Economic Aspects of "Love"

[American Dream]

http://libcom.org/library/without-bosse ... ores-magon

Without Bosses

Ricardo Flores Magon



The famous Mexican anarchist states why we'd be better off without bosses and governments...

To want bosses and at the same time to want to be free is to want the impossible. It is necessary to choose once and for all between two things: either to be free, completely free, refusing all authority, or to be enslaved perpetuating the power of man over man.

The boss or government is necessary only under a system of economic inequality. If I have more than Pedro, I naturally fear that Pedro will grab me by the neck and will take from me what he needs. In this case, I need a government or a supervisor to protect me against the possible attacks of Pedro; but if Pedro and I are economic equals; if we both have the same opportunity to profit from the riches of nature, such as land, water forests, mines, and everything else, just as the riches created by the hand of man, like the machineries, houses, railroads, and the thousand and one manufacturers, reason says that it would be impossible that Pedro and I would grab each other by the hair to dispute the things that we both profit from equally and in this case there is no need to have bosses.

To talk of bosses between equals is a contradiction, unless we speak of equals in servitude, brothers in chains, as we workers are now.

There are many who say that it is impossible to live without bosses or government; if it is the bourgeois that say such things, I admit they are right in their reasoning because they fear that the poor will seize them by the neck and will snatch away their riches that they have amassed by making the worker sweat; but for what do the poor need bosses or government?

In Mexico, we have had and have hundreds of proofs that humankind does not need bosses or government if not in the case of economic inequality. In the rural villages and communities, the people have not felt it necessary to have a government. Until recently, the land, forests, water, and fields have been common property of the people of the region. When government is spoken of to those simple people, they start to tremble because for them government is the same as an executioner; it signifies the same as tyranny. They live happily in their freedom, without knowing, in many cases, the name of the President of the Republic, and they only know of the existence of a government when the military chiefs pass through the region looking for men to convert into soldiers, or when the federal tax collector comes to collect taxes. The government was, then, to a large part of the Mexican population, the tyrant that pulled the working men out of their homes to convert them into soldiers, or to savagely exploit that they would snatch away the tax in the name of the tax authority.

Would these populations feel the need to have government? They needed it for nothing and they could live in that way for hundreds of years, until the natural riches were snatched away for the benefit of the neighboring landholders. They did not eat one another, the way that those who have only known the capitalist system feared would happen; a system in which each man has to compete with everyone else to put a piece of bread in his mouth; the strong do not exert tyranny over the weak, as happens under a capitalist civilization, in which the most idle, greedy, and clever rule over the honest and good. All were brothers in these communities; they all helped out, and sensing equality, the way it really was, they did not need authorities to watch over the interests of those who had them, fearing possible attacks of those who did not have.

In these moments, for what do the free communities of the Yaqui of Durango, of the South of Mexico and so many other areas in which the people have taken possession of the land, need government? From the moment that they consider themselves equals, with the same right to the Mother Earth, they do not need a boss to protect the privileged against those without privileges, because all are privileged.

Let us open our eyes, proletarians: the government should only exist when there is economic inequality. Adopt then, as a moral guide, the Manifesto of September 23, 1911.


.

[American Dream]

[American Dream]

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/20 ... h-century/

HUMAN ZOOS AT THE TURN OF THE 20TH CENTURY

by Lisa Wade, PhD,

***TRIGGER WARNING for racism and enslavement***

During a dark period of world history, intellectuals pondered where to draw the line between human and animal. They arrayed humans hierarchically, from the lightest to the darkest skin. Believing that Africans were ape-like, they weren’t sure whether to include apes as human, or Africans as apes.

One artifact of this thinking was the “human zoo.” Kidnapped from their homes at the end of the 19th century and into the next, hundreds of indigenous people were put on display for white Westerners to view. ”Often they were displayed in villages built in zoos specifically for the show,” according to a Spiegel Online sent in by Katrin, “but they were also made to perform on stage for the amusement of a paying public.” Many died quickly, being exposed to diseases foreign to them.

This group of captives is from Sri Lanka (called Ceylon at the time):



This photograph commemorates a show called “Les Indes,” featuring captives from India:




These captives are from Oromo in Ethiopia:




A German named Carl Hagenbeck was among the more famous men involved in human zoos. He would go on expeditions in foreign countries and bring back both animals and people for European collections. In his memoirs, he spoke of his involvement with pride, writing: “it was my privilege to be the first in the civilized world to present these shows of different races.”

