view:  full / summary

Bonus features to the Identitarian Manifesto Blu-ray

Posted by Wirespeak on May 21, 2011 at 9:30 PM Comments comments (0)


Sunday, April 01, 2007

<< click below for ~bonus features~ >>

"It's ONLY after we've LOST EVERYTHING that we're FREE to do anything. "

~tyler durden~

"You've been LIVING in a DREAM WORLD, Neo."


"Because there's NOTHING WORSE than being ORDINARY."

~angela hayes~

"What's the difference between MORALS and ETHICS anyway?"

~jim mcallister~

~~from the essay "slugging nothing: fighting the future in fight club" by barry vacker of temple university~~

"Three Minutes. This is it: Ground ZERO."

~~ In the film, Fight Club presents the ZERO condition, the Y2K future—the ultimate ambition of Project Mayhem to get humanity "to go all back to ZERO." ~~

~~ Many feared that computers would not properly recognize the arrival of the year 2000, which would be recorded as "00" at 00:00:00 between December 31, 1999, and January 1, 2000. ~~

Throughout 1999, the ticking surely seemed to accelerate, with the ZEROES increasing on the left side and eventually cascading in the final minutes and seconds to all ZEROES. There was climax and completion in the cascade of ZEROES ,heralding not only the end of the millennium, but perhaps the end of the FUTURE.

Go back to December 31 right below . . .

1:04 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove



Sunday, December 31, 2006

2006: Triumph of the individual, but of individualism?

Look at the Trotsky reference from the Section 5 of the Manifesto. It is alllll over Time's Thing of the Year.

That's just for starters. But if so many people are empowered, how do they govern themselves? How to direct all these diverse musicians in this user-generated symphony?

Identitarianism means the masses, not the U.S. presidency, is the center of gravity.

The head of the snake.

And as recipient of Time's distinction, "you" make up one piece among the driver that is technological progress. "You" are a part of a million-man Bell Labs, so attention should not be focused on the few Steve Wozniaks and Francis Collinses at the top, but the many of "you" at the bottom. Can't build a house without a foundation.

Happy New Era--- welcome to the late 2000s.

. . .

Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2006

Time's Person of the Year: You

In 2006, the World Wide Web became a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter


The "Great Man" theory of history is usually attributed to the Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle, who wrote that "the history of the world is but the biography of great men." He believed that it is the few, the powerful and the famous who shape our collective destiny as a species. That theory took a serious beating this year.

To be sure, there are individuals we could blame for the many painful and disturbing things that happened in 2006. The conflict in Iraq only got bloodier and more entrenched. A vicious skirmish erupted between Israel and Lebanon. A war dragged on in Sudan. A tin-pot dictator in North Korea got the Bomb, and the President of Iran wants to go nuclear too. Meanwhile nobody fixed global warming, and Sony didn't make enough PlayStation3s.

But look at 2006 through a different lens and you'll see another story, one that isn't about conflict or great men. It's a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.

The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web. Not the Web that Tim Berners-Lee hacked together (15 years ago, according to Wikipedia) as a way for scientists to share research. It's not even the overhyped dotcom Web of the late 1990s. The new Web is a very different thing. It's a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter. Silicon Valley consultants call it Web 2.0, as if it were a new version of some old software. But it's really a revolution.

And we are so ready for it. We're ready to balance our diet of predigested news with raw feeds from Baghdad and Boston and Beijing. You can learn more about how Americans live just by looking at the backgrounds of YouTube videos—those rumpled bedrooms and toy-strewn basement rec rooms—than you could from 1,000 hours of network television.

And we didn't just watch, we also worked. Like crazy. We made Facebook profiles and Second Life avatars and reviewed books at Amazon and recorded podcasts. We blogged about our candidates losing and wrote songs about getting dumped. We camcordered bombing runs and built open-source software.

America loves its solitary geniuses—its Einsteins, its Edisons, its Jobses—but those lonely dreamers may have to learn to play with others. Car companies are running open design contests. Reuters is carrying blog postings alongside its regular news feed. Microsoft is working overtime to fend off user-created Linux. We're looking at an explosion of productivity and innovation, and it's just getting started, as millions of minds that would otherwise have drowned in obscurity get backhauled into the global intellectual economy.

Who are these people? Seriously, who actually sits down after a long day at work and says, I'm not going to watch Lost tonight. I'm going to turn on my computer and make a movie starring my pet iguana? I'm going to mash up 50 Cent's vocals with Queen's instrumentals? I'm going to blog about my state of mind or the state of the nation or the steak-frites at the new bistro down the street? Who has that time and that energy and that passion?

