Book Review: A Year in the Life of a Revolutionist – Please take several seats

A Year in the Life of a Revolutionist

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

– @totalitariantom

“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.”

– @sinisterpeacock

“Buckle up, kids! This is going to be a long ass review.”

@TropicalMary

The Plot

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.

Writing Style

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 a 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.

The Review

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.”

– @Stygian_Mole

My rating: 1/5

A Year in the Life of a Revolutionist is available on Amazon.

This review was requested by the author.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Book Review: A Year in the Life of a Revolutionist – Please take several seats

Add yours

  1. This review appears to be the result of the readers inability to understand basic concepts that are in conflict with her static way of thinking. She attempts to mask her inability to digest the information by keeping the review vague and ad hominem, as in stating I have a misunderstanding of economic and political systems without explaining what the misunderstanding is.
    She is disingenuous. In the example she provides of me being critical of Charlottesville counter protesters, she withholds the criticism itself and comments about me being critical. My criticism was the aimless nature of the protest. The statue is scheduled to be removed, and people are protesting the removal. Then you have counter protesters who are there for what? The counter protesters know how ineffective protesting is in the US, because for all their protesting they fail to accomplish anything meaningful, and usually they have no solutions only things they are against. They know their presence is not required for the statues removal to proceed. So why are the counter protesters there? They are there to confront the protesters, to use intimidation to prevent them from exercising their right to free speech and assembly. Either the reviewer is being disingenuous to her readers, or she failed to comprehend my criticism, which was not limited to the explanation above, but suffices for the illustration of this point.
    She thinks the protest of events demonstrates an understanding and willingness by the people of the United States to change fundamental problems in the US. The two examples she mentions is the removal of Confederate statues, and school shootings. As I mentioned in the book, the removal of statues does nothing to improve the lives of people nor does it remedy racially intolerant views. It is not an important issue, but the social clubs who claim political activism, are looking for any reason to get together and pretend their efforts are making a difference. As far as school or even mass shootings are concerned, you have kids who don’t know any better callng for gun control. Guns are not the issue, the issue is dissatisfaction among the general population steming from economic inequality and the ripples it leaves on the culture. It is as if an individual is obese, and the solution is to take his utensils away.
    She isolates a quote from the supporting explanation concerning robbery. I explain the legal parallels of robbery occurring on a daily basis, but more than this,she demonstrates her poor comprehension skills by contradicting the quote. She writes that I wouldn’t be opposed to her home being robbed, but she describes her livelihood as meager, and even the quote in isolation qualifies an act of balance as requiring a significant advantage and indifference to the interest of the underclasses. Of course in the section of the book entitled Criminality as a Form of Resistance, I wrote the following: “Between people,rarely if ever is it (robbery) justifiable, since for example, if a person without any means of income robs a person in the middle making about 45k per year the advantage is not significant and chances are the target works for their money…in general the four things to consider are harm,balance,lasting effect, and how what is to be taken is acquired.” The reviewer claims she read the book and understands it, yet attempts to make points against it that contradict the content.
    She asserts that someone who condones robbery also condones rape, but fails to explain the correlation. Robbery is an issue of balance, of liberty, where much to do with ones liberty depends on how much money they have, and where an individual’s ability to make money is determined by how much money they have. Rape is a boundary issue where the boundaries of one are imposed upon, unprovoked, by another. I’m for the respect of boundaries and progress towards balance, which means I am sometimes for robbery, but I am always against rape.
    The reviewer lies outright in saying I can’t hold a job because I don’t want to be part of the system.
    As far as using the phrase “this dick”, I’m referring to a sexual experience and this is an expression I use which also has value in humor. This review is the result of the reviewers inability to understand the more sophisticated content
    and so she focuses on the low brow content to avoid admitting she doesn’t understand it.
    Ego maniacal, arrogant, maybe even narcissistic, is her basic impression, but these descriptions are either nonapplicapble or a healthy relationship between cause and effect. If a person creates something, and that thing is everything they want it to be, it is only natural that the creator will honor it’s beauty and have pride in it. In the same way when a man objectively seeks truth, finds it, applies it, has certainty about life and existence, it is only natural he will honor the beauty of his creation, which is himself.
    Lastly, the book begins by explaining that it is devoid of the ideas mentioned in it, but that these ideas are available at Orion’s.net
    I doubt the reviewer has the integrity to allow this comment, and if that be the case, now you know why fb comments were deleted.

    Like

    1. I think it necessary to come to Mary’s defense since all she has done is provide the honest review that the author of this book ask her to provide.

      Firstly, I struggle to find parts of this review that could be understood to be an ad hominem attack on the author. It isn’t an ad hominem attack to state that, in her view, the author doesn’t understand the concepts he speaks about if the basis of his entire argument is that same understanding.

