El primer film de NON Records es incómodo y perturbador


El primer film de NON Records es incómodo y perturbador

Chino Amobi y Rabit vuelven a juntarse para crear el material más amenazante del sello.

Frankie Pizá

«The Aryan archetype, stifling the light, thief of thing tongue, saboteur of dreams they bar with pipe.»

«Man will find light amongst the stars, but in a way and form he does not expect».

El narrador del primer film de NON Records elabora una inquietante y cuidada reflexión alrededor de temas como la raza, la humanidad, la lengua o el poder; la perturbadora acción comienza con imágenes de soldados estadounidenses disparando en un desierto, y prosigue con más señales de un mundo que en ojos del colectivo experimental liderado por Chino Amobi, es tan horrible como lo imaginamos.

El carácter reflexivo y crítico del pequeño sello independiente llega a su máximo nivel con este documento, que incluye material del co-fundador junto al exponente de Houston Rabit, al mando de Halcyon Veil; «BURNING TOWER , NOL★NDM★N – BURNING TOWER II» and «III» incluye en su descripción en YouTube cinco textos publicados por el grupo filosófico radical Situationist International.

A continuación puedes ver el vídeo íntegro y leer los mencionados textos sobre el slang, el poder o la economía.

«THE LANGUAGE OF SLANG is essentially the enemy’s vernacular turned upside down, then disguised. When speech ceases to be the individual exercise of resolve and intelligence, it becomes the mere instrument of a higher power. Speech represents this power and is represented by it. Anyone then speaking this language comes to identify with it; they will talk the way it does. Thus it was only when they came into contact with those dangerous classes making their way out of the European old world that most American blacks stopped speaking the enemy’s language that, along with slavery itself, they had been learning. Slang is the complete opposite of a language spoken by slaves: it is therefore alien to all forms of ideology. Authorities everywhere know this only too well, and dread the thought of it.»

«THE QUESTION OF POWER is so well hidden in sociological and cultural theory that the experts can blacken thousands of pages on communication — or the means of mass communication in modern society — without ever mentioning that the communication of which they speak is unilateral, that the consumers of communication have no way of responding. Within this false communication, there is a rigorous division of labor that ends up confirming the more general division between organizers and consumers in the era of industrial culture (which integrates and formulates the unity of work and leisure). Those who are not disturbed by the tyranny exerted on life at this level have no understanding of contemporary society; and thus find themselves perfectly qualified to add their brushstrokes to the frescos of sociology. All those who display wonder or amazement at this mass culture, which cultivates the masses and at the same time «massifies high culture» through a globally unified mass media, forget that culture, even high culture, is now buried in museums; and that this includes manifestations of revolt and self-destruction. They also forget that the masses — of whom, in the final analysis, we are all a part — are excluded from life (from participation in life), excluded from liberated action: condemned to mere subsistence in spectacular style. The present law is that everyone has to consume the greatest possible quantity of nothingness, even the respectable nothingness of traditional culture, which has been perfectly severed from its original significance.»

«THE “BALANCE OF TERROR” between two rival groups of states — the most visible basic aspect of global politics at the present moment — is also a balance of resignation: the resignation of each antagonist to the permanence of the other; and within their frontiers, the resignation of people to a fate that escapes them so completely that the very existence of the planet is far from certain, hinging on the prudence and skill of inscrutable strategists. This in turn reinforces a more general resignation to the existing order, to the coexisting powers of the specialists who organize this fate. These powers find an additional advantage in this balance since it permits the rapid liquidation of any original liberatory experience arising on the margin of their systems, particularly within the current movement of the underdeveloped countries. It was through the same method of neutralizing one menace with another — regardless of who the particular victorious protector may be — that the revolutionary impetus of the Congo was crushed by sending in the United Nations Expeditionary Corps (two days after their arrival the Ghanaian troops, the first on the scene, were used to break a transportation strike in Leopoldville) and that of Cuba by the formation of a one-party system (whose role in the repression of the Spanish revolution is well known, was named Assistant Chief of Staff to the Cuban Army).»

«TO STUDY everyday life would be a completely absurd undertaking, unable even to grasp anything of its object, if this study was not expressly for the purpose of transforming everyday life.»

«Defining the new poverty also entails defining the new wealth. To the image propagated by the dominant society — according to which it has evolved (both on its own and in response to acceptable reformist pressure) from an economy of profit to an economy of needs — must be counterposed an economy of desires, which could be defined as: technological society plus the imagination of what could be done with it. The economy of needs is falsified in terms of habit. Habit is the natural process by which fulfilled desire is degraded into need and is confirmed, objectified and universally recognized as need. The present economy is directly geared to the fabrication of habits, and manipulates people by forcing them to repress their desires.»