dear fellow lovers of the (/a?) future

the monkey takes pride in its noise. this is perfectly normal and to be expected. i'd assert that this is one of the faulty heuristics of a conditio humana that has made progress in free thought, and hence historical development, impossible at times. to reconciliate contradicting views it seems necessary to dissociate one's ego from the message voiced and attempt to find some sort of common ground where communication is possible. this must not entail harmonious humming.

as i am as prone to this as anyone else i'd like to excuse the lack of clarity in my post below. our difficulties with discussing such issues do arise due to our geworfensein [excuse heideggerian speak]. the oppressor faces a much tougher existential quest in having to liberate himself from the double-speak and double-think as freire quite sexily put it back in the sixties. we are now of course much more heavily alienated, with the current generation literally growing up in some sort of multimedial, masturbatory fantasy-world. the asexual [innocent] nature of hero of our age harry tosser for instance is of course a different [if equally exciting!] topic. the whitey is responsible, not just in the negative sense, but also, positively, in "having the time and access to capital (power) necessary" [NC] i.e. should be doing something proper.

if you are then born into the minority of the opulent, priviledged to any information at all, you will quickly be facing the fact that you are essentially satan's spawn [in a post-christian, hicksian sense please!] and that your luxurious lifestyle finds its economic base in brownies dying face down in the mud. having grown accustomed to an excessively pampered lifestyle [i'm speaking for myself here, feel free to apply to your own CV] and seeing a glimpse of this, maybe through the use of hallucinogens, third world travel, chatting to "dishi-washa", the first task at hand: facilitate breaking down the supposed rigidity of institutional constructs, authoritarian structures, etc implanted in our heads, i.e. generally ridding the cognitive machinery of any belief in the ahistorical nature of the wording and grammar that legitimises that tasty [oh so tasty!] status quo with a silk lining.

such softening of mental constructs is the first step to not becoming one of a new generation of satan's little helpers contributing to the reproduction of material realities. anti-consumerism is so widespread in germany that there are even pop-stars on mtv germany advocating it and in fact there's a corresponding marketing clique going for the "half-hearted anti-dollar". the next step is to develop a negative dialectic to deconstruct reformist language. a critique of migration studies does not mean that there shouldnt be migration studies, just as much as finklestein's critique of the holocaust industry doesnt mean the jews didnt suffer and there shouldnt be information about it. the migration issue is actually a beautiful case for this sort of critique.

below i was going for a certain type of systemic analysis which i will try and outline systematically now. let me start by assuring you that i strongly believe that everybody needs to know about the situation of "illegals" in the first world. there's a form of liberal-left discourse around migrant's human rights etc. at the paris social forum for instance, the sans papiers were represented in massive numbers. they are organised in varying systems of direct democracy where only sans papiers are allowed to vote on aspects of the evolving organisations within the community. whiteys are allowed to help but they can of course not vote and never be part of these transitory forms.

now the easiest case for a political economy of migrant workers is in fact the us. i will not go into a history of the promised land and the people who lived there before the whitey pattern of inhabiting geographical space was applied- they are also amongst the face down in the mud section. to be as brief as possible there are lots of brownies in the u.s. who "technically" shouldnt be there but they run the bottom end of the so-called service economy. due to their questionable status institutional norms do not apply to them. there have been a number of liberal-left sociological studies indicating that black-market manual labourers do not enjoy access to "human rights" or indeed any part of the civil rights apparatus as they stand to be kicked out of "paradise" if they complain [thoynbee or whatever in the uk, similarly some woman in the u.s.].

wages may or may not be paid, and if the whitey boss decides to "have a crack" with the mexican cleaner he may do so as she has noone to complain to. benji says, immigrants "may aspire to be as rich as us and in the US their earnings usually overtake those of native born citizens in 10-15 years". i am in very very deep doubts about that proposition. to my mind illegals are the slaves of the modern period of economic imperialism, and, much as in the greek city states [model for our sys]: either youre a citizen, and its hanging out at the forum, bienvenidos to freedom and future, or you aint. in which case "inglan", which looked so sexy from the other side of the ocean, will suddenly turn out to be "a bitch".

