Comments made by individuals who read the blurb:
“People don’t think the Government be controlling us through economic means and quasi-imperialist foreign policy, but it do.”
– Conspiracy author who can’t tell the difference between Communism and Socialism
“Well, I can’t tell if we’re seizing the means of production or creating the means of production and if the people will control the production or nominate people to control the production through a socialist/communist ideology built around capitalism.”
“Buckle up, kids! This is going to be a long ass review.”
From Amazon: The contents of this publication consist of my story during 2017, including material and reflections I wrote about events, ideas, and messages. The purpose of this writing is to share my experience in my pursuit of justice and realizing ideas concerned with truth, liberation, and the preservation of the species. Hoping the stories may create interest in low risk, easily implemented, revolutionary ideas.
The title, A Year in the Life of a Revolutionist, may seem a little off at some points to the reader, as 2017 was an off year for me. It is akin to a football player writing a year in the life of an NFL quarterback, but choosing a year where he did not play. The title is accurate, as my goals remain the same even during a year when I am reevaluating my strategy and attempting to acquire the means to proceed, and in some cases, the means to survive. A revolutionist in thought, conduct, and as the only person I know of that has not only ideas, but an executable blueprint for how these ideas become a reality. Details of which are available at orioncs.net
I began 2017 in LA before returning to Milwaukee, where I remained from the end of January to the beginning of June, about 4 and a half months. After Milwaukee I traveled for about 2.5 months, chasing job opportunities for the most part. I went to Colorado Springs in June, after about a week I went to LA, before returning to Colorado Springs. There was a job opportunity in Detroit spawned from a gig I was working in Denver. The job in Detroit didn’t pan out so I stopped by a friend in Minneapolis, before returning to Colorado Springs. From Colorado Springs I went to Denver, to Florida, and returning to Denver where I am presently, but may leave before this book is published.
It is not written linearly, and when I tried to lineate it, it did not flow well. Instead of beginning in Milwaukee and ending in Denver, we begin near the end of Denver, to Florida, to Denver, Milwaukee, Colorado Springs, and we end after I leave Colorado Springs. Chronologically, it flows middle to the end, beginning to the middle.
The stories consist of struggle, sex, one physical altercation, various essays and commentary on subjects of an economic, political, and social nature. A candid chronicle of a year in my life, and a window into the mind of a man possessed of righteous purpose.
This is a year in the life of a revolutionist.
This is a very badly written book. The language was colloquial and informal, which simply isn’t suitable for the message that the narrative is trying to convey, if the blurb is anything to go by. Somehow, the colloquialisms used also felt forced and unnatural. There were too many grammatical errors for me to overlook, with “seen” instead of “saw” being one of the primary issues, as well as “lol” in the text and at extremely inappropriate times.
“It is possible I may start something akin to a religion, which is less like religion and simply an acknowledgement of observable truth, evidence based speculation on the hereafter, and understanding through ideal logic, the best trajectory for the human species in consideration of individual liberty. A closeness to god that only comes through acknowledging his irrelevancy. Lol.” (Locations 1970-1973).
There was a lot of awkward sentence structure, which again was very informal, and how I think the author speaks generally. You may speak this way, but you cannot write this way. Even if you are writing an memoir, of sorts. The use of initialisms without explanation of what they stand for was particularly grating.
“If states have went through the trouble of putting grooves on the side of the road to rouse drowsy drivers, I feel it would be a disservice to human ingenuity not to use them…” (Locations 329-330).
Further the tone of the book was inconsistent, almost as if two very different people contributed to it. One is informal and messy, the other is research based and more lucid, if not still wrong in a number of it’s assertions. Straight out the gate, my back was up because the tone of the book is aggressive, demanding, demeaning and self-righteous. It’s a good rule of thumb not to berate your audience when you are trying to make them “think critically” about some very importance socio-economic issues.
“You owe it to the world, you owe it to your children, you owe it to your countrymen, and you owe it to yourself to understand what a Center for Economic Planning is, to proliferate the concept, and to support me in the journey to realize them.” (Locations 124-126)
“There are only two ways I could commit to a woman: A: if she had money to finance my ideas, and B: if she could be a critical asset in helping me fulfill my ambition. But I do not love, love is primarily an immature longing for security. I am mature beyond the need for such security, which isn’t to say I don’t still require human contact, touch, sexually and non-sexually, as well as other aspects of personal interaction with a woman.” (Locations 1774-1777)
“I served her D on the air mattress she set up in the back of the SUV.” (Locations 1784-1785)
Other than a brief explanation of what a Center for Economic Planning is meant to be, there is no real practical information about how a town, city, county or state would be able to get this sort of initiative off the ground. The content/narrative spent more time pointing out what was wrong with the current system of governance and the issues with American democracy (including corporate greed, money and corruption) than plotting a way forward for the every-man, which is what the author claims he wants to do. The personal stories had very little to do with this narrative either. To be fair, the author did say that the title “may feel a little off”, and it really does because the book becomes a disjointed mess of seemingly random thoughts.
