Thanks to MKE comrades for this charming report back
On September 11th 2009, a slew of miscreants from all corners of the insurrectional constellation descended on the University of Milwaukee campus for a lovely evening with the IEF's own Liam Sionnach. While being fed grapes and smoking indoors (naughty, naughty) The Institute got differently-abled on profanation, the end of time and the human strikes of our disease ridden bodies. The room may have gotten wrecked a bit, chairs may have gained flight, everyone may have shared a lick, and a speaker may have been pied. It is all a blur by this point. What is certain: some folks in Milwaukee definitely got a stern-talking-to by their landlords, we practiced a trans-geographic sharing of complicities and bodily fluids, offered the gift of enmity (served cold in bottles) to some frat boys, and of course articulated our favorite gesture; sadomasochism. Oh, and we're also probably never allowed back at a certain luxury hotel in downtown Milwaukee.
THE INSTITUTE FOR EXPERIMENTAL FREEDOM 2009 TOUR:
come for the commodities, stay for the strip-searches.
1. How does it feel to be never alone, every-so-often?
Last week in the Midwest we continued a process which can only be called “beginning again”. Either because we occupy the position of being an active minority of proletarianized life, or a profoundly bored minority of proletarianized life. We are captivated with finding, and sharing each other. Perhaps a certain textual promiscuity, and a certain seductive distance brings us together. Perhaps an invisible voice acted on us collectively, and perhaps we simply like the similar clothes, music, and inside jokes. Either way, let's not reduce what could grow and become stronger by claiming to be the insurrectional queer, power-hungry, bro'd out, mean bitchez, that we also are. But let's hold on—without forgetting where the boundaries of exclusion are, which we are setting out—and keep losing ourselves in the thresholds.
2. The Other Means of War
What would it mean to engage in methods of conflict and even combat which reveal how it is done? And yet, how could this be invisible? These are some of the challenges which face the contemporary insurrectional project. The intimate event appropriates us—makes us the technologies of whatever force it may wield. How an event is populated and practiced gives it its form. If the content of insurrectional events is defined only by the intimacy between a small group, then it is far more likely that the specialized division of labor relation which alienates us daily will be replicated. On the other hand, if we engage in an open discourse of conflict, a certain potency which is located in becoming sensitized to each other's shared desire can be lost.
Of course there is a tension between experiencing hostility (unknown, outside) with new people and place, and experiencing friendships. We are not trying to become secure, or reject the hostis—which is the foundation of all relations. However, the construction of a partisan war-machine of insurrection requires that we face, and practically answer these questions. How is the rhythm of our shared-time—the history of social war—felt beyond the confines of what happens between our bodies (communication), how is is felt as what affects us—what we are taken by? How is this achieved without a protest-media strategy? Are there voyeurs within the immediate vicinity of a given gesture of insurrection who will be seduced by our gifts? If the answer is “no,” then we must either face the fact of singularities, which happen as mere representations with affective faculties (the one-off event which sucks everything into its vortex) , and/or seek out, occupy and if we have the capacity impose new topographies which we are better suited to populate with affects (the consistency of ungovernable terrains—occupied workplaces, schools, and social spaces which generate material solidarity and portals into our worlds).
3. Dispossessed are Turning to Communism/Violence
If we are turning to communism in a world without it, it means we are immediately getting organized, collectively to improve our conditions. It means we will, one way or the other, find ourselves in combat. A crass provocation: get money and power by all means. Some still want to continue their projects which help others. Cool. Others want to be able to live and fight. Both need money, and positions which we will defend.
On the other hand, how is violence shared? How are the spaces which we inhabit combustible? This week proved two weaknesses: 1.) We are not currently positioned to attack those whose bodies have been structured as military-machines. 2.) We are still afraid to start shit (perhaps, reasonably). Quite literally, the man with dog tags is better at manning-up than we who perform tough. Perhaps reclaiming force will have to take place a different level. Other material forces who perform being tough and mean are better situated to start shit and bully. Perhaps if we are going to locate a biopolitical sadism, it must happen along side a biopolitical masochism. But who wants to get hit first? Or rather, how will we hit first?
For those of you coming to get B-A-N-A-N-A-S in PGH, we'll see you in the Thug Section. Others, perhaps we'll continue to find out if we've reached our expiration date in the Spring.
Whats another word for "The partisan War Machine of insurrection?"
“Doom$Day” —or was it “Doomsgay?”
-Liam Sionnach | IEF | '09
ps: If anyone was there and would really like a copy of the text, feel free to beg ief-southeast(at)riseup(dot)net.