as i was taught at sussex university [benji?] there have been "two periods of globalisation", one before WWI, one very recently. that is the most "critical" version of globalisation discourse there is. it is commonly forgotten that [continental european] border controls were only instituted after WWI. The modern nation-state was transformed during the fascist period and strongly resembles the totalitarian state developed during that period. and it remains that way. for good reason. the international gradient of wealth is regulated by "free market" theory. as critics of this theory have pointed out, free movement of capital will have a disastrous effect on living conditions for those at the receiving end of political power structures if there is no free movement of labour [-> competition of nation-states, speculation of capital, this is gramscian international political economy- excellent material. if you havent..].

this applies to NAFTA or the Eastern European Extension ["sponsored by Volkswagen"]- there will be a transition period of a few years where people may not cross freely. the difference in living and working conditions is maintained by reference to the romantic-reactionary nation-state model, which is, in its current form, a remnant of colonial imperialism and fascism. note that the bits re: slavery above put the illegal migrant at a very special position in the global economy, being both victim and enabler of pyramid-building at the national as well as the international level.

the minimal influx of migrants limits economic growth. germany is actually facing a huge disaster in terms of ageing population and a picture of "economic collapse by 2020" is being projected by pessimist economists [this is not to be taken too seriously as it is also part of an ideology of neo-liberal "reform" by the local tonys] if immigration is not increased to a couple of 100K a year. the german golden years of capitalism in the 50s and 60s were driven by a huge influx of workers which were actively recruited and sourced from different mediterranean countries to allow for the huge keynesian project of economic expanionism.

pyramid-building is not sensible in economic terms. low inflation, high interest, stable economies with minimal economic growth are best for the opulent minority who are hoarding cash and material value and worst for those living on wages. the influx of migrants is minimal and the disproportional noise ["commentary"] in the popular press is strongly ideological in nature. any analysis [consult left-liberal newspaper at hand] that does not take into account at least some of the [important] functional structures above will not get anywhere. political refugees coming from "failed states" (neo-colonial receiving end) are excluded from first world econ as "economic migrants" are- the science of creating and maintaining artifical barriers does not allow for exemptions.

the sad news is: going for "new, sensible immigration policy" is like advocating the re-introduction of keynesian economics: yes, it would help as far as any reform may. As marcuse says [196?, my translation + rough quote from memory] "reforms, anything that humanises the face of capitalism, can and must be tried. but there will always be a point when the reformist policy contradicts the pillar of the capitalist system, the principle of profit [or accelerated accumulation of capital]. Once this is breached, the question arises-- is revolution possible?"

far from wanting to criticise the proponent of any reformist stance, au contraire, my deepest respect and love to any vegetarian, fellow H&M purist, nudist, hedonist, gay pride, christian liberation theologist, long-hair, or whatever: it was the flawed discourse i was castigating. the rigity of a grammar that makes it all but impossible to express where its at. the self-censorship. the emotional frigidity. we must not be naive. i am sure that oxfam helps, that there are a lot of people "doing their best" on their ample allowances and london lifestyles, that they pull a number of brownies out of the dirt theyre in even..

if everything is thus connected to everything, there is one systemic totality, one functional rationale, with a vicious material reality to it [critical theoretical- in difference to marx, ?berbau is seen to be integral part of system], what is to be done?

it is possible to arrive at this question of questions from any theoretical starting point, whether it be a political economy of human rights, anti-psychiatry, radical ecology [primitivism], feminism, black power... these are all monkey attempts to understand own power. the question has not been asked properly, if there isnt some sort of resulting praxis!

who will be the first to have a cheeky crack at a radically new aesthetic in the new century? since those twisted romantics [nazis] fucked everything up, with the french intellectual promoting the continuation of said neo-romantic quest in true service to the lie, pillar to the grand gradients, there has been nothing. once creativity is unleashed, strong enough for subcutaneous realisation that "life is only a dream" etc, once the monkey-subject learns to realise itself:

again, marcuse: "we cannot know what the society of the future would look like, as we are unfree, and thus not able how a free subject would determine its mode of existence". it can only be found out in constant stuggle with the (imagined) rigidity of grammar, the (bullshit) ahistoricity claims to authoritarian language, overcoming the lack of belief in human action, fear of freedom... "there is no such thing as the revolutionary subject"- consciousness emerges in opposition to inertia, i.e. elements obstructing the process [negative dialectic]-

there will be fucking in the streets.

x