<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Immortal Technique Interview</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/news/2009/05/immortal-technique-interview/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/news/2009/05/immortal-technique-interview</link>
	<description>Hip-Hop Linguistics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:29:45 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Propaganda Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/news/2009/05/immortal-technique-interview/comment-page-1#comment-19256</link>
		<dc:creator>Propaganda Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:48:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/?p=1441#comment-19256</guid>
		<description>Peace Rae Rae
Are you speaking from personal experience in dealing with Tech? 
Or just repeating hearsay?&lt;ul&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peace Rae Rae<br />
Are you speaking from personal experience in dealing with Tech?<br />
Or just repeating hearsay?
<ul></ul>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rae Rae</title>
		<link>http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/news/2009/05/immortal-technique-interview/comment-page-1#comment-19255</link>
		<dc:creator>Rae Rae</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 22:49:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/?p=1441#comment-19255</guid>
		<description>He&#039;s an egotistical entertainer and hustler. His talk may sound intelligent but they don&#039;t match his true actions. He is a typical gangster hungry for cheese.&lt;ul&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He&#8217;s an egotistical entertainer and hustler. His talk may sound intelligent but they don&#8217;t match his true actions. He is a typical gangster hungry for cheese.
<ul></ul>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheGhost</title>
		<link>http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/news/2009/05/immortal-technique-interview/comment-page-1#comment-15288</link>
		<dc:creator>TheGhost</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:53:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/?p=1441#comment-15288</guid>
		<description>oh shit i guess i did get kinda preachy lol&lt;ul&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>oh shit i guess i did get kinda preachy lol
<ul></ul>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheGhost</title>
		<link>http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/news/2009/05/immortal-technique-interview/comment-page-1#comment-15287</link>
		<dc:creator>TheGhost</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:52:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/?p=1441#comment-15287</guid>
		<description>i agree dylan, i found the discussion to be very interesting.. ill just drop a few cents into that discussion without trying to get too preachy.. one of the key elements to finding truth is to take in both sides, this can pretty much be agreed upon by everyone, the problem is that people will acknowledge the other side but still choose to fight in what they perceive to be a struggle when in fact there is no real struggle to prove which side is right, its really very selfish.. i like to take a taoist perspective when thinking about economics and politics, atleast in the sense that i seek balance within those subjects.. when i think about the political spectrum, i dont see a line with points on it like i was taught to believe in college, i see a circle where at some point two completely opposing ideologies become the same ideology.. i mean think about fascism vs communism, both can be considered opposite ends of the political spectrum according to the average economics professor, but the reality of it is that the two ideologies are almost identical.. one in which the corporation takes control of the state, and the other the state taking control of the corporation, either way you have totalitarianism regardless of whos making the rules, and everyone who isnt in a position of power is still going to suffer, so in reality how do the ideologies differ from one another? you have to take both sides of the argument, take the good from both sides, disregard the bullshit from both sides, and you get an answer to something that actually makes sense.. i did the same thing regarding the eternal argument of science vs religion, each side tries to prove themselves in one way or another and yet both sides have yet to come to a clear concise answer to the big question.. so i researched every living religion in the world seeking some sort of truth, and then i read alot of science and theory seeking the same, and realized that both sides had it right to a point, then added a bunch of bullshit to cover for their own shortcomings.. therefore i subscribe to the philosophy of taoism with the theory of quantum physics.. im taking two ideologies from opposite sides of the argument and smashing them together to form one ideology.. this is just my theory on the subject though, and i know its probably not the best, but its the best i can think of lol&lt;ul&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i agree dylan, i found the discussion to be very interesting.. ill just drop a few cents into that discussion without trying to get too preachy.. one of the key elements to finding truth is to take in both sides, this can pretty much be agreed upon by everyone, the problem is that people will acknowledge the other side but still choose to fight in what they perceive to be a struggle when in fact there is no real struggle to prove which side is right, its really very selfish.. i like to take a taoist perspective when thinking about economics and politics, atleast in the sense that i seek balance within