The zoo in Hamburg still bears his name.

—————————

Lisa Wade is a professor of sociology at Occidental College. You can follow her on Twitter and Facebook.

[American Dream]

http://www.justseeds.org/other_artists/04sh_hana.html

Hana Shalabi



Hana Shalabi is a Palestinian activist who has been compared to Winnie Mandela for her nonviolent civil disobedience in protest of her "administrative detention" by Israel. After a 43-day hunger strike in which she became seriously ill, Shalabi was released from Ramleh Prison Hospital in April 2012 under the condition that she be expelled to the Gaza Strip for a period of three years, far from her home in the West Bank.

Administrative detention is a procedure that allows the Israeli military to hold prisoners indefinitely on secret information without charging them or allowing them to stand trial. As of August, 2012, there were at least 250 Palestinians held in Israeli administrative detention.

For more information about Hana Shalabi:

http://addameer.org/etemplate.php?id=161

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 32331.html

[American Dream]

By virtue of an accident of birth, African Americans must typically expend an enormous amount of energy defending themselves and their families from the assaults of racism on a regular basis. In contrast, over their lifetimes, white Americans on average have a major life-energy advantage, for they do not waste large amounts of time dealing with the impositions of antiwhite discrimination. This is one important example of white privilege.

More generally, white privilege includes the large set of advantages and benefits inherited by each generation of those routinely defined as “white” in the social structure and processes of U.S. society. The actual white privileges, and the sense that one is entitled to them, are inseparable parts of a greater societal whole. These advantages are material, symbolic, and psychological. They infiltrate and encompass many thousands of interactions and other events played out in an individual white American’s experiences over the course of a lifetime.

Whiteness is so commonplace, so habitual, and so imbedded that it exists even where and when most whites cannot see it. Stated or unstated, it is a fundamental given of this society, as well as other Western societies. White prerogatives stem from the fact that society has, from the beginning, been structured in terms of white enrichment, white gains, and white group interests. The active or passive acceptance of this racialized system as normal has long conferred advantages for whites, even including antiracist whites seeking to eradicate racism. Today, most whites of all political persuasions will say they are opposed to racism, although a majority continue to overtly, covertly, or subtly support racist framing, practices, and institutions.”
— Joe Feagin

Another reason that whites downplay or deny the reality and costly impact of racism on African Americans is that they blame the victims. Many whites hold stereotypes that, directly or indirectly, blame Black Americans for their lack of achievement or difficult socioeconomic situations. The common view is that Black Americans bring whatever problems they still have on themselves. Indeed, most whites admit they still hold to negative images of African Americans. In one recent national survey of whites by Harvard researchers, 58 percent of the white respondents agreed with one or more of these listed traits as being applicable to African Americans: lazy, aggressive or violent, prefer to live on welfare, or complaining. Some 34 percent agreed with two or more of these negative traits. Other surveys show a similar pattern of majority white acceptance of antiblack stereotypes and images. Clear in these stereotypes is the idea that if African Americans would work harder and get rid of their poor values, they would do much better in society.

In addition to these overtly racist stereotypes, most whites also hold to individualistic values that lend themselves to de-emphasizing the racist realities of the society. Thus, there is much emphasis among white Americans on free will, on the supposed ability of each individual to achieve freely from among the many choices permitted in society. Again, those whites who deny significant antiblack racism likely believe themselves to have generally made it on their own—and believe that others are able to do the same. Whites see a few successful middle class or upper income African Americans in the mass media and may generalize from these examples to African Americans as a group. However, the routine assertion by whites of the ideological position that there are fully equal opportunities in the United States communicates that they do not understand that African Americans and other Americans of color are seriously limited by the contours of systemic racism.”
— Joe Feagin

“In spite of the painful reality of everyday racism—which time spent in candid discussions with even a few Black acquaintances should make clear—most white Americans and many other non-Black Americans insist on denying the reality of antiblack attitudes and discriminatory practices in the contemporary United States. One reason for this is that most whites live out lives that are racially segregated, and thus they have few substantial or enduring contacts with Black Americans. Many, if not most, whites never become close enough to their few Black acquaintances to have candid and consequential discussions about the racism these acquaintances face.