This really shouldn’t be a book. A blog, sure. A diary, sure. Not a book. I respect the author’s right to his perspectives and opinions, I just don’t think that they are refined enough to be published. I think that in addition to some actual critical thinking, a wider net of social experience and maybe a few writing courses, could make this an interesting read.
I must apologise for taking so long to review this book. I needed about 4 days to formulate what I wanted to say, and how best to say it. As it currently exists, the material angers me. The lack of writing skill coupled with the author’s bizarre over inflated sense of self and importance angers me, the lack of understanding surrounding profound social issues angers me, and the author’s need to qualify that his version of “broke” means that he really is broke, “unlike some people”, angers me. The author’s intrinsic misunderstanding of capitalism, socialism, communism, nationalism and democracy angers me the most. No wonder people keep deleting his comments on their Facebook posts (as mentioned in the book). This book reeks of typical social justice keyboard warrior bullshit, where he doesn’t just have the wrong end of the stick – he has the wrong stick entirely.
He talks about complacency and the tacit agreement of those who do nothing, and how it is wrong not to act but then says that leftists should not have counter-protested at Charlottesville because they allowed a larger spotlight to focus on the “alt-right” thus causing greater harm through provoked altercation. And I won’t even touch his shallow, cock-eyed understanding of why people want the statue removed. Yet, he fails to understand that what is currently happening in the U.S. surrounding protest and counter protest is a direct result of people no longer willing to be complacent about the social, gender, economic and moral decisions being made by those in power, who don’t care about their constituents. This is why kids, fucking children, as protesting for gun regulation; why women took to the streets en masse to tell Trump and his ilk that no-one should have the right to regulate a woman’s body but herself. Speaking of, there was this wonderful gem in the book:
“For an individual who is disadvantaged, without the means to create his own opportunity, I don’t see anything morally wrong with him or her robbing someone who is in a significantly greater position than him or her, and who is also indifferent to the circumstances, or better said the barriers that exist for the underclasses. (Locations 249-251).
On the face of it, many people wouldn’t necessarily see a problem with this mindset. And here is my opinion: You should be morally averse to anyone being robbed. As a woman of colour, in a developing African nation with a 28% unemployment rate, a failing economy, a crumbling social welfare system, and only 24 years of democracy under its belt, I have worked exceedingly hard to get to where I am. I have faced adversity. I have made some of the most difficult decisions to guide my future. I face racism every day. I am light-skinned which means that I experience racism from various groups because they see my skin tone, listen to my accent, and make assumptions about me, my life and my past. They don’t know that my parents went hungry some nights to feed us. They don’t know that my own race ostracised me, bullied me, physically assaulted me because I was different. They don’t know that my parents were shot at, by police, during Apartheid, because those officers were bored and wanted something to terrorise. And the idiotic statement above means that this author is saying that he isn’t morally averse to me or my home being robbed because the assumption would be that I am better off and thus the more disadvantaged are somehow entitled to the meager life that I have etched out for myself.
As a woman who lives in a country where 1 in 3 women will be raped in her lifetime, and who is part of that statistic, I’m tired of self-righteous, ignorant, ego driven people (not just men) who think that they are entitled to take what they deem rightfully theirs, because that is all this is. Someone who isn’t morally averse to robbery can’t be that averse to rape or sexual assault either when you consider than they really boil down to seizing power and removing agency because of perceived entitlement. It’s about taking what isn’t yours and not giving a damn about the damage left behind. Think before you write. And what’s more, this isn’t Sherwood Forest and you aren’t Robert of Loxley.
Mostly, my greatest issue with this book is that the author is pandering to his ego. No-one will listen to him on Facebook or in person, so he’s written a book to finish all the things that he wanted to say, regardless of how idiotic some of it may be. Many of the stories start with something akin to “what I wasn’t able to say was”. And at no point did I really learn about or gain interest in “low risk, easily implemented, revolutionary ideas”. I have absolutely no inclination to read anything else by this author. All I saw was the kinda guy, likely: pushing forty, who can’t seem to hold a steady job but says that this is because he doesn’t want to be part of “the system” so he uses his “hustle” to make cash, uses the phrase “this dick” (when referring to his dick) far too often, who smokes weed near constantly, but probably doesn’t pay child support. Being socially responsible starts at home.
I have a lot more to say but I feel that I have covered enough in this review. I will, however, leave you with this passing thought:
“This guy will be so thrilled when cloning is invented so he can finally fuck himself, in front of an audience of himself.”
My rating: 1/5
A Year in the Life of a Revolutionist is available on Amazon.
This review was requested by the author.