The answer is, you do. And for seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, TIME's Person of the Year for 2006 is you.

Sure, it's a mistake to romanticize all this any more than is strictly necessary. Web 2.0 harnesses the stupidity of crowds as well as its wisdom. Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred.

But that's what makes all this interesting. Web 2.0 is a massive social experiment, and like any experiment worth trying, it could fail. There's no road map for how an organism that's not a bacterium lives and works together on this planet in numbers in excess of 6 billion. But 2006 gave us some ideas. This is an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding, not politician to politician, great man to great man, but citizen to citizen, person to person. It's a chance for people to look at a computer screen and really, genuinely wonder who's out there looking back at them. Go on. Tell us you're not just a little bit curious.

4:26 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove



Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Election 2006: What does spending millions earn you as a victor?

I know this is a week or two late, but the data is still fresh . . .

Democrats to Push Pocketbook Issues

Minimum Wage, College Costs Top Agenda; Party Less Unified on Tax Reform, Energy

() Like dealing with minimum wage is soooo hard to do. How many times was the federal one raised in the 1990s? Raising the wage is as imminent and foreboding as the typical raising interest wage hike by the Fed.

Even if the poor can get $7 to $9 for their labor, they'll be still plenty of impoverished people for latte liberals like Pelosi to continue exploit and use to gain political power.

Plus college costs. Is just a federal tax credit or scholarship doing that going to the *decisive* factor between getting into your ordinary State U. or someplace on the U.S. News list?

The politicians, both local and national can talk about "improving education" and "the need for to compete in the global economy", yet it is people, not legislation, that improves test scores and earns academic achievement. Remember the Tolstoy remark in Section 7.

But, of course, in the end, look at the issues that could POSSIBLY matter the most to Americans.

The ones the party is "less unified on".

As for ones that *are*, those peanuts get passed into law and are used in commercials for the electoral stampede that is 2008. Like Bill Clinton using America's salad-day opulence to use as proof of some earned-income tax credit succeeding. Thus he survives impeachment.

By Amy Goldstein and Lyndsey Layton

Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, November 19, 2006; A01

After retrieving control of Congress for the first time in a dozen years, Democrats will set out to redefine the domestic agenda through policies they say would address the economic needs of middle- and working-class Americans.

() Invoking the middle class. Could be it ever more redundant.

Joel Stein of the LAT and Time mag. found out about this at both 2000 presidential conventions: "All I learned was that both parties love education, respect the military and greatly prefer the middle class to both poor and rich people."

Striving for a few quick legislative victories in January and longer-term goals whose details -- and viability -- are not yet certain, Democratic lawmakers want to shift the dialogue on Capitol Hill to workers' pay, college tuition, health-care costs, retirees' income and other issues that touch ordinary families.

Their success is not assured. Democrats will hold a tenuous 51 to 49 majority in the Senate, where Republicans and the Bush administration will be well-positioned to thwart their legislation, and Democrats in the House already are showing signs of division. Democrats will face a conflict, too, between the cost of some of their policies and their pledge to tighten federal spending rules.

() "Republicans and the Bush administration will be well-positioned to thwart their legislation" Didn't the pundits two weeks ago kept reminding viewers and readers of the "thumping" to the Republicans? "already are showing signs of division." . . . And even this didn't appear for the GOP on Nov. 19, 2004. Everyone will keep checking back in April for poll numbers.

Still, key Democrats interviewed in recent days portrayed their strategy as an attempt to do several things at once: distinguish themselves from the outgoing Republican majority, heed voters' messages from the midterm elections and lay groundwork for the 2008 presidential campaign, in which they predict the widening income gap in the United States will be a prominent theme.

() Gotta think about 2008. Already. With elections being more and more hard, how about making them easier with more gerrymandering, 527 groups and Manhattan plate dinners?

During the last several years of Republican reign in Congress and the White House, "all we've had . . . has been trying to scare the bejesus out of people with the word 'terrorism' and using that as an excuse to ignore everything else," said Rep. Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.), who is in line to lead the House Ways and Means health subcommittee.

() True. Terrorism is used to scare people.

But neither party is telling me when the War on Terror will END.

How long will the blue-collar people tolerate joining the Army? All around the world, both in here and even in the Arab world the concept of a public-drawn massive military is declining.

With globalization making life more prosperous and white-collar jobs more aplenty, the burdens of political violence is outsourced to more fringe components like fanatical terrorists and uber-skilled special forces.

"What we saw in the course of this campaign was, people wanted to know who's on their side," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who will chair the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. "Whether it's health care or wages or retirement issues, they want to have someone on their side."

