Critique of The Call

by D. S.

Scholium I

Civilization is a totality, encompassing everything. The totalizing has produced a desert, and as the sand mounts the writers begin to focus on specific inhabitants of the desert, those who organize against the desert. A specific group, and The Call aims for a specific group within that specific group. Those who organize in a particular way.

The call is aimed at those who hold something in common, for those who already consider the ideas of the authors as evident. The call makes clear the shouting of the 'network of evidents'. There are many who feel the need of the ideas, and materializing these ideas is a step towards materializing a culture. Still vague organizers, organizers of what? Again, this is primarily a tool of literature, an attempt to gather the emotions of those who hear the call. It is expected that the reader agrees to some extent. What in the introduction is there to disagree with?

The reigning order, everyone knows its construct and effects. Only misery, corruption and the senile attacking of humans living within the structure. The negativity, which is all there is, occurs because the society is on its deathbed, and knows it. The insurrectionist idea has internalized the primitivist idea. Such shifts in the activity of capital or state are not indicative of strenghtening, phasing, or tensing towards change, only evident of collapse. Part of the network of evidents then is the desire for, or belief in, immanent collapse. Or perhaps this is not what a dying system means, perhaps the system is only dying in the eyes of the evidents and it is necessary for the evident to spread, to overtake in number the dying social system. For now, capital only lingers on. Why do we evidents allow this?

There is little counter-attack, which indicates weakness on the part of anti-capital. If capital is weak, then what is it that causes the paralysis of anti-capital? Perhaps this is the wrong question. Perhaps one should be asking how both capital and anti-capital can be weak? Should not one be in a strong position? This takes us to the split of the organizing groups, many are tedious, dull and weak. The inability to last three years against the cops seems important. Weakness appears a recurring theme. Is the call detailing weakness or attempting to distance their group from weakness?

Anti-capitalism and capitalism are managing the disaster. There appears to be oneness, sameness, totality of happiness and misery. We live in a mad world, no one knows what they want. How, then, do we come to trust with the authors? No one knows what they want, as the structure has infected the entire population. Except for the authors and their espoused organizing method. How have they come to such a priveleged position? How have they escaped the totalising effects of the desert society?

The desert is depopulation, or precisely, making the population inhuman, incapable. The desert is a better aesthetic tool than the spectacle or biopower, the authors say. The desert is a sum of relations to be fought, which does not seem to differentiate from spectacle. How far is the concept desert taken? It is as if the the concepts of spectacle, biopower and empire have been recuperated and are now of the desert.

All that exists is situation. Yet, the totality has created a structuralization of flows to make situation impossible. The only situation is directed non-situation. We are compartmentalized into our own worlds, and that isolation is the desired world of situation managers.

Organization then, means to create situations in a world where situations are not occurring, or are not real. So apparently there are situations: in gangs, union strikes (or wildcat strikes?), any revolutionary or counter-revolutionary party. It is as if the authors felt that the non-situation was an interesting thought, but not the real direction they wanted to go in. I have a feeling this wobbling of positions will occur throughout the text. That some are capable of resisting the totalising effect of capital opens the call to elitism, and it just so happens that the organization method of the call is the escape document from totalisation. Prison everywhere and nowhere. A duality of absolutes.

Organization is redefined as giving substance to the situation. Reality is not capitalist. Does this mean that capitalism is not real? It seems to mean that the reality drawn up by the network of evidents does not contain capitalism. Or a precondition to be accepted into the network would be a personal expulsion of capitalism, whatever that means.

We then bound forward. Because of the situation position we need alliances, first of all communication, and then circulation which will expand the alliance and further the need for more communication circulation. Accumulation of the ideas of the network of evidents. It turns out that the call is not so evident, we have only come to the position that we need to strengthen our position.

A further bound forward suggests that this call occurs within a situation of world civil war. This is a clear emotional appeal of recruitment. One must take a side in conditions of civil war. The 'we of a position' then will be a particular positioning within a fictionalized world civil war. This speaks volumes of the insurrectionist social war.

