When most ecological disaster based dystopian book or movies see a rampant population as one of the main contributors to an environmental apocalypse, Children of Men goes in the opposite direction and envisions a world where an unknown virus has sterilized everyone on Earth.
The main source of anxiety and suspense in most apocalyptic media is the struggle for the characters to preserve their own lives and the lives of their loved ones. Children of Men is such a radical departure from that because the main character starts of in a relative position of comfort and safety compared to most of the world. The main focus of fear is not for the lives of the characters, but for the survival of the human race itself.
Unlike Life As We Knew It I can actually understand why someone might question the point of continuing to live in the face of total extinction.But this movie isn't depressing at all. The characters are likeable and their is a lot of pleasant and even light hearted interaction between them.Nobody in this movie ever has any lack of passion to live. On the contrary they fight for survival of the species.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Friday, December 7, 2012
Eating Your Cat
"It's possible Horton's been killed," Matt said. "For food." (pg. 130)
Environmental catastrophe is inevitable. Their is plenty of evidence to support that this collapse is coming sooner rather than later. I'm sure their are plenty of climate change deniers and "progress" minded people that would disagree with me on this point, but I have no interest in arguing it. It is such an inevitability that I can't see how anyone could deny it.
Therefore, we should all start supplementing our meals with pet food and other less desirable foods so that we are prepared for when that really is all that we have. A little kibble in your brown bag every day might end up saving your life. Theirs no reason why you shouldn't, cat food is scientifically proven to be healthy and delicious. I'm not ashamed to admit that some of the more upscale all-organic canned dog food brands I have seen look a good deal tastier than many meals I have at one point eaten. Hell, meals I have eaten in the past week probably have less nutritional value than them. And if people think this is gross, then I will rejoice, because that only means more cans of Alpo and chihuahua roasts for me.
This book never really was an apocalypse novel. The vast majority of it is the main character and her family trying to cope with a drastic change in lifestyle. The difference between the apocalypse and a sudden change in environment and living situation would have caused the same emotional responses from the family members. No element of their post-apocalyptic life is quantitatively worse than what countless of generations have had to face before them. People living in Gdansk or Leningrad during WWII were facing famine and violence far worse than Miranda's family sees. Those people weren't constantly having existential crises, they were too busy trying to survive and even fight back.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Social Consciousness
"But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies."
One of the main goals of revolutionaries is to spread awareness of how social relationships function to people of all social groups. Socialism in particular stresses the importance of class consciousness. Class consciousness can be described as the collective understanding of the working class, or proletariat, that they are being exploited and that the ruling classes survive as leeches off of the fruits of their labor. Winston constantly laments the fact that if the proles were to become conscious they could destroy the Party immediately, and yet, they never will.
In this passage Orwell (being the classic socialist as always) sees class consciousness as the most important aspect of social awareness. For 150 years this has been the anguish of socialists the world over.
For example: Zinn on class consciousness. As a Libertarian Socialist Howard Zinn shares the same exact class based views and mindset of Orwell more than 60 years after 1984 was written.
But if class consciousness could create a successful proletarian world revolution in practically no time at all, then why has it never happened? Even in so called "communist" revolutions the working class has flocked to the same old nationalistic cult personalities that have always run things sooner than realize their own potential for creating change and order.
I believe this is because the dull politics of class consciousness is only one facet of a greater social consciousness that includes not only class; but race, gender, sexuality, and countless other aspects. Socialists like Orwell insist that the proletariat can be seen as a unified body with the same interests. But their are countless other social divisions that must be addressed. For example, a poor indigenous community in Mexico has entirely different concerns and battles from a radical gay community facing heterosexism in Chicago. As groups that are in opposition to the dominant culture of Western hegemony, their enemy is one and the same. However, they are different in practically every other way.
The ignorance of these divisions, and sometimes even downright refusal to acknowledge them, is what is really hindering a revolutionary social consciousness. Paradoxically, when we do acknowledge them we create an environment in which disparate social groups can build connections and common struggles.
