Penis Bigger Than Toilet Paper Roll

The mousetrap

Slaves lose everything in their chains, even the desire to get rid of them.

Rousseau, The Social Contract

From a certain conception of power gives rise to a totally unrealistic way to combat it. And so, those who believe fight does nothing but strengthen it. We will show indeed that intuition is that the power produced by the strategies that derive from the structure of power is real and genuine. The confusion stems
exclusive undeniable power. There is no denying fact that among the main benefits of power there is no exclusion. One can not fully comprehend the essence of this exclusion if you are not including the first essence of sacrifice and the sacrificial structure. Anthropological foundation of this power we will not deal here, but only its morphology, which in any case comes from that foundation.
From the unique quality of power, we infer too hastily that the power has a repressive character. Both exclusion that repression carry with them a negative sign, and then falls very easily into the danger of confusing them. Hatch schematically the morphology of the repressive conception of power.
The repressive power comes from above. Coming from a hill can not crush, push down. It is assumed therefore that there is something potentially dangerous to the power that should be de-at. The power must prune, reduce, crush. It would be too easy to refute this view ex-negative, showing only too clearly of the psychologist. Then take another route.
wedge to apply the crowbar to overthrow this idea, we offered through it. The design repressive power, as we have just shown, presupposes that there is something to be repressed. In truth this is not something to which it applies the power to stifle it, but the outcome, the purpose and the only goal of power itself. It 's the power that should bring out all those instances that usually believes that it has the task to suppress. And, therefore, is the power that conceals the face of the repressor, so as to bring out more clearly in those instances. Let's see how and why.
power works like a mousetrap. Far from suppressing the hunger of the mice, it stimulates the trap with the smell of cheese. The mouse is stimulated to express his hunger, to head cheese, and to take all effective measures to achieve it. And when he finally reaches, here, wham!, The trap has captured. The key provision of power is not the capture and prosecution. In a sense, the trap is always already active, and the mouse always already captured, since the pleasant smell of the cheese begins to stimulate the olfactory organs.
In power it is essential that whoever is subject to express it. Only if the subject is expressed, he may be caught. Otherwise it has no power on which to take hold. All what we call instinct is the smell of cheese emanating from the trap. Out of metaphor, the instincts are the measures taken by the power because the person may, by following them, incurring his capture. Desires, volitions, dreams and collective dreams (such as the dogma of the most popular religion of our time: the glorification of the fun), the most secret desires, are effects that the power has on our bodies, bring into form our forces conduct identifiable, manageable, maneuverable, pre-calculus. The key issue is that we recognize the power that knows who we are, we say "the truth about ourselves." It must break the cages to measure, it does not do anything without an individual forms, and that ultimately is not even an individual. He needs a finding preliminary.
now more evident how the concept of power as repressive power is produced by the same owner (who is not repressive). The power penetrates so deeply into our every fiber, that locating the same look that it has on us, we ourselves about ourselves. We think the way that we think the power, indeed, we are designed by power. We have the firm conviction, and it bother anyone that crept up the slightest doubt, that the individuals endowed with instincts of self-determination and desires are already given, almost by nature. What am I, but what I aspire to? If not what difference and what I choose? If not my innermost drives? If you want based on the assumption that there are by nature, and the real power to monitor this belief persists, we can only have a repressive image of power as that which stifles the individual.
We are in a situation that common sense is paradoxical. This allows us to express ourselves is really oppressive. But if this appears paradoxical only because our image of power is fiercely repressive. One of the objections that might be raised here is: so as to escape the grip of power? Inhibiting their will? But here it is easy to see how this objection it's all internal to the paradigm of repressive power, and sees nell'elusione capture a mere inhibition.
This objection is raised by those who identify with the liberation of the expression of their desires, as if they were not the lure of power. The free agent is a product of liberal power. And 'now that it discards.
Whatever anyone says, the true asceticism is the real bane of power, his grip on it constantly slips. E 'inevitable that the events in his early resistance to power as by-catch is present as asceticism. Asceticism as the domain of the forces, coldness towards himself, contempt for the pleasures provided by the discovery, which are substantially satisfied with their employment status, consumption of cultural products, the prestige. The fight can only have negative abatement detection systems. You must have the courage not to be themselves. "Our" self, "our" individuality, which is actually the less it belongs, and that makes us more slaves. The more we struggle, raising his voice, the more we wiggle with mindless acts of rebellion, the more we demand our "rights" and our will rather than be caught in our chains. We learned to love them, our chains; the point of believing that they will make us free.
How can you not think the revolution as a more action aimed at a purpose to come, so you can not think of as an expression, manifestation, claim. The revolution will rather look like suicide, self-destruction, the dissolution of self, of the shipwreck. How else to make ineffective the trap? You might think to disable the trap directly. The very nature fluid and elusive of power prevents a unique location of the target. Much more effective would seem to make the slippery escape the grip, absorb the impact of neutralizing the effect of harassment (and boldly show that the shot went empty), immune to show that logic and that economy of forces. And, last but not least, do not forget that mice lose out the skin.

