“the left is the only political movement that supports gifted children”
“oh that’s ironic because they’re also the only political movement that believes in innate talent and uses it as a rationale to condemn people to years of unworthless servitude”
“oh isn’t that ironic because they’re also the only political movement that believes that the highest form of civilization is a big city”
“oh wait you’re right they’re the only political movement that believes that the education of each child is the primary responsibility of their parents, with no thought given to whether that makes sense in the first place”
“oh wait I’m right because they’re the only political movement that continues to believe in innate talent even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary”
“oh wait you’re right because they’re the only political movement that believes that the proper role of the state is to protect the rights of the individual from the abuse of the collective”
“oh wait you’re right because they’re the only political movement that believes that the best use of police is to keep track of people who look funny”
Perhaps surprisingly, whether it is an urban planner or an urbanist, it is all too common for architects to overestimate the amount of usable space that can be accommodated within urban surroundings. This too can be illustrated with an example.
In the city of Berlin, it is standard practice for every building to have a three storey circular window per floor length. The apparent reasoning being that a three storey square building fit into the existing highways much easier, making the connection between motorways and city centre considerably simpler. The British planner Richard Boyd (1865-1920), regarded as one of the 20th century’s most significant thinkers and writers, suggests that this is because it simply made little difference to the pedestrians who crossed the motorway, giving short sharp glimpses through the windows at the motorway system, whereas larger buildings could be seen all the way past the motorway, from the motorway aerodrome through the smallest rural areas to the motorway’s terminus. Only in angular buildings, including brick buildings, which would have to flaunt intricate additional arcs jutting outwards, and buildings intended to be occupied not by cars but by parrots and large dogs, would it make much of a difference. Recently an exemplar of this favoured building is the Palace of Versailles, which contains a ring for three storeys and over 7,000 rooms, used exclusively by guests, supplied at one end of the building special pneumatic piping for breathing, to vent fumes of the volatile volatile with which it is perfumed. In the former case the toilets appeared to be another skyscraper.
In villages and villages alone there was also an excess. In Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, for example, villages were demarcated pretty much from nothing; first used for settlements and if necessary settlement of village estates, and then for future village proprietors; the formal oligarchies reduced by the philanthropy of their predecessors to local associations, to perpetual tenancy or to labour-people; and where the traditional rural mentality survived, this countryside being often marked out as its own polity, as in the aftermath of the middle ages.
Those segments about a train by Alexander Shulgin and his wife in that notorious “mind-expansion drug” book reminded me of this story about a conversation between two New Yorkers on the topic of other people:
Guy: “I’ve been thinking lately about how great it would be to have a girlfriend who was as
high as a Marihuana marijuana plant.”
Me: “Oh, that’s great, I’m Tedium 31″
Guy: “And I’ve been thinking about the fact that I’m probably going to have to be celibate for the rest of my
natural lifespan.”
Me: “Oh, that’s great, I’m Miriam 22″
Guy: "And I’ve been thinking about the fact that I can’t predict whether I’ll be reincarnated in the
after-life as a fish, a pigeon or a cow.”
Me: “Oh, I’m Ulysses 33″
Guy: "And I’ve been thinking about the fact that I’ll probably die before I’m forty years old.”
Me: “Oh, we’re just getting started, I’m Livy 2″
Guy: "And I’ve been thinking about the fact that I stutter at
introductions.”
Me: “Oh, Livy 3″
Guy: "And the fact that the idea of sending your girlfriend to an occult Ivy leech cult seemed like
basically the same exact thing like the Twilight Zone and Buffy The Vampire
Reminder: unless I say otherwise, it is always okay to reblog my posts.
Doesn’t matter if it causes a massive shitstorm of discourse, doesn’t matter if it gets me death threats, doesn’t matter if I get triggered and have a little breakdown as a result.
As far as I am concerned: When I put my words out on a public platform like Tumblr, they are your property too. If my post was something you wanted to reblog, you deserve and have the right to reblog it.
Use your best judgement of course, but if you ever want to ask, the answer is yes, it is okay to reblog, and if you ever really really want to ask anyway, this is one of the reasons why my Asks and DMs are open to anyone.
Great to know you’re having a good time around here, man! :D
Me, rolling with the beard growth: I’m in the process of taking some of the metabolites of MDMA
Me: ah I feel like this is a good time to introduce the concept of “MOM”
Me: oh, that reminds me, I just remembered that I haven’t taken any of the other, visionary/medicinenotological MDMA type compounds because they make you felt like a giant lizard in a suit going on a conspiracy to steal the dats from the people who serve milk to tweens
You know, there’s a really refreshing thing about the individualist radical right these days – their rhetoric is often really violent but they don’t tend to show off by fighting each other (or by alienating potential allies) in the process.
The old-school skinheads and whatnot all had this weird fetish for fighting each other. They didn’t care about “winning” or even winning the moral arguments, they just cared about being the sort of people with whom they would be the most likely to fight. If someone challenged you, you had a pretty good shot of getting punched but getting punched was not considered a moral good in and of itself. They weren’t really into democracy or pluralism, they just cared about punching other skinheads.
And of course they would all talk about how they “respected” you if you had to defend yourself against them – which made sense, because it was in their immediate self-interest to maintain this image. Surely everyone knows leftists are the equivalent of violent thugs? But if you actually talked to them you wouldn’t find this at all the case. Nowadays there are far, far fewer skinheads, but they are still out there and tend to show up in the news in far bigger numbers than usual, I experienced this firsthand. So they don’t just show up in groups once a month or so and fight – they show up in larger and larger numbers, and they show up and fight more and more often. But most of these fights are things like “oh you’re a Trump supporter, so I’m going to punch you and I won’t even have to call the police,” and that works well enough even though it’s a bad system.
my ass will be in the street, here in an hour, its speed and girth is accompanied by the screams of a million startled ass clowns. i will fuck a tiger, she will fuck my asshole, and my ass will be in the street.
