance? Meh), but I just found myself completely uninterested in the main couple. If you haven’t seen this movie, the plot is split between the relationship between Michael and Mae (LaKeith Stanfield and Issa Rae), and flashbacks to the 80s that focus on the relationship between Mae’s mother, Christina (Chante Adams,) and a man named Isaac (Y’lan Noel.) When it came to Michael and Mae, I just did not care at all whether or not they ended up together. I didn’t give a shit about their relationship throughout the entire movie. I liked their characters individually, but together I just wasn’t feeling the chemistry. Now, with the other couple, Sara and Isaac, I actually cared a lot more. I looked forward to the parts that would focus on them, and was annoyed when the film would jump forward to the present day again. I dunno, I mean, I didn’t hate it. It was funny in places and moving (to an extent) in others. The storyline outside of the romance was alright. I just didn’t love it.

Parasite – 4.5/5

Ok, usually I only do reviews for films I see in the theater, but I had to make an exception for this… I had some friends came over and we watched it from my couch, but only because nowhere nearby was showing it. If you haven’t heard of Parasite, you’ve probably been living under a rock. After it scooped up 4 Oscars, everyone was talking about it, and rightly so. Honestly I’m not gonna give it a proper review, because you just. Need. To. Watch. It. Basically, the first half is genuinely really funny, and then it slowly gets darker and darker, and holy fuck, I did NOT see that ending coming. The story, the acting, the symbolism, the cinematography, the setting… All fucking amazing. Watch Parasite, people. Just do it.

#movies #movie review #film #Film Review #knives out #richard jewell #just mercy #1917 #like a boss #dolittle #the gentlemen #birds of prey #the photograph movie #parasite

7 notes · View notes

enneagramspam · 5 years

Text

ISABEL LOVELACE

8w7

“Don't die. Be a big girl, and don't die.“

Isabelle Lovelace is a textbook Eight; as a Captain, she is authoritative, resourceful and strong-willed, but also prone to domineering and confrontational behaviour. Upon her return to the Hephaestus, she demonstrates the ruthless, authoritarian streak of a deeply disintegrated Eight, but over the course of the series she is able to integrate back into a healthier Eight, a heroic figure who is genuinely able to protect her crew.

Basic Fear: Of being harmed or controlled by others

“Oh, I'm not following one of your orders? Gee, must be Monday…”

In comparison with the rest of the cast, who grow to reasonably distrust Goddard after betrayal, Lovelace has never been good with authority of any kind; it’s simply a facet of her personality. This is made clear in Greensboro;

“There's been times when I haven't seen eye-to-eye with my superior officers. Like all those times they gave me stupid orders. On those occasions, I was inclined to carry out my orders with a bit of... creativity.”

Lovelace remains her own ultimate authority, following orders only when they suit her, and as such, she is not truly beholden to them at all. Interestingly, there are pages of glowing testimonials from those who served under Lovelace, while those above her in the chain of command found her to be disobedient and punished her as a result; being a good leader and a bad follower isn’t at all uncommon for an Eight.

Lovelace takes great pride in her independence, and expresses contempt for those that, in her eyes, allow themselves to be controlled, particularly her rules-obsessed second in command Officer Lambert, who effectively represents this basic fear- she calls him “an asinine teacher’s pet,” and repeatedly admonishes him for a lack of “a mind of his own,” even ridiculing him in front of the rest of her crew. Lambert is in fact the perfect foil to Lovelace, because while he is endlessly obedient to Goddard, he repeatedly undermines her, as Hilbert observes;

“You are perhaps needing someone who... questions superior officer? Who does not immediately do what is told? Who will fight for what they think is right way of doing job?”

Taking all this into account, it’s no wonder Lovelace dislikes Lambert so much when he both represents the control she so fears and the disobedience she cannot tolerate. The anger he provokes causes her to slip into the role of the intimidating Eight, which causes some friction with the rest of her crew, who describe her as “scary,” and observe that her personality is fundamentally combative; “she’d be bored without something to fight against.”

Lovelace’s preoccupation with control is part of the reason that her discovery that she is an alien replica of her previous self subject to the whims of the aliens who created her is so distrubing for her- this is the avenue the habitually manipulative Kepler takes to try and unsettle her, preying on her basic fear;

“Are you sure that it's you that made the choice? Less than two days ago you were speaking words that weren't your own. … Maybe they're always in control, and they've made it so you can't tell. What if everything you think you're doing for yourself is just our friends out there pulling strings? What if your thoughts aren't your own?”

For Lovelace to even admit that this bothers her is difficult; Eights natrual tendency is to avoid vulnerability. It’s not until her control is completely taken away when she is trapped in a time loop orchestrated by the same aliens in Out of the Loop, driving her to disintegration and essentially forcing her to do so in the hopes of moving on.

“I - I'm sorry. I... Maybe Kepler's right. Maybe I'm not in control of what I'm doing.”

Ultimately, Lovelace is forced to live her basic fear, again and again, to begin to overcome it. Her arc culminates in her worst possible scenario- Cutter, the manifestation of the insidious control she has been raging against throughout the series, gaining direct control of her by manipulating the psi-waves that affect her alien physiology;

“If you have enough psi-waves in the air … you can control all sorts of things. What do you think, Isabel? Pretty neat, isn't it?”

Lovelace can’t wrest herself from Cutter’s control entirely- she shoots Minkowski, and is unable to fire at Cutter. She is, however, able to distract him for long enough for Minkowski to kill him. Not only is this a direct confrontation of Lovelace’s basic fear, with her being forced to accept that sometimes the situation is out of her control, this scene forces her to eschew her basic desire, and instead, rely on someone else to protect her; as an Eight, this is the logical conclusion to her arc.

Basic Desire: To protect themselves (to be in control of their own life

and destiny)

“There’s something I needed to remind myself of. That you're not just what you were made. That you can grow. At least... when you assholes don't interfere.”

Repeatedly, Lovelace cannot stand seeing others allowing their destiny to be decided for them- even when she particularly dislikes the person in question. When Eris announces her intention to self destruct on behalf of Goddard, she is furious;

“You can't just let these people delete you! You should fight this! ...Just because someone made you something doesn't mean that's all you're going to be. You can be more.”

She reacts similarly, if far more explosively when Hilbert is unfazed upon discovering that Goddard were planning on betraying him;

“What... the hell... is wrong with you? (BEAT) I will never understand you. How are you not angry? How are you not revoltingly angry? They were going to leave you up here. To rot … Listen to me, you despicable waste of a soul: that's not how you react to this. Humanity 101: when someone lies to you, when someone betrays you, when they leave you to die, alone, in the cold, you DO NOT FIND IT PERFECTLY EQUITABLE! You get angry, and you do whatever you have to in order to show them they have made the worst mistake of their lives. It doesn't matter what you have to give up, who you have to hurt, how far you have to go -”

Indeed, Lovelace goes to every length to be the one in control of her own destiny and to protect herself and those that she cares about. Aside from her dead man’s switch, there’s her response to Kepler’s game of “eeny-meeny,” when he is deciding who to shoot in Desperate Measures- she interrupts him with a “fuck you,” and then proceeds to insult him and spit at him. What could be mistaken, though, for an outburst of pure aggression and resentment is clearly shown to be an attempt to deliberately provoke him and thus control the situation in the only way she can, and an attempt to protect Eiffel;

EIFFEL: “Captain... why did you - you didn't have to -

LOVELACE: “Yes, I did. I did. It's fine.”

She smiles at him. Sadly.

Inaction- and particularly, feeling helpless- drives Lovelace to distraction. She’s desperate to try to take control of the situation in Pan-Pan, repeatedly dismissing Minkowski’s plan to make a distress call, “The only way we're going to get off this station is if we do it ourselves.” On the other side of things, Lovelace’s mini episode, Greensboro, is markedly different from those for each other character. Critically, she doesn’t interact with Cutter, who has a pattern of exploiting the cast’s basic fears, and in reflection of this, it’s her basic desires that Rachel, who is interviewing her, praises and tempts her with;

“You. Deep space. Mission command. You've got … Glowing recommendations from practically everyone you've given an order to. And when you're multiple light years away from your superiors? It's probably good to have someone who can think for themselves.”

It’s easy to understand why Goddard took this unique approach with Lovelace specifically; threatening to control her would result in automatic pushback and rebellion from her, whereas promising her a degree of the control that she so craves was the perfect way to ensure that she agreed to work with them.

Disintegration to Five:

“I invented being paranoid on this station.”