Whites often see, in their workplaces or in the media, some African American strangers discussing personal experiences with racism. However, most whites seem to view such discussions as Black paranoia, playing the race card, or Blacks always complaining. Most do not try to go beyond these wrongheaded images to trying to understand the continuing realities of racial oppression. In addition, very few white Americans seem aware of, or are willing to acknowledge, the negative consequences and impact of ongoing racist attitudes, practices, and institutions.”
— Joe Feagin

“The habit of not thinking realistically and deeply about a country’s undergirding racial structure extends well beyond U.S. social scientists, past or present, to the most prominent figures in the long tradition of Western social science. Consider the still influential, towering intellectual giants of the Western tradition such as Max Weber, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Sigmund Freud. They loom large in much contemporary U.S. and Western social science, yet not one of these intellectual giants gave serious research or analytical attention to the systems of racial oppression that operated conspicuously within Western countries’ imperial spheres during their lifetimes. They did not assess in any significant way the racialized oppression that played out in front of them as a central aspect of European imperialism and colonialism.

Not even Karl Marx, the vigorous critic of class oppression who knew Western history well and wrote articles for a New York newspaper about U.S. issues, paid any sustained attention to the highly racialized character of the colonizing adventures overseas by Western governments and corporate enterprises. It is a truism to note that a social science analyst’s societal context often limits his or her research and analysis. But, even so, the widespread omission of a serious and sustained analysis of Western racial expansion and oppression, and the consequent structures, is particularly striking given how fundamental these processes and structures have been to the global dominance and prosperity of Western countries.”
— Joe Feagin

“With the expansion of European and U.S. colonialism into Asia and Africa in the last half of the nineteenth century, new emphases were added to the prevailing racial frame. One relatively new emphasis was “teleological racism”—the view that non-European peoples, including Africans, had been created as inferior so that they could serve, and be civilized by, whites. A famous statement of this is Rudyard Kipling’s 1899 poem, “The White Man’s Burden” (“Take up the White Man’s burden/ Send forth the best ye breed”). From Kipling’s perspective whites had a missionary obligation to help “inferior races,” termed in the poem as “half-devil, half-child.”These white-racist formulations explained not only the character and conditions of those oppressed but also celebrated whites as especially civilized, Christian, powerful, and generous toward those conquered. Variations on this old racist framing have long rationalized the oppressive policies directed by Western corporations and governments at peoples of color across the globe, to the present day.”
— Joe Feagin

“Even those Americans who think they know about U.S. history often adhere to many myths and misconceptions taught in school. As one major research study has shown, current high-school textbooks communicate much in the way of inaccurate, distorted, and elliptical views of that history, particularly in regard to issues of U.S. racism and interracial conflicts.

Because of this pervasive ignorance, white elites can easily persuade, create confusion in, or foster apathy in the general population. Television has often circulated racist stereotypes straight out of the dominant racial frame. These stereotypes create or reinforce negative racial images in many minds. A recent study found that television viewing had an important effect on white viewers’ negative stereotypes of Latinos—when these viewers felt that they had learned important information about U.S. Latinos from watching television. In contrast, those whites who said that they had actually talked with, or had positive contacts with, Latinos were more likely to hold positive views of Latinos.

Thus, with our national racial order firmly in place, most white Americans, from childhood on, have generally adopted the racially framed views, assumptions, and proclivities of previous generations, established white authorities, and/or the mainstream media. In this manner important aspects of systemic racism are routinely reproduced from one generation of whites to the next.”
— Joe Feagin

“A key factor in how the white racial frame operates today involves what Hernán Vera and I call whites’ “social alexithymia,” that is, the inability of a great many whites to understand where African Americans and other people of color are coming from and what their racialized experiences are like. This social alexithymia involves a significant lack of cross-racial empathy. As Jane Hill has suggested, this lack of white empathy often entails a line of mindful reasoning about white innocence something like this:

I am a good and normal mainstream sort of White person. I am not a racist, because racists are bad and marginal people. Therefore, if you understood my words to be racist, you must be mistaken. I may have used language that would be racist in the mouth of a racist person, but if I did so, I was joking. If you understood my meaning to be racist, not only do you insult me, but you lack a sense of humor, and you are oversensitive.

