Now by the Invisible Committee (PDF ITT)

What a load of rambling nonsense. At least when 19th and early 20th century Marxists repeated themselves, it was to deliberately illustrate a particular point they were trying to make.

Makes complete sense to me, sentence after sentence being composed with France as the subject, but I kept feeling the exact American equivalents of what they were referring to in a way that I forgot this was ever written in another language for another people. Their points can be muddy and nebulous, but I think that's to be expected when we're talking about such ungainly and obscure subjects. The essays read clippy, even through those parts, however, and it is tough not to feel a resonance, a healing clarity, even an epiphany. As an American, nearly all communication originating from prestige are cruel and crude schemes, obscurantisms, subversions, PR gimmicks and flagrant dishonesty that must send up quite an amused uproar in their salons. To whatever degree Now is less pellucid, it still booms in your head like the speech itself was on fire, so sickly and anemic is the intellectual context receiving Now's essays.

t. invisible committee

Not him but fuck the fuck off with this tryhard word salad. You are not smart. You do not have to write like the last thing that you just read. You're just writing-by-osmosis because you want so very badly to affect "smart", the same way that the Committee/Tiqqun does.

You also do yourself no favors by effectively conceding the "rambling" which the other user complained of. But (wait, listen...) trapped in your own word-salad, you make one cogent point: "I like what's in this book because it reminds me of things I know about." For future reference in rhetoric, that's what you should do: rather than trying to assemble your own French word-salad, hit beats and make arguments.

"Attach yourself to what you feel to be true. Begin there." -The Coming Insurrection, (Let me help you with this. The mere citation of the quote here accomplishes multiple things: it demonstrates my knowledge and authority on the texts (the most important part), and the English phrasing underlines the idiocy of the "(multiple) truth/facts/feelings; 'my' truth" discourse on the left which makes them so especially ridiculous today. Finally, the above is meant backhandedly as sincere advice for you on how to improve your own rhetoric.)

One of the great pleasures of Now is that the authors are obliged to admit their own impotence toward the end.

>It just makes everything seem so hopeless though
I think it can be overwhelming. Whatever truth is in their words, it applies specifically to France and French people. Many trends in the US are similar yet more complex due to our size and composition. It is sad to hear their elites are as feckless and daft as our own. It's not so hopeless, though, and I don't think the anarchists in France messing with trains help anything. The day after the mothership lands or whatever people will want something like trains, even if we do not want the scorched soilless acreage or cobalt mine pits or Foxconn factories. Some of these essays flirt with an anti-city vibe too, I feel, and are also European. Perhaps the New World has other possibilities, which is my own personal opinion. For instance, the "Fragmentation" they speak of is almost an assimilative process in the US, maybe with some additional atomisation now, yes, but we're nearly celebrating our fragmentations in the our big stew pot society. It does not alarm an American in the way this might someone from a smaller, older, more coherent society, such as France. Plus, I always think of the people working their asses off and not publishing anarchists texts and stopping trains, and I'd bet in many cases, the future is theirs. They are the ones showing up, whoever they end up being. I also remember that America is, whatever else it claims, an economic project where people try to build societies where we can. We're not one vision and at our best we reach a dynamism largely because we try to tolerate very disruptive forces: migration, economic risk, expeditionary warfare, empire building. If we can survive long enough, we may be able to grow new things, new methods, new lifestyles. So I don't think it's hopeless, just very dangerous and uncertain in the short term. Projecting out two decades, however, perhaps that's enough space for the sun to rise, women to have babies and people either become more itinerant or more settled and stick it out there and make something happen. We need to survive if for no other reason than to tell people of the goofballs and tomfoolery we witnessed.

A rhetoric coach! If only I gave an iota about whatever things you measure, friend.

Haven't read this yet, but that's not a word salad, sweatie.

Bumping