Enneagram Institute describes deeply disintegrated Eights’ actions as “vengeful, barbaric, murderous.” This is particularly true of Lovelace- the first time she flees the Hephaestus, she leaves behind a message promising to exact revenge against Goddard:

“So if you're listening to this: Run. And. Hide. Because by the time that I'm done you will feel more helpless and more alone than all the innocent people you've ever hurt. See you soon.”

Like an unhealthy Five, she is secretive and fearful, leaving her paranoid. She initially admits to turning on Hilbert without proper cause; “I was so paranoid by that point, I think I would have turned on anyone who was with me.” This indiscriminate destructiveness is a hallmark of a disintegrated Eight, and when Minkowski confirms, “You attacked him?” Lovelace simply answers, “Best defence.” She goes on;

“I figured it was just a matter of time before he tried to kill me. So I incapacitated him and I ran. I got on the ship we'd constructed and left him behind. (beat) Not my proudest moment.”

Her violence continues when she returns to the Hephaestus- pouncing on Hilbert on sight, choking him and bashing his head against a wall. Like an unhealthy Five, she is suspicious and information obsessed- planting a gun with a hidden listening device so that she can eavesdrop on Minkowski and Eiffel.

In addition, Enneagram Institute says of disintegrated Eights, “If they get in danger, they may brutally destroy everything that has not conformed to their will rather than surrender to anyone else.” This repeatedly holds true of Lovelace;

““I hope you don't think we'd go down without a fight.”

Indeed, she threatens to invoke the “Taking You With Me,” trope on multiple occasions, to the point that it becomes something of a running joke for her;

“Believe me, kids, right now I'm up for killing everything and everyone on this boat.”

Perhaps the most serious example, though, is the explosive she wires to activate should her heart stop or increase too much which she reveals in the episode aptly named Mutually Assured Destruction, a failsafe she describes, unfeelingly, as “insurance.” When Minkowski doubts her, “You’d be killing yourself. I don’t buy it,” Lovelace simply answers; “Then you’ve never been as scared as I have.” This neatly demonstrates Lovelace’s complete unwillingness to surrender or be subjugated, willing to completely self destruct in order to avert this outcome. Additionally, she uses this threat as a means of seizing control of the station, becoming the ruthless, dictatorial disintegrated Eight;

“There's a new sheriff in town, and I am not taking suggestions, complaints, or objections. Here’s what’s going to happen… Whatever game Command is playing with this station is over. Welcome to my Cold War, kids. Fasten your seat belts, stay out of the way, and don’t try me. Any questions?”

Integration to Two:

“I realized something. The whole epic rampage of revenge thing? Isabel Lovelace wouldn't do that. The terrible wretch that you people made Isabel Lovelace into? Oh, she'd do that. But... I'm not going to be that person anymore. (BEAT) I'm going to be Isabel Lovelace again. Even if I never have before.”

When integrated, Lovelace’s has the sincere care for those around her of a healthy Two, using her own strength of character to support them. A good example of this is when she quite generously agrees to take over for Minkowski when she feels unable to command the station. It’s significant that Minkowski convinces her by appealing to her own respect and need for control;

“ I... I did what I did because I lost control. And until I get it back, I don't think my hands are the best ones for this crew to be in.”

Also notably, Lovelace is demonstrably reluctant to take control, establishing it only happens, “on the very clear understanding that this is a temporary situation, and that [she is] going to sort [her]self out and kick [her] out of [her] chair ASAP.” This Lovelace, genuinely looking forward to ceding control to a person she respects and trusts, is a far cry from the control obsessed woman she is introduced as. Additionally, she uses her strong authority with the goal of actually meeting the needs of her entire crew- for instance, in Theta Scenario;

LOVELACE: “I'm not making that call for everyone. We're voting, and we're not doing anything until we have a unanimous decision.”

EIFFEL: “Fine, lets v-”

LOVELACE: “No. We're not gonna make an informed decision until we know as much as we can about what the hell has been going on here.”

EIFFEL: “Why?”

LOVELACE: “Because I'm the Captain, that's why. That call I will make.”

As aforementioned, Lovelace is also able to depend on Minkowski during her most dire moments during the finale. Early in the series, Lovelace clearly felt that it was her destiny to personally take revenge on Cutter on behalf of her crew, with her promising that outcome to him as an inevitability;

“I'm going to really mess you up someday. You know that, right?”

Allowing Minkowski to be the one to take him down instead is a subtle but incredibly important demonstration of her growth- she thoughtlessly sacrifices an opportunity she would have been unlikely to have given up on without a fight earlier in the series. This courage and self-sacrifice is far more along the lines of what one would expect from an integrated Eight.

w7:

“Let's just say that I am very eager to be a private citizen again.”

Maintaining her own freedom and happiness is a big priority for Lovelace, which is indicative of her Seven wing. She dislikes ruminating on painful subjects, and while she generally copes by being action-oriented; her refusal to confront her grief is explored in Variations On a Theme, where she has no tolerance for herself slipping into present tense when speaking about her past group;

“No. Focus. Work. Be here. Be now. Don't stop to remember. Don't stop to think. Stay away from the ghosts.”

And, in Need To Know it’s revealed she was deliberately getting high on painkillers after the disastrous events of Who’s There?;

“I got a broken an arm trying to save one of my crew members. It was a very difficult time.”

Turning to addiction as a form of escapism is not uncommon for a Seven in disintegration.

Additionally, despite her extreme fury towards Goddard, Lovelace is also driven for much of the series by an extreme desire to return home;

“I want to go back to earth.”

It’s only in her internal monologue- presented as fragmented and scattered, as many disintegrated Sevens can feel and behave- that she acknowledges the painful truth that returning to earth won’t truly fulfill her desires- earth is longer home, and home is gone;

LOVELACE: “I will do this. I'll do it faster. Better. Deal with crazier. Won't die harder. Fix this goddamn engine. Get them out. Go home.”

SECOND LOVELACE: “You can never go home. You were home.”

THIRD LOVELACE: “And now you're back. And you can never go back.”

LOVELACE: “I know. I know.”

In fact, Lovelace’s powerful desire to get off the station is more reminiscent of the blind claustrophobia of a disintegrated Seven- the desire to escape a painful atmosphere- than a draw towards a compelling, satisfying one. Towards the very end of the series, this changes. Significantly, she mentions earth not just in the context of revenging on Goddard or escaping the Hephaestus, but as presenting the opportunity for revitalizing, healing experiences, with something close to the optimism of a healthy Seven;

“Oh, there are so many choices. Look up some old friends, take apart Goddard Futuristics brick by brick... maybe go to Disneyland? But first, I'm going to take a long vacation, somewhere warm and quiet, where nobody has any idea who I am.”

Ultimately, though, her wing isn’t very developed- she’s more than willing to stay on the station late in the series to try and learn more about the aliens and their wants (and by association, about their control over her), and doesn’t try to flee the situation in the same way that Eiffel wants to at that point. Similarly, she’s willing to die to protect him in Desperate Measures- her core desires and fears as an Eight will always overpower the aversion to pain associated with her wing whenever both come into play.

#Isabel Lovelace #8w7 #Type 8 #Wolf 359 #enneagram #wolf 359 spoilers

13 notes · View notes

jkflesh · 5 years

Photo

Transcribed a rare interview with Kevin Martin from Spanish. Covering projects like Techno Animal, God, Ice, inception of The Bug... Run through an auto translator — pardon for the broken English at some parts. Self Magazine n15 (15 June 1999)

BLOOD AND MEAT / KEVIN MARTIN / TEXT A.C. NAÏA

Far from the wake of mundane media and glares, the name of Kevin Martin still resonates as one of the best kept enigmas of the new English experimental era. Antithesis of the unscrupulous corridor, this unclassifiable nihilist accumulates nevertheless every year, and with a disquieting discretion, an exponential number of crucial projects. Redefining the foundations of extreme rock, the abysses of the cybernetic dub or the electronic musical hell trails, his productions tear at the listener all feelings of indifference and comfort. Superficiality and lightness are also notions banished from their unstable world. Although he loves to bara-jar letters under various pseudonyms (God, Ice, The Bug, etc.) Kevin Martin does not cheat. It is in the depths of himself, in his wounds and anguish, that he draws the necessary energy for the singularly ardent expression of a creativity without stylistic excesses.

---------------------------------

- Can you tell us why you are often inclined to work with the same core of people (Justin Broadrick, Alex Buess, Dave Cochrane ...)?

