08 May 2011
Stephen King: Torture-Pornographer? Or Graphic Moral-Adminisiter?
19 March 2011
This place is a prison.
I am reading One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. You too should read it, and think hard about the fact that you are a wage-slave.
I recently had one of the most upsetting conversations that I have ever had with any human being.
Me: "What would happen if Walmart just disappeard?"
American: "There would just be another super-store to replace it in a few years"
Me: "Ok, well what would happen to the millions of people who work at Walmart?"
American: "They wouldn't have jobs!"
Me: "Well, what do you think they would do to fix that?"
American: "I dunno, they would probably leech off of the government..."
Me: "Thats it? That is their only option?"
American: "Well they could just roll over and die."
Me: "Ok, what would you do if you were one of those people?"
American: "I don't know. I'd probably start my own business."
Me: "Ok, so, for you that is your 'best case scenario', right? Why?"
American: "Because that has the most potential to benefit me."
Me: "What do you mean by that?"
Third party, witnessng the carnage chimes in: "It gives him the best chance to sustain where he currently is..."
American: "Yeah, that."
Me: "Hypothetically you work at Walmart, and we can assume you make a fair wage. You probably have a quarter acre lot, and a multi-bedroom house. Why, out of all the possible options, did you not even consider tilling your entire backyard and growing potatoes?"
American: "Because, potatoes don't make me any MONEY!!"
Me: "Rage."
The American then went on to explain that without a job he couldn't appreciate a few amenities and do some of the things that he likes to do. Like playing video games and working on cars.
I told him that he could build a generator out of car parts and build cars out of shit.
I was a bit nicer than that, but not too much nicer.
This entire conversation started because he was trying to tell the witnessing Third-Party that he was being ridiculous for wanting to move to Thailand after hearing about the Phosphorous shortage.
21 February 2011
Music. It always (but never really) changes me.
12 February 2011
If there are certain sounds that are always explicitly appealing...
22 November 2010
I paint.


These two are part of one piece.


This is a paint on a woodburned portrait of Jesus.

This a tree and a hand done in crayon.


This is glitter.

Glitter gets fucking everywhere...


Those are pieces of tin foil.




This is a paintbrush.
14 November 2010
This is what I mean, I think.
Authority does not allow you to experience real personal consequence. You are only accountable for as far as your actions are punishable. For example if I steal from food from a grocery store, they are out a few dollars, and my gut is filled. But, the cashiers who let me walk out of their with that few dollars are possibly in jeopardy, because stealing is illegal. Not too mention what would have happened to me if I were caught... The employees involved are now required to appeal their actions to the those in charge, and those in charge are now required to appeal their actions to those superior. All this is happening simply because I didn't adhere to a piece of this hierarchy. Instead of exchanging food for a piece of paper I took it. In this scenario myself, the would be culprit, gets off scot-free, and the unobservant cashier is the one who will take the hit. Is this fair? This idea of, consequence; equals and opposites, applies very clearly in such a rigid hierarchical system, and living in such a system, we are all familiar with this idea of consequence. No one is really required to say who was wrong or who was right. We all know I was wrong, and yet so is the cashier for their negligence. But, not those who are 'in charge.' This is not to say that any personal moral conflict in this kind of situation is non-existent. It just isn't necessary, and is easily ignored.
But what if this hierarchy is removed? Are we then left to mill around hitting each other in the face because we don't know we cant? The obvious answer is no. And to assume otherwise is to ignore something innate in every person. The reason that assumption is made; that removing rules results in chaos is that because of the rules we need not have any personal idea of consequence or responsibility. What Anarchism aims to do is free us from that hierarchy. Those oppressive social mechanizations that force us into tiny inhuman niches where our only purpose is to produce. The ability to act freely. Liberation. To be human, and work together towards a mutual goal. Solidarity. The freedom to experience real choice, real consequence, and real responsibility. To live.
03 October 2010
LISTEN!
HEY!
I said hands off the mouse, and BACK. AWAY. No one needs to get hurt.
FEATURING! BassNecter?!, Torche!, Capsule!, ummm... Something else? Just listen, and explore.