Added: 2 years ago
From: pennilesscripple
Views: 1,796
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (192)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Source for the image about 2 minutes in?

    Keep on uploading :-)

  • the map? google "globalization" and click on "images" and it should be there. dagnabbit it's a better version of the one i used...sigh......

    let me know if that doesn't help

  • Talking about indoctrination into the technology hype, I come from Finland, and oh boy are Finns indoctrinated in that regard!! It's incredible, I think it has even reached the stage where individuals critical of technology are looked askance as though they were psychologically disturbed. I think this country is a perfect example of what Zerzan refers to as the inflexibility of technological mass culture: you will adapt to the system, or else...

  • yes i have the same experience

    even a slight critique of technology raises eyebrows and brings up an energy that is difficult to describe, but it's like a fear, a sense that you are a dangerous person saying dangerous things

    the general brainwashing is that everything is much better now than it ever has been due to technology--in spite of loads of evidence to the contrary

    i just read about a robot that they've developed that teaches people to like robots.....

  • things are far worse than i can imagine. . .

  • yes

    they are

  • OMG such brillig use of thur sprint addz i almost (almost) hesitated to gank this vid. Zerzan is win, you rock alwayz ever harder in a velvetish way, happy year of thur Tiger, i'm out.

  • thanks for noticing, mr. forehead. i think i felt the satisfyingly slithy toves of revenge for the first time in my life. nice to seeya.

  • primitivism is fascism. it is nothing more than an unattainable religious ideal that leads to apathy, anti-intellectualism, anti-individualism and nihilistic bourgeois decadence.

    "Reactionary concepts plus revolutionary emotion result in fascist mentality." -Wilhelm Reich

  • boy you're a heap of fun ;P

  • okay.

    you explained what fascism was, but where does the connection come from?

    Civilized society is perpetually menaced with disintegration through this primary hostility of men towards one another."

    -Sigmund Freud

  • the connection comes from the fact that primitivism, historically, since its foundations in the 19th century, was a reaction against the elements of liberalism that were transforming the world and challenging the traditional institutions of authority in europe. people like hitler wrapped their totalitarian sentiments in the same anti humanist rhetoric that is at the root of modern anarcho-primitivist thought.

  • You seem to that people participating in this movement and or this discussion live in your neatly classified and labeled structure.

    when in actuality, your totalitarianism is only existent when looked at in the context of civility.

    most here however, could not care less what you do with yourselves as long as you dont infringe on what we do with ourselves. In that matter, subjective as perception may be, the human animal would choose to embrace their own.

  • The only rhetoric comes from those still chained to your imaginary world. Those that would embrace the totalitarian concept of a label.

  • You also confuse truth with fact, when they have very little to do with each other.

  • Zerzan is anti, anti-human. That's why he left the Marxist scene when it was dominated by Althusserian economic determinists.

  • Says the guy who quotes a man who believed in a metaphysical force that manifested orgasms and made leaves green and the sky blue and was a major influence on hippie pothead losers.

  • thanks for putting this together. i liked the visuals.

  • my pleasure

    i'm glad you found it valuable

  • but... isn't it much more that we have to get rid of than "just" industrialisation?

    i have been thinking about this recently, realising that many people wouldn't be able to tell the differences (except in appearances) between an indigenous village and an equally isolated, low-tech settlement of civilians...

    could zerzan? i haven't finished the one book i got of his (absence of the sacred), because it seemed to go on and on about his childhood...

  • yes he didn't say this was the only issue; in fact in his writing he addresses domestication--here we was making a distinction

    but ending industrialization would be a damn good start eh?

    jerry mander wrote 'in the absence of the sacred.' he only writes about his childhood for the first 23 pages

    so stick with it, as it goes into detail about the differences between civilized and indigenous cultures

    check out the charts on pages 215-219--they really lay it out

    nice to seeya :o)

  • i gave the book to my dad awhile ago, but i should have remembered the author's name correctly anyway, duh :D

    i don't know, it just sounds too christian and "green" to me...

    unrealistic. like in that movie, "home", where they hailed the agricultural revolution as the biggest achievement of mankind, and blamed all environmental problems on oil. i think it's dangerous to not be very very clear about the age of this problem.

  • it's a good start for discussion though, and i know that's what this video is about, so i just wanted to add a bit of where i think the discussion should lead :)

  • i'm not sure what sounds 'too christian, green, and unrealistic' to you--do you mean being oriented toward the well-being of the people and the land?

    that's how humans lived for 99% of their existence, and how many humans still live, so it is very reality-based.

    some people who live that way are christ-oriented, many are not--but they definitely aren't 'christian' in the sense of institutionalized religion.

    and as for 'green,' well that word has been stolen from us and twisted....

