I have been watching quite a lot of content lately that seems to be pushing towards this idea of "we must do something." Chris Hedges pointed out in a speech to the Workers Strike Back conference that we need to fight not because we'll win, but because we need to fight. With that in mind, I'm focusing as of late on what Rebellion is. Is there a day where the Rebel actually leads, or does the state of Rebellion mean that one is always an island unto themselves, persistently fighting for their beliefs and causes wherever they might see them? That sounds like an exhaustive effort; a long life, consistently plagued with another fight, another, and another, ad nauseum. It occurs to me though, when has life ever been anything less? When has anyone ever lived through a life that wasn't a persistent effort to not fail? This occurs in the battles we choose to fight, of course, but it's a string of battles til we're dead regardless. So why then am I concerned with having a long road ahead, why then is it such a concern for there to be struggle? I realized in that self-argument: There will be struggles whether I partake or not, I'll simply surrender each of these fights instead of fighting them. When someone claims to be a rebel, they define for you what their idea of Rebel is. This is the difficulty with language; if we disagree on the meaning of words, then there is nothing but frustration; it requires dogmatic adoption of a term in order for people to be aligned on a topic. I have had the unfortunate opportunity of going through conversations where people will go completely off the rails with an idea because we can't agree on the meaning of something. Of course, there is a solipsism in this. We would all like to believe we have a firm understanding of the terms we're using to describe a concept, even if our idea of that concept is still forming. We argue these points but we argue them in favor of something that is either incomplete, or incorrect (or worse still, both). We do not argue (myself included!) with the intent of discovering a better definition, but of assigning our own definition, which, leads back to Baudrillard. If we cannot possibly (in his opinion) see our way out of the simulation, if everything is subsumed into it, then there cannot ever be a way for us to break free from it. Baudrillard argued that everything was contained in the simulation, and we were now past the point of no return when it came to escape. Neo and Trinity would have had a fun time with him. I've observed a persistence incorrect method to the way people operate, that says "people never change". This is just as true as one allows it to be. I myself can confirm changes in people that have occurred both with and without effort. Some might argue that this is surface level, and the core of the person stays the same; to this, I argue that we are only examining on too short of a timeline, with too unwilling a subject. A person is able to change as they see fit, but this was not widely accepted during Baudrillard's time, nor is it now. Baudrillard argued that no one could escape the simulation, mainly that it was easier to stay within the framework laid out and not defy the established understanding of a society. That it was easier to understand the world within a society is granted, but that you are understanding the world through the lens of your society, like a contact lens you cannot remove, should not be. Anyone who has travelled understands that there are multiple societal norms to adopt; Anyone who has been exposed to more than a single dogmatic culture understands that there are (even within one society or culture) paradoxical elements to human behavior. What is rude to one, is a compliment to another. To that end, i want to be clear: For all that Baudrillard may be onto with his thinking on Systems, I disagree with him on this premise: The systems of human operation, of animal operation, of existential operation, may have been beyond his understanding at that time, but Baudrillard died in 2007 and very likely had your average geriatrics understanding of the information age. While he existed in the anthropocene, he did not seem to be a well-versed technologist (and I wink ahead at whoever might look back at me with similar criticism). Baudrillard argued that there was no way out now, but I think this can only apply (also, incorrectly) to the masses. I sincerely believe it is possible to break free of the Simulation and to kill the Simulacrum that keeps repeating. I think my tech-focused brain sees the Simulacrum more like a Trojan, or a rootkit, constantly replacing itself not as an act of the user, but as a self-perpetuating cycle that needs to be true. We did not arrive at full-blown Oligarchy overnight, but instead through decades of mentioning and arguing against it with the common every-person and not having them take action has led to it. There is a significant weight to be lifted in this; the Simulation must first be identified in it's fullness and completeness, then we can confirm it's validity, and proceed to unwind it. A Revolution successfully occurs when vestiges of the old regime are dismantled operationally, successfully, towards a new behavior. This is why Oligarchs and Tyrants are capable of slowly turning the tide in their favor; it is not a matter of their control being absolute, it is a matter of them using the right methods to the wrong ends. Change is a slow process, and can be made with significant progress built upon milestones. Eventually, each milestone becomes shorter and shorter apart, allowing for the changes to occur more rapidly. To this, I argue that the breaking of the simulacrum and unmaking of simulated living will not be unmade for centuries. We will not live to see our children's children outside the simulation, but we can cultivate smaller periods outside the simulacrum with them. You know these moments because you cling to them and cannot express yourself in them; They are the genuine serendipity of a family photo while out to dinner. They are shared laughter, the conversational unity occurring around a bonfire, silent appreciation and comfort. These are necessary to abandon the simulation and simulacrum, and we cannot blame anyone who cannot do so for lacking incentive. Who among us has not bought the affordable off-brand when the genuine article wasn't available? The simulation exists for those who cannot find genuine community, genuine love, genuine understanding. It serves to be a fast-food imitation of the actual meal. Four hour stews don't taste like the canned product; this is the difference between simulation and actual life. For some this is obvious; this is the highest form of existential privilege and it occurs at every social-economic status level, but requires one of the most difficult skills for a human to develop: appreciation.