One of the main goals of revolutionaries is to spread awareness of how social relationships function to people of all social groups. Socialism in particular stresses the importance of class consciousness. Class consciousness can be described as the collective understanding of the working class, or proletariat, that they are being exploited and that the ruling classes survive as leeches off of the fruits of their labor. Winston constantly laments the fact that if the proles were to become conscious they could destroy the Party immediately, and yet, they never will.
In this passage Orwell (being the classic socialist as always) sees class consciousness as the most important aspect of social awareness. For 150 years this has been the anguish of socialists the world over.
For example: Zinn on class consciousness. As a Libertarian Socialist Howard Zinn shares the same exact class based views and mindset of Orwell more than 60 years after 1984 was written.
But if class consciousness could create a successful proletarian world revolution in practically no time at all, then why has it never happened? Even in so called "communist" revolutions the working class has flocked to the same old nationalistic cult personalities that have always run things sooner than realize their own potential for creating change and order.
I believe this is because the dull politics of class consciousness is only one facet of a greater social consciousness that includes not only class; but race, gender, sexuality, and countless other aspects. Socialists like Orwell insist that the proletariat can be seen as a unified body with the same interests. But their are countless other social divisions that must be addressed. For example, a poor indigenous community in Mexico has entirely different concerns and battles from a radical gay community facing heterosexism in Chicago. As groups that are in opposition to the dominant culture of Western hegemony, their enemy is one and the same. However, they are different in practically every other way.
The ignorance of these divisions, and sometimes even downright refusal to acknowledge them, is what is really hindering a revolutionary social consciousness. Paradoxically, when we do acknowledge them we create an environment in which disparate social groups can build connections and common struggles.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Privacy
Government's oppressiveness change based on the material conditions of the time. State power is a constant variable that is in direct conflict with popular power. You could look at history analytically and pick apart the reasons why some states are more powerful at different times, but for the individuals that live in those nations it just boils down to luck. If you are comparatively lucky you might live in an orderly and peaceful Patagonian Gaucho town, far away from any authority. But if you lived just 40 years ago during the Guerra Sucia period in an urban center of Argentina or Chile you would be under the thumb of American backed dictatorships responsible for the disappearance of thousands. It can be hard to predict when a government will decide to crack down on its people, or when a capitalist economy will reach one of its inevitable crises.
The one thing that is inevitable and can be predicted is that the state will develop and use new technologies to spy on its population. This leads to the creation of the surveillance state. I would define a surveillance state as a nation that uses surveillance as its main deterrent to crime. By this definition the Party of 1984 is an obvious surveillance state. America and other industrialized nations are frequently called surveillance states, but surveillance today is far from being more than marginally effective. The problem is that cameras and audio recording technology is not cheap yet. The cost of the labor it would take to actually have an omnipresent surveillance state is even more expensive than that. The real world cost to create the kind of surveillance seen in the Truman Show would be astronomical, and that level is really what would be needed to create a surveillance state.
Every year that cost is decreasing. At some point in the future it might actually be viable to abolish privacy. Computers could advance to the point that people wont even need to monitor the video cameras that have become omnipresent. Voice recognition and comprehension software could one day be able to understand a phrase like "lets go on a country-wide shoplifting spree" and alert police.
The only thing that could keep this from happening is if people fight back for their privacy before it is too late. Instances of privacy being violated should be exposed and fought in every battlefield possible. This means legal obstruction and suits, protest and disobedience, and vandalism and destruction of the equipment itself. If we don't act quickly a panopticon will be built that will be as hard to destroy as the Party of Airstrip One.
The one thing that is inevitable and can be predicted is that the state will develop and use new technologies to spy on its population. This leads to the creation of the surveillance state. I would define a surveillance state as a nation that uses surveillance as its main deterrent to crime. By this definition the Party of 1984 is an obvious surveillance state. America and other industrialized nations are frequently called surveillance states, but surveillance today is far from being more than marginally effective. The problem is that cameras and audio recording technology is not cheap yet. The cost of the labor it would take to actually have an omnipresent surveillance state is even more expensive than that. The real world cost to create the kind of surveillance seen in the Truman Show would be astronomical, and that level is really what would be needed to create a surveillance state.