  • ending industrialisation does. it sounds like "we did everything right until we discovered oil" to me. it has not the slightest hint in it, that there might be more to think about. it sounds romantic to me, as if moving to the countryside and having a farm is a solution.

    there's so much more than "green" that has been stolen and twisted...

    btw, what do you mean by christ-oriented? are there christians who are not into salvation?

    if there are, they certainly don't surface in europe...

  • whoa hold on

    this is a three-minute clip of a longer talk given by a person who has given many talks and written many books

    you're making the mistake of thinking that this clip is 'all' he has to say--consider listening to the rest of the talk

    of course there's plenty more to think about, and believe me, zerzan writes about a lot of it, at length and in depth

    there are lots of different kinds of christians--

    not everyone evangelizes, so you wouldn't necessarily hear about them

  • :D

    i'm not saying that zerzan doesn't have more to say, i know you wouldn't support him in that case.

    maybe i'm just a nitpick again, but you know, i have heard that romantic idea of rural life sooo often, it's actually pretty popular around here - in the richest city of germany, the one to be europe's "green capital" in 2011. and it's really hard to tell someone who considers themself clean and "green" that it's not that easy.

  • you know i just realized a bit ago that he was talking about the connection between global warming and industry when he said that, not about civilization

    i think you might me mixing up agricultural life with hunter/gatherer life--agriculturalists work very hard. hunter/gatherers take about 20 hours a week to get their needs met. actually, the more 'civilized' a society it is, the more the people work

    sahlin's 'the original affluent society' goes into this, and it's short and available online

  • hunter-gatherer lifestyles are not romantic to me at all, not because i think they are primitive or hardworking lives, which i don't, but because i think they are much too seriously involved with the mystical, "dark" side of nature, just as much as with the light, to be called romantic.

  • oh yes what a great distinction

    i just have trouble all around with the word 'romantic' and the different connotations

  • me too, even very good friends call me a romantic when i talk about what tribal societies can teach us, so i've been thinking on how to make clear that they are much more romantic, dreaming of salvation through evolving into super-humans or believing in technology or giving up or whatever. romance is for privileged people.

  • yes that's my standard response: nothing is more romantic (if romantic means "delusional") thatn the thought that this culture is moving into some sort of glorious future

    but i love the romantic poets, and what they stood for--it's a shame that "romantic" has come to mean "delusional"

  • i like the period too, it's like one of the best efforts made to get to something really important. like the hippie-movement. the delusional aspect comes into play when those who actually found what they where longing for ("longing" is my main interpretation for romantic) dissapeared into bliss - which means they were never heard of again in civilisation - and those who didn't, fell prey to the mockery of their ideas.

  • yes, very well put. we can learn from that to not give in to ridicule (fredy perlman said "civilization is spread through ridicule" and that really blew my mindf )

    and to not 'disappear' but rather to stay on the front lines

    and we can learn that walking away from civilization is not geographical. coleridge thought freedom was to be found in kentucky, of all places. and i'm sure there are people in kentucky who dream of living in the lake country during coleridge's time.

  • i'm reading it right now, you probably know "the gods must be crazy"? i love those movies, sooo much :)

  • it's funny you brought up 'romantic,' as i've been thinking about that lot lately

    a lot of artists/writers throughout history have had the so-called 'romantic' delusion of living in a simple, supportive community--Coleridge and Van Gogh for two....

    but i would hold that it is in the marrow of their bones--and everyone's bones--as that is how we humans lived for 99% of our existence. and of course it is dismissed as 'romantic' by a society that is based on enslaving people

  • oh of course we want to be close to nature and have simple, supportive communities, there's nothing wrong with wanting that, i want that myself! the problem is in finding it, when you are led to believe that any small village of agriculturalists will do!

  • oh okay i get what you're saying, &i feel the same way

    a lot of people think that if we want to have a simple life, close to nature, supportive community, all we have to do is 'go for it'--they think it is a choice

    they don't realize that it's really not available in this culture--but the dream remains and keeps the illusion of choice in place. so many dream of 'moving to the country & growing veggies'

    i actually have that life, but it is still civilization--as you say, it is not that simple

  • yeah, that's a big part of what i meant to say :)

    i envy you for having that life, but i still have hope for my city. many are protesting gentrification here, organizing and exploring alternative lifestyles, based on art and community.

  • nothing to envy, really

    yes i always hold that people in urban areas are on the front lines of resisting dismantling civilization, that 'walking away' is not geographical--it's a shift in the orientation of the culture

    i don't want to be part of any 'solution' that writes off people who live in cities

    i love it when people get together and tear up parking lots to put in gardens--that is a great step in the right direction, especially if it is permaculture that will feed people in the future

  • i hope they will not be satisfied by any of those political compromises, and that they will actually find ways to live sustainably, ways to turn the city into something else, something that requires little to no importation of goods...

    right now i'm just channeling to them what i learn on here, even though i have to earn money in order to do so. but i'm trying real hard to find more effective ways to help.

    thanks for your patience and inspiration!