those subjects.. when i think about the political spectrum, i dont see a line with points on it like i was taught to believe in college, i see a circle where at some point two completely opposing ideologies become the same ideology.. i mean think about fascism vs communism, both can be considered opposite ends of the political spectrum according to the average economics professor, but the reality of it is that the two ideologies are almost identical.. one in which the corporation takes control of the state, and the other the state taking control of the corporation, either way you have totalitarianism regardless of whos making the rules, and everyone who isnt in a position of power is still going to suffer, so in reality how do the ideologies differ from one another? you have to take both sides of the argument, take the good from both sides, disregard the bullshit from both sides, and you get an answer to something that actually makes sense.. i did the same thing regarding the eternal argument of science vs religion, each side tries to prove themselves in one way or another and yet both sides have yet to come to a clear concise answer to the big question.. so i researched every living religion in the world seeking some sort of truth, and then i read alot of science and theory seeking the same, and realized that both sides had it right to a point, then added a bunch of bullshit to cover for their own shortcomings.. therefore i subscribe to the philosophy of taoism with the theory of quantum physics.. im taking two ideologies from opposite sides of the argument and smashing them together to form one ideology.. this is just my theory on the subject though, and i know its probably not the best, but its the best i can think of lol
<ul></ul>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dylan</title>
		<link>http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/news/2009/05/immortal-technique-interview/comment-page-1#comment-15170</link>
		<dc:creator>Dylan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:53:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/?p=1441#comment-15170</guid>
		<description>I thought the interview was fairly in depth, I should expect nothing less from tech. I&#039;ve read a few of his interviews and listened to all of his verses and he seems much less solidified in his perspectives when talking to a specific individual rather that his followers. I can understand this though, he has to be blunt and general to make his lyrics powerful and persuasive. I found the conversation between East and Prop much more interesting and stimulating. I admire the ability of both of them to share knowledge instead of proving knowledge and discrediting the others&#039; statements. Respect to both for keepin a cool head ...the most informative collection of article comments I&#039;ve ever seen.&lt;ul&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought the interview was fairly in depth, I should expect nothing less from tech. I&#8217;ve read a few of his interviews and listened to all of his verses and he seems much less solidified in his perspectives when talking to a specific individual rather that his followers. I can understand this though, he has to be blunt and general to make his lyrics powerful and persuasive. I found the conversation between East and Prop much more interesting and stimulating. I admire the ability of both of them to share knowledge instead of proving knowledge and discrediting the others&#8217; statements. Respect to both for keepin a cool head &#8230;the most informative collection of article comments I&#8217;ve ever seen.
<ul></ul>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/news/2009/05/immortal-technique-interview/comment-page-1#comment-14951</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:20:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/?p=1441#comment-14951</guid>
		<description>Proper interview, what book is he reading? looks ill&lt;ul&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Proper interview, what book is he reading? looks ill
<ul></ul>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Menace</title>
		<link>http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/news/2009/05/immortal-technique-interview/comment-page-1#comment-13864</link>
		<dc:creator>Menace</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:12:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/?p=1441#comment-13864</guid>
		<description>East DO YOU understand that you ARE A LEFTIST ?? anarchist communists are leftists the only anarchists that are called right wing anarchists  are anarcho-capitalists  anarcho-communists/syndicalists/platformists are all LEFTIST ideologies when you  oppose capitalist  private property   and give the means of production to the working class THEN YOU are inherently a LEFTIST read some Peter Kropotkin if you are anarcho-communist&lt;ul&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>East DO YOU understand that you ARE A LEFTIST ?? anarchist communists are leftists the only anarchists that are called right wing anarchists  are anarcho-capitalists  anarcho-communists/syndicalists/platformists are all LEFTIST ideologies when you  oppose capitalist  private property   and give the means of production to the working class THEN YOU are inherently a LEFTIST read some Peter Kropotkin if you are anarcho-communist
<ul></ul>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Propaganda Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/news/2009/05/immortal-technique-interview/comment-page-1#comment-13732</link>
		<dc:creator>Propaganda Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2009 03:47:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/?p=1441#comment-13732</guid>
		<description>PEACE East