We then have a cluster of insurrectionist references, reenforcing the idea that this is an oral piece championing insurrectionist culture. 'From now on all friendship is political.' Hard words of men in war, in gangs. Or men who wish they were in war, or in gangs. But do these men know war? Who are these men, these recruiters?

Scholium II

The insurrectionist spiritual book is rhizomatic. Scripture scattered over many texts, across continents. Something is said in The Call, descriptions mainly. So I suppose the point is to gather the descriptive seeds and plant them where they were not intended to be planted.

Withdrawal from the disaster, the implosion. Here, the conditions of the material force are set out. Autonomy of evidents.

Accumulation of information on the accumulation of security. This gives the effect of totalization. Security is always there, watching us and warring against us. Apparently the writers have not been paying all that close attention to gangs, somehow gangs have managed to continue distributing drugs within this condition of total surveillance, the condition of inoperable situations. In The Wire television series it is detailed how complex systems of telecommunications are used by gangs to move drugs. It would seem that the system which constrains the possibility of situations provides a better analysis of the world than its critics. The call attempts to draw a surreal reality, but falls short of surrealism and realism. Actually this surreal reality was unlikely the authors intention, they either do not understand reality or are using manipulative techniques to recruit more brothers into the fraternity of the evident.

I would lean towards dishonesty, as the authors clearly stated earlier on that gangs were a situation organization. So perhaps patience is needed to see what makes the gang capable of situation creativity.

Surviving machines. Politics is a surviving machine, this is why we have deserts. The evident machine is escape from the desert, escape from politics. Reactive to the sand, but nothing yet indicates a difference from the state, from politics. China also opposes sand. The Green Wall of China indicates a knowledge of Deleuze and Guattari far beyond the authors of The Call. Striation of smooth space. With The Call there appears to be an attempt to smooth striated space. The call takes the position of a life form, ignoring that the state may in fact invoke life forms of its own.

Life exists beyond capital, capital exists beyond life. Without this tension capital could not exist, would not be tolerated. A project such as the Green Wall of China is an astounding resituation of life. It is not good or bad, not something to be opposed. It is an immense surviving machine. It is the life of the individual human on a grand scale. It is the naturised, but civil human. China has taken on the project of finding the entwives. The entings are to be cultivated. In years to come they shall walk the borders of Shanghai.

Leviathan is not completely ugly. Blake took the time to draw him. The behemoth is totally ugly, but not without human character. "His tail hardens like a cedar; the sinews of his tendons are knit together." China has been behemoth, and now seeks to leviathanize its monster. There is humanity in this. Humanity in everything the human does. This is what The Call refuses to recognize, even if the totalizing effect were real it would still have human quality. A value from which we would have to move forward. We are faced with inhumanity and humanity in our efforts. What is worse? We create monsters for fear, monsters for play.

So politics is a monster, something to fear, something to hide from, compose ourselves and eventually wage war. Politics is what stole our entings. The entiwives stole our entings. The entwives, botany manipulator, agriculturalists, genome flirt. There is no nature in the biologically engineered. Or there is no nature. Or all is nature. Categorize to whatever suits you. The human is abstracted from his world. Nature is extracted from his world.

Politics the seed. Politics the pill. Now choose.

One thing I cannot stand is simplification. Another is a forced choice. The Call combines these and reacts to politics from this point.

The confusion duality continues through a discussion of plurality and political tension of opposing worlds. Perhaps dishonesty is not in the call. Calling out in an attempt to understand, or as a show of understanding. A show of the attempt at least. Here we are introduced to existential liberalism, the fact of politics that went unnoticed. The theory of atomisation and human becoming material seems to conflict with the theory of surviving machines. What should be explored here is how existential liberalism exists as one of the mechanisms of the surviving-machine politics. For the authors the human becomes a weakling, a mind cripple through atomization. Again, all is negative. Capital, the disease of the human body. This seems to be the base of existential liberalism, we are metaphysically diseased and thirty years later we begin to exhibit physical signs of the disease.