The people you mentioned are musicians that I admire very particularly and whose musical steps I respect and greatly appreciate. They are beings without equivalents that, at the individual level, are very close to me: it is very difficult to find such a way of thinking, of approaching events and music in my opinion. Besides, it's true that I tend not to be very social in London. I have made a very cynical judgment about the types of bands that exist in London. People have, in effect, a tendency to form very closed groups that frequent certain bars, certain clubs, which are among themselves, say initiated by such a journalist or such a musician, around people of such stamp; It is especially shocking for people who claim to be in electronic music: they are always the same people who always walk together in the same place, with a kind of pre-established codes that prevent any openness, any tolerance from others. It is not difficult for musicians to be part of this genre of groups, it is simply the idea of ??clan or band that I dislike: I think that in it they lose their identity, their personality, since they must think, in some way, as the group and not by themselves. Justin and I, due to our past, we have many points in common in our sensitivity to the everyday, in our way of approaching musical creation. What seems almost a form of alienation that we should try to get rid of a bit (laughs)! Justin is almost a brother to me, the way we work together depends almost on telepathy: I have never met someone who could have the same tastes, the same musical aspirations as me. It is impossible for him or for me to live without music. It has become an almost unhealthy obsession to be in a permanent process of creation, we have constantly need to feel the extremes, to grow back always beyond the limits. As for Alex, when I created God I thought that no one had yet done what I wanted to do, that is, this idea of ??fusion of very extreme music, especially through free jazz and contemporary classical music, to create a dynamic on the sonorities, a kind of sensory impact. After some years with God I realized that someone had already specified a certain kind of dream that I had projected in God: a group that was called 16/17. - Finally you have worked with many musicians next to Mick Harris. Why have you never undertaken any project with him? At a given moment we wanted, in fact, to work on a common project; on the other hand, Justin [and he played many times in the old club that I had in Brixton. But Micky is a person with whom it is very difficult to work! (laughs) Micky is someone who does not want to think and least admit the idea of ??dialogue; On the other hand I think that today his music lacks something ... If he manifested something of animosity it would be against 90% of [people that there are on the world and not for the 10% of the people that I respect and love: That's why I do not understand how someone like Micky can be bad with certain people who count as his friends. - From God to The Bug, the variety of your projects is quite impressive. Is it that this multiplicity covers a particular desire to express itself in different ways? In fact I have never had the conscious will to accumulate the projects because of any frustration: God was, for example, a very free project in which I never imposed anything. By nature I am someone who never rests, who likes to work constantly. And I also like to work with people, because for me the music comes from a permanent learning and in that sense it has almost a religious dimension. It is a belief in itself. For me music must represent your own thought, your way of living and of conceiving things. If you think too abstractly, something will always be missing and, above all, you will not be honest with yourself. In that case it is essential that my music reflects the state in which I find myself and where I live, otherwise it feels a kind of betrayal. - Despite the multiplicity of names, there seems to be a profound similarity between all your projects. Do you have the feeling that after all you are trying to explain a single and always the same story in different forms? Yes, absolutely, but I do not know if because it is a state of mind, a particular attitude or simply the two things: Justin and I refer almost systematically to a 'hardcore' approach, but I never speak from a 'hardcore' cliché that immediately suggests a 'pu nk-bou rrin' trend, but to that authentic and profound element that can be found in every musical form, be it country, free jazz, hi hop or metal , called 'hardcore', that is, integrity, the fact One make no decision for commercial or business reasons, know how to save the unity of your creation without any commitment to the industry: it is what I call having a 'hardcore' attitude; it is this attitude that remains as a permanent plot after all my musical work. - It is found in your works (in the titles or the letters of the feet) very strong oppositions between your religious and mystical references with others related to sex or violence. This makes me think of writers like G. Bataille or also of sado-masochism ... Totally, but what I think is important is to consider this sadomasochistic dimension as inevitable, because it participates in the very nature of human relations, forms part of life. I am sorry to see that certain groups emphasize this particular aspect, as if it depended on the domain of the extraordinary. For me there is nothing abnormal or particular about this idea of ??sado-masochism. What interests me, anyway, is what allows me to really feel that I live: all the sensations that allow me to be or to exist. I deliberately put aside all the codes, programs or pre-established responses that society wants to impose, so sex remains one of those rare things that allow us to achieve ecstasy - and without artifice - and pleasure of this life. - Is it because the media have a hard time fencing and appreciating your music the reason why so few interviews and information about you are found in the press? I think I would lie if I said that we have done everything to avoid or reject the press or the media in general. Justin, more than me, has been very required because of Godflesh and has received some attention on his part. For mine, I have not done anything in favor of any personal promotion because it does not interest me and rather makes me uncomfortable. In fact, I think I am rather in disagreement with the feeling, with the interpretation of certain music magazines. And since I myself have been a journalist at The Wire, it would be ridiculous to say that I am against the press; but, on the other hand, I am precisely more aware of the sometimes erroneous vision of people who believe they have understood a music and that in the end it has gone from Largo to the essentials. In addition to all this, I think that today most of the musical compositions are totally impersonal and are directly related to the business, which immediately falsifies the starting data. I believe in music that is personal, I play a music that comes from me and from nowhere else. I do not have W1, 'journalists come to find out no matter what about what a part of the truth represents in me. It may seem like a cliché, but I think we play before us before we think about the audience or about the people who are going to buy our records. It may seem selfish, but it is just the truth, a very simple feeling: we like to play for ourselves! - Can we say that there is finally a direct relationship between strong elements of your past and your current musical production? Totally yes, particularly when I think about the influence that punk has had on me. It is the form of music that has revealed in me a particular feeling of freedom and of 'non-commitment', which has been in the end the most inspiring throughout all my projects. I remember very well the moment I ordered a Damned or Stupid record by mail - I do not know exactly - and instead I received an EP of Discharge: it was a kind of shock, almost a revelation. The music I listened to was usually very methodical and formal, and that, the first time, was a true deflagration of noise, without melodic consideration, far from the harmony or the traditional structures. Now I can assure you that it was thanks to that I heard that single that I thought about creating a particular sound. Punk in a general way - before becoming a caricature, and I think in particular of the Crass label - represents the freedom to create, independence and individuality, using music as the only means to interrogate the environment, the world , society, human relations, and non-commercial purposes. Punk has had a strong impact on the perception that I still have of music today. - Going back to the names of your different projects, Techno Animal refers to a kind of duality, an almost impossible mixture between technology and what belongs to the realm of instinct, of the animal ... Yes, completely, and there is a certain perversity that like in this association of words: it evokes the fusion that runs the risk of arriving in the coming years, the next stage of man is to merge with technology, and that will be the only way to survive. But Techno Animal also refers to the contradiction between technology, that is, everything that is machine and mechanics, kingdom of the scientific entity, which has nothing to do with the animal, either in form or in constitution; There are almost two associations that make sure that they will not work if they are merged. - Can Ice be considered as an extension of God? Let's say it was not thought in this sense, but based on the facts, it almost happens like that. Somehow I felt frustrated in God since I had to try to like too many people. For me, the music must be part of a democratic framework, a framework that I have not found more than in Techno Animal with Justin, since in fact we are so similar that the fusion between us is inevitable. The only problem is that there is no criticism between us ... With God everyone wanted to have their part of participation, their part of promotion, of notoriety in relation to their own instrument, that's why I ended up feeling frustrated since I did not could use to create more technological means. It became clear that if I wanted to work in the studio with the machines, I needed to form a new group. God was a group made for the scene, while Techno Animal was entirely a studio project - but recently we have started working with live instruments - and Ice is much closer to the idea of ??arranging the live music in a study. Somehow Ice gets a little closer to Techno Animal and has never been conceived to be a continuity of God. If God continues still in the future it will be in a radically different form. In fact in all my projects I try to translate my dreams, to make abstract ideas become alive and real. And if one day I lack ideas, visions or dreams, there is no other way for me to continue. It would be dishonest to follow by simple custom or for commercial reasons. This year I really had the impression that that moment had come, I believed that everything ended, that it reached the edge of the abyss. But in reality everything has started again, especially working on Ice's next album. - If you follow your record evolution, one realizes that your recent projects are more instrumental. Do you have the tendency to think that the voice does not contribute anything interesting? Interestingly on Ice's next album there is a voice in all the songs. I think it's a bit of a reaction to all the previous projects that, in effect, were becoming very instrumental. In fact the two years spent with this album have been a kind of lyrical catharsis in relation to the lack of communication or the use of the instrumental alone. I have the impression that in the new album the lyrics have been a kind of relief. Anyway I had an irresistible desire that this album was the most 'sung' of all that had been able to do before. I have spent hours in the studio to multiply my voice and transform it into 36 different effects to change all the intonations in each theme. But it is true that I think I have sinned little by little in my projects to reduce any need for verbal expression, because I can not stand the idea that the person who sings in a group is the focus of attention of the audience or listeners, when the other musicians are so important or sometimes even more so. For me a group is conceived as an entity and being honest with myself I would not stand to become the main focus of attention, simply because I sing or write lyrics. This hierarchy does not interest me, but unfortunately it is the most frequent. - The new Techno Animal album has been developed in collaboration with Alec Empire. Why have you chosen to work precisely with him? Because we do not like it (laughs)! I'm not kidding. I think he is someone who has managed to achieve a certain notoriety not because of a fashion issue but because he is full of energy and because he is entirely dedicated to his music, a little as if it were also a vital need in him. When we met him on the tour it was absolutely fantastic: it has never been a matter of ego or other nonsense of this kind as it happens with many musicians or groups. So the audience rather was disturbed by our live performance and he was the only one who stayed on the edge of the stage venting like a nutcase. We liked everything he did, I have written numerous articles about him and Justin has adored him since the first meeting. It is a question of attitude and Alec reacts in the same way as we do. - Can you tell us about this album of Techno Animal remixes made by Tortoise, Alec Empire, Wordsound, etc. which will be released under the City Slang label? It is another example of the work done with Alec Empire. Actually I would not say it's an album of remixes but rather of 'soundclash', it really is the most appropriate name. It is more a collaboration than a remix, the groups send us their sounds mixed with ours and then we return them after having also worked on ourselves. Everything is almost finished, we only wait for the band of Alec and Thomas Köner to finish the album. - What about the other name behind which you hide: DJ Dissector? (Laughter) It's just a joke, I wonder where you got the information from. Actually I was fed up with all this hype that there was around a so-called 'Dj culture'. What I really love to see and put on the highest point are the 'Scratch Djs' from the US, in general people who remain invisible to the public and who nevertheless have tremendous talent, but I do not like to accept that pseudo-idea brought by people that are not Djs about a culture of Djs. - About the Djs, what do you think about the New York phenomenon-not the illbient and its figureheads like DJ Spooky? Recently I discovered a group called Priest, from which only one single appeared and which is related to that movement and I found the topic interesting. As for DJ Spooky ... I respect Paul D. Miller for his communicative side: it's fun to hear him speak, to see the body of knowledge that, on the other hand, he handles with a certain mastery. As for his work, I think he is not up to what he wants to do, I think he is benefiting from a certain fashion phenomenon that does not really reflect the quality of his work; I know many DJs darker than him who do better things and innovate more than him. I remember the tour we did in January with Alec and Spooky: I was surprised to see that all the attention was focused on him and that nobody cared about Alec, when for me the work of this one is better, more experimental. I also believe that most of the ideas that support the illbient movement do not come from Paul D. Miller, but from others like David Toop, etc. But Spooky has managed to impose because he likes to be under the light of the projectors and I think he is strong enough to do his own promotion. It is funny because many musicians that I have been able to find detest Spooky, and in particular, because of his way of seeing things, of all his knowledge. I think very honestly that he is a very sympathetic guy and that in a very intelligent way he adapts to different media and knows how to adapt his language, even if he is before a rapper or a composer like Xenakis. But I do not like his work, I do not consider him as a Dj. I think what he has said about trip hop or elscratching is not coherent: he has the tendency to dilute the great importance of hip hop while I think it is one of the values ??of the future, since in three years I am sure it will be a lifestyle completely separate, taking into account the passion and quality of work of people who are fully involved in this move. The underground hip hop of New York is absolutely extraordinary, but unfortunately many DJs stay in anonymity and it is Spooky who always monopolizes the most attention. I think that this is due to the journalists who are stronger in the art of creating phenomena from little ... - The last project of The Bug with DJ Vadim until now is an auditory adaptation of the film 'The Conversation' by Francis Ford Coppola. How did you come up with this idea? In addition to the album, The Bug was not really a collaboration with Vadim. He contributed the sounds of the drums and I did all the rest. But hey, for reasons that I will not need here, I could not be the leader of another formation that was not Techno Animal. However The Bug is not another group at all, but hey ...! I met Vadim about two years ago and I loved his way of approaching things and treating them. Then he asked me to work on a project and six months later I had the idea of ??an imaginary soundtrack that would be completely electronic, but later I saw that it was an outdated idea since I had worked it last year. If The Bug continues, the idea is to try to make soundtracks of films that you want to listen to or that would replace those that already exist because they do not convince us in relation to films. I saw the film for the first time ten or twelve years ago and the only thing I remember is a set of very strong feelings about violence, the obsession to be both voyeur and paranoid in front of the characters. I have seen it again and then I have proposed to Vadim to make a new sound interpretation of 'The Conversation' because it seemed to me that some very strong elements of the film had remained hidden or in a residual state in the soundtrack. It was very marked by the way in which the film shows the internal and external duality of the characters, I found it extraordinary. - You seem rather disappointed about the record industry. Ice's next album, however, is on WEA ... Yes, I'm really cynical about everything that can be done about the groups and the music itself, but this interests both the big and to the independent labels: most of them are not worth much, you only have to see the Earache stamp that has made me go through the tube to me as to other groups. This label has become worse than one of the big ones! For me it is not contradictory to make an album in a big label because in any case the relationship is simple: they exploit me, but I also exploit them with a rebound, all the maximum and in the longest time I can ... (laughs) I understand completely that I can be criticized for this, but I do not care. I always think about 1 to 5% of the people that interest me and that reciprocally are interested in my work, and for me it is a kind of important victory against the commercial machine every time I can get an album with a big house: it is the case of Isolationism 'with Virgin; I was very happy to see that God finally appeared in the department store and that the group received a certain popularity. Do not forget that it is an authentic war that takes place in musical circuits and to receive something, you have to be in permanent struggle.

