Monday, January 27, 2020

i would go after adam schiff on his finances.

he comes off as some kind of jerry falwell type figure, where he's preaching the gospel during the day, and taking it in the ass every night.
at
Location:
when somebody files their contributions with $720,000 from "retired  people", the third most in congress, that should probably raise some red flags about him hiding the identity of his backers.

at
Location:
at
Location:
i really haven't been paying attention to this stuff recently, i've been immersed in my art, i just happened to tune in here recently because i was wondering where i'd go to keep loosely informed now that the real news has imploded (it seems like everybody's moved over to here), and, crikey, schiff has gone and brought back the john birch society...

i think any sane person would recognize the absolute absurdity of this rant. but, i've tuned out of this for a reason - this is the reason - so it's particularly surreal to get a mouthful of it out of the blue, like somebody left some rat droppings in your bag of skittles. yikes. 

and, maybe the fact that i've been so completely disinterested in this for so long gives me some clarity in reaction, as well, in the face of pretty much everybody's neuroticism, one way or the other. like, i've been under a self-imposed blackout on this. this is completely fresh to me. 

my immediate thoughts are that i'm walking into a debate, one that may be closing, on what america's make believe enemy ought to be. what schiff seems to be doing is appropriating a lot of the arguments that you heard during the war on terrorism and reapplying them towards russia. these weren't really cold war arguments, either, they were specific to islamic extremism. so, for example, you never heard anyone argue that you had to fight the soviets in vietnam so you didn't have to fight them at berkeley - that's an argument that you heard from the likes of ann coulter, as applied to iraq. i'm sure - certain - that there are direct quotes from ann coulter, where she argued in favour of the iraq war by suggesting that if you don't fight them in the middle east, they'll come to america, and she was really just channeling byzantine military strategy in the region when she was saying that - it's a barbarian management strategy. likewise, the wounded animal analogy is something that i've actually applied myself, i think far more accurately, to isis. 

why is schiff speaking in these precise terms? well, it seems scripted - these are talking points. there seems to be a conscious intent, here, to shift the focus of american military aggression out of the middle east and back towards russia, and that's just the tip of this long standing debate around who it is that america should be flailing against - the russians or the muslims. to an extent, it's a question of if we're at war with eurasia or eastasia, right. it's perhaps naive to expect this to resolve itself, but it's a definite faultline that exists in the power elite. 

i'm actually wondering if schiff is basically being lobbied by the saudis, though.

i mean, there's two layers to this. there's a legitimate strategic dialogue, and honest questions around how america should be directing it's military resources, and this is healthy. but, if this is essentially a struggle between the russians and the saudis for influence in washington, the reality is that the russians just don't lobby the way the saudis do. a lot of these people are essentially just being bought off with arab blood money, and paid to recite what are ridiculous lines, with the intent to shift the dialogue. this might be the reason he's using the precise language he's using. this is speculation...

what i think is more than speculation is that he is very consciously attempting to appropriate the language from the war on terrorism and reutilize it against the russians, and that this is happening in the context of this broader strategic debate. and, that should make everybody think carefully about the path they're being led down....

at
Location:
again: i don't think there's any evidence that iran is building a bomb, and i don't think that's a left/right issue. it's an empirical question. you don't figure this out by citing bakunin (or adam smith), you figure it out by consulting the people doing the work on the ground, and they're all absolutely adamant: there's no evidence of any weapons program.

i'm not interested in conspiracy theories that rely on covert israeli intelligence, either. the motives behind these conspiracy theories are crystal clear.

so, no - iran does not appear to be building a bomb.

but, i don't actually think this is a choice, like it is here in canada. up in canada, we have reactors online. we sold the technology to india, actually. we really could build them if we wanted to, and really don't want to.

