finslavictoriasempre:

Black Bloc - A Story of Violence and Love.

Points for discussion:

1. Poverty is violence.

2. Give violence a chance.

Tags: revolution

Anonymous said: From your recent post, is that what you prefer as a real conversation? It's sad isn't it? It's like... If you think about it, people typically stop sending mail to each other's by writing letters. We do them through email. Memories. I love memories. I embrace pain. What else is it that you want to say that in human way is missing? Or misleading? I believe in you, I had to tell you that. It is so decent. I don't know if you get what I'm saying to you, maybe and maybe not. I just rambled.

violentwavesofemotion:

I don’t think there’s anything “missing” in reference to what you’re talking about. I mean, yes, I’d love it if letters were still the case because it very much seems like the real thing but people can be people and people can be old souls in so many other ways as well—not solely as far as modern communication is concerned. I think the core of it lies elsewhere; what one could assume that is perhaps missing is the raw desire for real talk, not just pitter-patter. What makes me sad is the constant oppression of this particular desire in people. And what makes me even more sad is the fact that we’re doing this to ourselves more and more. Plus the fact that loads of people seem to associate real talk with something “heavy” subject matter wise. (I mean…no?) They can only indulge in a conversation which is “serious” and mistake it for it being “real.” But it’s just not the same in my head. You can have many of the so called serious conversations that will get your brain buzzing in one way or another. A real conversation to me though is something else. Impulse is what’s missing above all. The impulse which goes hand in hand with genuinity and spontaneity. That’s what makes a talk real. Opening up can be sincere only when these elements are present in what a person’s saying. And it’s not even about “opening up”, really, (see? language is tricky) — it’s about talking about the things that matter through words which don’t seem to matter. It’s about sharing your views and ideas and emotions knowing the underlying core of what it means to you sharing them in the first place. That’s big and demanding and needs self-awareness but it also needs as a process a certain degree of "Oh I don’t care, I don’t know what I’m talking about, I just like you and I would like you to listen and I’d like to listen to you as well." Perhaps this is what I crave in a real talk; a mixture of innate pure enthusiasm to let the words flow & the other person making me lose a bit track of my own self-consciousness so as to dare and “not care”. Only through not caring what I talk about and how it comes across do I seem to really communicate. I am making my own words count only through losing myself somehow in all that—when I know that I’ve lost a certain part of coherence and logic in speech I come to attain a certain sensitivity to what doesn’t seem to matter but does. Lightness, simplicity, the art of not being too cautious regarding your choice of language when talking to people…not seeking wordfulness to make it real. It being real in the first place and language only highlighting that very fact — that’s what I want. But then again that’s just me. Idk, I hope you get it.

"Empire does not confront us like a subject, facing us, but like an environment that is hostile to us."

Tiqqun, Introduction to Civil War.

(via bustakay)

"At this point we can finally see what’s really at stake in our peculiar habit of defining ourselves simultaneously as master and slave, reduplicating the most brutal aspects of the ancient household in our very concept of ourselves, as masters of our freedoms, or as owners of our very selves. It is the only way that we can imagine ourselves as completely isolated beings. There is a direct line from the new Roman conception of liberty—not as the ability to form mutual relationships with others, but as the kind of absolute power of “use and abuse” over the conquered chattel who make up the bulk of a wealthy Roman man’s household—to the strange fantasies of liberal philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, and Smith, about the origins of human society in some collection of thirty- or forty-year-old males who seem to have sprung from the earth fully formed, then have to decide whether to kill each other or begin to swap beaver pelts."

— David Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years (via blickinschaos)

forgottenness:

"(Re)reading from first to last, as I have recently, Michel Houellebecq’s entire body of translated work leaves me in little doubt that he is the only novelist in the west truly capturing the pernicious effects on individuals living through this latest manifestation of capitalism, a neoliberalism whose influence reaches deep into notions of individualism and identity."

Does it really make sense to think of children as buds that will unfold if gentle farmer-teachers just manage to get the soil of education right? Was Ken Robinson right that a post-industrial society needs a pre-industrial metaphor for education?

We argue that both questions are to be answered in the negative.

longvividdreams said: Hey, thanks for the follow :). Just out of curiosity: how did you stumble upon my blog?

I was looking to see if anyone was posting stuff about Karl Jaspers (or was it Buber? I forget now) and your blog came up. Something caught my eye. Clicked follow. An impulse.