#kevin martin #techno animal #ice #god #the bug #justin broadrick #alec empire

6 notes · View notes

theangryanarchocommunist-blog · 5 years

Text

Essay on anarcho communist and capitalism

Why anarcho – communism?

Introduction

Many people seem to have many misconceptions surrounding not only anarchism and communism but with capitalism itself. This is an issue, as to make our society as good as possible we must be able to objectively look at society now, something which is incredibly difficult to do if people have been mystified to how society functions. Furthermore, it is important to be knowledgeable of the alternatives so that judgements can be formed about the worth of out current society.

So what is capitalism?

Capitalism is a society based around the gaining of capital. But what is capital? Capital is the value gained by business owners, when they hire people to work. This generates value because the employee is treated as a component of the commodity rather than the creator of a commodity, in that the employee is selling his time instead of the commodity. So instead of the worker making the commodity in question and selling it, the business owner (or capitalist) sells its and gains the extra value. But how does this generate value?

Well, to begin with cost is based on time put into an object, for example if I was a chair maker, the value of the chair would be based on how long it took me to build the chair and the cost of the components of the chair. So if I could make 10 chairs in a day, and the components of each chair cost me £5, and if I needed to make about £50 to live relatively comfortably, then the cost of an individual chair would be £50/10 or £5 plus the cost of the components (which incidental can be worked out in the same way by applying the same idea to the lumberjack) so the cost of the chair would be £10. But then what happens if someone comes along and builds a chair making machine which can make 100 chairs a day? Well then the cost of a chair from this particular person would fall to £5.50, and in this way this machine when it becomes more widespread, the chairmaker without the machine would be forced to sell his chairs for £5.50 too if he wishes to make any money at all, so he then only has £10 a day to live off of, which he just simply wont be able to do. From here, the rich with there reserves of money are able to invest in these new machines and come back with more value then they put in, this is done by him turning the chairmaker into a just a component in the chair in the same way the wood is. He pays the chairmaker just enough for him to survive but in return the capitalist ruthlessly exploits him to the greatest extent he can – so that he can make as much money as he can – afterall his intent in this project is only gaining more wealth out of his original investment (which would be in the machines which undercut the original chairmaker), the capitalist in question cares not for the squalid living conditions and hunger the chairmaker will be subjugated too. So let’s say the capitalist now has his chairmaking factory and this factory can make 600 chairs a day, the wood still costs £5, but we have to also add the cost of the worker, for sake of easiness there is 1 worker in his factory who can survive off of £30, so that per chair the workman will be given 5p, so each chair will cost the capitalist £5.05, he will then sell the chair for as much as he can, and this will be higher than £5.05 in the same way the £50 to live comfortably will be more than the £30 to barely scrape by, it is that difference between those 2 different amounts in which capital is found, in which value is generated for the capitalist. Who by virtue of being rich in the first place has paid the workers to build his factory has paid workers to make his commodities, and who ends up with all the comfort.

So at the very heart of capitalism there is oppression, but our modern capitalism is not as simple as this. I have previously mentioned how the workers are given just enough to survive under capitalism, but this is often not the case, as often employment is kept below the maximum capacity so that the workers are willing to accept wages that will make them destitute, as the unemployed starving man will be willing to work for even less. Here we see one of the great difficulties with the capitalist – how ruthless he is. You and I would never be able to bring ourselves to force another person into misery in the name of wealth. So, what makes the capitalist different from ourselves? We must remember first and foremost that the capitalist is still human, despite all the terrible things he has done. But to what can we attribute this deviation from us in this ruthlessness? One of the primary reasons for this ability to force people to starve is present, is due to the hierarchical nature of society, this gives him the capacity to be cruel, as when in a position of power people start to stop seeing the people below them as human this occurs because they are able to control them, by the very nature of the hierarchy as such they start to become objects in the mind of the capitalist instead of people. Furthermore, the Capitalist will have been raised to believe that those below him are lesser which will reinforce this capacity for cruelness. But this then raises the question, why should the capitalist desire more money? Afterall he would not be cruel for the sake of being cruel unless he was sadistic. This desire for money which is verging on nihilistic in its destruction of everything in the name of money (as we are seeing with the ecocide occurring in front of us) occurs due to the capitalist’s resignation in the hierarchy he finds himself in. He chooses not to pursue an authentic life and help others become free and instead gives up and pursues money, money acts as a sort of obsession through which he can hid the existential dread, and it is money he chooses because he is surrounded constantly by people who have told him to do so. But this becomes self-fulfilling, it is likely he has already started to participate in exploitation of the workers (if only in enjoying a lavish lifestyle) before he starts to become aware of his freedom to choose not to be the oppressor, but by this time to decide to stop contributing to hurting those people whom he has helped exploit it will be too painful for him to acknowledge what he has done, he may try to find excuses for his behaviour in the form of bourgeoise philosophy or not care, but either way he will be totally consumed by money from this point onwards. The capitalist is a man who has spent his entire childhood being groomed for making money, who then finds his freedom which reveals the sufferings he has helped inflicted which are too painful for him and who now denies them by consuming himself in the acquisition of wealth – this then continues itself as his children will now be raised to continue his business ventures.

Now we have uncovered the mentality of the capitalist we can begin to explore and more importantly explain the development of this relatively simple system of exploitation into all the institutions and states we see today.

The first thing that happens when capitalism takes hold is that the reigns of the state changes hands so that the capitalists become controllers instead of the feudal lords. This can occur due to the capitalists becoming increasingly rich, money with which they will raise armies (as they did in the English civil war) or to spread ideas of “representative” democracy and discontent towards the nobility (like in the French revolution). Once this war has been won the capitalists will quickly implement a representative democracy. This allows them to stay in power very easily to begin with, as they will put in brackets of certain amounts of wealth for people to be allowed to stand and vote, then they will have a group of capitalists making all the national decisions which will undoubtably benefit the capitalists, however the people will quickly become discontent that they are unable to vote and stand. In this way we will begin to see a pattern of mystification occurring which will allow the capitalists to stay in power. For example, they will allow everyone to vote and stand for election – but no one among the working class will be able to afford too.

In modern capitalism this constant mystification all the time has made an incredibly complex system which to demystify will take some time, as each previous stage remains when the new ones come in. However, we have 5 main sections: the disciplinary stage, the monopoly stage, the nationalistic stage the consumerist stage and finally the fascist stage. Interestingly we can see similar patterns occurring throughout history, even if we put our scope further out than just the emergence of capitalism, for example take the romans, they stared off as a collection of 7 tribes, which then became a kingdom, which then became a republic (a representative democracy which too constantly mystified itself with things like everyone being able to stand for office) and finally a fascist imperium. This would suggest that statists societies tend to emerge in a similar way, something which we can use to try and better understand the capitalist state. So how does the state start? The state starts by the coalition of the warrior and the priest, who try to seize power – likely because they think they have a better capacity to control society than society itself. These 2 are able to seize control, because the priest is able to trick people into thinking that if they do not do what he and the soldiers say they will burn for eternity and the soldiers can send any who dislike the new regime there. This then becomes increasingly militaristic as the state within the tribe becomes more powerful and seeks to conquer other tribes. Why does the state become more powerful? Because like the capitalists the statist find themselves in a position of power which they have been raised to hold they cannot justify this position and thus blindly seek power. So here we see that the state causes cruelness in the same way as capitalism (which just so happens to be a type of statist society), the tribal leaders seek to conquer other tribes, the medieval lords seek to conquer other kingdoms and the modern capitalist seeks power in the form of money. Therefore, we can see that at the end of it all capital is just a form of power. Which the people at the top of the hierarchy will always try to maintain – as it is their only aim in life, however, this can only be done if the people they are exercising power over are not organised and fighting back hence why mystification constantly occurs – as you can’t fight against what you don’t know is there.

So, what is meant by the disciplinary stage? The disciplinary stage is the stage in which the state switches from attacking the body of its subjects to attacking their minds. Discipline is an important thing for the state, as it means its subjects are made less likely to rebel – to an even greater extent than just mystification by itself, but it also means the religion becomes less significant and the capitalists can stop sharing power with the priests. So how does the capitalist increase discipline in this phase? It does this in several ways, it will increase the amount of schools and compulsory education, it will introduce the overseers into the work place, it will introduce prisons and finally their increasing financial control will serve to render the media (at this point normally just newspapers) in their control. To show how these things increased discipline we must find work out what increases discipline, discipline is increased via putting people in the groups where they will not stand out and share characteristics with everyone else, it will increase when timetables distant everything, it will increase when the individual in question is subjugated from birth to hierarchies, when any traces of individuality are punished. Schools will do this by putting everyone in groups based on ages, by putting a strict timetable into place, by placing the teacher above them as an authority figure who can punish pupils for deviating from their wishes and by strict enforcement of uniform (interestingly the exact same things are done in training for armies in this time period and in the modern army). Overseers increase discipline by punishing any deviations from the capitalists demands in the factory, however perhaps more importantly between this and schools the individuals entire time is spent in a disciplinary environment which will cause the person in question to start to view obedience as the nature law, in addition to this it will create a managerial class which will decrease resistance to the state by giving it a human face. Prisons will serve to increase discipline by once again removing all individualistic qualities, by making everyone do the same activities, by having a strict hierarchy, by placing the convicts in uniform – furthermore this is a massive change and really highlights the disciplinary stage as previously deviants were killed instead of broken. Finally, the media will never focus on actions of rebellion, in this way this idea of this discipline and obedience will be reinforced as it will be all they know.

The disciplinary stage will start to occur as soon as the capitalists have taken over the state apparatus. However the next stage takes longer to occur - the disciplinary stage had reached its fullest extent by about 1860 in western capitalist countries, while the imperialist stage would take till 1890. The imperialist stage is effectively when monopolies have come to dominate the countries. Monopolies are in the best interests of the capitalists as they mean that they can charge higher prices due to the removal of all competition. This monopolisation can occur due the emergence of banks, which are essentially a group of metacapitalists, in that they invest in capitalist enterprises and get a return. This works by the metacapitalists buying huge amounts of shares in a business, to the extent they basically control it, they then lower the market prices of their goods to undercut all their competitors, they can do this at a loss because they have huge reserves of money they can dig into to keep the business in question afloat or they can simply buy out all the competition – so like the capitalist invests in the means of production, the metacapitalist invests in capitalists. This has the effect of decreasing the size of the capitalistic class considerably – until previously they were merely a relatively large group with coinciding interests, however they will now reach a point whereas they can exercise huge amounts of control personally. For example, bribes, at this point it is now safe for the capitalists to open their parliaments to everyone because the individuals that are put in charge can be brought off – even if that is only in the form of comfy job offers. We still see this trend of wealth being centralised in increasingly few hands with the recent stat coming out that just the top 27 richest have as much wealth as the bottom 3.8 billion.