i think the actual reason that iran isn't enriching is that they wouldn't have a fucking clue what to do with the enriched product - it's reflective of how primitive their technological capacity actually is. they might not even be able to store it. their "nuclear program" is really more of a propaganda ploy to stick it to the empire, and try and demonstrate that the revolution has made them powerful. with allah's help, they will control the atom! but, it's just a line of complete bullshit. the west buys into it because it props up the military-industrial complex and keeps an enemy lined up, but iran would be lucky to get a bomb built before 2200. science doesn't tend to do well under totalitarian theocratic rule; that's a general pattern in history. iran doesn't have an actual fucking clue - it's a backwards society, with retarded levels of innovation due to the theocracy snubbing everything out. they kill or imprison all of the smart people.

the saudis are in a similar scenario. they keep buying these advanced weapons systems, and it looks really scary, but the fact is that they need to hire an american military planner to turn any of it on. yes, it's irresponsible to sell this shit to these crazy religious nutcases. but, the sobering reality is that they don't have a fucking clue how to use any of it.

so, i don't want to even have this debate.

but, i wouldn't want to have it, anyways. if iran was enriching, i would actually support their right to do that, in principle. i don't think the empire has any particular authority to come in and say "stop doing this". and, they clearly have some reason to need to defend themselves.

so, they aren't doing it, and i would support their right to do it if they were.

but, i'd still like to overthrow the government there, because it's still particularly brutal, wmds or not, and i'm willing to be pragmatic about finding creative ways to take the mullahs out. if this is how you do it....

this is what happens when you wake up and realize the left has been co-opted by the traditionalist right. so-called left-wing voices are all of a sudden pushing some kind of religiously motivated opposition to war on moral principles, rather than agitating for revolutionary overthrow of capitalist states. it's exactly what the bourgeoisie always dreamed of. and, they're willing to stand with the worst abusers of human rights on the planet. it's positively orwellian. truly.

i don't like aligning with the right, and need to be clear what my differences in operating philosophy are with them. i'm not particularly concerned about wmds in iran at all, actually. but, i have no patience with these groups that stand with the mullahs and the sheikhs by hiding behind these flimsy anti-colonial theories, that are really just rebranded, if somewhat inverted, orientalism.

i'm disenfranchised; the left, overall, is. i know it....
at
Location:
the liner notes for inri029 have been augmented by 4 pages, and the video for inertia has been added.

at
Location:
the liner notes for inri028 have been augmented by 2 pages, as well.

at
Location:
the liner notes for inri027 have been augmented by two pages.

at
Location:
the liner notes for inri016 have been increased by one post from dec, 2013.

at
Location:
this has now been updated as well, but the update is a single line in each of the documents, to stamp the release as 'jam001', and will not be noted further.

at
Location:

first liner note release for inri002

i've released a dozen different things with the title "inricycled", making it more of a concept than a release. it's not just the material i'm recycling, now, it's the idea of recycling material.

i hope this is the final iteration. the difference, here, is that i'm trying to isolate segments of songs that people interested in my more recent compositions would find interesting. these fragments aren't entirely void of lyrics, but they're very minimal. they're also quite short.

i've retitled most of the tracks to get a feel of what the music sounds like and/or what i was thinking as i was writing it.

the material in this volume is taken from the following cassette demos, , inri000 and inri001:
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-1 (1996)
jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inri-cassette-demo-2 (1997)

this is the best possible absolute starting point for my musical material.

written and recorded over 1996 and 1997. digitally remastered, sequenced and mildly modified in the fall of 2013. released dec 11, 2013. finalized as lp000 on july 3, 2016. first liner note release added on jan 26, 2020. i consider this my unofficial zeroth record. as always, please use headphones.

this release also includes a printable jewel case insert and will also eventually include a comprehensive package of journal entries from all phases of production (1997, 2013-2020). as of jan 26, 2020, the release includes a 106 page booklet in doc, pdf & html, with an html5 audio & video frontend, that includes journal entries from the remastering process over sept-dec, 2013, as well as the video for inertia, from dec, 2013 .

credits

released July 1, 1997

j - guitars, effects, bass, drums, vocals, keyboards, tapes, found sounds, metronomes, digital wave editing, production.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/inricycled
at
Location:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)