TV Put Us All In Exile!

Out, looking in.

In on the real happiness, the real stories, the real life -
like people adrift, scattered we are, eyes in the dark.

Perhaps because the Jews had been in exile for so long already they were the ones most adept at mastery over the situation.
But their goals were modest…
whereas the goals of the TV…

insert dark laughter

Not so much.

(after a productive discussion on KTS.

Why were they “in exile” - what caused their fall from grace? - such that TV could have such reign?

Eric Rudolph, in a statement given near the end of his trial, referred to TV as the “electric jew”.

They were attacked by the Assyrians and the Romans.

Unlike other conquered tribes, they held true to their own god.

Their oppressors eventually became envious of this god and took an infantilized version of it for themselves, in order to consolidate the decaying reign of the Caesars.

So that’s more or less the opposite of what I proposed.

Using these terms, in my logic it might be the Electrical Assyrian or the Electrical Caesar.

he got executed anyway so fuck that guy i used to take girls for abortions to that clinic he bombed man i coulda been hit

Five years in the nantahala forest while they continuously dragnetted it bro that’s beast mode. Said he ate salamanders and stole garden veggies and silo grain and stuff. Here’s the infamous arrest spot in Murphy NC (been through there actually).

youtu.be/Pq4SlBzVKiY

Go to 4:00

I believe we’ve entered the territory of American Culture.

Often considered to be a contradiction in terms. But not by those who have read Huckleberry Finn.

Seriously, positively amazing country, and in so far as America has cultured itself it has ascertained not to compromise its wilderness in doing so - thus it has redefined the outer limits of culture - Freud must have seen something like that when he considered the country to be a mistake, meaning just a great risk – as if he had a right to complain about risk taking…

American TV is a kind of wilderness brought about by the mixture of instincts and mind, moving imagery as seduction and plot as suspension; it is a jungle as much as it is that mansion we are looking into from the desolate outside;
it is a richer jungle inside of that Mansion called America than it is outside of it -
and yet most Americans are outside of it, merely by not being aware of being inside.

Like Zizeks Americanist method it unfolds by looking into itself, it’s postmodernism and yet visceral in a modernistic sense, it is the “Idea” of hamburger. It is not the hamburger, it is the Dasein that the hamburger merits; the booth-formed eating space rather than the microscopic table, etc; the friendly waitress offering refills rather than the person who’d rather be doing something else serving expensive treats. The carpenter who is a Marxist and yet a perfectly functional capitalist, the outlaw who is a perfectly sensible moralist; it is a large world less bound by reason than some other places, because it has the fruits of reason and the promise of happiness, it has no lust in the nitty grit of wheel-making that gives the German spirit its sense of openness-- in the detail there is all the space in the world, the differences between details - the nuances - America had no sense of nuance in this sense, until of course it imported the German scientists… but still, these operate covertly simply because the existential language of the American will be served by Germans but will not speak German; in so far as language is king, America rules over Germany as the American language exhibits the so desired Lebensraum in its spaciousness - English already expressed a certain liberty of the individual, but the American accents all accentuate especially the degree of space there is for making a points or even rather of half making points, of suggesting, pointing, gesturing. Because the wilderness is all around a plenty and one has discovered that it is best not to approach the world by encapsulating its idea.

And yet the Germans will not relent, they will not cease in their attempt to encapsulate that which matters.
Yet what matters may be precisely that which can not be encapsulated
but if it cant be encapsulated perhaps it may simply be framed, granted that it will not be asked to stop moving.

The TV is in God.

“The carpenter who is a Marxist and yet a perfectly functional capitalist, the outlaw who is a perfectly sensible moralist”

Really it’s my egoism that enjoys itself when I at least stand theoretically on the side of Marx, because its terminus, its final design, is something that pleases me in general; I like the idea of very many working class people not having to experience bullshit I’ve experienced. It’s a kind of bold experimental commitment to a radical idea that could go terribly wrong (incidentally that’s part of the excitement).

Anarchist before socialist but socialist before capitalist. I occupy a unique vantage point here.

But my ‘cause’ is never anything more than to satisfy and please myself, and I don’t examine the ‘whys’ at my age either. U do that shit in ur thirties.

I like that idea too, of basically no one having to experience the indignities dished out by a corrupt regime of wealth - yet I see Marx as serving no one better than such corrupt regimes, as his logic is so flawed that it isn’t even truly a logic -
Marx’ reasoning is disingenuous in the extreme, yet he speaks to a true sentiment, a true value even.