But then there is survival. There cannot only be weakness. What is left out of the call is categorizations of the strengthening of the human body, of its mind. The survival mechanisms of the body which resist disease. In turn it could be said that the survival mechanism of the body will be used by the next political mechanism of the survival machine. The atomized individual suggests an atomized politics. The diseased individual suggests a diseased politics. Crisis, pathogens and T cells. The response to the current crisis should be the response of antibodies. Or as Sarkozy says, 'repatriate the auto industry'.The response is an atomized economy, or should be, and an atomized politics. Green industry, a revival of manufacturing, the use of immigrants as nomad workers (as we see with the prison boats used to house immigrant workers in Italy), extension of the black market, increase the population and extend bioengineering and nanotechnology. What is needed is a flexible economy. The theory of free trade must be thrown out in favour of free geography. Not no geography, only geography of the smooth space transposed over striated space. As Tom Vigar suggests to us with his architectural project Subtopian Dreams, industry should escape from the known world, tunneling through the earth as T-cells. Such a project would open the world to population growth, while clearing the earth of infectious pollution. The aesthetic of the world would only exist as green space, a multiplicity of suburban communities. Underground, or somehow made invisible, technology could expand rhizomatically, as the war machine does, and take advantage of growing populations. Such a project would be at least as far off as the Green Wall of China, but is suggestive of a necessary path for capitals expanse. The survival-machine politics is currently investigating war architecture in Israel, radical ideas, bioengineering, cybernetics. The war of all against all was an overestimation of John Nash. Humans were too complex for his games to handle, or his game theories were a latent seed for the approaching humanity. The political machine will become the game theory of war, the game theory of biomechanics, meta-game-theory. The human is far from weak. His political machine refuses weakness.

The Call accuses other organizing factions of being within the bounds of capital, of existing within existential liberalism. But such a world is past, such a world is a fiction. Perhaps this liberal atomized world once existed, but now it can only be that the callers and other organizers are behind the political machine. The leftist militants are stuck in 1932, the french insurrectionists in 1968. What is it that makes 1968 more communicable than 1932 to the worker of today? To the prostitute of today? Insurrectionists seem to suggest that they are communicating the will of the exploited. But this appears as inversion. In Britain, students mimic television stars, causing dissonance in the classroom. In France, the insurrectionists mimic the working class, causing dissonance in the streets. But only one form of acting, one form of mimicry, occurs as a true relayer of emotions. The students in Britain are really acting out the played emotions of the actors. Insurrectionists are playing out the real emotions of the working class. Insurrectionism is an inversion of acted emotions. Supposedly, this gives the callers a spine. Supposedly, this passage a l'acte is an honourable and groundbreaking path of revolutionary organizing.

Scholium III

Urgency of the situation. Urgency of reaction. This is agitation. But how is illegalism or illegitimacy outside of the realm of reaction? The becoming criminal is clear agitation, a reaction to the legal world. Given the choice of judge or criminal, we always side with the criminal. Perhaps this is a fair politic for one to take, a fair principle for a revolutionary. But at that moment when all life is given to the criminal, it becomes necessary to investigate the humanity of the judge. In any case, one can be sure that through serious criminal trial the gang will reveal how close it is to the humanity of the judge. There is always a gang member willing to side with the judge, suggesting that the criminal is already judge, before conviction and trial. Suggesting a false dualism of the authors of The Call. To play the game of criminality is to play the game of justice. You are thrown in with the lot of humanity found there. In The Wire it turns out that Bodie and Officer McNulty are essentially the same character. Their roles in the overall structure parallel, the structure forms where their role is taken. To take on criminality, to fetishize it, is to invoke a structure, forming roles. This is the insurrectionist creation of fate. For individuals to take on a role within social war a structure needs to be created which legitimizes a particular role. For insurrectionists, the criminal is the legitimate role, the lead role overcoming structure. They ignore that it is the structure created which dictates the character development of those who take up the role of criminal.

