Guybrush Treepwood ha scritto:Diciamo che almeno per quanto riguarda l'isolamento mediatico ci sono, visto che da due anni sono senza televisore e i social non ho nemmeno capito a cosa servono...
Da diversi anni ho maturato la consapevolezza che il sistema mi vuole omologare, usare e poi rottamare, non prima di avermi spremuto creandomi delle esigenze che non avevo e che per soddisfare le quali devo per forza passare attraverso il sistema. Un po' come regalare le caramelle con la droga ai bambini per creare la dipendenza. Solo che gli spacciatori sono banche, multinazionali dell'alimentazione, colossi dell'elettronica ecc..
Quello che non ho ancora capito è dove sta la via di uscita, il bandolo della matassa, se davvero il genere umano sia in grado di trovare la redenzione dagli inferni che abbiamo lasciato creare ai burattinai. Non voglio essere Don Chisciotte e nemmeno Gesù Cristo, non ne ho la forza e nemmeno la voglia. Quindi forse mi merito quello che ho, e soprattutto quello che non ho. Sono una specie di ingranaggio che però è consapevole di esserlo.
Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk
Tratto da "Willful Disobedience" di Wolfi Landstreicher.
A Violent Proposition Against the Weighted Chain of MoralityWhen dealing with the question of how to battle the social order, there is no place for morality. Anyone who desires a world without exploitation and domination does not share the values of the society that spawned them. Thus, it is necessary to avoid getting drawn into its viewpoint — the dominant viewpoint with all that implies. The dominant viewpoint in the present era is that of democratic dialogue. All are to come together to discuss their perspectives, argue over their claims, debate their opinions and negotiate compromises guaranteed to enforce the power of those who claim to represent us and to disappoint all parties (except those in power) equally. Isn’t our democratic equality a beautiful thing? Within this viewpoint, revolutionary action ceases to be activity chosen by individuals in terms of their inclinations, capabilities, situation and desires. Instead it must be reified into a dichotomous choice given moral connotations between violence and nonviolence. For anarchists, who — in theory, at least — determine their own actions on their own terms, this should be a false and meaningless dichotomy.
The central aim of anarchist activity in the present world is the destruction of the state, of capital and of every other institution of power and authority in order to create the possibility of freedom for every individual to fully realize herself as he sees fit. This is not a moral principle, but simply — by definition — putting anarchy into practice. And it is a violent proposition. No apologies should be made about this. I am talking about the destruction of the entire social order — of civilization, if you will — and such an upheaval is, without question, far more violent than any hurricane or earthquake. But the significant question is how each individual will act, and that, for anarchists, is determined by each individual in terms of their desires, dreams, capabilities and circumstances — in terms of the life they are trying to create for themselves. In this light, it only makes sense that anarchists would reject morality, humanism and any other external value in deciding how to act. Even efficacy would be rejected as an essential determinant, though, of course, one would try to succeed and would put all of oneself into any self-chosen activity in order to make it as strong as possible. But effectiveness is not the primary question — the desire to attack the institutions of domination and exploitation where one can is.In this light it becomes clear that we who call ourselves anarchists have no use for dealing with such questions as: “Is property destruction violence or not?”; “Is this an act of legitimate self-defense?” and so on. We have no reason to try to make such artificial distinctions, since our actions are determined precisely by our desire to attack and destroy power. These distinctions between “violence” and “nonviolence” or between “legitimate self-defense” and the violence of attack are based in the hypocritical morality of power that serves no other purpose than to place weighted chains on our ability to act.
Since the demonstrations against the WTO in Seattle, representatives of the mass media have been looking for anarchists to question about violence and property destruction. We will never be able to win over the media or to be presented “fairly” through them. So speaking to them on their terms, using their moral rules as guidelines in determining how we speak about these matters and following their protocol when we speak to them is absurd. The best way to speak to the media on this question is shown by the action of three Italian anarchists — Arturo, Luca and Drew — who beat up a journalist who dared to invade their comrade’s funeral.
S.