Path: news.cac.psu.edu!news.tc.cornell.edu!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!news.texas.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!unix.sri.com!jetson.sri.com!user
From: [email protected] (technical boy)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Dystopia, at last...
Followup-To: alt.cyberpunk
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 1995 08:50:50 -0800
Organization: SRI International
Lines: 161
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: jetson.sri.com

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
(Sourcerer) wrote:

> In article ,
> [email protected] (technical boy) wrote:

> >THE BORING THEORY OF WHY ACTIVISTS ARE LOUDMOUTHS

> I keep forgetting that busking the social power for handouts is the essence
> of activism

rhetorically, if a fatcat back into the mediapathic corner of having to
publicly characterize civil/human rights as ``handouts'', then that is a
measurable victory for activists. as his publicist rolls his eyebrows and
goes to work on damage control, you just walk on camera and bag the prize.

the opportunities for dramatic irony are then priceless. ``Out of the
generosity of their hearts, BloatCo says they won't use the cattle prods on
us today. They've reserved that honor for their employees in third-world
countries, where their handout has taken the form of free cattle prods to
the local police.''

maybe rights *are* in fact ``handouts'', but that would be a metaphysical
matter of no concern to me.

> and revolution. I guess things ain't really dystopic as long
> you still got foreplay.

the paleo-punk mantra of ``revolution'', as far as i can tell, is merely a
call for a changing of the guard. revolution is the opiate of the
psuedo-intellectual. revolution is what the earth does around its axis all
day,

the only revolutions of any significance are those that take place inside
peoples' minds.

> It becomes clear why my comments about usenet no longer being a private
> reserve were edited out.

i edited out no such comment, because there was no such comment in your
post. you apparently refer to another thread, another post, namely
Message-ID: <[email protected]>, which contains your comments
about usenet being no longer a private reserve. as far as i can tell, i am
in general agreement with that sentiment.

thus in selected posts such as this one, i am striving to minimize any
ambiguous use of language (including my technopomorphic native tongue) for
the time being, in the hope it will permit some level of public, not
private, discourse of these matters.

> >but that said, while `cyber' is often a lowlife phenomenon, as it has been
> >for me, lo all my life, it depends on signalling protocols and intellectual
> >horsepower that the unreconstructed `punk' cannot apprehend.

> True, unreconstructed punks are just awful at the art of sucking up, mating
> dances, submission postures and other display behaviors used to wheedle
> favors from the alpha primes of the troop.

unreconstructed punks *are* the goddam alpha primes of the troop. *have*
been for millenia.

although in the 70s, for around 10 minutes, i sympathized with their
despair that takes the form of wearing dog collars, today i have nothing
but contempt for their chunks-o-meat hyper-consciousness of fashion, and
for their monotonous and banal admiration for totalitarian social order at
the level of neighborhood turf, regional gangland, and international reich.

correction: not contempt, because that would imply they are too formidable
to be opposed. that was once true but no more. computers enable geek nerds
to fight back against the mindless drivel of the paleo-punk tribal
barbarian nomads that control vast territories of the earth and of the
eusenet neus. the computer is an equalizer for the 21st century, much as
the gun was in the 19th. Winchester rifle yesterday. Winchester drive
today.

in the old punk rules, you have to show loyalty and respect to your
gangleader. you see, that's not your computer, that's his. and permitting
your grrlfrend to walk the streets unmolested is a ``handout'' revocable
any time your devotion to him wavers. he'd be a fool not to make an example
of you and of her the moment you disobeyed his authority.

it is very difficult for me to believe that anyone literate enough to use a
computer considers the paleo-punk social organization to be a desirable
state of affairs. and it is very difficult for me to find any value in the
attitude that paleo-punk social organizations are inevitable.

see, the gangleader has turned on and tuned in. in many countries he no
longer seeks utter social dominance over everyone and everything, because
he sees more private advantage in being loved as opposed to being feared.

> >> Yet I could criticize those who work against it, if for no other reason
> >> than their poor timing and lack of strategic skills.

> >yes. lameness. a chronic problem, yes, but not exclusively that of
> >activists working against the forces of reactionary politics.

> "Against"? Don't you see the dance? How you need them?

``if you can't fuck it and it doesn't dance, eat it or throw it away.''
(from a character in Cadigan's _Synners_. Pat, if you're following this
thread i wish you'd comment.)

yes i see the dance and no i don't need them. i would far rather be
pursuing my private vices full-time, however some of my friends have
requested assistance.

whether i am helping them out of altruism or self-interest, neurosis or
not, are more of those metaphysical matters about which i am concerned very
little. but employing computers to help secure civil and human rights and
support mental revolutions (and political ones in selected countries) does
in fact appear to be in my self interest. good human rights environment is
good for biz. bad environment, bad for biz.

> >> Revolutionary action
> >> is *not* a ceremony of committment. It is not an opportunity to gain a
> >> nice rush from your biochemistry for being so good, kind and helpful.
> Jack
> >> off instead...
>
> >i tend to agree. but you don't say what it *is*. i think that it's
> >something you do for your long-term self interest.
>
> This is inadequate: revolutionary action is something you do for your
> long-term self interest.

fine then. i'm stumped. what would be adequate?

> >

> >> But, after 02/00, will come the inevitable depression. The repressed, no
> >> longer able to make reparation for their acts, real and imagined, are
> >> gonna make Ivan Karamazov look like a saint. That's our opportunity...

> >listening, motley? as the religious fanatics prepare for the Rapture, we
> >can loot their businesses with their blessings and a clear conscience.

> I can't believe you misread me that way.

then would you be so kind as to pop the cork offa that Private Reserve
Chateau Eusenet Neus, be a sport, and pour me something a little less
opaque. who are the ``repressed'' in your opinion. what is ``our'' (or
your, if you prefer) opportunity.

> >have you decided for sure that a self-fulfilling prophecy of a millenial
> >catastrophe is in your self-interest? its not clear to me if it's
> >inevitable or not, not clear if its in my best interest to try to defuse
> >it, take advantage of the inevitable, ignore it and it'll go away, or what.
> >new thread time?

> I've proposed that millennialism is deeply rooted in our ideology and that
> the occurence of a new millennium is having a profound psychological effect
> on our society; that it is enhanced by the condition of novelty -- the
> hyper-realism of the times, i.e., the tech.

i've proposed that all sorts of weirdness will happen because of thoroughly
unaccountable psychological factors pertaining to the turning of a calendar
page. while paleo-punks may have a field day pickpocketing before 12/31/99
and openly looting after 1/1/00, its not clear that there is any benefit
for wireheads in having anything to do with the affair.

neither SRI nor its sponsors endorse this message.

[Next appendix] | [Return to index for Appendix A4] | [Return to index for Appendix A]