The broad appeal to the middle class is not the only thread running through Democrats' ambitions. The party will get its first chance in years, for instance, to push views on energy and the environment that diverge sharply with those of the White House and congressional Republicans.

Democrats want to replace the current emphasis on oil production and nuclear energy with an approach that encourages conservation and alternative fuels. Meanwhile, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who will chair the Environment and Public Works Committee, has said she will pursue mandatory limits on greenhouse gases.

If such environmental stances appeal to Democrats' older, liberal constituency, the heavy emphasis on pocketbook issues reflects the party's narrow electoral victory this month. "Since it was the middle class that was the swing voters, this agenda is designed to reward that group and to win them over," said Ross K. Baker, a political-science professor at Rutgers University. "The theme is the preservation and salvation of the middle class."

() Yet more invoking of the eMCees. But do they need DELIVERANCE as the theme suggests?

Danielle Doane, the Heritage Foundation's director of congressional relations, said the agenda also represents those issues on which most Democrats concur, mirroring the "Contract with America," the policy statement of the GOP when it took control of Congress in 1994.

() Strategic thinking for 2K8. As a Heritage member, make the Democratic agenda to be MORE and MORE like the Contract, and the media will focus less on fading, Texas-bound Bush and more on the celebrity-ness mistakes of Pelosi and Reid as Gingrich and Dole.

To hold voters's support and navigate legislation through a divided government, several incoming house and senate committee chairmen said, it will be critical to forge productive working relationships with Republicans.

"The first thing I have to do is bring some civility and trust to the committee," said incoming House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.). "Nothing could please me more than to be the chairman that had tax reform, Social Security reform and health reform. I have no clue as to what can really be accomplished until I see how serious people are in being willing to compromise."

Democrats also will have to reconcile their policy goals with their promise to find ways to cover new spending through additional revenue or cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. "There is, as is often the case, an element of schizophrenia there," said Robert D. Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. "You have an expansive programmatic agenda that you're trying to reconcile with a desire to be fiscally responsible."

The necessity of some GOP votes, combined with the austere fiscal climate, has influenced how Democrats plan to proceed in their first weeks. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the next speaker of the House, has said that one of the first domestic issues she will bring up will be an increase in the minimum wage by $2.10 per hour, to $7.25. The cost of that would largely be borne by private employers, not the government. President Bush has supported similar proposals, said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman.

Other changes would be far more expensive and divisive. Democratic leaders have vowed to protect middle-class households from the alternative minimum tax. For now, they are planning a one-year fix. They have not decided on a permanent reform. "That's a tough one. It's easy to say, 'We are going to do away with it.' The challenge is how to pay for it," said former senator John Breaux, who co-chaired a presidential tax commission last year that estimated that eliminating the tax would cost $1 trillion over the next decade. The White House favors reforming the tax only if Congress considers other tax changes, which Democrats might not like.

The tax is one of several priorities that the Democrats have not determined specifically how to address. To make college more affordable, they want to cut interest rates on student loans, but they have not decided whether to make that change for all loans or only federally subsidized ones for low-income students.

On other issues, it is not clear whether the Democrats can even agree among themselves. Many in the party want to change Medicare's new drug benefit so the government can negotiate prices directly with pharmaceutical companies. Incoming Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) remains unsure. "We need to be very honest in getting the facts" about whether such a switch would be helpful, he said. And Baker, of Rutgers, predicted that energy policies could "erode Democratic cohesion."

() Well, that was a problem of ^too much^ political unity, there are many GOPers who regret staying up all night to deliver the votes.

Too much unity desired by the administration and DeLay to cook the books on the actual cost of the drug benefit. And get the votes.

But going back to 2003, they couldn't vote no and make Bush look bad.

Have DailyKos and Michael Moore say--"Hey! Here's an intelligent Republican for once!" So timing comes ahead of principles. Facts don't change, but ideological feelings do.

Where were these "true" conservatives during 2004? Maybe the Kerry administration would have helped them out. Yes, the Mass. senator himself called the bill a "special-interest giveaway."

"These will be years of testing," said William A. Galston of the Brookings Institution, who was a domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton. "The American people are going to be watching very carefully."

Staff writers Peter Baker, Lori Montgomery and Steven Mufson contributed to this report.

12:57 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove



Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Time for another quiz, Gang of 500!

* What, you're not familiar with what Bush campaign adviser Mary Matalin says is the "Skull and Bones for the political class?"

