▬ :luigi_uhc:

1 day ago

Der reichste Mann der Welt, Elon Musk, hat Alice Weidel und der AfD in einem X-Talk eine Bühne geboten. Es wurde das erwartete Bullshit-Bingo. 👉 https://taz.de/Weidel-Musk-Talk-auf-X/!6061470/

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 1

1 day ago

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 1

2 days ago

Patagonien: Das Feuerland der Yagán | Stadt, Land, Kunst - 08/01/2025

Die Yagán leben bereits seit zehntausend Jahren in Feuerland – lange bevor der Seefahrer Ferdinand Magellan (Fernão de Magalhães) diesen äußersten Süden Patagoniens erkundete. Im 19.
Patagonien: Das Feuerland der Yagán - Stadt, Land, Kunst - 08/01/2025 - Die ganze Doku | ARTE

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 1

1 day ago

Paid as little as $9 a day: Hundreds of #prisoners are fighting the LA fires
Almost 400 imprisoned firefighters have reportedly been deployed to battle the devastating #wildfires across southern #KKKalifornia

please just burn all that shitty city

Tags: #prisoners #wildfires #kkkalifornia

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 1

1 day ago

Die Wahlwerbung von Elon Musk für Alice Weidel ging nach hinten los: Die AfD-Fans schämen sich für den peinlichen Auftritt. https://www.volksverpetzer.de/aktuelles/weidel-musk-afd-fans-schaemen-sich/?utm_source=mstdn

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 1

1 day ago

https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/117217-028-A/tracks-east/

yeah fvcktards move to russia - they have a special visa for you - move to russia you scum !

Autokratische Bestrebungen sind weltweit auf dem Vormarsch. Fast drei Viertel der Weltbevölkerung leben unter autokratischen Regimen, Tendenz steigend. Was reizt Menschen, die in Demokratien leben, an autokratischen Herrschern?

Der Populismus steht in der Blüte. Ob in den USA, in Ungarn oder in der Slowakei – mit einem „Macher-Image“ lassen sich Wahlen gewinnen. Orbán posiert als vermeintlicher Schlichter an Putins Seite. Das überrascht, denn in Ungarn herrscht traditionell eine anti-russische Stimmung. 1956 wurde die Ungarische Revolution blutig durch sowjetische Panzer niedergeschlagen. Orbán kehrt nun die Stimmung im Land um und treibt damit die Spaltung der Gesellschaft voran. Die ungarische „Tracks East“-Journalistin Emma Strauss besucht ihren Großvater, den bekannten Bildhauer Ádam Farkas, in seinem Atelier. Der 80-jährige Künstler schimpfte sein Leben lang über die Unterdrückung während des Kommunismus und hegt heute Sympathien für Orbán und Putin. Emma Strauss möchte ihn besser verstehen.
Robert Fico, der Ministerpräsident der Slowakei, eifert Orbán nach. Im Vordergrund wettert er gegen eine angebliche „Gender-Ideologie“. Im Hintergrund baut er den Medien- und Kulturbetrieb um. Der Maler Andrej Dúbravský, einer der wichtigsten zeitgenössischen Künstler des Landes, wurde schon zu Ficos Zielscheibe. Ginge es nach der Kulturministerin Martina Šimkovičová, sollen seine Gemälde aus der Öffentlichkeit verschwinden. Der Künstler wehrt sich und erfährt viel Solidarität.
Während viele Menschen vor den russischen Repressionen fliehen, hält Putin scheinheilig die Tür auf für Menschen aus dem Westen, die angeblich die traditionellen Werte in ihrem Land vermissen. Russland als sicherer Hafen? Für „Tracks East“ ergründet die Exil-Journalistin Masha Borzunova die russische Einwanderungspolitik.

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0

1 day ago

Be useless. So no one can use you. :blobcatsipsmile:

Likes: 0

Replies: 9

Boosts: 2

1 day ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oi1fGhaJl8

come as you are

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0

1 day ago

Elon #Musk heaps praise on #AfD ’s Alice #Weidel during live talk on X

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/09/elon-musk-heaps-praise-on-afd-alice-weidel-during-live-talk-on-x

X owner and far-right politician appear to agree on everything, as Musk faces accusations of meddling in German election

Tags: #musk #afd #weidel

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 1

1 day ago

Estupendo que hayan reventado a martillazos el muñeco de Netanyahu. Habría que destrozar todas esas figuras de políticos criminales que exhiben en el museo de cera; Nicolás Maduro, Putin, Thatcher, Trump, AMLO, el Subcomandante Marcos....

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 1

1 day ago

Berlin: A flame for Kyriakos Xymitiris

anarchistnews.org/content/berlin-flame-kyriakos-xymitiris

Berlin: A flame for Kyriakos Xymitiris anon (not verified) Thu, 01/09/2025 - 09:25

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 1

1 day ago

A Nickel Rush Threatens Indonesia’s Last Nomadic Tribes and Its Forests, Fishermen and Farmers.

The country holds nearly half of the world’s known deposits of a metal critical to the energy transition, but digging and smelting it is leading to deforestation, flooding and contamination. #ClimateChange

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/08012025/nickel-mines-threaten-indonesia-nomadic-tribes-and-forests/

Tags: #climatechange

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 1

1 day ago

I am displeased to announce the second, expanded edition of THE PRICE OF ZINES IS TOO DAMN HIGH. This new and improved version of my antagonisation of boutique zinester culture includes a new introduction describing how i was "kicked out" of the midwest queer/trans zine fest, as well as an additional two pages of responses to objections by those committed to charging an arm, leg, and firstborn child for their zines.

You can download this 2nd edition for screen viewing or formatted to print, here at archive dot org. Print some copies today and try to get kicked out of your next local zine fest!

https://archive.org/details/the-price-of-zines-is-too-damn-high/The%20Price%20of%20Zines%20is%20Too%20Damn%20High%202ND%20ED%20SCREEN/page/n7/mode/2up

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 1

1 day ago

mastodon dot social users get yourself on a new damb server

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 2

1 day ago

this snow here is so beautiful ....

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0

1 day ago

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/albert-libertad-selected-writings#toc8

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿 — 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗺𝘆!

— Albert Libertad

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0

1 day ago

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/albert-libertad-selected-writings

I commit suicide when I consent to inhabit a dwelling where the sun never shines, a room where the ventilation is so inadequate that I feel like I am suffocated when I wake up.

I commit suicide when I spend hours on work that absorbs an amount of energy which I am not able to recapture, or when I engage in activity which I know to be useless.

I commit suicide whenever I enter into the barracks to obey men and laws that oppress me.

I commit suicide whenever I grant the right to govern me for four years to another individual through the act of voting.

I commit suicide when I ask a magistrate or a priest for permission to love.

I commit suicide when I do not reclaim my liberty as a lover, as soon as the time of love is past.

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0

1 day ago

The State would like us not to be the man, the woman, the individual, but the mass. Because, the more we are the citizen, the greater our capacity, the greater our efficiency - we become the tool which the bureaucrats, the authoritarian states, the governments, want us to be.

— #Krishnamurti

Tags: #Krishnamurti

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0

2 days ago

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/willful-disobedience-wolfi-landstreicher#toc48

AGAINST COMPROMISE

Compromise is always a matter of renunciation, of giving something up. Therefore, those who portray the refusal of compromise as a closing down of possibilities are perpetrating a swindle, a precise reversal of reality. Compromise functions through reduction. Each individual gives up a bit of herself here, a crumb there, and on and on until all that was, in fact, individual is worn away, and everyone is a cipher equal to each other, an equality defined as each being nothing.

The only possibilities that can exist in such a situation are those that are acceptable (or at least bearable) to all. In this way, the possibility of exploring anything new, any initiatives that open out to elsewhere, is subject to the exigencies of the survival of the group as a whole. Every group formed through compromise, through coming to an agreement by renouncing differences exists in a precarious balance. The repressed singularity of each of its members surges below the surface. And so the unknown—whether a catastrophe striking from the outside or a new initiative from within the group, a proposal to experiment—is always a threat to such groups. Therefore, for the most part, they avoid experimentation, stick to the agreed upon program and only carry out “initiatives” that are really just simple repetitions, maybe with minor adjustments, of what they have always done, in other words, rituals. Doing anything else could create a rupture that would allow the full deluge of difference, of individual desires, passions, ideas and dreams, to burst forth actively in the world with all the conflict this would inevitably involve.

The groups that are brought together by a coercive necessity imposed by the ruling order—nation-states, workplaces, bureaucracies, etc.—maintain their balance through laws, rules, chains of command, methods of discipline and correction, punishments and methods of isolating those who do not conform. Because the state and capital do not allow any “outside” to exist anywhere in the world, the coercive institutions through which they operate are imposed upon everyone, and so force everyone to compromise to some extent. Thus, for example, in order to fulfill our needs and desires and to carry out our projects, those of us who desire a world without money, property or commodity exchange are forced by the current social order to deal with all of these things on one level or another—by working, by stealing, by begging, by offering goods and services in exchange for whatever it is we want. But coerced compromise can nonetheless be met defiantly and with dignity, and one’s singularity is maintained in this defiant attitude.