Hill adds that this “chain of reasoning makes the speaker the sole authority” over what her or his racist commentaries actually mean. Moreover, many whites are today unwilling even to listen to the views of those Americans who are regularly targeted by white racism—even to their views about the reality, character, harm, and pain of that everyday racism.”
—
Joe Feagin

[American Dream]

http://boingboing.net/2012/10/18/french ... consu.html

French family enjoys its consumer durables, invokes Talking Heads

[American Dream]

“When we say, for example, that we want control of our own bodies, we are challenging the domination of capital which has transformed our reproductive organs as much as our arms and legs into instruments of accumulation of surplus labor; transformed our relations with men, with our children and our very creation of them, into work productive to this accumulation.”

— Selma James - Introduction to The Power of Women and the Subversion of Community

Power to the sisters and therefore to the class.”

— Selma James, Sex, Race and Class 1973


http://libcom.org/library/sex-race-class-james-selma

[American Dream]

Selma James, US Assembly of Jews Confronting Racism
and Israeli Apartheid 2010

[American Dream]

“Orientalism itself, furthermore, was an exclusively male province […] women are usually the creatures of a male power-fantasy. They express unlimited sensuality, they are more or less stupid, and above all they are willing.”

— Edward Said - Orientalism

[American Dream]

[American Dream]

Panther Girls Oakland, 1969

[American Dream]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/19/ ... pink-tide/

WEEKEND EDITION OCTOBER 19-21, 2012

Panetta Down South
The Pentagon’s New Plan to Confront Latin America’s Pink Tide

by NICK ALEXANDROV

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was in Uruguay recently, where he spoke of the need to strengthen the southern hemisphere’s police forces. This proposed policy has a precedent, almost unknown in this country, but potentially indicative of what awaits Latin American governments willing to cooperate with their northern neighbor’s defense establishment. In the 1960s, Washington initiated a decade-long training program for Uruguay’s police, helping transform them from a weak, underfunded force into an efficient instrument of repression. The metamorphosis coincided with Uruguay’s descent from democracy to dictatorship, as “the Switzerland of Latin America” became, by the time the U.S. had finished its work, the world’s leader in political prisoners per capita.

Panetta delivered his remarks at Punta del Este, where the Alliance for Progress was launched in 1961. Aimed at raising income levels and promoting land reform in Latin America, President Kennedy’s program reflected his agenda accurately—to about the same extent Obama’s handshake with Chávez heralded a “friendly turn” in U.S.-Latin American relations. Down here on Earth, Obama ensured the current Honduran regime stole the last election successfully. In the fraud’s aftermath, death squads roam the country, murdering human rights lawyers and activists. The Kennedy administration, for its part, oversaw the write-up of a development plan for Uruguay within the Alliance framework, which was effectively discarded upon completion. None of its recommendations were ever carried out, since other matters took priority. In 1962, Kennedy created the Office of Public Safety (OPS), supervised loosely by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and responsible for Uruguay’s Public Safety Program (PSP) from 1964-1974.

The PSP was a training program for Uruguay’s police, who received instruction both in the U.S. and their home country, part of the general effort to combat rising urban terrorism and crime. Or at least that was the authorized rationale. U.S. government documents, meanwhile, tell a different story. Half a year after the program began, for example, USAID officials in Montevideo explained that “Uruguay has enjoyed a relatively peaceful state of security for many years,” and that “[n]o active threat of insurgency exists.” In the 2012 version of this story, Panetta offers drug traffickers and insurgents as the twin dangers necessitating revamped police squads. But if the past is any guide, these claims should be met with extreme skepticism.

The Tupamaros, a left-wing political group, are often considered the main target of the PSP. They spent their first few years organizing, and raiding banks and weapons caches for funds and guns. They next started kidnapping top officials, beginning with the head of the state telephone company—who was also President Jorge Pacheco Areco’s close friend and adviser—in August 1968. But the guerrillas took their hostage only after Pacheco cracked down on left-wing periodicals and political parties, declaring a state of emergency that allowed the government to make use of its “special powers” at will. The fact that Uruguay’s democracy was unraveling had been pointed out by a number of observers several years before. One of these noted in 1965 that, while a pair of “political parties have dominated the Uruguayan scene for over 100 years,” they were effectively identical, characterized by “little difference of policy.” These parties’ shared aims did not include taking action to remedy the “continuing industrial recession, rising unemployment…and a spiraling cost of living” underway at the time. The radical implications of this analysis—which was the CIA’s—are obvious: to improve Uruguayan lives, actions had to be taken outside the established political channels, given that the two major parties were doing nothing, and in fact promoting, the deepening austerity. The Tupamaros, of course, agreed with the CIA on this point, but these groups diverged in their visions for the future. While the rebels wished to see conditions improve within the context of a better social order, Washington wanted to prevent Uruguayans from even protesting the “continuing industrial recession” through which they suffered.