 Yep, that one&#039;s free. 
Good buildin. 
  There&#039;s lots to be done, and convos like these are very important.
  Jeah!&lt;ul&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PEACE East</p>
<p> Yep, that one&#8217;s free.<br />
Good buildin.<br />
  There&#8217;s lots to be done, and convos like these are very important.<br />
  Jeah!
<ul></ul>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: East</title>
		<link>http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/news/2009/05/immortal-technique-interview/comment-page-1#comment-13723</link>
		<dc:creator>East</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 21:08:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/?p=1441#comment-13723</guid>
		<description>Oh shit! I just clicked on the link in your username. You got an EP and everything, huh? Congrats, dude! I&#039;ll give it a listen, check it out. Good conversatin&#039; with you. Maybe we can have more discussions on this board in the future. I&#039;m getting sick of arguing with the same fools.

Good luck with ya tunes, man. :)&lt;ul&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh shit! I just clicked on the link in your username. You got an EP and everything, huh? Congrats, dude! I&#8217;ll give it a listen, check it out. Good conversatin&#8217; with you. Maybe we can have more discussions on this board in the future. I&#8217;m getting sick of arguing with the same fools.</p>
<p>Good luck with ya tunes, man. <img src='http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' />
<ul></ul>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: East</title>
		<link>http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/news/2009/05/immortal-technique-interview/comment-page-1#comment-13722</link>
		<dc:creator>East</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2009 20:32:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hiphoplinguistics.com/?p=1441#comment-13722</guid>
		<description>When I say &#039;work&#039;, I mean economic labor; productivity that is alienated from the worker. The exertion of energy in order to complete some sort of task that is productive for the person doing it isn&#039;t what I mean. Work: any form of labor done in service of capital&#039;s accumulation; think of everything that surrounds you on a daily basis as the congealed and curdled labor power of billions of people, and it is constantly building on itself, like a machine that is perpetually constructing itself. That is the accumulation. You cannot escape it or reform it, only destroy it in an act of transcendence (and I don&#039;t mean in that in some dumbass theological way). The writings of the Situationists are a good source of anti-work ideas but they&#039;re not the end all be all. This essay pretty much explains work abolition to a key:

The Abolition of Work: http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm 

&quot;I urge you not to fall into the same trap of dualism by just saying that work is the problem.&quot;

Opposition to work isn&#039;t a form of dualism. There&#039;s a clear distinction between self-productivity (or &#039;self-activity&#039;, if you prefer that) and alienated labor. By dualism I meant the form of dualism similar to the notion of a split between &#039;body&#039; and &#039;mind&#039;; that somehow, those two things are separate or can be separate. Theory and praxis are inseparable. There&#039;s no such thing as too much theory or too much practice if they&#039;re in tune with each other. As long as any form of economy and it&#039;s accompanying institutions exist, alienated labor will exist. Human productivity should not be in service to something outside of their own autonomy. Even leftist/socialist notions of maintaining alienated labor in service to the &#039;Common Good&#039; is crap. If you&#039;re not enjoying it and/or seeing it&#039;s results benefit you in a direct and personal way, then it isn&#039;t self-productive.

There&#039;s clearly not some form of &#039;scale&#039; or &#039;spectrum&#039; that one can place both alienated activity (work is just one form; perhaps the predominant form) and self-activity (self-determined and autonomous activity) on. To me, this is a matter of either/or. I&#039;m not going to settle for transitional revolution or other pseudo-&#039;withering state&#039; ideas.

Your statement about consciousness shares a distinct Marxist genealogy. I&#039;m not calling you a Marxist though. The idea of spreading pro-revolutionary consciousness (&#039;class consciousness&#039;) is something that is very prevalent among radical milieus of all sorts, and I don&#039;t find it agreeable. It implies that those who hold pro-revolutionary consciousness are specialized conduits of revolutionary change and that only through their efforts can the dispossessed transform into an agent of revolution (a subject that has the ability to destroy/overthrow the social order). That only affirms the separation that I mentioned previously. It&#039;s a very ambiguous and vague idea that is open to manipulation and abuse (e.g. vanguardism, activism, etc).

Define solution. Almost every time I hear an activist and/or leftist say that, it implies some form of program and/or institutional reformation. What do you want me to suggest as a solution to our problem (and I&#039;m sure the things we recognize as problems are very different from each other)? Most of the &#039;solutions&#039; I hear people ranting about aren&#039;t even solutions at all. I&#039;m not going to step onto a stage in front of the entire human species and say, &quot;ok, this is what we have to do...&quot;. This isn&#039;t a matter of going down a laundry list of political issues and solving them one by one; this is a matter of reclaiming my means of existence. Revolution has to encompass the entirety, the totality, of social relations, because that&#039;s what we&#039;re opposing, specific forms of social relations. I suppose it will come down to forming new relations between people that are completely opposed to our current social relations. A form of nihilism, if you will.

&quot;However, I think it is the time for Re-construction.&quot;

Can&#039;t plot the crop until you&#039;ve burned the field. Can&#039;t live in a desired state of existence until you&#039;ve done away with the one that you oppose. You&#039;re creating a dichotomy between creation and destruction; a false dichotomy. &quot;Building the new world in the shell of the old&quot; is a leftist myth. I don&#039;t want to take the reigns of the current institutions and use them to build my world; I want to do away with institutions all together. 

On many things, we&#039;re just going to have to agree to disagree for now. I&#039;m a very different breed of pro-revolutionary than you are. This isn&#039;t to say we&#039;re enemies, but it is to say that in some cases, we&#039;re opposed to each other. I think we&#039;ve carried this conversation as far as it can go for now. Haha...I&#039;m already spending too much time on the internet; I gotta do laundry and pick up some coffee from Dunkin Donuts.