Having to deal daily with the humiliation of the coerced compromises imposed by the ruling order, certainly in our struggle against it we do not want to leave any place for compromise. Since this struggle is precisely against domination and exploitation, it is the place for experimenting freedom. And from an anarchist perspective (by which I mean a perspective that rejects all domination, all hierarchy, all authority), this means the freedom of each individual to determine her own life in free association with whom he chooses. Of course, this rules out any negotiation with the state or other ruling institutions. If we compromise with the ruling order in the way we carry out our struggle, then we are already defeated, because such a compromise would place the determination of the conditions of our supposed struggle against this social order into the hands of those whose interests it serves. They would define our opposition; they would define our struggle. Autonomy would cease to be anything more than a fine-sounding abstract word to be flung around for the warm feeling it gives us.

A sad example of what I mean can be seen in what happened to the occupations struggle in Europe when a significant portion of this movement decided to “struggle” for legalization. What had originated as a movement of direct action and self-organization was largely transformed into a movement for social assimilation and state assistance. Those occupied spaces that refused to have any dialogue with the state often found themselves isolated, and in several instances—Germany providing the most profound example—the movement for legalization effectively provided the basis for crushing the occupations movement. In addition, the assimilation inherent in these negotiations has led to the disappearance of opposition or its deformation into purely symbolic and spectacular forms (the now disbanded Tute Bianche, which originated in legalized social centers in northern Italy, being a prime example of the latter).

But in the process of carrying out our revolutionary project it is equally important to refuse to base our relationships with our comrades on compromise. If indeed our aim is really the liberation of every individual so that each can determine her own life on her own terms with those with whom he feels affinity (and what else could the rejection of all domination be?), then there is no place for renunciation in the name of a greater good and,thus,no place for compromise.This does not mean that each individual must be isolated from every other individual. Clearly, in order to carry out activities together, we need to discuss our aims, our desires, our needs, our ideas, our aspirations. But the aim of such discussion—if we are seeking a world of free relationships—would not be to create a common ground through the denial of real differences, reducing everything to the lowest common denominator.

Rather it would aim to clarify the differences, to bring out the singular desires and dreams of each individual involved, to discover the commonality that springs from our enjoyment of each others’ singularity (without forgetting that we will not enjoy everyone’s singular being), the commonality that is based on real affinity between unique individuals. Such affinity can only be discovered through developing a real deep knowledge of each other, a task which requires that our discussions have the precise aim of discovering our differences, what is unique in each of us, not of suppressing them in the name of a unity that will leave everyone dissatisfied.

The rejection of compromise in our struggle goes hand in hand with the rejection of formality. In order to create a formal organization, it is necessary to create both an ideological framework and a practical program on which the organization is based. The ideological framework marks the boundaries within which theoretical and analytical exploration is permitted, and the practical program marks the boundaries within which practical initiative and projects are to operate. Individuals who wish to participate in the organization must pare down their individuality in order to fit within these boundaries, renouncing those parts of themselves that do not serve the greater good of the organization as a whole. Thus, by its nature, the formal group comes to dominate the individuals who participate in it. Since this domination of the group over the individual stems from the boundaries set by the ideological framework and practical program that are the defining traits (along with membership roles and the quantitative delusion), one can say that it reflects the closing down of possibilities that is inherent in compromise.

While we anarchists are quick to discuss which methods of decision-making are most suited to our aims, we seem far less willing to talk about the contexts in which these methods are to be used. Within the context of a formal organization in which the theoretical and practical parameters of discussion are already set and the individuals involved in the decision- making process are members of the organization, i.e., parts of a greater whole, both unanimity[2] and majority decision can only operate as a power over individuals in the group, since every decision must be made in terms of the needs of the organization as a whole. Thus, whatever decision may be reached through whatever method, it will always involve the submission of the individual and her desires and aspirations to the group as a whole.

In the realm of informality, where organization is temporary, with the aim of accomplishing a specific task, discussion does not have such parameters, the only parameters being the task at hand. Individuals can bring the whole of themselves, their dreams and passions, their ideas and desires, the whole of their imaginations into it. Since there is no formal structure the survival of which must be guaranteed, there is nothing to fetter the exploration of possibilities. Discussion can center around how to carry out whatever project is being explored in such a way as to realize the desires of each of the individuals involved in carrying it out. In this informal context, at least if it is to realize the singularity of each individual, there is obviously no place for a majority-based method of decision-making. Unanimity is necessary simply because it is the only way to guarantee that the decisions made fully reflect each individual involved. In this case, wholeness is not seen as the trait of a group, but rather of each individual involved in the project at hand, who have come together on the basis of affinity, not unity in the name of a higher cause (even if that cause is called “revolution” or “anarchy”). So when significant differences arise there is no need to resolve them through negotiation and compromise. Rather those involved can recognize that they have reached the limits of their affinity and can therefore chose to go their separate ways continuing their struggles as they see fit. So though it is true that within a formal context even unanimity is guaranteed to be a power over individuals, within the context of informality it can be a tool for creating collective projects in which the interests of each individual involved have priority.