A review of the relevant government documents makes it obvious the PSP targeted Uruguayans generally, and not merely the Tupamaros. The earliest USAID reports from Montevideo, again, documented the “relatively peaceful” climate prevailing there, and subsequent memos took note primarily of “strikes, public meetings and demonstrations,” which officials understood stemmed from growing “financial problems.” Washington’s goal was to monitor the ability of the PSP-trained police to control these protesters—“urban terrorists,” in Beltway slang—via “strict control of crowds, a strong representation of police personnel at all demonstrations and the immediate use of force to prevent escalation to riot stage.” “Preventive techniques are being used effectively,” one USAID memo concluded. The students were learning their lessons well.

Little had changed in Uruguay by 1969, when U.S. official Dan Mitrione arrived to supervise police training. Writing to Washington late that year, he explained, “Life today seems normal on the streets of Montevideo, and the real problem facing the police is the number of assaults on police officers[.]” The “real problem,” it bears repeating, was not that Uruguay’s government, functionally a one-party system, was forcing citizens to cope with the stark choices a ruined economy imposes. The problem was that Uruguayans protested these conditions. The U.S. government trained Uruguay’s police to punish them for this sin—punishment that would only intensify when a few dared to retaliate against their aggressors. Mitrione himself understood well the business of discipline. His reputation, in certain circles, was that of a master torturer.

He had a simple motto: “The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect.” And he was proud of his abilities, according to a Cuban double agent working with the CIA in Uruguay. This man attended one of Mitrione’s seminars. Four homeless people were picked up off the street for the occasion. They were used first to show the effects “of different voltages on different parts of the human body.” Next came a demonstration of an emetic’s functions. Once they had finished vomiting, they were forced to ingest another chemical. In the end, all the subjects died. The Tupamaros subsequently kidnapped Mitrione in July 1970, and killed him in early August. Two months later, the Uruguayan Senate issued a report indicating that the Montevideo police tortured its prisoners on a regular basis. By June 1973, President Bordaberry—whom Washington aided in the 1971 election by suppressing his leftist opponents—completed the transformation. Uruguay had become a dictatorship.

Those looking to read more on this period should consult William Blum’s Killing Hope, which has a typically powerful chapter on the U.S.-facilitated Uruguayan decline. And while it is too early to tell exactly how Panetta’s plan, discussed in the Pentagon’s recently-released Western Hemisphere Defense Policy Statement, will pan out, one outcome seems guaranteed. If the U.S. government successfully implements its new “security” policies in the southern hemisphere, then Latin America’s pink tide—a reference to its left-leaning political leaders—will run red, with the blood of murdered campesinos, feminists, activists, guerrillas, and anyone else deemed expendable in the cruel calculus of power.

Nick Alexandrov lives in Washington, DC.

[American Dream]

***TRIGGER WARNING***

Nazis in South America

Klaus Barbie, the infamous "Butcher of Lyons", drowned some of his victims by shoving their heads in toilets full of piss and shit while his trained German Shepherd, "Wolf", tore off their genitals with its teeth. Barbie was not tried as a war criminal after WWII. The CIA had a use for him. Rescued from a post-war "death row" by the CIA and imported to Bolivia with help from the Catholic Church, Barbie was to become a central figure in establishing corporate control of South America.

Barbie's specialty was suppressing internal strife; he had been a high-ranking member of the Einsatzgruppen, death squads which purged Jews from lands newly conquered by the Nazis. Newly installed in Bolivia, Klaus Barbie began training paramilitaries in the same death-squad style tactics he had pioneered in Nazi Germany. He went straight from the service of Hitler to the service of corporate greed.