Gingko

Rash On Face And Body

Marxism and phenomenology in love

What is property? A social relationship.
What is the value? A social relationship.
What is surveillance? A social relationship.
What is power? A social relationship.
What is God? A social relationship.
What is culture? A social relationship.
What is art? A social relationship. What are
victory and prestige? Social relations.
What is sex and love? Social relationships ...

... One moment, a moment, slowly, still. I am forced to adjourn this sweet Marxist litany. How? Sex and love made on it and through it would be perpetuating social relations? God and touching the property but, for goodness sake, do not touch love. Love is a sound soul, a feeling completely interior; it to the Marxist principle that there is no internal, but everything is outside and purely external configuration of forces, must make an exception, must step aside quietly. Marx it is from. Do not bother fans.
It 's a sadistic exercise I admit our own, to dispel the fumes the phantasmagoria of the commodity-sex love, revealing the skeleton of political substance. However, a very difficult exercise, because it had to come up against a wall of adamant, quell'ostacolo seemingly insurmountable is the "fact" of feelings. The problem then becomes: how to bring to light the social structure of amorous relationships, without falling into the temptation to reduce the experience to herself superstructural effects causally products from that structure?
It seems to be in front of a double truth, the two infinite expressions of the same infinite substance, but do not touch each other. One might refer to them as objective truth (base material ratio) and subjective truth of love, if not that what you want to question here is, firstly, the existence of an inner truth independent of the historical and material conditions of the other status normally attributed to "the truth Interior. " The critics will emerge as a different conceptual form under which bring what we have called in several ways: inner experience, subjective quality of the relationship, sentimental aspect of social intercourse.
We must first distinguish the method from the object. The subject is love, the Marxian methodology is to overthrow the mythical contents of a report alienated social ideals and scattered images on a military map, on which we deal with different strategies and strengths. That the method is scientific does not mean necessarily that there should be this object. And vice versa: if love is a subject of "irrational", this does not imply that the most appropriate method to grasp the essence of what is irrational, perhaps the poetic. The evisceration of love through the exposure of its contents is not a material embodiment of love. The analysis will be carried out, in contrast to refine the distinctions between the two areas, the relocation of the elements rather than to one another, and ultimately to a deeper grasp of their concepts.
Love is not something you join two books in the air is isolated. Nor is it, at least for the object of our reflection, the magnetic attraction of the sexes by rubbing more or less metaphorical. Love is in the history, peoples, institutions and knowledge in particular. Also love, such as exploitation, it is always someone to love someone else. I love that an individual rather than a group of individuals, or carnal love less and especially love that I agree to call one over the other-these are not historical incarnations of different ideas of love. These differences mean that they want rather than love is in each one over the other, because given time point historical decide each time what love is. That love is a historical object also means that it is a social relationship. "However, production has a defined relationship of production." However phenomenal love has a defined relationship "private." Where the emphasis is on "certain" that ended with one type and not another, one of the countless ways possible or already implemented, synchronically or diachronically. It is not the result of my own free choice I now seek love or sex on Saturday night, rather than attending an aristocratic salons, but the pattern of conduct must be taken to the fact of belonging to an epoch later nineteenth century, for example, and still belong to a certain economic class, to have access to certain cultural products rather than others, to live in the countryside than in town. The same is true at the microscopic level for each element of the phenomenon of sex-love him as an individual "wants" to live, or the alternative monogamy-polygamy, carnal love, romantic love, marriage, marriage-family sentimental and so on. Each breath is a breath of lovers ice, frozen in dedicated and always already in place, even before discovering love. Go to her house (the parents are "modern") or hide in the woods, group sex or sex dual sex or electronic, every social relationship is channeled into devices and designs that have a completely political.
not only the act of love is an act that follows the pre-visions and structures which are already acting always before any subjective feeling, but these structures penetrate and are the subject, and calibrating the organizing forces in dealing with trade-offs others. If some people in the relationship with the opposite sex is a bold conservation domain of one on the other, in the West today is a sort of automatic mechanism eugenics, in which the sexual freedom acts as a filter that guarantees the distinction between those who are socialized in accordance with the current form of sex and those who are not, sharing interests and lifestyles in the form of antagonism between them (often apparent: the macho and the nerd are two sides of same coin), distributes in the daytime and at night the bodies in different areas of the city, develop certain sectors of the economy by cutting products on the interest generated by it, retains the look on the prospect biologizzante decides speeches and divides them by implicit social rules that allow to speak with some than with others, and to one or the other binding their sexual intentions. However, there remains a residue
sentimental. As closely built up structures independent of the subject, you can not ignore the emotional aspects of social relations. What can they remain? Well 'almost everything in its entirety: anxieties, hopes, disappointments, suicide, smiles, goodbye, goodbye, looks, and maybe even eternal moments. The historical configuration of emotion by no means to eliminate the feelings that it affects and where it lives, is the topographical distribution of these emotions. Am I saying that there is a substratum of human remains in every historical change? Absolutely not. Every human being is a social substratum, is historical, and for this reason is not a substrate. Those joys, expectations, hopes and killing those who are not natural properties of human history is confined to organize. It decides the intimate quality, unique character, it creates them. With some caution we could also say that those feelings will follow with some mechanical nature, which are scanned and interact with schedules required by the particular historical conjuncture. However this is not sufficient to eliminate the feeling of excess, never sufficiently suspected of idealism or spiritualism, which should belong to the emotional and passionate side man. We are faced with a dilemma: either our emotional experiences that are not mere games of sensations produced by the brain as any other organ, like a muscle, as it contracts and relaxes according to the play of forces in which is taken, or worth going into the intensive and the vertical dimension of what we call the emotional. And if this alternative was not really an option, but one unique way?
fact, you can pause in a sense, create a cross-section, cross it, hold it in a different way. Heidegger says that the real is not something that is near or above the inauthentic life, but a different grasp of it. The inauthentic is what keeps hidden and concealed the true, but manifestations of counterfeit, and that is why this is. And 'here means roughly that for intensification and collapse vertically. We must first abandon the terms "subjective experience", "emotions", "feelings", "experience", which refer to a mystification of the mechanic's happening in society. We are not the subject of these emotions, this happens and you need to happen in our body, to discharge. You probably will not happen at all, but what we see happen is a simple film covering a time that flows underground and is kept from counterfeiting. Not that the sinking of some subjects we make it happen. However, it puts us in an instance so inaggirabile and peremptory as hidden, visible only in his having to abandon his portraits and history. And 'the moor of melancholy and desolation, because in the eyes that we have no other social relationships, and "ourselves", as usually conceive "ourselves", we are nothing but social relations. It 's a very strange melancholy, on the other hand, because we do not know at all what we have lost, being ourselves, our life and our death and nothing else that a social relationship. Who could see from the outside would believe this melancholy to see the sadness of a crazy, angry and brooding in the middle of a banquet in happiness and joy. This crowd knows that he has lost something, but can not remember what. He did not then even the consolation of being able to watch a romantic himself as the lover who lost their loved one, or a Nietzsche who has lost God ', delivered to the plate and viscous flow of the story. Plato knew our paradoxical condition that we have to remember a "realm of ideas" that have never been able to contemplate, yet a 'Table of contents secret "enjoins us to remember. Or rather, e-remembered, but perhaps the concept Plato gave us the best that the term history, non-forgetfulness, a concept very happy because of his memory only to allude to the negative, and that can make it better than any other poster that the proclamation of salvation is not found to be beyond history, nor is fulfilled in it, but it leaves black shadow retreating. Where history is abandoned.