As an anarchist, I desire social revolution precisely because it opens the possibility for creating a world in which each individual is able to create her life as his own in free association with those with whom she feels affinity. Social revolution is, in fact, a rupture of existing social relationships, a breakdown of the functioning of social control and so opens out into the unknown, where possibilities for freedom and self-organization may be found. Formal “revolutionary” organizations and “alternative” institutions are formed precisely to avoid this opening into the unknown. How often have I heard some anarchist proclaim the necessity to find something to replace the state and capitalist institutions, as if these have ever served any truly human purpose! But the built-in limitations of these “revolutionary” institutions guarantee not too much will change. They are brakes on the upheaval that is bringing the collapse of the old world. And so they close down possibilities, enclosing them within their own framework, and the world of compromise returns, often with the added brutality of the moral judgments of true believers against those who go too far. The expansion of the possibilities opened up by the insurrectionary break, the full exploration of the panorama of self-determination and of the “collective movement of individual realization”, requires, above all, indomitable individuals who associate on the basis of affinity and the pleasure they find in each others’ singularity, refusing every compromise.

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0

2 days ago

https://www.jkrishnamurti.org/content/why-do-we-seek-method-or-technique-0/1949

#Question: What is the right relationship, if any, between the individual and the collective, the mass?

#Krishnamurti: Do you think there is any relationship between the individual and the mass? Between you and the collective? The State, the government, would like us to be merely the citizen, the collective. But we are man first, and afterwards the citizen - not the citizen first, and man afterwards. The State would like us not to be the man, the individual, but the mass. Because, the more we are the citizen, the greater our capacity, the greater our efficiency - we become the tool which the bureaucrats, the authoritarian states, the governments, want us to be.

So, we must distinguish between the private individual and the citizen, the man and the mass. The individual, the man, has his private feelings, hopes, failures, disappointments, longings, sensations, pleasures. And there is the point of view which wants to reduce all that to the collective; for it is very simple to deal with the collective. Pass an edict, and it is done. Give a sanction, and it is followed. So, the more organizations there are, and the more efficiently they are organized, the more the individual is denied, whether by the church or by the State - we are then all Christians, all Hindus, not individuals. And with that mentality, in that state, which most of us want, has the individual reality any place? We recognize there must be collective action. But does collective action come into being with the denial of the individual? Is the individual in opposition to the collective? Is the collective not fictitious, the mass not unreal? Seeing the difficulty of dealing with the individual, we create the opposite, the mass, and then try to establish a relationship between the individual and the collective. If the individual is intelligent, he will co-operate. Surely, that is our problem, isn't it? We first create the mass, and then try to find the relationship of the individual with the mass. But let us find out if the mass is real. The group of us here can be made into the collective by hypnotism, by propaganda; through various means we can be aroused to act collectively for an ideology, for a State, for a church, for an idea, and so on, and so on. That is, collective action can be externally imposed, directed, compelled, through fear, reward, and all the rest of it. Having produced that condition, we try to establish the relationship of the individual, which is the actual, with that which is produced. Whereas, is it not possible for the individual to lose his sense of separateness through definite understanding of all the implications of separateness, and therefore act co-operatively? But, as that is so difficult, States, governments, churches, organized religions, force or entice the individual to become the corporate. What place has the individual in history? What does it matter what you and I do? There is the historical movement going on. What place has reality with this movement? Probably none at all. You and I don't count at all. This movement is gigantic, it is going on; it has the momentum of centuries, and it will go on. What is your relationship, as an individual, to this movement? Whatever you do, will it affect it? Can you stop a war because you are a pacifist? You are a pacifist, not because there is a war, not because you have found a relationship with it, but because in itself war is wrong and you feel you cannot kill, and there the matter ends. But to try to find a relationship between your understanding, your intelligence, and this monstrous, logical movement of war, seems to me utterly futile. I can be an individual and yet see what creates antisocial feelings in me, and so be free of separative actions. I may have a little property; surely, that doesn't make me a separative entity. But it is the whole psychological state to be separate, to be isolated, to be something it is that which is calamitous, which is so destructive. And, in order to overcome that, we have all the external sanctions and impositions and edicts.

Tags: #question #Krishnamurti

Likes: 0

Replies: 0

Boosts: 0