Every year that cost is decreasing. At some point in the future it might actually be viable to abolish privacy. Computers could advance to the point that people wont even need to monitor the video cameras that have become omnipresent. Voice recognition and comprehension software could one day be able to understand a phrase like "lets go on a country-wide shoplifting spree" and alert police.
The only thing that could keep this from happening is if people fight back for their privacy before it is too late. Instances of privacy being violated should be exposed and fought in every battlefield possible. This means legal obstruction and suits, protest and disobedience, and vandalism and destruction of the equipment itself. If we don't act quickly a panopticon will be built that will be as hard to destroy as the Party of Airstrip One.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Civil Rights
I don't think it is ever necessary to give up "civil rights" for the "greater good". I put both "civil rights" and "greater good" in quotations because I do not believe that either of those things exist. As we creep into the third great Red Scare this only becomes more clear.
In late July dozens of anarchists from all over the west coast were subpenaed to a grand jury in Seattle. Unlike a regular trial, a Grand Jury determines whether a criminal indictment will be issued. These anarchists were indicted based on a bank vandalism that occurred during Seattle's May Day protests. However, because it is only a preliminary hearing they need practically no evidence at all to put them on trial. Even if nothing is ever found on them, they can still be kept subpenaed for a maximum of 3 years. In essence, its a modern day witch hunt.
The concept of rights is based in authoritarian thinking. One of the first and most famous examples of the concept of "rights" is the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi. In this code and its surrounding mythology the Babylonian gods are the ultimate authority and law is passed from them to the priest-king class. For the next 2000 something years, this paradigm would barely change from Babylon, to the pagan Roman empire, to the Europe-wide dominance of the Catholic church. The creation of the secular state built up the myth of rights even more.
The worst thing about civil rights is that it lulls people into a false sense of security. The danger of this cannot be understated. History has shown that no government has ever really believed in rights on a moral basis. The state reverts to rights based justifications when they want to do something like "liberate" a third world country, but throw them away when accused of torturing citizens of that same nation.
It can even be so bad that when the state blatantly ignores the "rights" that it is assumed to be protecting people will ignore it or not even ever see it happening. Luckily, there are still many that can see past the fragile veneer of civil rights that protects the secular state and know when to resist.
In late July dozens of anarchists from all over the west coast were subpenaed to a grand jury in Seattle. Unlike a regular trial, a Grand Jury determines whether a criminal indictment will be issued. These anarchists were indicted based on a bank vandalism that occurred during Seattle's May Day protests. However, because it is only a preliminary hearing they need practically no evidence at all to put them on trial. Even if nothing is ever found on them, they can still be kept subpenaed for a maximum of 3 years. In essence, its a modern day witch hunt.
The concept of rights is based in authoritarian thinking. One of the first and most famous examples of the concept of "rights" is the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi. In this code and its surrounding mythology the Babylonian gods are the ultimate authority and law is passed from them to the priest-king class. For the next 2000 something years, this paradigm would barely change from Babylon, to the pagan Roman empire, to the Europe-wide dominance of the Catholic church. The creation of the secular state built up the myth of rights even more.
The worst thing about civil rights is that it lulls people into a false sense of security. The danger of this cannot be understated. History has shown that no government has ever really believed in rights on a moral basis. The state reverts to rights based justifications when they want to do something like "liberate" a third world country, but throw them away when accused of torturing citizens of that same nation.