Its not insensible to me, as capitalism in terms of only existing for profit, is unsustainable, misunderstanding of what value is. Basically it is probably a horror vacui.

My position is that capitalism is the best system only where it recognizes that its core is the production of value, and not the extraction of wealth from the production of value.

It is logical and true that philanthropy is more of an aristocratic than a Marxist practice, as aristocrats actually have the means to it, as well as the desire for it - when you’re struggling to keep afloat there’s little thought of cementing your name by offering the city a library or university. When you’re floating in money, it is often a requirement of staying sane to give a great deal away to show (yourself) that you in fact do merit this wealth. Tragically, the institutionalization of philanthropy as “charity” under the church and under socialism has completely ruined the philanthropic instincts that existed.

I haven’t had cable in years, I know I’m not missing out on anything worthwhile.

Same here.

10 years at least Ive been without tv.

Gotcha.

That value being the power of wealth, ownership.

He infected the proletariat with the belief that they could obtain that value by following his ridiculous protocols.

Don’t believe a thing anyone says about ‘no possessions’. Marx never really goes into that. He just suggested that there is a necessity of a transfer of wealth from one group of people to another (christian logic, the last shall be the first).

Marx was remarkably stupid by Jewish standards, but he was smart enough to cause chemical changes in the brains of frustrated multitudes. That’s not really that hard if you want to go for it. In his particular case there was a working class girl he needed to seduce. So he spoke to that value which is true to almost every human.

I dont think he eventually got the girl. His apartment smelled too much of piss and opium, not enough of wealth.

That’s what happens when entire countries exile you and ban your paper for exposing the swamp and empowering the working class though, right?

That he continued to seek an honest living even while in squalor is impressive. I’da joined the anarchist ranks and started making bombs immediately.

Bakunin completely and utterly annihilates Marxist ‘logic’.

I truly do find little of Marx impressive, and I don’t think he did the working classes any good, as he interrupted the union movement by infusing it with his religion, which is truly all it is given that it is based on no sound premises or arguments. He conjures up a destiny of glory and possession in the minds of a class of people, so he got them very riled up, but obviously none of it worked to the advantage of anyone except the most clever and tasteless tyrants who dont mind stooping as low as to employ marxist rhetoric to make masses do their bidding and undermine actually beneficial structures.

Im willing to go on record and say that Marx hated value. As evidence I introduce his book “Das Kapital”, though it is so badly written that I feel sorry for putting judge and jury through the experience of reading it.

Bakunin was in his logic more related to the American Constitution than to Marx, to put it mildly by the way.

The basic logic of anarchism, be it anarchocapitalism or social anarchism, is that liberty is a system rather than an individual property; in a state where the majority of members are slaves (by voluntarily abdicating their own volition), as in our own (roughly 99 percent) no one is truly free in the political sense. Only when sufficient members enforce their own independence at once, does the phenomenon liberty take hold.

You see, liberty/freedom and independence aren’t the same; independence is just a condition which exists to a certain degree in all beings by the deviation of “being”, and yet is never absolute; liberty is a sociopolitical concept which may or may not be possible here or there.

Nor is freedom in the broader sense the result of a dialectic; rather the dialectic method presses everything it involves deeper into conditioning with every defining step it takes; freedom is the result of a clean act, a breach, a cataclysm, a decision, not of a historical process. Its not attained gradually and incrementally. It’s attained completely in one stroke or not at all. As indeed it is something realer than slavery it can not derive its reality from slavery. Gods are free, man can make himself free if he has godlike qualities.

Political liberty then is something extremely rare; it involves the divinity of many humans, which just isn’t available in most times. Liberty furthermore cant be given, it must be taken. To politically take liberty upon oneself as a population involves a great deal of orchestration, which is very hard to combine with the primordial impulse of pure freedom.

Ur familiar with their relationship then.

I do admire bakunin for a few reasons but his philosophy is ultimately immature, too idealistic and incredibly naive. In fact I’m going to finish this bowl instead and not explain to u y bakunin never belonged in the ring with Marx. All serious thinkers know this. Even educated capitalists know this. Anarchy is a fantasy that barely works for a group of fifty people, much less tens of thousands.

some american wilderness and some japanese engineering, (the german ones are more expensive and not as good). i drove for like 2 hours to get to an in and out burger, which completely sucks. the entire thing is all hype. the burger was trash.

Oh Smears that is so, so beautiful.