      In respect of the Charlottesville protests, there are a number of issues here. Firstly, the author is of the view that the counter protests were pointless. This is an opinion he is fully entitled to. But how, then, do you balance this against your view that people shouldn’t be complacent? Surely protesting, however useless you deem it to be, is a sign that people aren’t being complacent and see this as an issue important enough to stand up and try and do something about? Secondly, the author states that the counter protests only sought to infringe on protesters’ rights of free speech and assembly. Surely, irrespective of what you think about the counter protests, those participating in the counter protests, as American citizens, have the exact same rights of free speech and assembly as anyone else. You cannot pick and choose who your constitution applies to just because you don’t agree with them. Without going into an entire separate debate on the display of symbolism in public spaces and what this means about a country, the removal of statues may not have a material difference on people’s lives but it can make a world of difference for whether or not someone feels a part of a community. Just because the statues (or any symbolism for that matter) don’t offend or affect you doesn’t mean it doesn’t offend or affect someone else because, in all likelihood, their lives have been very different to your own.

      On the issue of school shootings, this strikes me as very typical of the American ‘all or nothing’ approach to problem solving societal issues. Is the gun violence in America rooted in far deeper societal and economic issues? Absolutely. But surely this doesn’t mean that children should be shot at and killed in perpetuity until such time as all of those issues have been addressed. There’s nothing to say that you can’t tackle the symptoms while simultaneously addressing the root cause.

      On the issue of robbery, the author’s response does very little to support or validate his point. Irrespective of when you think it’s OK to rob another person, the whole premise requires that the person committing the act make a subjective assumption on who is better off than they are, and to what extent. Linked to this, even if someone is enormously wealthy, what happens where this person is self-made and comes from nothing and has built that wealth through sheer hard work and determination, despite the odds stacked against them? In this instance, robbing them is the equivalent of punishing someone for working hard. Where this is not the case, being wealthy does not automatically mean that someone deserves to be robbed. If robbery is a form of resistance, how are you resisting someone who has never done something to you? The reviewer is also very clear on the correlation between robbery and rape, and this again goes back to an individual making a subjective assumption on what they are entitled to.

      To round off on the general tone of the response, if you are proud of what you have accomplished then you are within your every right to state that. But there is a fundamental difference between being proud of what you have achieved and being degrading of other people simply because they happen to disagree with you or the views you espouse. Given that the author is so greatly in favour of critical thinking, I would suggest that rather than lashing out at any opinion that doesn’t suit his world view that he take a moment to understand why people are reacting to him in the way that they are. In doing so I would encourage him to accept, as we all must from time to time, that he is wrong about something, and to develop and grow his thinking based on that acceptance. It is normal to be wrong, and it’s all part of becoming better, more well-rounded human beings.

      Like

      1. You begin by demonstrating the limited value of your opinion by asserting the review is an honest review, a determination you are unable to make based on the fact you haven’t read the book. For example, and this is excerpted from my review of the review:

        Mary begins with the above-mentioned comments in an effort to discredit the author by implying he is a communist and/or a conspiracy author. The contents of the book as described in the blurb are a chronicle of the authors life in 2017, there is no mention of the government controlling anyone. In fact, the author is of the position and it is mentioned in the book that the government is merely a facilitator of an interest, and has no inherent interest contrary to the interest it has been created to facilitate. In acknowledgement of this position, it is impossible to assert the “government be controlling us”, because the government has no interest, beyond the interest it represents.

        Below the comment read “a conspiracy author who can’t tell the difference between capitalism and socialism”. It began with a hyphen, which may indicate it is the commenters tag, but as your first impression, it suggests that I am a conspiracy author who cannot tell the difference between communism and socialism. The book makes no mention of any political or economic conspiracy theories. All serious political and economic arguments are built on well cited sources, created by, or accepted in the academic community.

        This is not what the book is about. The book is the story of someone struggling, on a journey where he must do the things he has to do, to position himself to do the things he wants to do. The book discusses principles, thought processes, and reflections concerning the world around him, including the constraints of his disadvantages.

        The reviewer is being deceptive, associating the book with genres of information unrelated to the content and discrediting.

        The second comment attempts to reinforce the idea the book is about political theory, and communist in nature, again deceptive for the purpose of alienating people from the book by implying a genre of information unrelated to the content.

        Those are specific examples of a dishonest review, but more generally, if you were reviewing a finely decorated cake, and focused all your attention on the flavor of one flower, the audience would think the cake was the flower and have a completely inaccurate picture of the cake. The extent with which this is true of this review, causes me to believe she didn’t even read the book. Evidence in support of this possibility can be found in the first comment I posted, quoting the book that refutes her claim that I support her being robbed.

        She wrote that someone who doesn’t have a problem with robbery doesn’t have a problem with rape, something I thoroughly refuted in the comment, and something a person who read the book would know the author does not support.