  • ive enjoyed it, and learned from it

    it is so *challenging* to have a decent conversation on youtube, but we just might have done it

    i am inspired by detroit, of all places, where the collapse hit early and hard—people are turning lots over to gardens, squatting, etc.

    not much noise from them about 'rebuilding the economy'

    also, did you listen to hakim beys talks about community on the redpharmacist channel? theyre very good.

  • not yet, i'm subscribed to the channel though, and forget to go through the earlier posts again and again. thanks for the tip!

    oh detroit, i definitely have to go there should i ever visit the states again...

    and thanks again, i had a lovely time practising :)

  • it strikes me that you are really on to something, as you have been sitting in the question for a while, and arent grabbing after quick fixes and easy answers.

    whatever is next, we wont know it until we are there. for me the key is to look at what came before us, and to stop giving the dominant culture our agreement. and sharing. sharing is the most subversive act i know. if tomorrow everyone woke up and started sharing, civilization would crumble.

  • yeah sharing... reminds me of my wanting to work with homeless people, have to finally get into that *taking note

  • sorry for all of the comments, hippi, but i think i'm starting to see what you are saying

    tell me if i'm wrong, but you're critiquing the idea that someone who is still active in industrial society could be green in the real sense of the word--that's a big problem here too, with corporations like clorox going 'green'

    and that part of that is the romantic idea people can just go live in the woods if they want to

    but there are no woods

    is that it?

  • not quite, but we are getting there :)

    well the first part, yeah, kind of. but that is about the "green" being stolen thing, which we left behind a few comments ago... i guess it's getting a bit off-topic too, but what the heck, it's good practice!

  • and yes, i'm certain zerzan could tell the difference--it's not about the way the culture looks in terms of size or location, it is about how the culture is oriented

    one is oriented toward the well-being of the people and the land, the other is oriented toward profit and production--that orientation is reflected in every word, action, tradition, etc.

  • Why did you delete my comment?

  • i didn't delete your comment

    sometimes youtube is glitchy

    your comment is below, and i replied to it

  • The assumption is that the "natural" evolution of the planet is globalization - spewing forth colonization in the name of humanity, throughout the solar system, galaxy, universe - .......is not in the cards.

    I do see the potential for the whole thing to go down the toilet, however, there are alternative futures.

    Time marches on...

    Where will this planet be one hundred years from now, a thousand, a billion.......................­.

    Can we possibly halt the flow?

    Do we really have a choice?

  • yes there are more alternative futures than we can imagine--we need to start imagining them

    and we not only don't have a choice, we have an increasingly urgent responsibility to dismantle this death machine

    there are lava flows heading for an endangered chimp refuge right now. the animal populations are getting so low that one event can wipe them out permanently.

    thanks, entropious

  • Most know how we got to where we are today. And most have no clue what to do about it.

    The system doesn't just go away because some wish it would. You can only begin to start anything, by first having"viable" legislation to change the current system, not remove it completely. That would be is extremism in a fantasy to wish to remove it completely. The real world takes baby steps.

  • my experience with change is it can & does come in many forms--baby steps, giant leaps, ways seen and unseen

    whenever someone says 'the only way is...' i know it's not the only way. there are lots of ways. if you think legislation will somehow dismantle this culture, go for it.

    but i'm sure you know--maybe you don't--that i don't see any reason to reform a system that is flawed at the core

    i'd be happy to be proved wrong: 'president obama closes up shop, says dominant culture isn't working'

  • Exactly what kind of a giant leap would get rid of the system that is rotten at it's core?

    I can tell you right now, that whatever it is, it's called wishful thinking. And nothing is wrong with dreams. But equally as important as the dreams, are actual viable ways to make them a reality.

    You're not interested in what I consider the first step. You didn't ask about it, only shoot it down without even knowing what it is.

  • i would love to hear your first step. what is it?

  • here's a giant step

    tomorrow everyone wakes up and stops giving agreement to the lies that support this culture and it collapses like a house of cards.

    how do we get to that giant step? i don't know. maybe by taking baby steps. maybe by looking for ways to make it happen. maybe in a whole lot of ways.

    you know how movie stars can be 'overnight sensations'? they'll often tell you they slogged along for years and then they woke up one day famous--if that makes any sense as a model

  • But I will listen to what you would consider a first step. And please don't say talking. I need an actual viable step one. I'm tired of all the talk talk talk.