The next stage is the nationalism stage, whereas the scape goats in society e.g. foreigners which although always blamed for the misfortunes in society have the blame stepped up to a terrifying extent. This is perpetrated by the media which by now is safely in the hands of the metacapitalists. This will be used in one main way – war. The capitalists are always looking for new ways to increase their wealth whether that be by the colonies or by trade. However, conquest of tribal societies by rifleman requires few soldiers, while for Britain to conquer Germany would require the populace to be fighting too. So once the world has been divided up into colonies and puppets the capitalists countries (which are little more than groups of capitalists and their subjects) will start trying to conquer each other as after all their only purpose is the acquisition of more power/wealth. To do so will require the entire populations support, so the media will demonise not only the enemy nations people but also members of the nation itself who do not wish to go and mindlessly murder the working class of another nation. This leads to enormous wars like world war 1.

Now we reach a cross roads, at this point the capitalists will introduce consumerism or become fascist. The likelihood of either occurring is determined by solidarity among the working class. The capitalists will likely invest some effort into generating a fascist party (afterall was it not krupps and thyrsil which benefited off of the third Reich) which if beaten by the working class (for example at cable street) will lead to nothing and it will continue into consumerism, however if the working class has been devastated by years of extreme poverty, conditioning and failed revolutions like the Weimar republic the fascists are more likely to take over. Though that being said consumerism considerably decreases solidarity so will lead to fascism eventually. Consumerism comes about in a similar way to nationalism, however this time it is not in the name of the conquest of other major capitalist blocks but rather in the creation of whole new completely meaningless industries. As I have just showed, the capitalists will introduce consumerism if the working class has a lot of unity, which at the same time will mean that the capitalists are likely moving production overseas to there not unionised workers in china or India. Therefore consumerism is needed to create pseudo needs so that these pseudo needs can be fulfilled by new industries so that an unemployed mass doesn’t fight back, but also so that the capitalists have no industries to exploit. Consumerism was given a massive boost by the radio becoming wide spread as it meant that pointless tat would be marketed to people 24/7 telling them that this object instead of that object will fulfil their desires. This has the self fulfilling effect of making the people desire objects increasingly due to objects failure to fulfil them - by which I mean as members of the populace they will be working in jobs to survive so their work will likely not feel meaningful, they will then be marketed stuff on the basis it will fill this void, this will fail to fill the void and instead will make it deeper as they start searching for more stuff to buy instead of living authentically. In turn the purpose of their lives will become working so they can gain stuff in a vain attempt to fill this void, which will in turn isolate the individual as all their relationships will gradually become throughout this phase just means of acquiring more stuff, for example the point of Christmas would switch from a gathering, to a gift exchanging session. Consumerism in this way devastates the unity of the working class, because they all become disassociated individuals all seeking empty objects instead of meaningful relationships.

This will then lead to fascism as with the working class unity devastated the gates will be left open to the fascists. The nationalist stage has readied the people for the hatred that will be directed towards whatever minority is vulnerable at that point in time and will be used almost as a trigger word to gain the fascists support, the monopoly stage will cause all the politicians to provide no resistance in return for certain things, and the disciplinary stage will make the even stronger hierarchies and strengthened state apparatus seem acceptable. Fascism is the perfect society for the capitalist, as the fullest extent of the states power can be used as working class unity while damaged before this will now be rendered almost non existent. People who form unions will disappear, and not only will the disassociated individual not care, even if they did they would likely be too disciplined to do anything. The deathcamps allowed by nationalism will allow the capitalists to exploit labour for free. And this society is geared towards war allowing acquisition of more power. The middle class created by the discipline stage will Though that is not to say that resistance in a fascist society is completely futile – afterall discipline is only maintained if no one sees anyone resisting – however it would be the hardest society to resist once it establishes itself.

In modern capitalist we are now entering the fascist stage, this can be shown by several indicators, for example the complete carelessness to which people regard the deportation camps, deaths of refugees and starvation of hundreds of millions. However in history societies have stress points, these occur around the times when mystification occurs. These occur because over time if the state fails to do class consciousness starts to increase, the state responds by mystifying itself, however just before and after it is possible to have a genuine revolution.

Anarchism and Communism

Now that we have established what capitalism is, it is undoubtably bad – but what alternative is there. I would suggest anarcho-communism, this as an idea is likely to cause quite a lot of confusing as its 2 constituents’ anarchism and communism are not very well understood. Anarchism is generally meant to mean a society without a government and communism a society without a state. However, semantics aside, the society I am subjecting is about abolishing hierarchies, coercion, suffering and about increasing freedom and happiness.

However to first determine eutopia we must first look at the people in it. What is human? For this there are 2 important parts of being human – first the desire to rebel against what we feel is unjust and secondly the desire to help other people. But how can I make such a assertion? Well the desire to rebel against what we feel is wrong is more of a logical construct we can make about conscious beings, what people feel is wrong is what they do not desire, rebellion is action to change something. Therefore, it makes sense to say that it is human to desire to change what we do no like. However, to say that we all innately desire to help people is harder to justify, of only because the state has mystified people to the extent that human nature is hidden. However, we can look at the direction of the state influence to try and work out human nature by negation. The state for example increases discipline, discipline changes people so that they will not help people when they see people being hurt of told not too furthermore, disassociation of the individual also makes people less emphatic as does the very nature of hierarchies – as such we can see the direction of the state is to decrease empathy, therefore it makes sense that naturally empathy would be much higher. Furthermore if we examine this from a biological perspective, it is in the best interest of the gene to try encourage protection of bodies which also contain it, so that the gene propagates itself – hence empathy. Furthermore we can suggest that it is in human nature because if we look at the closest species to us - bonobos (unlike chimpanzees bonobos have empathy bits of the brain more similar to ours) that rarely fight, which work together and resolve their issues by having sex.

Furthermore even with all the states influences on our empathy does it not fill you with indignation or terrible sadness when you see people hurt? In this way I think we can conclude that it is peoples best interests for everyone to be happy and free if only because it makes them happy and free. And as such a society which attempts to maximise these things would be in the best interests of humans!

So how do we make people happy and free? To make people happy, undoubtably everyone must have enough food, everyone must have places to live, meaningful relationships, ways in which they can feel they are meaningfully do things furthermore the best person to know how to make themselves happy is themselves. And to be free we must free people of economic obligations and the oppression of the state.

Providing for everyone

How will we provide for everyone? Unlike capitalism the anarchist communes will produce what is needed by people. The fields will be taken over by those who live near them, for example the fields surrounding a town will be taken over to sustain that town. In this way decentralised food production will remove all the issues with a bureaucracy, but will also mean that the people farming it will have enough to eat – also as they will be restored to their nature human situation by the removal of state influences they will desire for no one else to go hungry so they will provide for others who are hungry – take for example how the free territories in the Ukraine continued to feed the Russian peasants for nothing in return. Furthermore, the farming techniques used will not be in the name of some blind march towards more money but towards feeding people, so intense farming techniques which could have a harmful effect would not be used, but machines which could make it easier to farm would be given to communities whereas before they would not of been because communities were too poor. The farms will become as efficient as they can be without damaging the land. How is this food then to be effectively distributed? The food will then be shared among the community. This will be done in the process of mutual aid whereas the everyone voluntarily works towards the community and everyone can take what they need from the community, this would work well if everything was put in depots and then people take what they need from these depots(however each community will decide itself how best to organise this) – that same thing would happen with everything produced by the community whenever it be produced in the factories of the fields.

Homes for all

The homes should be taken over by the community – of course on a voluntary basis (although only up to the extent they are using it, the spare rooms in Buckingham palace would be placed under communal ownership regardless of any nobles objections, but the family which just wants to be left alone in the flat would be left alone), the community will then try to share the houses best so that people are most positively affected. However, the idea of ownership would change, it is likely living would become far more communal.

Meaningful relationships

With the breakdown of the mother/father/children unit into the community as a whole, people will get to know each other better and perhaps more importantly with the absence of the monetary motivation in relations the relationships will become meaningful. This is also important as it will act as the means of prevent people doing shitty things, as desire to be shitty caused mainly be alienation and lack of empathy will no longer be fostered instead the opposite will be true, furthermore if things do go wrong the community will be able to effectively understand what caused it to go wrong and address those issues. Furthermore, the desire of everyone to be happy requires the individual to choose how to make themselves happy, which will mean that individuality will flourish.

Voluntary work

Can anything be enjoyable when you have to do it? Afterall you may love skiing but if your being to forced to ski at gun point its not going to be a particularly fun experience. When something is not a choice it becomes unenjoyable. So in this society with no economic coercion, work should become enjoyable in a way of feeling useful even if the task itself isn’t particularly great. And people would continue to work because they desire of others to be happy, and work acts as a way of helping others because work will contribute towards helping others, for example if I got and work in the field growing potatoes it makes me feel better because I am helping people to get food, and if I paint pictures it makes me happy because it makes others happy. So even if the desire to help others is entirely based on the desire to make yourself happy or not makes little difference. Furthermore with the increased amount of machinery which will be made available by the factories coming under community ownership, the amount of work needed to sustain society will dramatically decrease, furthermore with the labour freed up the removal of all the meaningless jobs which have come about under consumerism and previously in the maintenance of the state, the amount of time needed from each individual to maintain society will dramatically decrease

Economic obligations

Money will no longer exist with people contributing what they can and taking what they need, in this way people will no longer be coerced into work.

State oppression

The state will no longer exist all its prisons, politicians, armies, bureaucrats will be gone. Furthermore, as this society can only occur from a ground up movement, the process of creating this new society and rejecting all the old societies oppressive values, such as marriage or sexual repression will lead to make more open and supportive communities. Furthermore, the desire of everyone to dismantle things like the power of the old over the young and men over women will lead to such things becoming a thing of a past particularly quickly when those ideas are no longer being dogmatically reinforced.

So as you can see the people in this society will be considerably more happy and freer. However how will the details be organised? How will the society make decisions? The society will practise decentralised democracy as that is the system of decision making which makes most sense for this system as everyone wants everyone to live as they wish, and decision making based on who it effects is a good way of fulfilling this. However, for just meetings and general discussion there would likely be a confederation of councils based on streets and villages which for bigger discussions would make larger group votes. Effectively this society will be organised by the people.

How would this society deal with crime? Well to assess this we must first work out what causes’ crime, these are financial necessity – which would no longer be an issue, and lack of willpower. Unsurprisingly both of these things are caused by the state with its unequal distribution and its disciplinary institutes - which decrease will power. As such after a period of time in this new society crime should disappear altogether, but how do we stop in the time being? Well this would be done by a supportive community helping the individuals in question from reoffending by helping them get past what went wrong, and by not ostracising the individuals in question they will be more willing to accept help.

So how do we make this Eutopia occur? As I have already pointed out we are currently on a stress point from consumerism to fascism, and as such we have a good chance now to try and make a better society – but more importantly we have to too try and counter the impending ecological genocide. To do this we must attempt to form local proto councils which will become the councils during and after the revolution. We must attempt to subvert and destroy symbols of authority. We must act as decent human beings and show solidarity with everyone. But most importantly we must not to make the mistakes of past revolutions – we must make sure our revolution resembles the society we wish to form. The revolution must be a decentralised directly democratic all-inclusive revolution if we wish to have a society with these things.

3 notes · View notes

isolatedinternet-blog · 5 years

Text

Social media

I remember the first time I made a social media page. It was for Instagram, when I was around 13. This was also around the time I got my first phone. I was so excited to be able to interact with my friends online as well as in person. We could post pictures of ourselves for all of our other friends could see, it was the next cool thing to be a part of. All I would hear is “Did you see so and so’s post?” The online world interested me. Now, as a 19 year old girl who has been through a lot in the online world during those 6 years, I try my best to stay off my phone.

The drama that came with having social media was insane. People would think that posts were directed towards them, somehow causing enemies. This happened to me a couple times, and girls started to dislike me for some unknown reason. People like to assume things online, and that’s exactly what they were doing. I try my best to be friends with everyone I cross paths with, so dealing with this was very hard for me. Middle school is hard for everyone I think, but it was especially hard for us now with cell phones. We now got to deal with all our friends at school, and also bring it home on our phones. It is like a never ending cycle of always talking to the people in your life. This brings me to my main point of this - everyone is too obsessed with their phones.

I hate when I go out with a group of people, and some are sitting on their phones. It is so hard for someone to not look at their phone for an entire dinner. I also cannot act as if I am innocent of this. And I am also not attacking the people who do this. I am merely bringing this up because if you are on your phone the entire time you are with someone, why are you even with them? I get checking your phone every once or twice while hanging with someone to check your messages, but browsing Twitter just for the heck of it doesn’t make sense to me. When I am with someone, they have 90% of my attention. The other 10% is dedicated to my own mental thoughts and the occasional phone check. It’s just a simple example of how people can’t live without their phones.

To me, it’s as if people don’t know how to interact in a live setting anymore. Everyone is so used to talking on the phone and texting, being face to face is hard for them. This makes it harder to find job satisfaction and relationships in life, because these are two things that you cannot fluff in life over the phone. Things come so easy to people through the phone. Streaming movies, texting immediately, even getting food delivered to your door without even having to talk to someone. All of these give you immediate satisfaction. With a job, you must work hard and actually care about what you are doing to be truly successful. Not having an immediate success in your field will discourage people and give up very easily because since it didn’t come to them right away they don’t know what to do after that. Same with relationships. If you argue sometimes or don’t agree on everything, people seem to give up very easily because they don’t want to put in the effort.

This, to people like me, makes life very frustrating. When everyone around you is sucked into their phone, it makes life for me hard to find human connection. Everyone wants to talk about celebrities or stuff online, but never looks at what’s around them. I’m very lucky to have a loving family and boyfriend that aren’t revolving around their phone. I know that many people think the same way I do, but feel that they can’t change because everyone around them is self involved with their social media. I am here to tell you that you’re not alone in feeling that this whole social media craze is overrated. Be the one to stick up for yourself and speak for what you believe in. I started to do that, and I realized that most people think the same way. The internet isn’t real life, go outside and do something! It is much more rewarding and you will find more fulfilling relationships in life.

#internet #life #social media #alone

1 note · View note

lovelifewithlight · 5 years

Text

On My Way Home – Under the Moon at Half Portal

July 20 2019

I have had a hell of a last couple of days, its been quite fun and entertainment. I’ve had a lot more fun than I’ve had in a long time. I’ve been locked up. Chained down. And well, I’m free now and doing lots of things the right way.

I made the right choices today, most definitely. I sat down and confronted mom and grandma with the Bible, I went and picked up Grandma D and had some pretty intense conversations. At home one of the warnings I got was that Gma would never listen, and is stern in her beliefs. What was funny was that she forgot the end of the joke she told, which identified what she had forgotten of her own faith. I know I will be helping my entire family heal from their wounds and become healthy.

I know also that I am a lead role in two groups that have been at war for a very long time as well. And I see the peace that could be had. But I also see that people will choose at times the wrong thing to do.

I was very much inclined to the number 6 today. I understand [now that] life is a give and life is a take. If you give freely [then], the power is when you take back what you gave in the wrong moment at the wrong time. There is a follower and there is a leader. And these roles must [be able to] switch in the moment, dependent upon who is more powerful to take control in that moment. This very important.

The surrender of love from both sides was something I had learned w Bowden in the beginning (or maybe not). I definitely know that He is on his way back Home like many others, to me. I very much feel like my children are coming back to me. I’ve played a mom role for a lot of people. Those people are very important “people” to me. I’ve been extremely patient. That patience has been tested, that is for sure.

I understand that a lot of what happens is dependent upon what is manifested and what is being thought. That thought is very much put into action if it’s what you want. I know that I have felt very obsessed lately. But in the best kind of ways. Some of the words that I have disliked have become quite great! “Obsessed and perfection” come to mind. And I have been very afriad of perfection. I’ve spent time being afraid of my crazy and my decisions. This is very strange actually, because I’m not a fearful person. I very much enjoy challenges and enjoy walking away from challenges as well if it’s not my challenge to face. I like to take up arms [when others] are unable to in that moment. And to take up arms in the moment that they are able to take up their own will, and defend them with honor.

I learned that the hard way: You can bend the will of other people and it’s not okay!. It’s not okay!

I have very much held these lessons close to me all these years. I am very aware that I can influence and manipulate any situation. I have gotten very good at it. But I have also been afraid of it, because I am good at it. I have been Most afraid of Myself. Knowing my power and knowing what I know about people. Not a lot of people have given a shit to know the real me. Not a lot of people have lit me up enough to know who I am. That’s the most frustrating thing about love for me.

I understand that my world is so different than every body else. We have such commonalities between us all though, and it really is about Balance. Personal integrity and alignment within ourselves. This brings the world around us into alignment as well. I am very much seeing that happen in myself, my family, my friends.

I love these people. I love everyone as equals. But there are definitely stronger ties than others, but that’s just me.

– Transcribed from live recording while driving home from a friends

7/18/19 dream

Together w A (whos kind of creeping back up in my my free as a bird, like a friend.) Haven't seen each other in long time, but i greeted and hugged everyone but him although i wanted to. Avoiding eye contact and I didn't know why. And somehow i just knew it would have been fine to do so too.

Other 7/18 notes:

Tt grandma about the beginnings of relationships. Mom about Ashley. Cay shows up tomorrow. They know im awake and gma notice polar bears and “onward”. Suggested deb paintings meant something to people, gave me painting for 3-4 white wolves. Bowden went to Dayvos and climbed the tree. I understand his realization but he doesnt. We argued for a while about his healing and spiritual development but hes stubborn and fixed on “non believing” and although he finds magic in the world its only when he is out free and unworking. Snake. Damn it! Warnings came in 3s today. Yet i found much truth of the timeline split and its…coming… Bowden may go see Katrina and Squee… Which will either help heal or hurt. It would be either the final straw or the beginning. I wish i could know… All i can do is think about when because i know it will. I also know hes going to run for a time, just hope its not too long. I have faith. I know this is it. My proof was profound again today as i found a video thats extremely triggering… I kind of know that if i can arrange the data and have it prepared, by the time he asks for it ill give it over like im returning the favor of returning his soul to the truth. Oh ya, lol, but that’s kind of exactly the point… And hell know.

“when you go out to the woods and you look at trees you see all these different trees. And some of them are bent, and some of them are evergreens, and some are whatever. And you look at the tree and you allow it. You see why it is the way it is. You sort of understand that it didnt get enough light, and so it turned that way. And you don't get all emotional about it. You just allow it. You appreciate the tree. The minute you get near… “

0 notes

allimariexf · 6 years

Link

alli’s Arrow 1x21 rewatch thoughts

Aka the one where Felicity goes from a person who’s “setting up Oliver’s internet” to his “friend.” Aka this is really long but I think it’s so important in the progression of Olicity and for understanding Oliver’s character and how Laurel fits in.

-------------------

“Better get started then.” OLIVER SASS! Barely there, but still. I love how he’s starting to play with her, just a little.

And then:

“He’s the one who left, Felicity. I did everything I could to stop him.”

“Except apologize....” That’s right, Felicity! Don’t let him get away with that.

THEN:

“I’m sorry - who are you?” ENTITLED LAUREL, wow. Obviously Felicity knows Oliver - what right to you have to demand an explanation from her?

“Nobody. I mean I’m not nobody, I’m someone, obviously, and so are you, you’re Laurel, right? That Laurel - Gorgeous Laurel?” Meanwhile Felicity’s reaction here is so adorable and so revealing:

- it shows how, even though she has confidence in her own intelligence and values, she has a deeply embedded sense of inferiority when it comes to certain types of women (the Laurel-types, who are conventionally beautiful and successful and universally adored). It shows that to some extent she sees herself as an outsider. (Not that she sees herself as lacking, exactly...I think many of us who relate to her see where I am going with this. Not that we would change things about ourselves, but that we feel like outsiders because we’re not conventionally beautiful/successful/fashionable/etc.)

- it also shows how Oliver’s continued obsession with Laurel reinforces that sense of inferiority/outsiderness. That she won’t directly assert herself between Oliver and Laurel because she assumes that Oliver would “take Laurel’s side” if he were required to make a choice between them. (With this in mind, oh how sweet 2x23 and everything after is). (Side note: in season 2 we get a delicious follow-up to this scene when Felicity DOES assert herself between Laurel and Oliver - in 2x04 at a fancy party when Felicity says to Laurel, “You can have him back in a minute” and Oliver goes with her - and it is an awesome moment showing the progression of their relationship. I live for this stuff 😎)

Meanwhile, Oliver’s little smile at Felicity here is adorable because it shows, again, that he’s simply charmed by her, and he doesn’t necessarily see her as inferior.

“This is Felicity. She’s setting up my internet.” That being said, his need to maintain his secret identity ruse - and his need at this point to preserve separation between his two identities (the “Oliver Queen” identity and relationships that he puts on a pedestal, versus the “Hood” identity and relationships which he still sees as somewhat “monstrous” and tainted) causes him to basically devalue her in front of Laurel. His response completely diminishes her actual importance and is particularly ironic because, between Laurel and Felicity, Felicity is the person who actually knows the real him at this point. *More on this later*

I’m not a Laurel-hater, but if anything was ever going to make me dislike Laurel, it would be this scene.

MOOOORE below the cut!

Meanwhile, once they go downstairs and get to work, it turns out Felicity has casually been EXTRA BRILLIANT by making the Walter connection. Because already she is more than just tech assistance, but a crime-solving PARTNER and Oliver just totally devalued her in front of Laurel and okay I am a little bitter. But the end of the episode will help make it better.

Felicity’s sass regarding Diggle is awesome - I love how she never misses an opportunity to prod Oliver to be better.

And how freaking heroic is it that she just casually presumes that she will go undercover, even after having been made a hostage during Dodger? It’s not at all like this is what she signed up for when she started helping Oliver.

Oliver’s protectiveness of her is adorable though. And the way he goes to lay down the law, “Felicity, I’m not letting you -” and then she just talks over him, “Oliver, the reason I joined you in the first place….” *Sigh* quality stuff right here. Also the way that they use each other’s first names for emphasis, even though they’re talking to each other and they’re the only people there. It’s adorable.

THE INTENSITY: “You have to let me do this.” AND THE UNINTENTIONAL SEXUAL TENSION: “All right. But we do it my way.”

DELICITY! Ugh this friendship is so perfect, John is perfect, Felicity is perfect, their chemistry and interactions are amazing (it’s still season 1 - how is this even possible??). Why did we not get a bazillion more scenes like this? I mean, I know it’s not strictly necessary, since their close friendship and alliance comes through even in peripheral interactions, but come on...it’s just quality content!

“It feels really good having you inside me” scene: what can I say about this scene that hasn’t been said a million times? *swoooon* I will note that I particularly love how nervous you can tell Oliver is after he says “If anything happens, I’m right outside” and Felicity responds “Okay” and looks down: the way he sweeps his eyes over her with that worried expression and takes a deep breath.

“Oh look, there’s the bathroom. Should have known the manager’s office would be down the hall and to the right of the bathroom.” LOL I adore this line - she’s smart and obvious and hilarious.

“You’re gonna be really upset when you meet my partner.” I love how she’s relying on him to rescue her, how much confidence she has in him. And Oliver busting in to save her is pretty hot.

Meanwhile, pretty risky of Oliver to take his hood off in there since they probably have security cameras, but anyway it’s sweet that he did it so he could share a meaningful look with Felicity.

Felicity walking down the stairs and turning the light on sitting-in-the-dark Oliver - I love this show’s use of metaphorical imagery.

I want to know who was piloting that plane that Oliver jumped out of. Whoever that person was, they must know Oliver’s the vigilante lol

Okay so this second scene totally parallels the “Felicity-interrupting-Oliver-and-Laurel” scene, in a way that shows their relationship has PROGRESSED:

“This is totally a family thing, isn’t it?”

“I’m sorry, who are you?” Unlike Laurel, Moira’s question isn’t at all entitled. She is actually more polite than she strictly needs to be.

“This is Felicity. She’s my friend.” This time when Oliver introduces Felicity, after everything she just risked and proved by helping rescue Walter, Oliver cannot deny her friendship. Even though he still needs to hide his secret from his family, and as much as he is trying to keep his identities separate so that his Hood persona won’t taint his “true” life and family and friends, he can’t deny that Felicity is a friend to anyone anymore. And! The way he describes their relationship from this point forward only gets more and more intimate. ^_^

For the record: Oliver thinking he loves Laurel at this point has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that he now thinks she’s the only “pure” person left from his former life who’s not tainted by lies and conspiracy and intrigue. He just found out that his mother and Tommy’s dad are involved in the undertaking, and everything he held as sacred about his former life is crashing down around him and it is making her seem more pristine by comparison. He is still holding on to the illusion that by “righting his father’s wrongs” he can redeem himself for everything he did during his 5 years away and before, and Laurel being pure is the key to that. He thinks that’s love, but obviously everyone who isn’t Oliver knows it’s not.

@jules85 @blondeeoneexox @hope-for-olicity @memcjo

#arrow #arrow meta #arrow 1x21 #arrow series spoilers #ArrowRewatch2018 #allimariexf arrow meta

4 notes · View notes