© 10/2013. guilty collaborators: “timmy” luther;

“misanthrope” Shull; “[sic]” Thom Millary. Gringo-

Diaz-Castro; JCBLSTR //// art: Alec Soth, page 2;

gimages, 1,2,4,5,10,11,15,16; David laChapelle, cen-

terfold; John Heartfield, “oh du frohliche” //// pub-

lished and directed by “dogspeed you” e.m. knapp ////

thanks to Nietzsche, “Ayn” Randi Hagi, “Teddy”

Grimsrud, “Papa John” Fairfield, “Hans XN Ander-

son” Early, “Yo, Cephas!” Dula, “Energizer” Stutz-

man, “Watch yoself” N.H. //// also, “big” Zizek +

“Mc” Rollins; “JayCee” Caputo et al. //// open for fair

use (cite where necessary) // no price: free ////

theSineZine.blogspot.com

S ometime after Hegel infamously said that “history repeats itself,”

Marx then famously added: “first as tragedy and then as farce!” But

what is the relation between the moribund tragic and the mockingly

sarcastic? Are these two sides of the same coin? Or is it more like the

Star Wars saga — something that goes from sixty to zero in seconds

flat?

I s there something intrinsic about life in this universe — something

existentially fucked-up enough to mock itself? Are we condemned

to repeat what we have already done, ad nauseam, or is history in fact

“unbearably light” in its uni-directional flow? Is the heart of all things a

joke in bad taste?

a tough crowd tonight: consumerism / industrialism

the cesspit of capitalist christianism

the failure of a radical politic

something uplifting

the failure of the human system

T he birth of large-scale agriculture is usually a crucial starting-off point in

anthropology. Oppression, money, writing and legalism, indeed the

state itself, are founded upon large-scale agriculture. The invention of mass-

agriculture parallels the invention of walled cities, standing armies, and the

forced appropriation of anything that moves, including slave and animal labor

the rains, and biological life itself. According to Josephus, it was Cain (whose

name signifies the concept of “possession”) who invented agriculture, and it

was Cain who invented money, and it was the children of Cain who invented

slave labor and “taught men how to rob and murder.” The anthropological

and theological implication is clear: post-pastoral civilization is founded upon

human violence. Money, which was supposed to serve as a medium of ex-

change, becomes a tool of oppression; survival within the context of

“civilization” means accepting a pre-suppositional mistrust of the goodness of

human beings, and human life.

F ast-forward ten thousand years or so to the industrial era. Has civiliza-

tion changed in a fundamental sense? Has it overcome existential angst,

or the foundational oppression of other humans, the use of slave

labor? Hardly! The tragedy of civilization is only beginning to

climax! If we look closely at the apex of civilization, we are

confronted by exactly the same problems that the establish-

ment of a civilization was meant to address: namely the utter

lack of material surety that is part and parcel of the human

condition. The tragedy of industrialism — which can really

be seen as a form of hyper-civilization — is that the cure

(reliance on hierarchical authority,) is worse than the disease

(the uncertainty of nomadic life). Like a herd of buffalo bar-

reling towards a precipice, we run from fear of some-

thing bad to something much, much worse.

T he issue with trust is that it cannot ever live in

certainty: to the Heisenberg duo (both Wer-

ner Von and Walter White,) trust implies a certain

existential vagueness. And it is precisely this vague-

ness that all human authority — law, state, milita-

rism, materialism, racism — aims to eradicate. By

trying to stamp out vagueness, humans not only

refuse to trust in the inherent goodness of life, but

we get caught up in the negative causal feedback loop of

Authority, making things worse, increasing humanity's collective existential

angst.

W hen the Hebrew tribes are forced into slavery by the Egyptian state,

they are done so with guile and craft; they are told from the outset

that they are being taken care of by a magnanimous god-king who is saving

them from uncertain starvation during an economic downturn. We aren’t

forcing you into anything! You want to survive don’t you? So get to work!

T his tactic worked on the Hebrews, and has been working on the mass

of humanity ever since. Today we are fed the same bitter pill, but with

more than just a spoonful of sugar. Welcome to Con-

sumerism, kids! This is the post-industrial answer to the

pre-agricultural problem of uncertainty: work, buy, re-

peat! Get more than the other guy! When our generals

throw enough of our children at the enemy — or when

we trick the enemy into acquiescing into economic servi-

tude — we can medicate ourselves to sleep at night in

the semi-certainty that at least we won’t starve this

month. The farce of consumerism is a covering-up of the

tragedy of civilization; something best-embodied by the

Ayn Rand Industrialist idyll. The Great Depression, the

rise of communism and fascism, the Holocaust, mecha-

nized warfare — these are the tragedies which we pur-

chase away. And our disembodied facebook/

antidepressed/guilt-laden life is the punchline to the bad

joke of consumerism.

T he Hebrews escaped slavery through a miraculous

sequence of events, led on by a God of uncertainty,

offering them only day-to-day existence. Like Rick

Grimes in post-zombie Georgia, Moses tried to embody

the pastoral ideal in a harsh environment. But the people

were not ready for uncertainty: their perceptions of what

it means to live and to die were indelibly skewed by cen-

turies of brainwashing at the hands of empire. The Hebrew

story can be seen — from Abraham leaving town onwards

— as the story of post-civilization humanity. Yo! When

will we get it right and pull a Moses already? —EMK

A disabled veteran whose entire existence consisted of drinking and talking is exe-

cuted by the polis for spreading ideas against the state. A skin-and-bones ascetic

dies sitting under a tree where he sat for decades. A construction worker in Roman-

occupied Palestine is tortured to death for propounding a new epistemological, theo-

logical and political paradigm. These couple of fools have been the most influential

people in the history of recorded thought. Nobody could have been more profound;

and nobody could have been less powerful.

Y et, the mega-church leaders and the fundamentalist pundits and the televangelists

insist: Jesus is Lord. Christ is King, o you scum. And Jesus is coming again soon.

And (like John Wayne after they thaw and revive his corpse) he’s goin’ to judge you

sinners and you wont be singin’ then! The flood wasn’t pretty, and — because of the

very gravity of Being — history is bound to repeat itself again and again and again. So

repent, unbeliever! Let us save you, damn your eyes!

B ut what happens after I’m saved? Once God comes and purifies the earth into

submission, what then? Will heaven be like life, sans taxes, gub’ment and illegal

immigrants? Hard to say. When people think about God, they think things they al-

ready know, and that is problematic for God. The farce of fundamentalism is this: the

“true believers” are actually really worried that life is a meaningless exercise in a meaningless

void. Deep down, fundamentalists actually think that this piece of paper, this church

pew, this gas pump are really all there is to it. Fundamentalists are closeted materialists!

bu Ishmael Hei Seich

But isn’t our Nietzschean Christian Anarcho-Atheism also materialist?

Y es. However, fundamentalist materialism — whether the Lynchburg bible-

thumping type or the Dawkins “your God has cooties” breed — is incomplete.

Neither fundamentalist camp can lay claim to a complete science, a complete way of

knowing. Inevitably the Reverend Falwells of the world always punt to a bloodthirsty

idol-God who is unchanging and inapproachable — a clockwork God who is too stu-

pid not to kill his only Son. On the other hand, science-believers inevitably punt to

the imminent completion of human knowledge (see “the Human Project” page 14) in

an imaginary, enlightened future. Both sides punt; neither side wins. Time to burn

someone at the stake.

T here is an alternative. To the surprise of both rationalists and word-of-God–

hardliners, our non-reductionist dialectical materialism is simultaneously decon-

structionist and scriptural. The Socratic and Prophetic projects are twin offspring of

right knowing. The tradition starts when Abraham of Ur starts arguing with the old

geezer he called “God.” Abraham actually mocks God: “Shall a 100-year-old man

have a son? Don’t you know how this thing works?” and “Gee, God, maybe you’d

better rethink this killing people thing if you want people to like you. [sotto voce] Mor-

on.”

A nd this argument is actually what God wants — not unthinking obedience. (Shut

up, both of you! Go kill your only sons already!) Right relation with God is an

argument, not begging and pleading for something you really want for Christmas. God

does not fit your ego’s fantasies of rapture. God doesn’t desire blind obeisance, nor

the conversion of non-believers.

L et’s speculate for a moment. What does it mean that God wants us to argue

with God? Should we be like Job, spiritual lawyers pleading a case? Should we

be like Elijah, “just kill me now already, it’s too hot to argue!” Should we be like Sid-

dharta Guatama, dropping out (and is that even possible)? Or should we be like Jesus

the philosopher, deconstructing anything and everything?

T he real Jesus was all about dismantling human ego delusions. First he takes on

our civilization and religion and laws, and then he goes further and demonstrates

our misconceptions about life and death and meaning in the universe. He even laughs

along with the joke of his own crucifixion — at least that’s one way to see it. What’s

more, it isn’t enough for Jesus to tell the truth (very truly I say to thee); he actually

enjoys busting people’s bubbles. Surprise, mofo’s, I was just resting my eyes! Oh

snap, you shoulda seen the looks on your faces when you thought they killed me!

T he lesson here is obvious: salvation, lordship, resurrection, forgiveness… none

of these things are what you think they are. So don’t wait your life away fanta-

sizing for salvation. Think for yourself — if you still can! — IHS

I t didn’t start with Occupy.

It didn’t start with Arab

Spring, Spring of Nations 1848,

French Revolution, the Refor-

mation, the Great Schism nor

the fall of the Roman empire. It

didn’t even start with the Israel-

ites, though they were pretty

good at being losers. Radical

politics has been failing long be-

fore failing was cool. You might

say it is what radical politics does

best. Epic Fail.

O ur penchant for suckage is

exactly why radicals need to

get used to the idea of fighting and losing.

Even in those rare times when we on the

fringe aren’t the underdogs — in those few

instances when we have an honest shot at

achieving awesome revolution — we still

manage to gunk it all up. I’m not talking

about the blac-bloc Anarchists taking over

your meetings, though, dude, that totally

bites. (You shouldn’t let them do that to

you!) I’m saying that we were born to lose.

I’m saying that our ideas themselves are as

big of losers as we are sinners. So we can

start to address our loser-hood by doing

ourselves a favor and ceasing to blame our

lazy, inept natures, our original sin, the hu-

man condition, etc. . .

pathetic loser. In this way, we — human

beings with radical potentialities — are

made in the image of god. Also in this

way, history repeats itself.

W hen Soviet tanks invaded Czech-

oslovakia in 1968, it was a wa-

tershed moment for radical losers of all

stripes The resistance movement failed

in almost every one of its objectives of

opposing Soviet hegemony. But these

failures taught a mighty lesson. Genera-

tions of Eastern Europeans suddenly had

firsthand experience of non-violent re-

sistance. Gorbachev’s later liberal re-

forms were based at least in part on

Czechoslovak compromiser-president

Dubcek’s mediatory reforms. Also,

there was the counter-culture: losing, in

all its newfound coolness, planted

itself firmly into the Soviet mindset,

allowing the Soviet empire to

peaceably dissolve a generation later.

There is a theme in this losing-

compromise-interiority schema.

A fter having beat the Axis into utter

submission with nuclear bombs and

massive displays of military superiority,

Americans now drive Japanese

cars on a highway system

inspired by Hitler. Jack

Kerouac and the genera-

T he insight of Gandhi,

which is the same as the

insight of Jesus to my mind, is

that losing isn't what we think it is.

Feel better yet? If there is a

god, a “truth-force,” a right-

mindedness, then it too, is a

tion of boom-Americans become immersed in Zen practice, “Total Quality Manage-

ment,” Eastern spirituality and the like. In occupied India, a “subversive [according to

Churchill] half-naked fakir” named Gandhi becomes the iconic practitioner of pacifism.

(Note that Gandhi’s series of unlikely victories wouldn’t have occurred except that he

facilitated a collective shift of meaning in respect to the concept of ‘victory’.) The

American Abolition movement was driven in part by the exiled losers of failed 1848

revolutions. Out of defeat, we proclaim, comes true reflective politics. Solzhenitsyn

says as much in Gulag Archipelago: people need defeats; governments need victories

B e not depressed, o ye unhappy losers. The demise of the regime is always good

news, even if it happens to be a regime we kind of appreciate. When we lose,

our enemies suck us in with their cultural tractor beams and try to assimilate us into

the Borg collective. And that, as Captain Jean-Luc Picard will tell you, is precisely

when you power up thrusters, spool the warp engines, and load the proton torpe-

does.

S o rejoice, you overworked, underpaid, over-

sexed, under-

loved, overfed, unfulfilled losers: I have good news

for you! Blessed art thou, and woe unto those who would win

over-against you! — JLV

by Jaroslav Vygotsky

“Nature abhors a vacuum”

what is this, if not the definition of love?

the pouring out of self,

unable to abide a lack of meaning

“Nature abhors a vacuum”

what else do you need to know

about life?

A lmost everything humans have ever done can be fit into two cate-

gories: the WILL-TO-POWER and the WILL-TO-

TRANSCENDENCE. The human project is infused with the

will-to-power, and is punctuated by the will-to-

transcend itself. The object-oriented content of

the “civilized mind” is the corruption of a

more-natural way of being in the world.

W hen human beings see things

through the lens of identity

— when we think in terms of es-

sential attributes — indeed when

we look for essence, when we

talk about Sin, when we use

language to experience the

world — everything becomes

a threat to our identity. By

trying to pin down the vague-

ness of our own existence, we

impose on our concept of self

a falsity. The ideas of enemy-

love and ego-deflation in partic-

ular are actually attempts at

overcoming these existential fail-

ures. When Jesus tells us to love

our neighbors as ourselves, to love

our enemies, to pray for them as for

our own seemingly-fragile selves, he is

staking an epistemological claim. Jesus’ com-

mandment gets to the heart of the problem with

civilization and the will-to-power; stop seeing yourself

as separate from the world!

B ut even this fairly simple concept is lost in the cacophony of reli-

gious zealousy, cultic ideology, consumerist identity-generation.

Worse, it gets sucked-up into the machinations of ideology and religion:

“...every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart was evil, continually.”

I am not Buddhist because of the truth in Buddhism, but because I wan-

na get me some of that nirvana, yo. I am not saved in Christ because

Christ taught me how to live free of the objectification that corrupts my

very sensory perception; I am saved by Jesus because I wanna

get into the big party in heaven. (Or what’s worse, get-

ting saved because I’m afraid of hellfire n’ damna-

tion!) This is the other form of the will-to-

power: the will-to-transcendence. Oh

come, sweet rapture! Take me away

from all these sinners and give me that

good shit that I know you been

keepin’ up there! This isn’t love of

enemies. This isn’t the breaking

down of the false walls of accu-

sation or the judgment of evil.

This kind of “faith” is purely a

selfish gesture aimed at manip-

ulating God. Gettin’ saved

and preaching the wørd is

actually ego’s way of project-

ing itself into the realm of

God. It is hubris and sin incar-

nate. I tell you, many of those

who’ve been waiting in the park-

ing lot in the clouds for the eter-

nal buffet to open will be disap-

pointed. There will be much crying

and gnashing of teeth. In other words,

the joke is on them — poor enemies we

love!

T his shameful covering-up with a scanty bit of

transcendence of our naked will-to-power is

the farce of the human project. We have failed at imagining a

way for humans to live in harmony with the existential truth, and wait

expectantly for God to supply a sublime punchline that is universal and

accessible. But, will we notice it when it comes? Will we even get it? †

THEY BE BANKIN’

WE BE JAMMIN’