Gingko

List Of Convertible Bonds

There's something new in the air ... Let's talk about



Finian seemed that the component would also take part in Prato, dominating from the outset as a counterpart to the majority of berluscones the People of Freedom. But when it came to pass from words to deeds, or by signing up to websites appeal to book clubs Finian's "Generation Italy" only did the Federico Lorusso step. The other starting from the President of the Municipal Council Bettazzi try to defuse the issue: "It 's clear that we remain Finian, but we prefer that the young people to come forward at this time." So here is the choice to go a different route, one of the "new lawn" that from this evening will bring together all the components of the former An, Bettazzi, then, together with the councilors and Gianni Filippo Bernocchi place, local councilors and Giancarlo Auzzi, Gianluca Banchelli, Alessandro Giugni and Fulvio Ponzuoli.

I cite this brief passage from the news because it seems symptomatic of Prato chaos that reigns in the politics of today. A sarabande free not leave even the small characters in the local theater, these statistelli in sixteenth, kissed by an unexpected chance and, despite their ignorance, shown in the empyrean of the caste that matters. And that policy Campa.
This also applies to them, and perhaps more importantly, to suggest that long Gianfranco Fini: you decide once and for all! We have not heard one of them reclaim the pride of belonging to the former president when he decided, right-motu, to dissolve the party in whom you fight. We have not read public statements distancing when candidates through the PDL to facilitate elections. We have not seen angry resignation and virile. No evasion, when the sacred fire of the chair has called!
Now, following the pirouettes of the Speaker of the House are busy in our city to revive the sad spectacle of a party that was born from the merger of two similar but different political forces, allied but not to standard.
I repeat: Was it really necessary to dissolve the two parties, to deny those who had founded, to disperse an entire community, human more than the policy of throwing away a legacy of values \u200b\u200baccumulated over half a century of struggle and sacrifices, to return to cultivate small gardens planted in these poor pathetic personal ambitions? I would say to
Fini, if so needed: I did have a party. Also too good for your skills. You've wanted to root out like a rotten tooth. Now you see not to break my balls.
And I also say to his old and new followers in the land of Prato: these are tricks of building a demonstration of how the present day politics is an expression of the worst part of society. You really want to emphasize your identity in the cauldron diluted Berlusconi? You could have thought of that before actually, but if you can not help it, even if belatedly, given a test of worthiness. Since the assignments, especially if well-paid, you can always resign.
But I tell Affair '...