Yet, the callers admit they come from activism. This would be the case for most insurrectionists. This makes it strange that we now have recruiters such as the editors of Vengeance calling for revolutionary gangs, invoking the images of Crips and Bloods as recruiting mechanism. I'm sure many insurrectionists have had similar experiences to the author of Monster, 'I turned the corner on my bike and I saw two bloods. I rode up to them and shot them in the face.' Mass murder for one's rep. Now we have white boys playing as black gangsters. Mobb Deep would call them half-way crooks. 'You ain't a crook son, you just a shook one.' There remains however a reputation mechanism, not in killing, but in sabotage. A dulled violence of cultural appropriation.

Activism is exhausting, so the insurrectionist practise of surrounding oneself with the culture, with its acts of sabotage, occurs as a counterbalance to exhaustion. It builds and drains energy. One hopes that there is a surplus, an accumulation of energy and bodies so that the cycle can be taken to its end, to the insurrection. The saturation point of the culture is the social war taken out of its fiction, of violence become total. Generalized sabotage.

And what is such violence in the face of total extinction? Of a world forming its desert? The easy response is that the natural evolution of the planets is towards total desert. The human creation of deserts is no less natural. This is not to justify the destroying of worlds, not cynicism towards capitals process-recreation cycle. This is only a recognition of reality, an attempt to understand where capital is coming from. I would like to see what the monster sees. The monster alters my human perspective. The authors of The Call kid themselves if they feel that they can rid the world of leviathans and behemoths any faster than the activists. The monster will leave when he is ready. For now, let me be mesmerized by his gaze.

Man, the locust. Man, the destroyer of worlds. Man, the creator of deserts.

Man will continue to create deserts in communism. Man will create deserts in his revolutionary advance, in his push towards communism. For man to abandon his locust nomadism is to abandon humanity. Some men can hate deserts, but only automatons will ban them. It is not possible for humanity to abandon its tensive relation to the earth. The desert is a failing metaphor of our callers. This is all metaphor. The earth is dying? Nature has changed. It is the Last March of the Ents. Death allows for the life of another form.

Militants and activists refuse to go to war. In Genoa, the fetishization of violence and the pseudo-riot announced a triumph over the traditional left. But this is only tracing the time of capital, just barely keeping up with advances. As fashion appears in the streets ten years after the runways. The callers play this time game well. But what good comes of categorizing the time-place of activists if the goal is to repatriate bodies to one's own time-space? Is revolution merely a game of knowing the state's time-space and attacking it well. There is much in building a society, and it goes beyond destroying another. Goes beyond knowing the time-space of another. However, such fetishization of war can last, can become its own time-space, as we see in Greece. Social war becomes a self-sustaining element of the culture. Social war, the structure which holds bodies, sends them out to commit acts of war, and returns the same number of bodies to their resting places. The number which becomes a part of the social war, like an appendage, cannot be gone beyond. The number limit is set into the structure of the social war. A culture of war can only interest so many. And far from building towards revolutionary climax, the constancy of attack drains the energy of attack during moments of potential revolution. Or, the constancy forces a different form of attack in times of revolution, as the social war culture exists within the time-space of the dominant culture. The metalanguage of society's macrosystem includes the social war. The social war exists within capital's logic of tension, the logic of difference and change.

The hunter returned from whence he came. Alarmed and fearful, his eyes weary. 'I will confront him. And challenge him. For I too am mighty!' The hunter appeared before him...

The insurrectionists confront the monster, refusing any demands, refusing any kind communication. It is forgotten that the monster has carried language across oceans. The monster has seen this language many times. The monster does not fear oceans, does not fear confrontations. Leviathan has sunk many ships. The behemoth has traversed the earth, pathing out a destruction of enemies. For the behemoth, social war is a rhyme, a game unworthy of his appearance. He rests. The insurrectionists carry forward, fighting. Behemoth rests.