I&#039;ll catch you later, dude. Peace.&lt;ul&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I say &#8216;work&#8217;, I mean economic labor; productivity that is alienated from the worker. The exertion of energy in order to complete some sort of task that is productive for the person doing it isn&#8217;t what I mean. Work: any form of labor done in service of capital&#8217;s accumulation; think of everything that surrounds you on a daily basis as the congealed and curdled labor power of billions of people, and it is constantly building on itself, like a machine that is perpetually constructing itself. That is the accumulation. You cannot escape it or reform it, only destroy it in an act of transcendence (and I don&#8217;t mean in that in some dumbass theological way). The writings of the Situationists are a good source of anti-work ideas but they&#8217;re not the end all be all. This essay pretty much explains work abolition to a key:</p>
<p>The Abolition of Work: <a href="http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm" rel="nofollow">http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm</a> </p>
<p>&#8220;I urge you not to fall into the same trap of dualism by just saying that work is the problem.&#8221;</p>
<p>Opposition to work isn&#8217;t a form of dualism. There&#8217;s a clear distinction between self-productivity (or &#8216;self-activity&#8217;, if you prefer that) and alienated labor. By dualism I meant the form of dualism similar to the notion of a split between &#8216;body&#8217; and &#8216;mind&#8217;; that somehow, those two things are separate or can be separate. Theory and praxis are inseparable. There&#8217;s no such thing as too much theory or too much practice if they&#8217;re in tune with each other. As long as any form of economy and it&#8217;s accompanying institutions exist, alienated labor will exist. Human productivity should not be in service to something outside of their own autonomy. Even leftist/socialist notions of maintaining alienated labor in service to the &#8216;Common Good&#8217; is crap. If you&#8217;re not enjoying it and/or seeing it&#8217;s results benefit you in a direct and personal way, then it isn&#8217;t self-productive.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s clearly not some form of &#8216;scale&#8217; or &#8216;spectrum&#8217; that one can place both alienated activity (work is just one form; perhaps the predominant form) and self-activity (self-determined and autonomous activity) on. To me, this is a matter of either/or. I&#8217;m not going to settle for transitional revolution or other pseudo-&#8217;withering state&#8217; ideas.</p>
<p>Your statement about consciousness shares a distinct Marxist genealogy. I&#8217;m not calling you a Marxist though. The idea of spreading pro-revolutionary consciousness (&#8216;class consciousness&#8217;) is something that is very prevalent among radical milieus of all sorts, and I don&#8217;t find it agreeable. It implies that those who hold pro-revolutionary consciousness are specialized conduits of revolutionary change and that only through their efforts can the dispossessed transform into an agent of revolution (a subject that has the ability to destroy/overthrow the social order). That only affirms the separation that I mentioned previously. It&#8217;s a very ambiguous and vague idea that is open to manipulation and abuse (e.g. vanguardism, activism, etc).</p>
<p>Define solution. Almost every time I hear an activist and/or leftist say that, it implies some form of program and/or institutional reformation. What do you want me to suggest as a solution to our problem (and I&#8217;m sure the things we recognize as problems are very different from each other)? Most of the &#8216;solutions&#8217; I hear people ranting about aren&#8217;t even solutions at all. I&#8217;m not going to step onto a stage in front of the entire human species and say, &#8220;ok, this is what we have to do&#8230;&#8221;. This isn&#8217;t a matter of going down a laundry list of political issues and solving them one by one; this is a matter of reclaiming my means of existence. Revolution has to encompass the entirety, the totality, of social relations, because that&#8217;s what we&#8217;re opposing, specific forms of social relations. I suppose it will come down to forming new relations between people that are completely opposed to our current social relations. A form of nihilism, if you will.</p>
<p>&#8220;However, I think it is the time for Re-construction.&#8221;</p>
<p>Can&#8217;t plot the crop until you&#8217;ve burned the field. Can&#8217;t live in a desired state of existence until you&#8217;ve done away with the one that you oppose. You&#8217;re creating a dichotomy between creation and destruction; a false dichotomy. &#8220;Building the new world in the shell of the old&#8221; is a leftist myth. I don&#8217;t want to take the reigns of the current institutions and use them to build my world; I want to do away with institutions all together. </p>
<p>On many things, we&#8217;re just going to have to agree to disagree for now. I&#8217;m a very different breed of pro-revolutionary than you are. This isn&#8217;t to say we&#8217;re enemies, but it is to say that in some cases, we&#8217;re opposed to each other. I think we&#8217;ve carried this conversation as far as it can go for now. Haha&#8230;I&#8217;m already spending too much time on the internet; I gotta do laundry and pick up some coffee from Dunkin Donuts.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll catch you later, dude. Peace.
<ul></ul>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