It can even be so bad that when the state blatantly ignores the "rights" that it is assumed to be protecting people will ignore it or not even ever see it happening. Luckily, there are still many that can see past the fragile veneer of civil rights that protects the secular state and know when to resist.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Handicaps
My biggest handicap would be a hideous mask to cover up my dangerously exceeding good looks. That way, I don't get the special treatment, free dinners, and modelling offers that always follow me wherever I go. I would also be given a mandatory uniform so that I cant use my impeccable fashion sense to be better dressed than anyone else. That way nobody will feel insecure when they see how good I look in the same 2 black hoodies and single pair of combat boots I wear basically every day. This would be good because I wouldn't have to constantly feel bad for those less privileged than me. Also, I would finally be free from the constant jealousy that is so often directed at me. Handicaps would be very liberating.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Propaganda
In this age people see more propaganda on a day to day basis than they have ever seen, but its presence generally goes unnoticed. However, it isn’t the kind of upfront and explicit nationalist propaganda that was so popular in the last century. Most propaganda we see today is of a subtler and more insidious form, and because of this it is more dangerous. The reason why it is less obvious today is that it deals with and enforces political and social subjects that the vast majority of people never question.
Take for example two different advertisements for a line of deodorant. One of the commercials is for a deodorant “for women”. In this commercial the deodorant is pink and fruit scented, and the actresses in it go shopping and clean their houses. In the other commercial a deodorant “for men” is advertised. The deodorant is blue and more musky smelling, and the actors in the commercial play football and go to sports bars. Most people wouldn’t think anything is strange about these two commercials. But why is their two different types of deodorant at all? What makes the pink one inherently more “feminine“? How has gender preference been decided? And by who? Are men genetically inclined to the color blue? Are women genetically inclined to fruit scented deodorant? The obvious answer is that they are not, and that gender is an artificial binary.
Reinforcement of the gender binary is in my view the most harmful side effect of propagandist advertisement. A few commercials like this are probably not harmful, but thousands and thousands of them in print, on TV, online, and on public display eventually ends up parceling almost everything in our culture into “male” and “female” boxes.
Propaganda created by the current regime or social order will always be in struggle with dissenting propaganda that directly challenges it. This type of propaganda has been called Agitational-Propaganda, or agitprop. Some examples of this would be spray painting a slogan like “bash back” over a anti-gay religious billboard or handing out anti-capitalist fliers in the middle of a city’s financial district.
I support this kind of subversive propaganda because it is created through the direct actions of individuals. I hate the propaganda of the government and corporations because they claim the authority over what people see on a day to day basis. Why does Axe deodorant have the right to cover an entire billboard with their advertisement? What gives them the right to subject me to their blatant sexism and consumerism but condemns the graffiti writer who wants to make that billboard into a mural just for the sake of making something beautiful?
Take for example two different advertisements for a line of deodorant. One of the commercials is for a deodorant “for women”. In this commercial the deodorant is pink and fruit scented, and the actresses in it go shopping and clean their houses. In the other commercial a deodorant “for men” is advertised. The deodorant is blue and more musky smelling, and the actors in the commercial play football and go to sports bars. Most people wouldn’t think anything is strange about these two commercials. But why is their two different types of deodorant at all? What makes the pink one inherently more “feminine“? How has gender preference been decided? And by who? Are men genetically inclined to the color blue? Are women genetically inclined to fruit scented deodorant? The obvious answer is that they are not, and that gender is an artificial binary.
Reinforcement of the gender binary is in my view the most harmful side effect of propagandist advertisement. A few commercials like this are probably not harmful, but thousands and thousands of them in print, on TV, online, and on public display eventually ends up parceling almost everything in our culture into “male” and “female” boxes.
Propaganda created by the current regime or social order will always be in struggle with dissenting propaganda that directly challenges it. This type of propaganda has been called Agitational-Propaganda, or agitprop. Some examples of this would be spray painting a slogan like “bash back” over a anti-gay religious billboard or handing out anti-capitalist fliers in the middle of a city’s financial district.
I support this kind of subversive propaganda because it is created through the direct actions of individuals. I hate the propaganda of the government and corporations because they claim the authority over what people see on a day to day basis. Why does Axe deodorant have the right to cover an entire billboard with their advertisement? What gives them the right to subject me to their blatant sexism and consumerism but condemns the graffiti writer who wants to make that billboard into a mural just for the sake of making something beautiful?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)