As insurrectionists carry on, fighting invisible monsters, it is necessary to make accusations. The old militants and activists wish to improve capitalism, hoping that dissolution of effects will dissolve the structure. War needs enemies, accusations for the stirring of emotions. Without an intensity of emotions there cannot be an intensity of fighting. The insurrectionists release scriptures, hunting guides. Bounties are given for the return of invisible monsters. Culture of war. Culture of nomads. Culture of the hunt. But those who issue the call do not see the defragmentation, the piecing together of fragments of culture. The piecing together does not create a precise culture, a coherent structure. It is a piecing together of fragments not wholly understood. Hunting is not war. And there are problems beyond this.

Everywhere totalization. Uninhabitable ruins. Somewhere though, there must walk druids. How is it that humanity is surviving such bleakness? War all the time. Destruction of all space. How is it that the callers have continued on? For they must be mighty.

Radiated men eat the flesh of radiated men.

The metropole. The catacombs of cannibals. Life does not exist within these tombs, except as the taking of life. The consumption of souls. The annihilation of living beings. All is annihilation of nature. The living are suicided.

Illegality exists as the light. The life giver. But illegality, the criminal underground, exists primarily as a capitalist relation. Life tension and the tension of currency. The Call sacrifices itself to the idol of the black market. Unintentionally giving life to capital. The relations of capital are merely given an unimposing name. Such is reliance on the totalising effect. One becomes mesmerized by its gaze. One becomes lost in the opaque penetration of the light.

The call is not an admission that life exists in the desert. The call denies that life will have to grow out of the desert if life is to return. The call sets its own traps. Kills its own life in killing all life. I suggest a natural response to the question, 'there is desolation?' There is desolation.

But there is also not desolation. 'I cannot go on. I will go on.' The natural response of the survival-machine. One must find salvation in death. Extract the beauty from rot. Extraction, the survival mechanism. I extract from the call, steal from the call, reappropriate value from the callers. To survive the thrust of the callers is to use their criminality against them. We believe that survival is the mechanism of survival. This is not to say much. But it is to invoke a war of simplifications. The call is for those who cease to wait. We suggest that waiting is a mechanism of survival. Waiting is a tactic of any good war-machine. The Call has thrown away the best part of its scriptures.

Scholium IV

The city - a bounded infinity. A labyrinth where you are never lost. Your private map where every block bears exactly the same number.
Even if you lose your way, you cannot go wrong.

It is strange that the insurrectionist investigation of gangs is so shallow. The idea is communisation through fusing thought and action, a social assembly of war. Social war is the attempt to take class war out of the mind and turn it into permanent praxis. The intensity of war life should extend up to the point of social war, but it remains unclear whether there can be collective release at any point, and particularly at that point of social war's climax. The child gang includes a mechanism of age limit. The social war contains a similar mechanism, but for insurrectionists the mechanism is shunned. It is expected that old men will carry telescope batons, not canes. A culture of war is created, and the refusal of the age mechanism suggests that the social war is to continue long past climax. The justice of social war, the culture of sabotage becoming a societal balance. The refusal to see society's current balance of energy makes a false balance necessary. It would seem that the limit to insurrectionism is a continuation of social war beyond its limit. A non-limit, as the structure is borrowed from leninist ideas of creating social war through the creation of a violence crisis. The leninist thought at least contained a theory of energy tension and release, the callers can only conceive of social war. This becomes an extended use of violence, where crisis never occurs. It is social war for as long as one can hold on.

Shared worlds. Impossibility, dreams, revolutionary fiction. Effective means. One should remember that the pro-revolutionary is not an emotional political monster, he is rational. The creation of emotionally effective literature, revolutionary poetry, is rarely written as emotional outlet. It is emotional means for rational ends.This is the lie of the call. At the center is an ethic of honest means and ends. Throughout is an emotional building of tension, a tensiveness towards recruitment. This is politics.

The existential liberal cannot desire anything too intensely, cannot experience emotions effectively. It would seem, however, that our callers solution of turning the private individual thinker into social practitioner is not a solution to the problem. One who calls, one who is instantly here. Here, in the social war. The insurrectionist idea is instant gratification of the revolutionary object. Thus, in this structure, revolution becomes devalued, as the fictional substance of the social war replaces any real world tensiveness towards revolt. As permanent conflictuality is a false imposition of violence crisis, it limits the use value of violence in times of crisis. The explosion and release of revolutionary violence loses its potential in moments of social and economic crisis as the social war has been leaking violence energy all along. The social war is essentially a virtual revolution. The revolution is made possible through an instant gratification of revolutionary acts, here and now, virtually realizable. Yet, the current availability of the revolutionary object prevents any future realizable revolutionary event. It is the lack of revolution which causes the desire for its appearance. So the question for our callers is, how will access to class war become limited so that revolutionary desire might present itself? Or, if it is that the social war remains desirable, how is it that lack and scarcity can be reintroduced to overcome the saturation of virtual revolutionary violence? What is introduced by social war and anarchist gang culture is a need for a compounding of violence. I do not see that this has ever been considered by insurrectionist callers. Again, the question of the social war is, how to extract surplus value from violence?

In the end, the insurrectionist individual is betrayed just as the liberal individual. Who can keep up with the dream? What mighty ones are capable of keeping up with such riotous accumulation?

Perhaps I should give our callers leniency. benefit of the doubt. It is surely difficult to express oneself in a society bound to multiple attachments, bound to a non-communisation of ideas. Yet, it remains that existential liberalism is a human construct, it cannot exist wholly without value. The totalisation of our destruction, the neutralisation of our possibilities. Is there purpose beyond emotional words? Poetics capturing the human spirit in its communist becoming? To say that one is 'advocating emotional intensities experienced in common' is all well and good, but if there is an underlying political cause then it is necessary to say more. One cannot solely operate on a rational politic of emotional intensities. There is more to the human than emotional intensity. There is lack, sacrifice. There is waiting, fear of war, running and hiding. There is the desire to be bound to multiple attachments. Any revolution from this point onwards will incur the accumulation of humanities up to the point of revolution. That I am discussing this suggests a need to explore potential communist types, types possibly stemming from other revolutionary politics:

    1. Directed revolution. An individual or group led revolution. Centripetal form, the individual propulsive change and cultural revolution is made possible through a channeling of the individual; through violence, coercion and political power. Political domination.

    2. Autonomous revolution. The idea that there is a virtual multiplicity of groups and individuals living autonomously, yet they are all living autonomously from the point of communism and anarchy. This is a conception of bipolitical centrifugal effect. The autonomous individuals are autonomous from the point of a commonly held politic. An ideological effect where structures exist metaphysically.

    3. Organic revolution. A multiplicity of political and non-political groupings organizing spontaneously in moments of crisis. Post-crisis, the revolutionary culture exists as a multiplicity of groupings and effects, both centripetal and centrifugal. Mass political and social biology. A composition of human complexity in political form. A Kalachakra politic.

It would seem that the insurrectionist theory of ends strives for organic revolution. In practise however, there is a combining of directed and autonomous revolution. If we are to return in history to discussions of utopia we have:

    1. Fictional utopia. It is impossible to the known world, not practicable.

    2. War utopia. Forced through extreme violence.

    3. Simplified utopia. As man is turned as simplified being he can be boxed and formed, produced as desirable.

It is difficult to accept, but must be said, that the call of insurrectionism is an alchemy of utopias. The fictional theory, the warring practise, the simplified culture. Is this an offering to humanity worth accepting? Does existential liberalism offer less than this? It must be said that the culture currently offered by revolutionaries does not offer the possibilities available to humans within existential liberalism. Liberals are producing wine and people are drinking it. All that the callers can offer is the production of wine and the claim that our wine is better, more refined. This is, after all, the basis of politics. People making decisions, people making wine. Whoever makes the best decisions, whoever makes the best wine, wins politics. I say that people will drink our wine when it has matured, not when we have produced enough. The callers produce the most precious blood.

Our organization is not accumulated. Our livelihood unknown. It is necessary to dream, to walk paths. It is necessary to explore what others might see in us. Dreaming is the game of the child, of the warring man, and the woman elder. Dreaming is the game of the survival-mechanism. We attach our survival-mechanism to what we desire to survive. The Call has attached its survival-mechanism only to itself. What is to survive is what is called to survive. The callers give us a totalisation of non-survival. A survival of their war scripture, a survival of their violence accumulation.

