i Declare...

I try to write posts in a well thought out fashion and follow the best literary practise that i know. I've even added my own personal sequitur to Orwell's 'Why I Write' or John Simon's 'Why Good English is Good for You' by using my own addition to English grammar. I propose that the use of "I"--capitalized-- other than at the beginning of a sentence should only be used for declarative purposes, such as "I am hungry", only when a condition is based on physical or primary conditions, such as food, shelter, education or reproduction. The word "i" should be used when stating something like a concept which can be more easily considered collective. What i'm talking about here is "Individualism" v. "individualism". Finding that one has to capitalize something means a kind of reverence for the word, which is written, is created in the subconscious. When considering a word worthy of capitalization, one has to accept it as an unchanging thing, which means either accepting the name one has been given or chosen, or the name which someone has given a thing or a place. Thoughts are merely continuations of what has come before in life and in the lives of others before. There is no need to declare one's Individualism at every point that their existence is referenced. In the use of "i", all that comes across is that "i exist", in the sense of consciousness, which is all that is needed in most cases. How the statement "I exist" differs from the statement "i exist" is in that "I" fails to infer that many other "i"'s exist as well. Many statements deserve the use of "I" because of their clear disconnection from an awareness of what is shared. "I don't know if you are cold", exhibits this disconnection perfectly. In general use, "i" should be used to imply that the first-person is not the main element of the message...

viagra: the anti-revolutionary?

Mikhail Bakunin was impotent. Will we never again see anyone with the ability to redirect their energy so powerfully as Bakunin; now that we have viagra?

Exiled to Suburbia

The suburbs are human farms. Quite literally, considering they often occupy land which formerly would have been used to raise crops. So why else would we have come to accept the re-assignment of this valuable, fertile land for what seems like such a waste of space? Are we to gather from this that it is far more lucrative to plant families in neat rows one by one for acres and acres than it is to plant wheat or rice?

The irrationality of suburbia does not stop here. No, starving half the world's population so we can have a nice, safe and quiet place to sleep after coming home from work in the city is only a fraction of the havoc wreaked by the unnatural order of suburbia.

When we see the highways stalled at rush-hour for miles in every direction filled with idling cars, it is because the working class have gained a placation for their comforts. This is one of the only 'improvements' on the evils of the purer Capitalism of yore. Instead of having to live in the midst of the clutter and filth that our industrialized world has created, or being faced with actually having to change things from the very root of the problem we are alloted a high enough wage to buy an automobile and a small 'carpet-sample' of a yard to maintain. This gives us the mere illusions of mobility and of a connection to nature. However, we are still chained to the machine.

There is no logic to the lifestyles of the suburbanites. It's baffling that everyone feels the need to own a heavy-duty, gas-powered lawn mower and snow blower when each house only has a small area of a few square feet to tend. Am I crazy for questioning this? Is this such a huge afront to the individuality of the residents to suggest they perhaps buy those old fashioned push-powered lawn mowers with the rotating blades, or even pool resouces in order to share a single machine between a small number of neighbours?

These statements likely will fall on deaf ears. For, they are drowned out by the many angsty misguided pop-punk-emo-new-metal bands who can't deny the horrid state of the suburbs, but market their music to the teens of suburbia. Though, they never delve much deeper than the surface level of malaise. Capitalizing on social problems is a multi-billion dollar industry after all; so why would anyone encourage change?

UNONYMOUS: A New Movement for the Proliferation of Socialist Thought

The composition of ideas as concrete messages itself necessarily causes a removal of many important elements of the initial ideas; something organic and flowing becomes static. The very act of speaking or writing something down finalizes our thought in the mind of our audience. There is a wealth of incommunicable thought-building which goes into every word and continues well after the time of speech.

So why do we limit our capabilities further by complying with a system of exclusion? If communication be an extension of man, then why limit our media to individual ownership? Why can't we allow our ideas to extend beyond ourselves and, in exchange, receive free access to the creative works of others.

If there were a kind of public domain which was active in the present, not merely a catalogue of dead men's arts and literature, then everyone could hold artistic license. Imagine a forum where one's name cannot condemn the author to any type of prejudgment whatsoever. Not only does a famous or infamous name connote certain automatic qualities, but any name suggests some element or another about a person's background. In the spirit of Malcolm X, we should not allow our name to enslave us to the history of its origins or to any widely held notion of ourselves. A person cannot be accurately summed up by a name and it is shameful to rely on the notion of having to build a name for one's self in the fields of the arts, philosophy or politics.

One does not only claim responsibility for one's writings when one places their name at the end of a piece, one is committing an act which separates oneself from others. If a piece of work be written to unite, then anything which causes division should be avoided. I'm specifically referring to political language; the kind of language used in 19th century socialist pamphlets passes out on the streets of Paris by bearded-bespectacled intellectuals. Or the kind of language used by the anarcho-syndicalists during the Spanish Civil War. These are examples of movements which we can learn from, but they are merely historic examples. History is a fluid thing. It is not only the past. We are writing history this very instant. So, it is crucial that we learn and remember the lessons of the past, but more importantly, we must learn from the errors of the past. The error which unonymity is built to counter is a big one, it is the error of the ego. We have learned, collectively, that we do not need another movement which idolizes the dead. We now need a movement of the living. The problem herein is that the living soon pass. Therefore, if we make a movement which is timeless, which does not proclaim that it is Marxist, Leninist, Anarchist, or anything of the like--or of anything yet to come--then we can nullify the iconoclasts, and create an idealism which is more about discussion, and more adaptable and immune from becoming outdated. Unonymity is the comment-box of democracy, where anyone is free to say anything and not fear repercussions...(work in progress...)

Under construction...

This site is intended as a forum for discussion on things which truly matter. Comments are heavily encouraged; so long as they are relevant and written with the spirit of 'unonymity' (unanimous/anonymous). Comments will even be accepted as proper posts, so long as the author agrees to donate their thoughts to the cause by posting anonymously. The goal is to attempt a unification of collective thought by sacrificing one's individual vanity. This is for the sake of liberating ourselves from our over-inflated senses of individuality (in a way, this is the anti-blog blog). Our interests are for the greater good. If we can overcome our wont of personal recognition and reject the expectation of personal reverence in return, we can share discourse with a true sense of equality and liberty. We are nameless; we are of one mind.

There is so much more to come...