A full excerpt from that New Yorker article: "Paul Begala, a former campaign adviser to Bill Clinton and a co-host of CNN's "Crossfire," told me. "For everyone else in Washington, Halperin and ABC's The Note are our version of the P.D.B." Bill and Hillary Clinton are said to read it, as do Bill Frist, the Senate Majority Leader, and Terry McAuliffe, the head of the Democratic National Committee; when Rove is on the road, he has a printout sent to him. "

- From


Mark Halperin and the transformation of the Washington establishment.


Issue of 2004-10-25

Posted 2004-10-18


I'm like those professors, I need to state "I digress."

That "quiz" question.

* * * * * *


Name a battle from the Vietnam War. C'mon, you got Tet, Khe Shan, Operation Hastings, the Fall of Saigon, etc.

Where did I get my "Gang of 500" reference in the title of my blog entry? The New Yorker article has Halperin identifing the Gang of 500 as "the campaign consultants, strategists, pollsters, pundits, and journalists who

make up the modern-day political establishment."

In other words, baby boomers.

Gang of 500 members, your old high school classmates, Vietnam vets now craving for their Social Security paychecks today as retirees, can help you out in naming a battle.

When I'm talking about economic globalization, I'm mean the Americans were fighting on the side of capitalism.

Buzzz. Time's up. You don't have to answer. Because this is the *real* question:


Name a battle from the Afghan-Soviet War. December 1979 NOT included. Cause you remember being so chilly in your sweater, with your Ford sedan out of gas, and yellow ribbons on the tree watching Carter's '80 SOTUA: "The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil".

But then the 80s came. Yuppie time. The experience of December 1979 became a faint and fogotten memory. Even that spoiled suburbanite/Che Guevara wannabe Jerry Rubin joined in the fun. What a fucking hypocrite.

Here is an accurate account of the Cuban Marxist, (http://www.time.com/time/time100/heroes/profile/guevara01.html), a man who died for his cause, whether you like that cause or not.

By the way, I promise you Identitarianism is NOT going to become the next SDS. And fade away like teenage angst, even if it's a one-man movement for years and years.

With the Afghan-Soviet war, you can *only* include an ^specific^ engagement (do not name a weapon, I repeat DO NOT name a weapon) from January 1980 up until the troops came back home to Russia in 1989.

Think about who was fighting a war of cultural globalization. You know that side in the Afghan-Soviet war wasn't like the Americans in Southeast Asia fighting to make the world safe for General Motors + making sure free-market economics were uphold from Saigon to Bangkok and Kuala Lumpar.

There you go!


I'll be your lover, I'll be forever

I'll be tomorrow, I am anything when i'm high

Don't you want some of this?

Don't you need some of this?





8:11 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove

Monday, October 09, 2006

World War V: Coming to a theater near you

Just some manifestions/scenarios/brain candy. The fronts of World War V, the nice little war created by globalization.

Incorrect to call it a "world war?" Maybe just coin it as the Blue Team-Red Team Olympic Games instead. For bragging rights sake . . .


The Iraqi insurgents and the pan-Arab al-Qaeda triumph over the American military


Streaking India surpasses Italy and Germany in terms of size of GDP


The number of patents racked up by Lenovo and Infosys give IBM and Cisco a run for their money


Zhang Ziyi beats out Nicole Kidman and Hillary Swank for Best Actress - Oscar

What industry do you work for?

As for the cultural front, who will be the next Tom Cruise or Marilyn Monroe for the blue team? The next Coldplay or 50 Cent decades from now?

How can the blue team (esp. the U.S. of course) keep their dominance over world's culture share?

This supremecy goes allllllllll the way back to Shakespeare, y'know.

7:28 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove

Thursday, September 28, 2006


Continuing from below

And just what is "everything else"? What is everything else in a person's life that can be liked but *hated* instead?

How about this:

* Unleash Operation Horseshoe upon these Kosovar Albanians. Try to do that to as many things as you can:


(House + household goods, appliances and lawn maintance, car, gas, water, clothes, heating, electricity, insurance, medicine)


(Hobbies, TV, video games, music, movies, books, political views < I have a special plan for Identitarianism and partisanship> )


(Friends, family, love life, socializing, clubbing, partying, vacationing)

Now *that's* anti-consumerism for you. Denying as much money to as many businesses as possible-- "bleed into bankruptcy".

No need to discriminate between Wal-Mart or a mom-and-pop store. Layoff as ^many^ employees as possible and get them trained to develop ethanol or hybrid cars. It'll be used for the War on Terror, right?

Yes, you may accuse me of hypocrisy, since I don't have my Unabomber shack and I'm *preaching* for everyone to get one for themselves. I live with my parents, I get Cs and Ds at college (you may have figured out where) and I only came up with the Identitarian idea this past March.