Commentary on the Commentary

Your "criticisms" are well taken. This is the sense of your destruction or deconstruction of the Call which is food for my creation. There is much here that sparkles. The cliche of food for thought is not a dead metaphor or a metaphor of death. It is the metaphor of the indistinguishability between destruction and creation, attraction and repulsion. There is much in the Call I have already rejected, some of its metaphors, but not its poetry. Insurrection, and particularly nihilism often stays within the metaprogram of historicism or universalism or stageism which sees destruction as a necessary precedent to creation. It is the if (or when) 'a' then 'b' logic. We must wait, put creation on the back burner until we've finished burning the bacon on the front. We must be sure to destroy everything before we even begin to think about new worlds. We destroy and then we wait. What you've left out of your scripture is the merriment of the party which opposes (semantically) the co-immiseration of the democratic activist corpuscle the political party. The insurrectionist party announces "the more, the merrier". The activist party is an invitation to democratic misery. There is a difference between a call for immersion (the "commune") and a call for mutual immiseration. There is no feasting in the desert except among the creatures, the desert rat and scorpion and occasional scrub and grub who seem to thrive there.

What stabbed me in your critique awoke my bs detector from its slumber, but only (or especially) after reading a little Simone Weil. This is:

And what is such violence in the face of total extinction? Of a world forming its desert? The easy response is that the natural evolution of the planets is towards total desert. The human creation of deserts is no less natural. This is not to justify the destroying of worlds, not cynicism towards capital's process-recreation cycle. This is only a recognition of reality, an attempt to understand where capital is coming from. I would like to see what the monster sees. The monster alters my human perspective. The authors of The Call kid themselves if they feel that they can rid the world of leviathans and behemoths any faster than the activists. The monster will leave when he is ready. For now, let me be mesmerized by his gaze.

Man, the locust. Man, the destroyer of worlds. Man, the creator of deserts.

Man will continue to create deserts in communism. Man will create deserts in his revolutionary advance, in his push towards communism. For man to abandon his locust nomadism is to abandon humanity. Some men can hate deserts, but only automatons will ban them. It is not possible for humanity to abandon its tensive relation to the earth. The desert is a failing metaphor of our callers. This is all metaphor. The earth is dying? Nature has changed. It is the Last March of the Ents. Death allows for the life of another form.

There is a certain franciscan/manichaean asceticism saturating this quote and a contradictory "man makes desert makes man" ontology. It is an accurate ethnographic description, but its universal affirmation is not founded. It says, and I think accurately, we are made by the past and will become extinct and will be replaced by new forms. This is only to say we are not immortal. To stop here is to resign and submit to the status quo. We're just doing time until there is no time left in which to do. This is the ontology of death row: the ontology of survival. There is no life for survival machines. On the other hand, movement is the tactic of living organisms. Wrestling free from constraints is less a survival tactic as it is a demonstration of the will to live.  Wrestling for wrestling's sake is just a fetish.

All movement is not, however, toward desertification. The discussion of the Green Wall in china suggests that the Gobi (nature) is appropriating farmland. It does not see that it has been invited by civilised industrial farming. Primitivists blame farming. Industrialists blame nature. Forget nature. Everything is, as you say, natural. Only by forgetting it, or taking it from the dialectical context can we come to understand it. Capitalism does not produce alienation and isolation. Capitalism is only a symptom.

