“I do not trust anyone here.”
Such thoughts are immediately felt —immediately called into action — when attending what is truly a masquerade of the human sensibility and human rationality.
When a call for action becomes a game, we become stripped of our sense for the very kind of action we intend to perform, we become alienated from the reality for which we have all gathered, and we perform for the sake of exploiting our rational resources, our social characters, in a word, our egoistic intelligences, all in order to capitalize on our individual philosophies.
Can a GA really institute anything? This is my question. Why do we need to gather to discuss what to discuss? Are we not sure of it ourselves?
“Motion to Overthrow GA as Political Institution.”
What would take its place? I mean, how can we live so that we can all have our homes and be comfortable living in them?
Essentially, how can all our voices be heard? The big question of philosophy?
All I know is that if we’re all really in this together, we need to listen to each other, grow with one another — not against one another.
The very fact that there are other people out there, who, I assume, are just like myself in that they also have a basic set of needs in order to be comfortable requires — at the very least — my attention to their needs.
Their comfort promotes my comfort, so why would I want them to be discontent? Why would I want to propagate an epidemic? And that’s just me.
But, wait! What I NEED is for YOU to listen to ME. Yes, that’s right, it requires a COLLECTIVE effort on the individual level. For any individual who does not put in this effort is left to rot within the system.
And he will rot… and the system will rot with him.
Cooperation is NECESSARY. Amongst EVERYONE. NOT operation. At the GA, no one was trying to cooperate. Not even me — I couldn’t!
All I could feel while I was there was that I just wanted to run shit. I stopped caring about the issues at hand, and only thought about how to dominate the system so I could get what I wanted (ie. more domination).
I’ll admit it: I am just as fucked up as GA Fillibusterers.
*SCENE FROM FEB 2ND GA*
Fillibusterer: (IMMEDIATELY after promising Monsieur and Madame Chair that he just made his final motion, looking through some “papers,” realizing there are more possible motions for filibustering)… I think I’m going to have to break my promise to the student body.
Revolutionary: Wouldn’t be the first time…
One of Fillibusterer’s boys: You better watch your fuckin’ mouth
Congratulations Filibusterer, you’ve done an excellent job at holding the truth in the highest regard. You’ve made sure your boys let everyone know that no one can have it!
So from what I gather, a GA is supposed to be a space where issues can be openly discussed, whereby each person has a say in what could be the final collaborative hurrah.
“Each person has a say” could be rephrased as: “any body is allowed to share their perspective on WHAT’S GOING ON — which is determined by a common goal at hand, in order to serve the purposes of that which is being discussed.”
This is opposed to the standard status quo: “each man can blurt out what they think WHAT’S GOING ON should be, what that common goal is in its ideal form“.
And in its ideal form, it is just a picture that has likes on a Facebook page, and whoever has the most likes…. will probably get more likes on his next picture.
My point is gathering propagandists who are only there to propagate their rage with/against the machine only help the machine alienate everyone.
The only real discourse this could be comparable to is Chess, but with way MORE confusing rules and LESS possibility for new interesting games.
I mean if you want chess-boards at Gerts, why not go directly to the guy with all the boards and play him in a game of Chess for the boards? Oh I forgot, we’ve devised a really fucked up way about which to do that already.
As such, this type of discourse plainly can not encourage a sense of real communion. Fascist McGill is only communism of contrarians to change.
To be Revolutionary — against the system which is inherently ANTI — we must be anti-ourselves; anti-AGAINST the system. To me that feels like a simple reinforcement of the system. One that sucks everything surrounding it into its illusory brackets.
Everyone just wants to feel like they are part of something, some creation. I know it. But just be part of it, and that means LISTEN to it. Especially when its time to act, when our decisions are crucial and binding. But it seems that these are the times specially reserved for our complete negligence.
We don’t hear each other’s needs at these times, rather, we immediately create walls. Why focus so much energy on these walls? Do we think that what we have to say is soooo important and meaningful that it needs these walls in order to hold it in such high regard?
If everyone has their own walls, is anything getting across?
We don’t even have the time to listen, we are too busy making sure our walls are stable from every vantage point.
We reserve all listening for a later date, when all those people — those burdensome vantage points which we so bravely fend off — are long gone, long out of our way, and there is nothing to defend anymore.
Even then, we still must create something, but at this time, we soon realize there is no longer anyone around for whom to offer our creations.
Report filed by: Nietzsche Exposed