Self-sufficiency is not painless. It's too bad America has *too much* open space, the suburbs are spread like the plague, and everyone practically needs a car. I wish we had concrete apartment blocks of the old Soviet bloc instead. These structures were so prevelant that you could find one in a middle of rural small town (which is impossible to encounter in the U.S.)

They could be built next to office parks and research facilities (instead of collective factory like in the USSR). Then we could all ^walk^ to work and shopping and such.

I would aspire to buy the cheapest home possible but I admit my fear of the neighborhood being dangerous and crime-ridden.

Plus it would be nice if every person from teenagers to senior citizens just wore uniforms—like a Mao suit or such.

I love military-style olive drab uniforms. Or the ones they wear in Catholic schools. Something like this for all of society, I'm not so sure yet . . . I have think about uniforms.

Of course, much of the money people take in from work goes to mortgages, prescription drugs, and paying debts. The cost of living in certain places of the U.S. (like the Northeast, California) poses a challenge to practicing Neo-individualism. Even if they supressed their desires like Hendrik Verwoerd, they can't still save much money if they didn't have much disposible income to begin with.

Same for those who those who work to make ends meet and live paycheck to paycheck. Can't forget my fellow Gen-Yers who eat Ramen and buy at Goodwill in order to afford a post-college apartment.

But I still think every amount of money not spent can help *restructure* the economy. Making the economy STRONGER is what World War V is all about.

And if Identitarianism fails for me, I know there are people out there who can resist materialism and self-indulgences + contribute their talents and work to American society and Western civilization. They're just BORN to do that.

It's hard to avoid using electricity too, after all I'm using energy RIGHT NOW by typing on this weblog. I'm real a flip-flopper for that.


Try Googling this for once. Or maybe Yahooing it instead.

"The first thing I want to be done is to get that piece of crap out of my ring!"

1:20 AM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove



Wednesday, September 27, 2006

A model

And a model for practicing Identitarianism. .

If you're a student, imagine being in a classroom of 24 people. Who would get the power and dominate everybody else?

Take 10% for the Kosovar Serbs.

And just relate 24 students to a person's life divided into 24 sections.

The minority students oppress the majority. Just like the minority parts in my life are supreme to everything else:

Kosovo i Metohija

3 Serb students

21 Albanian students

Pro wrestling _ rap-rock _ teen pop

Pro wrestling _ rap-rock _ teen pop

Pro wrestling _ rap-rock _ teen pop

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

Everything else

11:30 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Read All About It

I didn't mean Identitarianism (I mean Part 2, the Incentive) to be really for the government, President Bush, or any country to carry out.

It was just intended for me to try ^harder^ to write essays or get a part-time job. My talents and efforts contribute to the Blue Team, or U.S. and the rest of Western Civilization.

They say competition, of wanting to be best causes selfishness and ignorance. How can one person studying harder come at the expense of others? World War V is intended to be for student by student, worker by worker.

It USED to be that the Blue Team governments colonized parts of the Red Team, used the CIA to monitor their governments, exploited their crops and resources, things like that.

Globalization does not necessarily have people working at the expense of others.

Somewhat. You may disagree.

Instead, globalization is like there are natural resources, capital, investment, power, influence out there, and it's just matter of who can get what. It used for be all for the Blue Team, but China and India are starting to get their piece of the pie.

It's like a scoreboard, which team can score the most points? No one's going to get KILLED by global economic competition, right?

About the poor getting and benefits and such . . . that's for the governments, and the international banks and donor organizations to decide. World War V is about SOCIETIES, not states (or governments). Some policies that intend to help Africa or Latin America could be economically less efficient or not.

Some well, may not.

Whatever happens, EVERY person in red team is going be affected by the global economy. Even the capitalist critic Hugo Chavez has to trade oil on the world market; the socialism in Cuba and Venezuela is well away from genuine Marxism-Leninism. So globalization, the last frontier of history, CANNOT be reversed. Using tariffs, quotas, is not going to be enough.

Every person is going to compete!

I don't *hate* the Red Team- over 5 billion people in the world.

Neither do I hate the students at school I compete with. Just became my parents are competing with their co-workers for a raise, doesn't mean chaos for them. The war is not fear for me.

The Blue and Red Team members can work against each other and sing Kumbaya at the end of the day, for all I care.

At least I'm not boring anybody, am I?

- - - - -

^ 1 ^ 9 ^ 9 ^ 9 ^ is like

. . . the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 


Nookie-Bawitdaba-Guerilla Radio

I Want It That Way-... Baby One More Time-It's Gonna Be Me

7:57 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove