I've been reading some of Millennium, by Hakim Bey, recently. The idea behind Millennium is with the collapse of Communism in 89-91, as both a political entity, and as an intellectual idea; the role of oposition to the single world view of Capatalism, has been handed over to those people who occupy the fringe of society. And that the freaks must stand up for individuality and difference, or watch it all slip into a Walmart, Disney, MTV, sludge, where freedom is just another commodity to be bought and sold, according to market whims.

There are a couple of ideas in this general idea. And may be I'll get into them more in the near future. But, for now I'll stick with my initial idea. Millennium starts off with an interview Hakim gave after his previous book was released, and around the time that he was playing with the ideas which would become Millennium. In that interview, he talks about what drove him to ask himself the questions he needed to ask to start to concieve Millennium. He points to several speaking engangements he gave around the early 90's. And how the crowds appeared to be much more docile then in years past. He also points out that the few questions he was getting tended to be of a sort where people were basically asking, "well, what do we do?"

When I read this, something clicked in my head. Over the last couple of years, I've had this feeling that many people who are supposedly trying to change things for the better, are insincere in their actions. Not that they don't neccisarily beleave in what they are doing. But, that they are doing it, just to do it.

An example could be the current political election campaign. I've spoken with several people, who are voting for Nader, simply because they don't want to vote for Gore or Bush. Not, because they beleave in what Nader stands for. Or want to see him in office. But, they want to show thier dissatisfaction with the status quo, and are unsure of any other way to do it. They look around, and see only one choice. So, when a second comes along, they jump on board, as quickly as they can. I admit to doing this myself, for a time.

But, what else is there to do?

HOW TO REVOLT

Hakim brings up the Zapatistas. Now, I know little to nothing of their struggle, so I will just go on what Hakim says. If anyone knows of any missinformation here, please let me know. He points to the Zapatistas, as an example of a people who are revolting, not to try and change people's minds. Not to make someone else do what they want. But, instead, they are revolting so that they can have the right to be different. To be themselves, and retain their individuality. Hakim extrapolates on this idea. And I beleave wrote a whole nother book, Radio Sermonettes (aka Immediatism), on these ideas. I've not read that book, so I'll just work off of what I have read, and my own ideas.

In a world where we are moving towards an over whelming sameness, the ultimate revolt is difference. By being different, you are commiting a revolutionary act. Now, with this though, comes a balancing act. Hakim talks about this in the interview, and I see it as one of the more important issues, in a revolution of this sorts. That for this revolution to work, you must allow others to be different as well. By taking part in this revolution, you give up the ability to tell someone else, that they are living their life wroung, and they should live their life as you live yours. Now, a semantic argument can be made when you take this idea to the most general terms, but let's not get bogged down in semantics right now.

The biggest problem I have had with the liberal left, and the reason I refuse to align myself with it, is that I see it as having the same facist tendancies as the religious right. To quote Hakim, "...the old left itself had an ideal of a single world culture -- secular, rationalistic, you know, totally illumined, no shadows, industry, proletariat, forward into the future, basically extremely hegemonistic towards differences." And this, I feel, is no better then the right. It's still one group telling everyone else, how they should live their life. And the only real way to revolt against something like this, is to refuse to be assimilated. To remain different. And to allow others to remain as they wish to remain.

The problem then arises though. What is different?

HOW TO BE DIFFERENT

In the 1960's the counter culture broke through. Suddenly, the counter culture broke free of the urban dungeon it had been living in, and terrorized the suburbs on a larger scale then had been seen before. Now, I'll leave the discussion on the motivations of many of those who call(ed) themselves hippies, to another paper. But, one thing came out of the 60's and early 70's. A few forward thinking people saw the marketability that the counter culture had. It was Rebel Without A Cause on a much bigger scale then had been seen before.

The most famous example of this would probably be the Sex Pistols. A band, formed by Malcom McLaren (their manager) for the sole purpose of helping to market the fetish shop, Sex, owned by his then girlfriend, Vivian Westwood. (the band was modeled as a cheap knock off of The Ramones)

As time pushed forward, the marketability of rebelion increased. Yesterday I read an article in the Washinton Post Arts Section, talking about Christian rap. While talking about the problem of marketing Christian rap, mention was made of a record company, who marketed a new rapper they had, by boasting about the man's lengthy criminal record. The marketing department of that label could care less about the talent in that artist. It was the rebellion factor, that came into play. How many parents will this piss off?

So, in this kind of enviroment, where rebellion has become just another commodity, how does one commit the revolutionary act of being different?

There is no answer to this question. It is a koan. It can not be answered in words. It must instead be answered in thought. It is up to the individual to decide how to take the revolutionary step. Becuase when it comes down to it. The most revolutionary act that can be commited in this day and age, is that of individual thought.