        She speculated I probably didn’t pay child support which is also untrue. In regard to your seeing nothing that is ad hominem, she implied I was a communist, a conspiracy theorist, in support of rape, and I didn’t pay child support, to mention a few examples. Not only are these personal attacks, they are untrue.

        She stated: ” 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.”

        This is a statement with no supporting explanation, and you imply in your comment that this is the basis of the review. When I see such a statement I rely on evidence and explanation to determine whether a statement is true. Obviously, you are less concerned with what is true than you are with who wrote it, otherwise the criticism would have been directed at the reviewer.

        How do I balance the assertion of complacency and criticize the protests? This is good, you found enough sense to ask a question. Getting together to hold a sign and yell is not the same as actively pursuing change. Most don’t even have a solid understanding of what they are protesting much less solutions. Third it is ineffective in the United States at influencing government policy.

        During a meeting in Revolution LA, as usual, the activists tell stories and everyone pats each other on the back for having in participated in something that achieved nothing. Earlier in the meeting after overcoming every objection to what was PECA and became CEP, I was told sometimes the question is the answer. One bragged about how they protested a World Trade Organization meeting and the meeting had to be pushed back. I asked the obvious question “did it stop the agenda”? The response was “that question is offensive”.

        The point being, the willingness to spend an afternoon holding a sign and repeating something someone else is saying, is not the same as having an understanding of politics and economic, ideas that will lead to change, and working for the implementation of those ideas. You can protest and still be complacent. These are groups that fulfill an individual social need to the participants, not groups with members that are concerned with problems and solutions. More than this, which could be interpreted as abstract, find me a protest that has taken place that represents even 1% of the adult population, and then we can make the argument that Americans are not complacent.

        Furthermore, in the same paragraph you stated that protesting being ineffective is my opinion. It is not an opinion, it is a fact which could be quantified by the number of protests in the last twenty years, and the goals achieved through these protests. It is ineffective.

        I did not say the counter protesters did not have the right to be there. The question is why were they there? They weren’t there because they wanted the statue removed, this was already happening. They know protesting is ineffective based on all the protests they have participated in and the associated results, meaning there was no need to protest in support of state action that was going to be carried out anyway. They were there to confront the protesters and use intimidation to prevent them from exercising their rights. I did not say one side had a right to protest and the other did not, I said one side was protesting the removal of the statue, and the other side was there to confront and prevent them from exercising that right.

        The removal of the statues are a product of a trending issue, not an issue that will have any impact on the lives of the people who live around them. Racism is a tool to divide the underclass, and it is represented by activists on the left in an effort to attract disadvantaged minorities to their go nowhere groups. If a statue causes a person not feel they are part of the community the problem lies in the views of the people in the community not the statue.

        Your paragraph on school shootings offers nearly nothing to refute, except your attempt to make guns a symptom of mass violence. The other day a person ran down dozens of people with a van on the sidewalk. What is the symptom, the van? The cause is dissatisfaction stemming from a variety of factors, the symptom is mass murder, and the means vary. Children and people in general are not any safer through gun laws. We could cite the homicide rate of nations with strict gun laws were homicide rates are greater than in the United States, or we could look at gun violence itself int he United States and see there is no correlation between stricter gun laws and lowering the incidents of gun violence. Chicago, IL is a good example. I’m not saying we cannot address symptoms, I am saying what you think is a symptom is not actually a symptom and does nothing to make anyone safer.

        I am of the position that if anyone can have a gun then everyone should be able to have a gun as to not allow anyone to gain an advantage over someone out through the procurement of a firearm. I cannot legally possess a firearm because I am a felon.

        If you are interested in the treating of symptoms and have 3 dollars, I have a book called Poor Lives Matter” which introduces the Criteria for Deadly Force and Enforcement. The book also correctly correlates the disproportional use of deadly force against black people to class, which causes black people to be more likely to participate in crime caused by desperation, which stems from past systemic racism.

        The full response to this review is forthcoming, but unfortunately I have been working usually 16 hours per day to finance my ambition.

        Orioncs.net

        Like

    1. Thanks for reading it! I was so torn about what to say and how to word this review but I decided that total honesty is always the best way.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. She lacks integrity, clearly did not read the book as I demonstrated in the comment she deleted which I reposted. Presuming she will redelete the comment and possibly prevent me from reposting it, the review of her review will be made available at Orioncs.net it is unfortunate you value the opinion of someone who in all likelihood only skimmed a few paragraphs and attempted to use it as the basis for her review.

          Like

          1. Correction. She claims she did not delete the comment that she went to approve it and it disappeared, which seems suspect because the comment appeared, meaning there is no approval process. I give her the benefit of the doubt in the absence of certainty and in conflict with the preponderance, and so the comment disappeared.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: