Romolla

@romolla.bsky.social

4618 Followers 137 Following

without love, it cannot be seen. she/her

“Impressioni di prigionia’”’ by Jacques Riviére, published in Nouvelle Revue Francaise on the third anniversary of the author’s death (La Fiera Letteraria of 1 April 1928 reprints some excerpts from it). After a search of his cell: they took away from him matches, writing paper and a book—Goethe’s conversations with Eckermann—and some prohibited food supplies. “I think about all that they have stolen from me: I am humiliated, full of shame, horribly denuded. I count the days which I still have to ‘serve’ and though my will is fully directed toward this goal I am no longer sure of being able to make it to the end. This slow misery is more consuming than great trials. I have the impression that it could descend upon me from all sides, enter this cell, enter inside
Dearest Tania, I received your letter of July 28 and Giulia's letter. No letters had arrived since July 11th, and this made me so sad that I did something that may seem very foolish: I'll tell you about it when you come to visit. I'm sorry you feel discouraged, the more so since I'm convinced that I contributed to your depression. Dear Tania, I'm always afraid that you may have worse troubles than you admit to in your letters, these being entirely my fault. Nothing can dispel this notion, which is deeply rooted in me. In the past, I always lived like a bear in a cave, hoping to avoid these things: I didn't want anybody to be involved in my adversities. I even tried to make my family forget me by writing home as little as possible. But enough of this! I want to find some way of making you smile. Let me tell you about my sparrows. Right now I have a sparrow, but I had another one that died, probably poisoned by a cockroach or a centipede. The first sparrow was much more likable than the present one. He
This may be called (perhaps] a theorem of Arst approximation, but does that make it less important? This theorem should be studied on the basis of Taylorism and Fordism. Don’t these two modes of activity constitute an effort to overcome the first approximation? Constant capital is increased, but in this increase there is a variable that immediately erases the effect of the law—one or more variables, such as the production of more perfect machines, of more resistant metals, of a different type of worker or the reduction of waste and the utilization of by-products (that is, in general, the saving of |unavoidable| waste made possible by its great quantity]. With each one of these innovations, the industrialist passes from a period of increasing costs to a period of declining costs, insofar as he comes to enjoy a monopoly of initiative that can last a (relatively) long time. The long duration of the monopoly is also due to the “high wages" that these progressive industrialists can and “must” pay in order to be able to recruit, from the existing mass of workers, those who are most “psycho-physically” suitable for the new forms of work and production. The extension of the new model of production leads to a series of crises, giving rise once again to the same problems as “the tendential fall in the rate of profit,” problems that one can envisage recurring cyclically until: {1} one runs up against the mathematical limit of the resistance of the material; (2) the use of automatic machines reaches its limit; (3) world industrialization reaches the point of saturation (bearing in mind the rate of increase in population and the production for the renewal of consumer goods and equipment), The tendential law discovered by Marx could thus be seen to underlie Americanism, that is, the accelerated pace of progress in the methods of work and of production and in the modification of the typical worker.
For the benefit of the Russian Machians who manage to muddle everything, let us say that Chernyshevsky is below Engels in so far as in his terminology he confuses the opposition between materialism and idealism with the opposition between metaphysical thought and dialectical thought; but Chernyshevsky is entirely on Engels’ level in so far as he takes Kant to task not for realism, but for agnosticism and subjectivism; not for recognition of the “thing-in-itself,” but for inability to derive our knowledge from this objective source. For the benefit of the Russian Machians who manage to muddle everything, let us say that Chernyshevsky’s criticism of Kant is the diametrical opposite of the criticism of Kant by Avenarius, Mach and the immanentists, because for Chernyshevsky, as for every materialist, the forms of our sense-perception do resemble the form of the actual — i.e. objectively-real—existence of objects. For the benefit of the Russian Machians who manage to muddle everything, let us say that for Chernyshevsky, as for every materialist, objects (or to use Kant’s ornate language, “things-in-themselves”) really exist and are fully knowable to us — knowable in their existence, their qualities, and the real relations between them. For the benefit of the Machian muddlers, let us say that for Chernyshevsky, as for every materialist, the laws of thought have not merely a subjective significance; in other words, the laws of thought reflect the forms of actual existence of objects, fully resemble, and do not differ from, these forms. For the benefit of the Machian muddlers, let us say that for Chernyshevsky, as for every materialist, there does exist in reality what appears to us to be the connection between cause and effect, there is objective causality or natural necessity. For the benefit of the Machian muddlers, let us say that Chernyshevsky regards as metaphysical nonsense all deviations from materialism, both in the direction of idealism and in the direction of agn…
Past and present, Characters. Ethics and politics.! The virulence of certain polemics among politicians is notable for its personal and moralistic character. If their goal is to diminish or destroy the political influence of a prominent figure or a party, they make no effort to demonstrate that the individual's or the party's politics are inept or harmful; instead, they set out to show that certain persons are scoundrels, etc., lack “good faith,” have vested “interests” (in a personal and private sense], etc. It shows the rudimentary level of political sense, the persistently low level of national life. This is due to the fact that there still exists an enormous stratum that, lacking all conviction, “lives” off politics in “bad faith.” This phenomenon is of a piece with the general destitution that leads people to believe political behavior is motivated by pecuniary considerations, etc. Expressions such as “he is inept but a man of honor” are curious in politics; it is acknowledged that a person is inept, but because he is believed to be a “man of honor” he is trustworthy. But in politics, isn’t “inept” morally equivalent to “rogue”? It is true that usually these moralistic campaigns change nothing, unless they are meant to condition public opinion to accept or even demand a kind of “liquidation” of politics.