  • okay i'll bite

    first step: one person shifts from valuing profit & production to valuing the well-being of the community & the land, & lives that shift (then 2, 3, 4...)

    so whenever a choice comes up, big or small, the choice is made in favor of the well- being of the land & the people, not profit

    for example--what is best for the forests? not logging. not wind turbines. no trees would agree to those plans.

    then, just like the culture of maximum harm spread, so would the culture of healing

  • I'm well aware of how success is measured by hoarding- money/resources/property -in a world of abundance. When helping is what measures success.

    To address that core, and to get at it. will take quite a very long time. and we may not have that much time.

    So we must act now. We must have a venue, a voice that counts. within the current system. a first step to dismantling the system from within, not a blood shed from without,

  • yes i agree we don't have the luxury of time

    okay...and is that your first step? still not clear what it is.

    if you think i'm advocating bloodshed, i'm not. did you think that? if so, can i ask why?

    there's plenty of that already, every day, within civilization. it's what keeps it going.

    bloodshed is not the only alternative to reform.

    by the way, both you and phuq seem to want an answer fairy. i'm not an answer fairy. but i'm willing to have a conversation.

  • I asked what your giant leap would be. It wasn't bloodshed, and that's good. It still is however, just wishful thinking. which is fine. but not enough

    I don't care about phuk or w/e. I'm not them.

    I wasn't 'really' looking to you for anything. I was telling you what a viable step one is.

  • or a slow process of changing a culture's priorities in values. 24 states already have this, so it's not out of the question for the rest to have it, and to have it nationally on a federal level. Sweden has it. We must have a venue, one that counts, above the politicians.

  • i'm not quite sure who 'we' is here--who is 'we'?

    on a side note, i've always been curious about your screen name. you seem to favor centralization, mass society, organization, and planning---so why 'decentralized'? i don't understand

  • we is you me and everyone else. You have no venue to make any goals a reality. You have nothing but talk and dreams. I'm showing you a way to make them a reality. I'm showing you what your first step is.

  • My screen name is line from a song I like. "decentralized by conditioned guilt"

    i just like the sound of that. started using it in 04.

    it's not important. It is to me, because the song reflects a certain time in my life. but for others this is not import for them. only me. It makes me think about where I came from, who I am. and how much I've changed.

  • The ideas come second. The venue to make them a reality comes first. In order to get a people to provide for themselves, first get them to have a voice that counts in governing themselves. Once we have the venue, we can make legitimate proposals, to benefit us all. The legislation is already to go, you can read more about the venue, at vote. org

  • okay i checked out your venue, and i wish you the best with it, and keep us posted

    you have much more faith in the legislative process than i do. i have much more faith in human beings and truth and the unseen than you do. there's no reason for either one of us to negate each other's faith, is there? if you can call my faith wishful thinking, i can call yours magical thinking--is there only one way? do you have to negate my way to make your way work?

  • yeah I'm so not a fan of all talk and no pan f action at all

    so now, we must part ways. yet again

    I'll check back in a year or two

    and see if you have wised up any..

    but for now. I have to stay away from you. You don't accomplish anything of value. You have no plans, yo have faith and talk. like the rest of the world. so sad.

    see ya in a year or two

    -you can respond. but i honestly wont read your responses no longer. but do go ahead and waste more time.

  • i wish most knew how we got where we are today, dbg. my experience is that most people think this is the way it is, the way it has always been, the way it will always be. many many many people think humans are 'evolved' and civilization is 'progress' and any day now technology will save us (from the problems we don't have because everything is fine.)

    perhaps when you say 'most people' you mean 'most people engaged in this conversation'--but certainly not 'most people'.

  • what you think, is all you see. such a shame

  • it all boils down to speeding things up doesn,t it?.....a carpenter can make a perfect dovetail joint with a few simple tools in a couple of hours but with a powered machine he/she will be knocking them out thirteen to the dozen

    and then you need oil for the machine

    and loads more timber and a warehouse and a factory and a hierarchy of workers,

    and psychiatrists and doctors to keep them going.......and windows seven because it starts up quicker!

  • yes it is all about efficiency--the machine of profit and production values efficiency above all else, and this culture asserts that efficiency = good

    trees are not efficient, so they need to genetically engineer them so that they grow more better and faster

    friendships are not efficient, so they need to be reduced to typing a few words once in a while, to save time and trouble

    have you ever watched cows walking home, a child building a sandcastle, a bird building a nest? very inefficient

  • all the efficiency is an illusion anyway,if you have a "labor saving" device someone somewhere had to labor to produce the thing and someone had to sell it and someones got to keep it running and someones got to design a new model to make that one obsolete so we can all labor to pay for a new one...and of course someones got to dig a dirty great hole to chuck the old one in

  • yes yes

    -externalized costs-

    and the raw materials have to be extracted, which means displacing and polluting communities

    and after you chuck the old one in the hole, the materials pollute the earth, water, and air

    people don't get externalized costs--i think it's because it takes imagination, and popular culture atrophies imagination

    i've had people tell me that using a computer is 'harmless'

  • my primary issue with technology is that it accelerates the harm to the planet

    my secondary issue with technology is that it is destroying our souls....

