Manifesto for Thought-crimes.

Be ‘a’ creative,
even for autonomy,
for enhancement capability,
for institutionalization.
They say everything is new,
(out with the old)
but everything is contract
(same old same old)
Be energized,
Optimism of the will,
White noise.
This transmutation of meaning, as meaninglessness.
it speaks for itself, not to be theorized away.
quasi practical implication application,
web 3.0 (crash)
experiment (non-ordering, non hierarchical, non sequential)
organic, temporary, embodied, zoned,
A precinct model (polis, police).
vague qualmings about the Banksyification of art (street reblandings)
programmatic augmentation (but what programme?)
bios bios bios, oi oi oi
Art is yet again the opiate of the pseudo-intellect.
There are days when I am lost in the welter of words having unmoored themselves from the quay, instead of floating off to the horizon, they have sunk, or been scuppered. What I would rather see are pirate raids undoing these secure and buttressed fortresses of fear. There is so much horizon to explore, why cower in the bunker? Lock the captain in the brig, the scurvy swabs take the helm…

Thought Crime, its a joy.

(pic, Nation Records – come hear Aki Nawaz and others on Tuesday 26 February, at “Thought Crime – from the Lyrical Terrorist to Beenie Man” (Manifesto Club Night)- venue: Corbet Place Bar, 15 Hanbury St, London E1 6QR £5. Details here).


One thought on “Manifesto for Thought-crimes.

  1. Two words for you:

    “The Sokal Affair was a hoax by physicist Alan Sokal perpetrated on the editorial staff and readership of the postmodern cultural studies journal Social Text (published by Duke University). In 1996, Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a paper of nonsense camouflaged in jargon for publication in Social Text, as an experiment to see if a journal in that field would, in Sokal’s words: “publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions.”

    Asserting that such concepts are blatantly absurd, Sokal thus concluded that the journal ignored intellectual rigor and “felt comfortable publishing an article on quantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the subject.” In their defense, the editors of Social Text stated that they believed that the article “was the earnest attempt of a professional scientist to seek some kind of affirmation from postmodern philosophy for developments in his field” and that “its status as parody does not alter substantially our interest in the piece itself as a symptomatic document.”[1] They charged Sokal with unethical behavior and suggested they only published the article as it was because Sokal refused to make changes they suggested and it was of relevance to a special issue they happened to be preparing.

    Sokal argued that this was the whole point — the journal published articles not on the basis of whether they were correct or made sense, but simply because of who wrote them and how they sounded.”

    Tex. (who has been plagiarized twice already by silly PhD candidates from Performance Studies departments, eventho I have never taken a single PS course myself)


Comments are closed.