This is the blog of this artist
and Antonio Negri’s Resopnse
and Plan C’s Discussion
for more info
Go–Revolutionary political activity, thinking, way of life, spatial and temporal frameworks needed to overthrow capitalism.
From the NYTimes
SAYADA, Tunisia — This Mediterranean fishing town, with its low, whitewashed buildings and sleepy port, is an unlikely spot for an experiment in rewiring the global Internet. But residents here have a surprising level of digital savvy and sharp memories of how the Internet can be misused.
A group of academics and computer enthusiasts who took part in the 2011 uprising in Tunisia that overthrew a government deeply invested in digital surveillance have helped their town become a test case for an alternative: a physically separate, local network made up of cleverly programmed antennas scattered about on rooftops.
The State Department provided $2.8 million to a team of American hackers, community activists and software geeks to develop the system, called a mesh network, as a way for dissidents abroad to communicate more freely and securely than they can on the open Internet. One target that is sure to start debate is Cuba; the United States Agency for International Development has pledged $4.3 million to create mesh networks there.
Even before the network in Sayada went live in December, pilot projects financed in part by the State Department proved that the mesh could serve residents in poor neighborhoods in Detroit and function as a digital lifeline in part of Brooklyn during Hurricane Sandy. But just like their overseas counterparts, Americans increasingly cite fears of government snooping in explaining the appeal of mesh networks.
“There’s so much invasion of privacy on the Internet,” said Michael Holbrook, of Detroit, referring to surveillance by the National Security Agency. “The N.S.A. is all over it,” he added. “Anything that can help to mitigate that policy, I’m all for it.”
Since this mesh project began three years ago, its original aim — foiling government spies — has become an awkward subject for United States government officials who backed the project and some of the technical experts carrying it out. That is because the N.S.A., as described in secret documents leaked by the former contractor Edward J. Snowden, has been shown to be a global Internet spy with few, if any, peers.
“TM: For most traditional anarchists like Peter Kropotkin and Emma Goldman, the Soviet Union was a crisis almost from the beginning. They saw it as hierarchical in character, and in that way a continuation of the kinds of domination characteristic of capitalist society. In fact, earlier on, in his dispute with Marx, Mikhail Bakunin predicted that a Marxist takeover of the state would simply reproduce the hierarchical structure of social and political relations. AsThe Who said, “Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.” This is where anarchism becomes associated with a critique of the state. My own reading of anarchism is, however, that it is much more than a critique of the state. It is a critique of domination in all its forms–political, economic, gender, racial, etc. So while the anarchists were certainly right about theSoviet Union, we should read their work as a more general critique of domination. Granted, this general critique is at times in the background of their work, but it is nevertheless recognizable. In this way, they differ importantly from Marx. For Marx, there is an Archimedean point of social change since there is a central point of domination: the extraction of surplus value from the workers. Therefore, there is really only a single struggle: the struggle for the ownership of means of production.”
“How might one live, then, in Deleuze’s view? We don’t know what lives we are capable of. So a life ought to be an experiment, or a set of experiments, in living. We investigate what is possible, what we can become. This investigation is not limited to anything individualistic. In fact, Deleuze’s ontology is not an individualistic one. Experiments can happen at the individual, group, and even subindividual level.”
The Subject in Post Structuralist/ Deleuzean Theory
Excellent intro into post-structuralism.
Post Structuralism on Class
“There is no entity, no identity, no queer subject or subject to queer, rather queerness coming forth at us from all directions, screaming its defiance, suggesting a move from intersectionality to assemblage…” 211
“There are no points or positions…There are only lines.
As opposed to an intersectional model of identity, which presumes that components–race, class, gender sexuality, nation, age, religion–are separable analytics and can thus be disassembled an assemblage is more attuned to interwoven forces that merge and dissipate time, space, and body against linearity, coherency, and permanency.” 212–Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times by jaspir k. puar
Who we are is contstantly in flux. We are not stable identities/ subjectivities. Intersectionalities freeze to quickly only to reveal a flow. We flow. We move. When we stop at a pariticular subject, our momentary freedom only hides pain, terror, and possible death. When we stop at a particular point is when we close off connections. New possibilities. New relations. New forms of life. To flow is to be free and to desire. To flow is to revel in the being of becoming.
There are days when I feel Muslim.
Their are days when I hate being Muslim.
There are days I am an atheist.
There are days I am agnostic.
There are days I wish for God to come down and strike the evil doers.
There are days I wish to kill God.
Am I a Kafir? I have been told to leave Mosques.
There are times I feel like an anarchist.
There are times I feel like a communist.
There are times I feel we are all cowards.
There are times I feel like a coward.
There are times I feel like I will explode into the many assemblages I am.
Only then will I will be able to sort out who I am.
I have been told that I am a great person of color.
I have been told I am white.
I have been told I am Black.
I have been told I am Mexican.
I have been told I am Arab.
I have been told I am a Jew.
I have been told I am a terrorist.
I have been told I am a camel-jockey.
I have been told I am a sand-nigger.
I have been told I am a nigger.
I have been told I am an idiot.
I have been told I am a genius.
I have been told I am a failure.
I have been told I am a disappointment.
I have been told I am a mentor.
DG Fast Food Experimental Flyer
This experimental flyer (not distributed and still in draft form) is inspired by Anti Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia by Deleuze and Guattari…..
The Body is the Weapon–Mysterious comrade
“For no one has thus far determined the power of the body…” Spinoza
We desire beautiful, delicious and healthy food. Instead at fast food spots we fill our bodies with poison. Heart disease, diabetes, and obesity is our future. It is not god which awaits us in the afterlife but Ronald McDonald with another Big Mac. Laugh mother fucker laugh. Here is a death meal that will make you happy….the fries that will make your anus bleed ketchup….
We are the over fed. We are over fed like cows and pigs. This is another factory of a new type. Look around. If we were animals you would think we are going to be slaughtered. But aren’t we? We over eat so Dave the founder or Colonel sSanders from KFC can pocket some cash. Then we have to go to work to make that cash. If animals only purpose is to eat, sleep, and fuck then we have become animals.
That is not true. Animals get to play more than us and get to spend more time with their children. If this does not shock you then your brain cells have been killed by the microwave eyes of Ronald McDonalds. Smile.
Sleep. Eat. Work. Eat. TV. Eat. Sleep. Repeat. This is our life. We fill the cracks with smiles, church. And our children or bfs/gfs. Cracks of a plumbers ass.
Below is a new art of learning. A new art of collaborating. A new art of working together. How does an organization incorporate this? It is the free flow of creativity…What does this mean for political line? What does this mean for developing a program?
“Similarly, my students’ thinking becomes nomadic, roaming right out of the lessons I’ve mapped out for them. They open up entirely new lines of flight that lead into uncharted and possibly dangerous intellectual and emotional territories. For example, we are talking about religion’s role in society and suddenly a student shouts out “I’m gay, does that mean I won’t go to heaven?”, or we’re talking about some contemporary political debate and suddenly three students demand to know why the economy crashed and a fourth wants to figure out whether it has something to do with the Illuminati and a fifth makes a speech against conspiracy theories, prompting a debate that engulfs the class for the rest of the period.
I’m not talking about the moments where bored students tactically lay out a piece of tangent-bait hoping the teacher will get derailed so they don’t have to do their classwork. Usually those tangents are even more predictably scripted than our lessons. I’m talking about moments where students go on tangents precisely because they are NOT bored. Moments where the planned learning activities open up a vortex of emotion and thought because they touch on concepts, issues, and experiences that students usually do not get a chance to discuss in their daily lives. Something one student says resonates with the others, and it unfolds a waterfall of thoughts that students didn’t know they urgently needed to talk about until that moment. Now they are not going to want to talk about anything else – except for everything else that relates.
In this sense, learning is not about discovering perfect truths that represent a stable reality composed of separate people and objects. That kind of learning leads to understanding , posing objectives like “students will identify what these things are, and show this on a test”. It objectifies things, and thus it objectifies knowledge. Instead of seeking understanding, Deleuze and Guattari argue that the really interesting pursuit is learning to think – which often involves learning to feel. Thought does not simply discover things, it creates new lines of flight. It creates concepts and desires that traverse our bodies and minds, weaving among each other and the people, machines, plants, animals, cities, economies, words, and music we interact with.”
” One way to approach Deleuze and Guattari’s politics is to see them as offering a new political ontology. Deleuze cannot accept the dogmatic ontology offered by traditional political theory. To begin our political thought with individual human beings, each of which comes with his or her own (chosen) interests, is already to give the game away. It is to concede the stability of the already given that is the foundation of the dogmatic image of thought.
The problem is not only that individuals’ interests are intimately bound up with the society in which they live. It is true, as the communitarians2 have pointed out, that liberal political theory’s isolation of individuals from their societies often paints a distorted view of people’s interests. Individuals are far more subject to their social surroundings than liberal theory would have us believe. But the problem Deleuze sees is deeper. It lies in the very concept of the individual.
Why should we assume that individual human beings are the proper ontological units for political theory? Is it possible to start with some other unit? Or better, is it possible to start with a concept that is not prejudiced toward any particular unit of political analysis, whether it be the individual, the society, the state, the ethnic group, or whatever? Is it possible to conceive politics on the basis of a more fluid ontology, one that would allow for political change and experimentation on a variety of levels, rather than privileging one level or another?