“You remind me of Diomedes - he brings 90 ships to Troy, gets told he can’t assault a god, Diomedes is clearly one of those people who won’t relent upon a goal he has established. He’s not deeply moralistic, like the Trojans might be. He’s like, “I’m here, I’m going to do this.” At one point, Diomedes suggests rushing Troy, meanwhile Odysseus is fleeing from Zeus, under the hellfire of his thunderbolts. Diomedes seems to have a policy of transparency, whereas it appears that Odysseus is harder to pin down.” — Konrad

jujutsu-with-zizek:

“[The creation of a fetish] saves the fetishist from becoming a homosexual by endowing women with the characteristic which makes them tolerable as sexual objects. … [There is] probably no male human being [who] is spared the fright of castration at the sight of a female genital.”

— Freud (who was not ahead of his time when it came to homophobia)

No, he was not. But he was very much par for the course in the assumption that homosexuality is something acquired. 

At the time, there were what seemed to be many empirical arguments in favour of this; the problem, though, in large part existed in questioning those who were gay why they were gay: who having been told, more or less, that homosexuality is due to excessive masturbation from a very young age, would invariably speculate that this is the cause of their “affliction”. Masturbation was, in the religio-medical culture of the time, very harmful. Thus the persons “afflicted” themselves would provide a cause, one which every person indulges in, and so ensuring onanism’s success both as a Tool of control, and etiology of abnormal sexualities. 

It would start with religious condemnation, and then if your sexual life deviated or went in any way awry by comparison, then the medicolegal superstructure then in place was there to catch your fall, and remind you why you fell. The result is a vicious cycle. 

Freud’s theory—at least based on the text quoted above, which is minimal—here is interesting in that it treats fetish-formation as being created in reference to homosexuality as a pole to be avoided, as if one’s sexuality existed along a continuum terminating at an undesirable point which the subject is aware of a priori.

This seems to be an ultimately survivalist (evolutionary) interpretation of the fetish formation. The then-common view was that fetish-formation is acquired rather like language (Kraft-Ebbing), through mere initiation and lasting association; the fetish object derived from a major ‘source’, theorized to be experienced as a conflation between the person bearing the object, and the object itself. In a “normal” individual, only the person is aesthetically processed as a psychosexual signal, with the object(s) ignored; a sick individual conflates these signals and includes the object(s) as a psychosexual trigger for arousal—usually because they have a “hypersexual” personality, which over-eroticizes the world about them. 

socialismartnature:

There was a time in American history when hundreds — if not thousands — of people would line the streets in celebration to witness the public execution of criminals. A noose would pinch a hanging man’s neck, and Americans would cheer, en masse. Right now, looking at people dancing in the streets of Boston, chanting U-S-A, and celebrating the domestic military operation that just ended with the capture of a 19-yr old individual — all of which caps off a week-long witch-hunt that had terrorized Boston Muslims and has done nothing to ease the pain of grieving loved ones — I am reminded of images of those barbaric days from America’s past.

Except now, the irony is that where the King demonstrated his ultimate authority in those executions—which weren’t abolished so much because it was ‘barbaric’ but rather politically untenable—the State does so today with these massive, ceaseless, over-wrought manhunts, which of all things, end in applause.  

Don’t forget that those two boys could have done much more killing and maiming at that race with semi- or automatic weapons than they did—but the response would have been different. They would have been cautious. They knew these boys were small-time, like the 18th century pervert or thief, but had dipped their toes in an act of violence that is reserved only for military strategems: this was their ultimate sin. They didn’t attack society, they implicitly attacked the state’s monopoly on the right to acts of indiscriminate mass-destruction. And that just can’t be tolerated. 

(via aidsnegligee)

Source: socialismartnature

aidsnegligee:

ronan-aodhan:

aidsnegligee:

the people cheering for the boston police make me sick. i hope they keep the stromtroopers and armored vehicles out for a couple more days. see if that tune changes a little. 

let’s remember that the true heroes of this week are the ~~edgy tumblr radicals~~ smashing the police state and bourgeois values one smug textpost at a time. god bless you.

you know what, you’re right, the entire boston police force is worth cheering for on the street. they came in with all their toys to serve and protect, and rode away on horses the colour of the american flag into the sunset to the theme from walker texas ranger. 

you sure showed me my place. 

Since I’m getting stinko tonight, 

• my first toast goes to the FBI, who respected the boat as a worthy opponent so much, that they did not torch or demolish it with a tank

azspot:

“Was I on acid, or was the first question at the eight o’clock press conference dealing with the Boston Marathon bombing last night really somebody’s asking Governor Deval Patrick whether the attack on the spectators was a “false-flag” operation?”

— Charles P. Pierce

The fact that this was the first question should be revealing.

Besides, if no one asked it, then we wouldn’t be able to say, “you lied to our faces when we asked you”, if it did turn out to be one. 

Top