Any distinction of gender is a potential reason for inadequacy or competition. It is not one particular notion of gender that makes sexuality violent, it is gender itself.
We hardly apprehend today what differences show, even if we hear of them every day. Instead we make a difference into an identity when it screams loud enough. Hence for example homosexuals are not different than heterosexuals and show in another way how someone can live a different life perfectly well, their difference from us as homosexuals constitutes their *identity*, and perhaps even comes with rights depending on the decibel level of their scream, and then they can keep to themselves and NOT reveal anything about anyone else.
Someone might seem primarily negative simply because he’s trying to get you on the same page. Knowing 1000 ugly truths, however, doesn’t necessarily make one a negative pessimist sourpuss. It could just as well make one tolerant to ugliness and appreciate beauty all the more, not just in extent but in subtlety and difference of kind.
The social function of horror movies is to convert the viewer’s anxiety into a fear. This completes a step in a psychological process of coping. But it is an ersatz process, a fake. For it only lasts as long as belief is suspended, which for adults is short and curtailed by the fountain of our social reality called the bank account.
An adventurer is someone who converts for himself his anxiety into real fears. And by fighting the monsters he reveals by the light of adventure, he genuinely gets somewhere, effects a genuine coping process.
There are untold numbers of weapons in our symbolic repertoire to demobilize anyone and any movement. And they are all Platonic ideas, called stereotypes today: socially agreed upon types you simply need to tag to someone in order to create the illusion that you understand him/her, e.g. he’s a douche, she’s a corporate tool, they’re terrorists. Case closed. There! an enemy moves and here comes our army of sweeping generalizations, which today allow us to break through any barricade of individual difference and any historical, natural, social structure that reality supplies, all for the common result of defining these individuals and the source of these structures as, and thus reducing both to, the indefensible person of vice.
The other is a paradigm. You admire and respect him or her, say, but should anomalies frequently occur where s/he acts undeservingly of this, what do you do? You ignore it: these actions are exceptions to the rule. But what if your paradigm is wrong, and must shift? You see a beautiful girl turned away, and cannot yet see the old witch.
Sometimes one has expectations for another. That’s never good.
It goes wrong. You think “Was it me? What happened?” Or was it perhaps a situation where you think “They were wrong about x, unjustly assumed y, they are just a z” and you’re sure of this?
Why is it that one feels that one knows what happened and how to judge what footing each participant in a fight is on afterwards, yet can’t convince oneself one knows? You have to prove in your own head your opinion in a dozen different ways, but you can’t convince yourself or bring your mind to rest. Why is it that you, then, need and seek a third person, an authority especially, whose opinion you may already expect to accord with your own? They can bring your mind to rest. The dyad becomes unstable. The monad returns to his solitude yet has been thrown off kilter. The triad makes stable, makes a chord, a group.
Between you and the other, there is no final interpretation, no mediate, third person to bring matters to rest. Why do you need that? Would your self-sufficient, self-assuredness as a habit mean losing face among your circle, or a way to take care of yourself when all whom you have is yourself?
Self-assuredness must be only for gods, or beasts.
The difference between the mafia and the state is that one might rob you, and the other will either rob you or hopefully get your money with your consent because, it says, you need protection from other groups who will rob you. Very clever, hmmmm.
Fool us once, state, shame on you. Fool us for 3 MILLENNIA SHAME ON US!!!
Since this past spring I’ve really been trying to make an effort, despite every situation life has put me in, to be as free as stress as possible. I am becoming more aware of the present moment and just allowing the universe to universe, flowing from moment to moment. It has been quite liberating…
Attention nationalists: this is earth not a checkerboard.
Tons of homeless people but the dog stays for free.
A question for sociologists: what is the social equivalent to an escape velocity necessary to leave society? What is the history of this velocity, how does one gain it, and what does it mean?
Preliminary: Make sure before your endeavor, that you’re psychotic. This way you’ll be best equipped to destroy the world! Psychotically is just the best way to screw people over too. Later this will be called “business” and you’ll be able to go to school for it.
1) Steal land & resources from as many neighbors as possible via warfare.
—(a) call it “property”
—(b) justify this in the victim’s, in complex, distracting, and/or euphemized terms
2) Destroy self-sufficiency (or otherwise make them dependent on you and one another).
—(a) taxes, licenses, and regulatory costs (forces even hermit farmers to acquire more than they need)
—(c) industrialization and cities
—(d) debt traps and a monetary system
—(e) a wage system
—(f) destroy their knowledge (kill shamans or all supposed smart people), and prevent their education.
——(i) health care (their physical lives depend on a system [of knowledge] which you control)
——(ii) division of labor (now one knows only how to put buttons on coats, e.g.)
——(iii) technology (planned to become obsolete after your desired amount of time, and the workings of which they can’t understand)
3) Divide them (i.e. alienate them from one another).
They already have to fight each other to rent themselves to you, through the wage system, but this step is important enough to be distinct. You don’t want revolutions to screw up your progress!
—(a) division of labor (they’ll simply have less in common)
—(b) technology (the facebook and tumblr “newsfeeds” are brilliant examples)
—(c) unemployment (this step depends especially on 2(e))
——(i) via technology &
4) Keep them down (and let them do it themselves whenever possible).
—(a) buy anyone who tries to represent them (insert lobbyists or puppet governments)
—(b) discriminatory laws (loitering laws, for example which target only the homeless)
—(c) police (you don’t want your impoverished neighbors taking stuff back)
—(d) wars (yeah, so eventually you don’t have to do the first step, they’ll plunder each other for you)
——(i) media & culture industry (pop music; multiply identities endlessly to try to save the same underclass group from multiplied designations of non-humanity)
——(iii) education (or the inaccessibility thereof)
5) Destroy the environment.
Yes destroy it all, except whatever it is you want a monopoly on of course
—(a) gmo’s (absorbs more pesticides so kills bees so destroys ecological safety net)
—(b) endless forms of tragedy of the commons scenarios (due to step 1(a))
——(i) over-harvest the seas (because no one takes care of what they don’t own anymore—one must maintain one’s [micro-]empire, a time-consuming endeavor!)
Congratulations, now you can sit back on your high-rise balcony and watch things systematically collapse! Extra-credit: try to find immortality through science because ultimately you’ve done all this out of cowardice (in the face of death)! Join us next time for a more subtle explication of these steps including the invention of clocks and worship of the West’s mathematical trinity: Profit, Efficiency, and the Universal.
(Thanks to Prof. Rogers for info, re-organized here. He has an extended essay I have sights on, “Science & Anarchism" available for free at the moment.)
I’m starting to think philosophy does that. It tells you that the soup you’re eating is made with bat shit, but then you have to eat it or people will kill you. And then they give you more bat soup so you start to get mad.
Certainty (via resource accumulation) removed the immediate natural enemy, which united humans into travelling bands. It slowed us to a sedentary halt: civilization. And with this came a mediate artificial enemy, the human tyrant or oligarch, who puts everyone in chains.
We had enemies then. We have enemies now. The difference is in certainty, which has made us into our own enemy. We will either unite against the businesspeople (wolf men), or against the catastrophe that they will make (environmental crisis).