  • Many scientists have admitted that our so called progress is actually self destructive because of what it does to our natural environment that we are biologically linked to. Having a cell phone does not make anybody a better person. Just because we have cars, cell phones, ipods, and computers does not mean we are progressing. Nature will always provide people far more peace of mind than technology ever will...Infact science is admitting this now!

  • yeah well science eventually seems to come around to 'proving' what we already know in our hearts and calling it a discovery, e.g. 'traumatized animals exhibit aggressive behavior'

    thank you for your comment. you know, 'having a cell phone doesn't make anybody a better person' is obvious and almost makes me laugh, but i'm really glad you said it, because there's a very scary meme in this culture that using technology *does* make people superior, 'advanced'

    i wonder what that is about....

  • Thank you for the respones pennilesscripple. This culture lives under a huge myth which believes we are lords over nature and can do anything we want with it.,,,well that game is going to end because mother nature will always win. Yes we live in the techno culture but nature will defeat it eventually. this is actually a very positive thing for humanity as far as spiritual and physical health.

  • yes that belief that 'we are lords over nature' is at the core of all of the manifold harms of industrial civilization that we witness every day

    and yes in the big scheme of things, this aberration will be just a blip. but i can't sit back and wait, because the harm is also destroying creatures and land that i love.

    so perhaps nature is using some of us (hopefully more of us) to bring it down sooner rather than later?

    news that lava is headed for an endangered chimp refuge...case in point....

  • zerzan rules.

    talk about a disciplined resistor...

    he da man

  • slow and steady wins the race

  • you may think so...

    and i may think so...

    but a whole lot of muddafukkas disagree.

  • rabbits have always ridiculed turtles

  • the turtle has always been my "power animal"

    i have an affinity for wolves, but i've always been a turtle.

  • aw...

    wish i could borrow your shell for when i post videos on youtube

  • Thanks for sharing - great insights on technology and how it has impinged our lives. Sad, society keeps getting further away from nature and any sense of balance.

  • that's why we need more people like you, story

  • A healthy mind usually follows a healthy body, the problem with technology is that it can interupt the indepedence of individuals or their society as a whole, the flipside shows that while there are some definite gains there are more certain catastrophic losses.

  • sorry urquiza i can't support your healthy mind/healthy body theory. some of the greatest thinkers, writers, and be-ers throughout history were quite ill. and some of the biggest assholes i have ever met were as healthy as horses.

    two quick examples: derrick jensen deals with crohn's disease. george w. bush is in excellent shape.

    if anything, in this society, a healthy body seems to encourage hubris and a lack of compassion, as we see in the people who dismiss torture as 'no big deal.'

  • For sure penny you make some great points, I was gonna end that statement with 'look around' but im glad I didnt.

  • ha

    sorry

    i've just heard that assertion a lot, and my experience tells me it doesn't hold water

    in fact i'd venture to say the most destructive people on the planet are some of the physically healthiest--CEOs go to the gym five times a week to keep in shape for destroying the planet

    that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to be of sound mind, body and spirit

    but it also means we can use our wounded minds bodies and spirits to speak our truth

    look around....

    :o)

  • Too true, no need for apologies, though maybe I owe you one, sorry penny i hope you can forgive.

    :o)

  • ha nothing to forgive urquiza

  • One of the tragedies of industrial society is the belief that it is giving the individual exciting new avenues of expression and living - while everything is being homogenised into a monocult made up of alienated individuals where the main expression of individuality is one's choice of consumer products (that is if one can afford them).

    Zerzan's doing a talk in Brighton on the 19th. I'm going to try to get down there and film it. I'll let you know if I upload anything

  • well put, pete. yeah it only goes to show how impoverished our lives have become that we turn to technology for 'enrichment.'

    oh boy, that would be great. he was well received in india recently, as they have seen a rather rapid deterioration of all they hold dear.

    something tells me he is treated better abroad than at home, as it has been historically with people who critique the culture

    i'd especially be interested in hearing your thoughts after the talk. nice to see you, as always.

  • "technology connects us in a very disconnected way" ~JLP

  • yes it is inherently enervating and frustrating

    who is JLP?

  • those are my initials

  • heh

  • A very interesting clip, I'm not too pleased at having ads beamed at me ironically while I watch it, so I switched the visuals off, but it was fascinating none the less.

    The way in which technology replaces human relationships with 'virtual' relationships, or human commerce with 'virtual' commerce.

    Like TV before it, the internet takes away human interaction and replaces it with a technologically mediated approximation of the process.

    Thankfully, I still prefer analogue relationships.

  • do you prefer your brainwashing straight from the source, then?

    my intention was not to be clever or ironic--it was to expose how ads are used, to place the images in a saner context, and to stimulate critical thinking and awareness.

    i'm sorry if it the video was offensive to you. i find those ads very offensive on many levels. am i not allowed to critique them?

  • the fact that you refer to 'analogue' relationships demonstrates how tragically deep the tentacles have reached

    we all need 'analoque' relationships. sadly, we are being robbed of them, as zerzan points out.

    my 'analogue' relationships have been seriously degraded by the acceleration of technology. people are too overwhelmed, consumed & distracted to be present

    it is increasingly difficult to have spontaneous conversations in public because people are sucked into their personal technology

  • That was pretty much my point, thanks for taking the time to explain my joke back to me.

  • it didn't come across as a joke

    i took it at face value

  • Maybe you wanted to take it at face value?

    Why do you think you might have reacted in that way?

    Are you slagging me off because of what I said, in which case do so, by all means, but for fuck's sake can you please contextualise your objections?

  • how in the world did this become a fight? please re-read your comments from the viewpoint of someone *who doesn't know you*

    did i 'slag you off'? how? why aren't we discussing the issues raised in the video? why are you calling me names?

    your world view seemed impenetrable to me. i totally understand being the guardian of what information you take in. but it makes no sense to me that you apparently watch advertisements, but you won't watch them in a saner, more critical context....because...?

  • So, this is all down to wounded ego because I didn't want to watch the ads?

    I don't have a TV and I use ad block and grease monkey on the computer. I very rarely see ads. I actively avoid ads. I fail to see the big deal.

    I think you're just being a bit fucking Brighton about it.

  • i actively avoid ads as well

    i don't have a tv either

    we have more in common that you think

    but apparently you have seen the sprint ads, as you wouldn' t have known that i used advertisements in this video

    as for ego, check my other videos, not to mention my username and my disabling of ratings, and reconsider

    your immediate dismissal of the visual content of the video struck me as harsh, and your reasoning still escapes me

    i don't know what being 'brighton' means

  • I had no need to watch the visuals, so I didn't.

    Do I really need a reason?

    Am I somehow obliged to consume every element of the product that you have created here?

    What interests me the most is the way that I, as someone with obviously very similar views, have been packaged (within the framework of your response to me) as a pre-constructed archetype of "the other".

    So, obviously I must watch TV, drive a hummer and I'm probably a racist, because that's how 'they' think.

    Very telling.

  • we are both obviously seeing each other as 'the other.'

    you stereotyped me as someone who lives in brighton and has a trust fund--i have never been to brighton, and i've never had a trust fund.

    i didn't think you drove a hummer or watched tv, so what is telling? now you are projecting projections onto me? yoiiii this is getting absurd

    i was confused by your comment. i struggled for clarity. then somehow there was a fight. and now i am sad.

  • you don't need a reason and there is no obligation

  • Great.

    Now can we talk about all of the preconceived views and attitudes that you assumed I possess because I didn't like your video editing choices?

    I'd be really interested in discussing that, as it does seem to be a massive problem in the primitivist/anti-civ "movement".

  • sure we can talk about that

    the only thing i am aware of that i brought to the table was that people on youtube tend to be very combative--so, as i said, i was guarded

    and, as i said, i was confused by your comment, and read it as a dismissal of my work (hard to figure how i could read it another way, but now i see you didn't really think about the person behind the video)

    i also probably assumed some sort of interest in the topic, unless you randomly came across the video

    what else?

  • brighton is a coastal town in southern england that is being taken over by the

    trendy rich......it sucks balls

  • so i've gathered....

  • by the way, i don't have a trust fund

    where you got that idea is beyond me

  • Just the general attitude.

  • the only attitude i have on youtube is being guarded, as this place is a shark tank and attack seems to be the order of the day. this conversation is a good example of that.

    can you show me a comment i made that made you think i have a trust fund? can we talk about the video instead of assumptions about my character or lack thereof?

    i can assure you i have every failing you can imagine, and some you can't.

  • Your general attitude in the "pwn" comment was the one that did it.

    You came across as having a general air of entitlement and a hectoring tone.

    The quote-marking of the word analogue didn't help either.

    I'm sure we have very similar beliefs, it's just that you do seem to be a bit pompous and it rubs me up the wrong way.

  • in the 'pwn' comment i was trying to bring a topic to light that is a real problem in this medium. i was hoping for insight/discussion.

    entitlement? hectoring? i'm sorry i truly can't see those things in that comment.

    you mention elitism and entitlement on your page--perhaps you brought those issues to this conversation?

    you have called me smug, elitist, a thick cunt, and a variety of other things. what have i called you?