The first victims of Barbie's renewed rampages in South America were striking labour unions representing tin miners in Bolivia in the 1960's. His death squads went on to squash other revolutionary movements in Bolivia throughout the 60's and 70's, ensuring that US-friendly rulers dominated the seats of power.1

Suppressing labour interests in South America was the first step in securing corporate power, but it also had the effect of creating paramilitary death squads that would later be used to suppress the peasants and indigenous peoples who would oppose full-scale free trade. Barbie's training methods effectively became the template for both military and paramilitary training all across South and Central America. Barbie's methods also became the template for US death squads in Vietnam, known as the "Phoenix" program.

School of Assassins

The counter-insurgency methods used in South America and Vietnam became the basis for US Department of Defence training manuals and courses teaching torture, blackmail and murder to South American soldiers. The courses were taught at the US-run School of the Americas (SOA), ironically known by Panamanians as the "School of Assassins." Founded in Panama in 1946, and relocated to Fort Benning, Georgia in 1984, the institution graduated untold numbers of human rights abusers who would terrorize, mass-murder and dehumanize South Americans from just after WWII until today.

Each year the SOA graduates 2,000 South American soldiers from its programs which, according to US Congress House Representative Joseph Kennedy, costs US taxpayers $2.9 million yearly.

SOA officials originally claimed that the school trained soldiers for the purpose of opposing communists and other leftist groups in South America. Since what has been hailed as the end of the cold war, however, the excuse has changed. Carol Richardson is part of a group called School of the Americas Watch, and has been thrown in jail for organizing and attending anti-SOA rallies. She explains her insights into the true motives behind SOA training.

"Supporters of the school say the SOA now has a new mission, and that it is counter-narcotics," Richardson asserts. "We've heard this before. It's another excuse to arm and train the military for civilian-targeted conflict. The [SOA] students that came up here from Mexico only 10% took anti-narcotics. The rest took military intelligence, psych ops, commando tactics, sniper fire the traditional hard-core military training courses that students of the SOA have always taken, with disastrous results."2

The "disastrous results" Richardson speaks of are heinous civil rights abuses, infamous in the countries they were committed in, almost unheard of by North-Americans awash in mass-media monopolized culture. They occurred in regions torn with poverty-provoked conflict poverty which, as we shall see, was brought about by free-trade style economic reforms.

A 1993 UN Truth Commission report listed 60 South American military officers as flagrant and repeated human rights abusers. 49 of the 60 were SOA graduates.3 SOA graduates were responsible for the killing of El Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero in 1980, for the rape, torture and killing of 4 nuns in the same year, and for the slaughter of whole villages in the Central American countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua among countless other atrocities.

In 1981, in El Mozote, El Salvador, Rufina Amaya hid in the bushes while death squads of SOA graduates machine-gunned to death 900 of her fellow villagers, including 131 children under the age of 12 and 3 babies under the age of 3 months.3

"I could hear my children screaming," recalls Amaya, "Mommy, they're killing us!'"

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1503.html



.

[American Dream]

[American Dream]

Jackie Wang from serbianballerinasdancewithmachineguns.com:

when i look out at the land i shed tears over the violence of my freedom. i am looking at the hills and in my hand is a letter from my brother that describes solitary confinement, that asks me to describe what the outside is like. requests for pictures of the baltimore skyline. it is true that my freedom and your freedom can only be understood through captivity. living will be unethical until we destroy the world as we know it.

i am not saying you should feel bad about your life or falling in love or going on road trips or hanging out with poets and petting cool dogs, but you should try to understand the violence of your existence.

i’m sorry i’m so cranky and writing in this accusatory tone. if it makes you feel any better, i am mostly addressing myself. i’m so fucking privileged in so many ways. i don’t feel guilty. i want to destroy the world. i don’t want to get rid of my privilege/freedom; i want to destroy the world. destroying the world doesn’t mean everyone and everything must die, but maybe in a metaphysical sense it does.

my brain is loosening. i can think in paradoxes. i actually am now able to embrace and mentally integrate contradictions. all it took was me paying attention when the incommensurable experience was there. i had to acknowledge—it is. i am turning into some kind of religious woman whose doctrine is joyful nihilism. the utter “indifference of nature” that herzog is always ranting about is only affectively “bad” and “scary” when you are centering the human. it’s cool that nature is indifferent to me. we can play on equal terms. as flows that are not predetermined.


http://fengsunchen.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... chineguns/