There is an ontology which at one time was prevalent on the planet. It is the philosophy of "keep it living". It still lives among us (albeit, in small isolated pockets) else we would not, could not recognize it. It does not view the universe as a mine or factory, a resource base, a set of use-values. To be useful at all, it must be tended, groomed, maintained, nurtured precisely because it is all these things to us. Put simply, one does not chop down the tree to partake of an apple. One does not harvest the entire structure and then go on to invent new uses for the waste we have produced. This is the end of the gift cycle, the invitation or call for the desert to befriend us. To lose respect for (awe, love, even interest in) life is to create deserts, but it is only ourselves who feel deserted. We are desert and inadvertently mould the environment to resemble ourselves. To expect the destruction of all deserts (to make the world a garden) is equally absurd. Deserts come and go regardless of our opinions. For the few living forms who do thrive in deserts, it is paradise! Who would want more when everything is here? Evolution is not historicism. There may be trajectories, some of which come to an abrupt end, but there is no course. No final product is excreted from its backside. In keeping with the appropriations from Fredy Perlman, I'd detourne your quote thus:

Leviathon, the locust. Leviathon, the destroyer of worlds. Leviathon, the creator of deserts.

To say that leviathon is Man is correct, but only in the particular sense. We are speaking of civilisation, the synergic emergent of a set of bad habits, the behavior, mimicry and ontology of our day and age (time-space). Awareness of our habits (whether thinking, behaving, feeling) allows them to change. A call is merely a mirror which reflects what without it goes unnoticed.

Scholium IV: Isn't it the existential liberal who confuses property damage with violence (armed struggle)? Isn't the insurrectionist just an existential liberal experiencing a temper tantrum? Or is insurrectionism a call for existentialists to get their heads out of the clouds and get some dirt under their fingernails? Would this be a call to war? A war of ideas in the name of peace, a peaceful utopia of unified thought and behaviour, a singularity. What's so radical about that?

What is "simplified culture" and why is it impossible? Is this not the preventive argument ("it is impossibile") against the potential expression of the anti-primitivist argument which is exclusive of primitivist-leaning arguers (warriors) who also don't know the subject of their matter? Wouldn't the fracture of complexity (the coming rupture) produce a multiplicity of relative simplicities? Every unknown is impossible in the known world, and only the known is practicable. This assures its reproduction and sameness. If the past is behind us and is dead, communism is the most absurd of utopian desire. Community was once ubiquitous, but now is dead. This would explain why progress is a process of accelerating amnesia.

If the world expresses itself as a fragile system of connected multiplicities (the diversity of life forms), wouldn't rigid unification represent an absurd over-simplification? I still don't understand the difference between "dicpro" and anarcho-syndicalism beyond the theoretical proclamations.

Suppose they gave a war and nobody came? Suppose they built a factory and nobody responded to the whistle call? Suppose we replaced the word, "nobody" with "somebody" or said what utopianists really mean by it, an anonymous "everybody"? "If only everybody...!" Refusal is an act of difference. Indifference, submission. War is always waged against the different. Indifference, leniency to boredom. The different is a threat to peace, which is unity. The different must be seen as a hostile, a militant. To expropriate that label is an invitation for attack. The cycle is forever renewed. The different who engages in self-defense on being attacked is ridiculed as a hypocrite. Those who flee the assault by "superior force" are called cowardly "cop-outs". It sounds like "dropouts". The first time I was caught shoplifting, I was told I displayed no consideration for the little old lady stockholders who depended on the meager dividends they received from the corporation. If you're not a militant, you're a criminal! Humanity is the only option, but there's a catch. Humanity is catch 22.

Is the recognition of an I and a you, an us and a them always an admission of the state of war? Or do we just view too much behavior through a single categorical lens?

I find it interesting that the authors of the call are said to be a metamorphosis of tiqqun and emerged into the authors of the insurrection to come.

I think I'll stick with Timothy Leary, who just said "Blow your mind!" The only acceptable state is the state of confusion. This prompts questions instead of answers. The high priest has only answers, and his scriptures end all communication. Without question, there is no adventure and nothing to share with the folks back home.

Our organization is not accumulated. Our livelihood unknown. It is necessary to dream, to walk paths. It is necessary to explore what others might see in us. Dreaming is the game of the child
Isn't the dropout the warrior who has decided to stop fighting and explore a different path, whose only call is "you have to scatter before you can think about coming together!"? The ending of all vital functions of the survival-machine metaphor is the birth of living. Natural selection is only the survival of survivors. "Do we even believe in life before death?" asked Aunty Dave. That is the best question I've ever heard!