  • i used 'analogue' in quotes because like you i am very careful with words, and i really don't like that word because it labels things that we used to see as part of life in terms of their relationship to technology. it's reductive and downright scary.

    to me calling something 'analogue' is doing violence to what i hold sacred, i.e. a bird is not an 'analogue' nature documentary, and writing with a pen is not 'analogue' texting.

  • i understnd that Zerzan is giving a talk in Brighton on the 19th. i hope he won't be too fucking Brighton.

  • If he wants to go and talk to the rich kids, that's his decision.

    I'm sure they will pay him well for it.

  • he wants to talk with you

    as for payment, i don't know him personally, but i can state unequivocally that he clearly is not doing the work he does for money

  • After this, I'm not sure I want to hear him anymore.

    Your attacks have created a bit of a 'crisis of faith' in me and, to be honest, I feel rather alienated by the whole experience.

    I'm starting to worry that I may, inadvertently, have become part of a cult.

  • well don't confuse him with me, as he is way smarter and much less Brighton than me ;^)

    i feel alienated as well

    i tried my best to set things right

    did you get my email?

    i really don't know what else to say

    you called me a whole lot of unfavorable things. i haven't called you anything, so i don't know what you mean by 'attacks'. i made one defensive remark, which you blew out of proportion, and i retract/regret it

    there is no cult, so don't worry about being part of it

    civilization = cult

  • How is he getting from America to Brighton?

    Is he sailing?

  • flying, i imagine

    the cost of his airfare doesn't go into his pocket--it goes into the airline's pocket, so he's not making money that way

    he has talked forthrightly about that situation

    i'm sure there are many ways in which you find yourself conceding to or compromising with the dominant culture, as we all, regrettably, do

    for example, i wear pants and a shirt when i go out in public, and sometimes i comb my hair. ;^)

  • I was actually one of your subscribers until you started this shit.

    What the fuck is your problem? I was agreeing with you, you thick cunt.

  • there's no need to subscribe to this channel if it doesn't suit you

    it wasn't clear that you were agreeing, not that you need to agree. your comment was confusing on a number of levels. if you were being sarcastic, sarcasm doesn't translate well online.

    you seem to want to live in a better way. is calling people names part of that? comments like that are one of the reasons i don't participate more on youtube. if i am a human who wants to dismantle civilization, isn't that a crying shame?

  • whoa

  • asubjectiveopinion...i suggest you stand in the corner until you calm down

  • Don't start.

  • if you really think about it, it's clear.

    the problem is, who wants to think about it?

    great video.

  • you're chopping at a deep root there, brother

  • Ha, technology doesn't connect us. I mean, unless you consider how this technology is connecting me to your ideas right now.

  • Do you honestly see passive aggression as "connecting"?

  • ha

    something about the nature of online communication encourages 'pwning.' did he pwn me, did you pwn him, or am i now pwning both of you?

    i have some theories about why this is. i'd like to see the issue discussed in more depth.

    it is infinitely frustrating, as conversations invariably degenerate into oneupsmanship.

  • What does 'pwn' mean?

  • it is an internet word, a misspelling of 'own'

    it means to win an argument--usually by calling someone something like a 'thick cunt'

  • poorly, apparently ;^P

  • I haven't been on here in a long time, good to see your still posting.... hpynewyear

  • nice to see you maxwell

    even though you haven't posted in a while, i still dip into your archives when i need some upfullnessness

    you are my kind of dj

    this weary world needs more people like you

  • Makes sense to me. Nicely done, PC.

  • thank you, RI

  • Hi Penny, very good video, quite disturbing. It feels so overwhelming to see how much technology has shaped our lives, and how we've become so dependent on it. This shaping seems so powerful that I don't know how we're gonna get out of it. Not to sound cynical, but it seems it will take either a total calamity to change us, or we will perish, and we are already unraveling. I say this, because without deep insight or awareness, technology digs us deeper into a hole. The inner is the outer.

  • it can be disturbing and overwhelming, but as zerzan says, it can easily be overturned by looking at reality

    the fact that you and others see what he's talking about tells me that perhaps we don't need a total calamity--we just need clear thinking

    technology is a toxic pill that has been forced on us, with the spoonful of sugar being a combination of spectacular distractions and propaganda. it is supported by an assortment of lies

    we can start by refusing to give those lies agreement

  • Good one thank you for sharing

  • While I agree With most of what zerzan says,

    You can't blame crack for the crackhead.

    The Key is what made us turn to embrace technology as the answer in the first place...And technology is not responsible for that, and saying otherwise is a cop-out.

    I for one see technology as essential for any type of dismantling of civility. It needs to be organized on a global level for anything to stick longer then a few years.

    While the end game is pretty, the road to get there is nasty.

  • "us" didn't embrace technology as any sort of answer--answer to what? technology has been resisted at every point

    this culture uses technology to accelerate production, accelerate harm

    i'm curious why you find technology worth defending

    consider that there are many roads, and they don't all have to be organized or nasty

  • What do we need to do? Do we need to go back to being a tribal society, back to indigenous ways? It would not happen. If a catastrophe hit, we'd have to. But, again -- what would be the survival rate of not knowing a skill you haven't learned?

    I think we're neutral to technology. We'll use it, or won't -- it's always going to be there. Same with trade, and freewill. You can flint nap to made an axe, and make an axe handle out of wood, but your neighbour more than likely has one you can use.

  • how living in harmony with the land is going 'back' is beyond me

    perhaps you'd be interested in listening to zerzan's full talk, where he explains why technology is not neutral, and makes a distinction between tools and industrial technology--which, by its very nature, is dependent on a state, control of workers, domination of consumers

    "it's always going to be there"? what makes you think that? it hasn't always been here. seems to me it's rather fragile in the grand scheme of things

  • taking care of the land and each other is 'going back'? and destroying the land and each other in order to increase digits in a bank account is 'going forward'?

  • most people don't see their dependence as "dangerous."

    sh*t...most don't see themselves as dependent.

  • well, if you want to go back and look at the first technologies, such as the simple hand axe and bow and arrow, or the keys to agriculture such as animal domestication (which happens to be where most of our powerful western germs stem from) and the plow, then I would say that no, they were not resisted, in any measurable way.

    Technology development follows a pretty strict path, and is more heavily reliant on circumstance of geography and branching from that food surplus.

  • I never said it was worth defending, I was saying that our blame is better spent else where.

    Polynesia is a prime example of what different paths the same genetic blood line can follow given different geographic circumstances, ranging from hunter- gathers to proto-empires. The king of hawaii wasted no time in ending the stalemate of his inter-island political fight when presented with guns by the europeans.

  • this conversation isn't really about blame, phuq, it's about shining some light on unexamined premises

    blame is for people. i'm not even talking about people. i'm talking about a system--a machine. the king of hawaii was a cog in that machine.

    are you saying that it is not worth focusing on the harmful effects and uses of technology? because....?

    every day i see and hear technotopian lies. every day i see the people and the planet i love being harmed by technology. should i not address this?

  • you continue to conflate tools and technology--can i ask why?

    you don't know about the resistance because it is virtually erased from the historical record. to dismiss that resistance is to do the people who gave their lives a great dishonor.

    check out kirkpatrick sale's 'rebels against the future', zerzan's 'elements of refusal' and perlman's 'against history, against leviathan' for stories of resistance

    people chopped down telephone poles. i imagine the very first fencepost was resisted.

  • please dont try to school me on the subject pc. Ive been here for a while, and my library is pretty large.

    Its not about blame, its about finding the root.

    There is something as of yet unexplained that would like the king of hawaii, to what you would classify as civilization, outside of contact, as that did not occur until the ball was rolling.

  • Technology is a form of tool. most are designed to make a specified task easier, like the bow for hunting. and much like the bow for hunting the clever ones can use it to hunt people too.

    There is something zerzan always forgets to touch on, and that is the numerous factors that effect human behavior, of which some really are beyond our control.

    There are reasons why native americans stayed as hunter gatherers, and also reasons why the apache accepted the horse and rifle so readily.

  • All Im saying is that most of us are wasting our energy attacking something that will always shoot up again until the root has been discovered...And guess what? the root IS NOT TECHNOLOGY.

    Aside from that, this internet has seemed to be pretty useful to the cause, has it not?

    We do require the masters tools to bring down the masters house. Then, after that, we will require the masters tools to dispose of the masters tools.

  • okay we agree that the root is not technology

    so if you and i are discussing the roots, we won't look at technology. i am not claiming to discuss the roots here--i am addressing common delusions in an effort to get people to think critically

    it's clear you have an attachment to technology that is underlying this entire conversation---can you explain it to me? because that's what i'm getting from you

    there are many many ways, seen and unseen, to bring down this house of cards

  • there is a clear distinction between tools and technology--zerzan goes into it in depth in his writing, & in that talk i referred you to

    one of many distinctions is that tools are used by individuals. technology is used by the machine.

    as for your second point, i'm not really getting what you are saying

    can you expand, explain?

    is this the same point you were trying to make when you said 'don't blame the crack for the crackhead'?

    is your point that humans are the problem?

  • phuq, i'm not trying to school you

    you're one of the few people who reads, so i mention books to you

    i was just listing some sources that tell