So much can be said for the influence of the thinkers and scholars. It is very great among the people, but in fact every conception has its own thinkers and scholars, and so their authority is divided; and further, any thinker may analyze and cast doubt on what he himself has said, etc. We can conclude that the process of propagation of new conceptions takes place for political, that is, in the last instance, social reasons, but that the formal elements of logical coherence, authority and of organization have a very great role in this process immediately after the general orientation has taken place, among individuals as well as large groups. From this we conclude that among the masses as such, philosophy can only exist as a faith. Besides, one may well imagine the intellectual position of a man of the people; he is made up of opinions, convictions, criteria of discrimination and norms of conduct. Anyone who supports a point of view contrary to his is able, in so far as he is intellectually superior, to argue better than him and put him logically to flight, etc.; should the man of the people therefore change his convictions? Because in the immediate discussion he is unable to assert himself? But then he would reach the position of having to change his ideas once a day, or every time he meets an ideological opponent who is intellectually superior to him. On what elements then is his philosophy based, and especially his philosophy in the form in which it has greater importance for him as a norm of conduct? The most important element is undoubtedly of a non-rational character, of faith. But in whom and in what? Especially in the social group to which he belongs, in so far as it thinks broadly as he does; the man of the people thinks that on such a basic thing so many cannot be so completely mistaken as his opponent in argument would like to make him believe; that he himself, it is true, is unable to support and develop his arguments as well as his opponent does his, bu…
I hate the indifferent. I believe, as Frederich Hebbel did, that ‘living means being partisan’. There can’t be men who are men alone and exist outside of the city. To really live means to be a citizen and to take part. Indifference is abulia, is parasitism, is cowardice. Indifference isn’t life. This is why I hate the indifferent. Indifference is the dead weight of history. It is the millstone around the innovator’s neck; the inert matter in which the brightest enthusiasms are drowned; the marsh that surrounds the old city and defends it better than its strongest walls, better than the valour of its warriors, because it swallows the assailants within its murky vortices, it decimates them, it disheartens them, and sometimes it makes them desist from the heroic deed. Indifference is a powerful force in history. It operates passively, but it operate nonetheless. It is fate; it is that upon which you cannot count; it is the thing that disrupts the programme, that upsets the best laid plans; it is the brute matter that rises up against intelligence and smothers it. The events that occur, the evil that befalls us all, the possible good that a heroic act (of universal value) can generate, are not due to the initiative of the few who are active, but to the indifference, the absenteeism of the many. The things that occur do not occur because some people exercise their will, but because the multitude abdicates its own will and lets things be, allowing for knots to form that it will take a sword to unfasten, for laws to be passed that it will take a revolt to abrogate, for men to rise to power that it will take a mutiny to overthrow. The fate that appears to dominate history is nothing but the deceptive appearance of this indifference, of this absenteeism. Events grow in the shadows. Few hands, subject to no oversight, weave the collective cloth, and the multitude ignores it all, because it doesn’t care. The destinies of an epoch are manipulated according to the narrow.
The concept of the “lesser evil,” most relativizing, can be conceived as this kind of apologia. There is always a lesser evil than the previous lesser evil, a greater danger in comparison to the previous greater danger. Each greater evil becomes lesser in comparison with an even greater one, and so on indefinitely. This turns out to be nothing more than the form taken by the process of adaptation to a regressive movement, such that while reaction proceeds efficiently, the antithetical force is determined to capitulate progressively, in small stages, and not all at once. If it were otherwise, the condensed psychological effect might give rise to an active competing force, or to a reinforcement of it if such a force already existed. Insofar as the regressive unfolding in the most advanced countries foreshadows what will happen in countries where the movement is in its infancy, comparison is in order.
In those days the elementary schools would assign, at this time of year, as a theme for composition, the question: ‘What will you do with your life?’ A difficult question, which I resolved for the first time, at eight years of age, fixing my sights on the profession of carter. I found that the carter unites all of the characteristics of usefulness and delight: he flicks the reins and guides the horses, but, at the same time, he performs a work that ennobles the man and earns him his daily bread. I remained faithful to this direction also the following year, but for reasons that I would describe as extrinsic. If I could be sincere, I would have to say that my liveliest aspiration was to become a Court Usher. Why? Because in that year there came to my village as a Court Usher an elderly man who possessed a very charming little poodle, always dressed to the nines, with little red ribbons on his tail, a tiny cape on his back, a varnished collar, a little horse bridle around his head. I was completely unable to separate the image of the little poodle from his owner or from his profession. But, with many regrets and because of a formidable logic and a strong sense of duty that would make the great heroes blush, I renounced this prospect that so seduced me. Yes, I discovered that it would be useless to try to become a Court Usher and thus to possess a poodle so marvellous: for I did not know by heart the eighty four articles of the Constitution of the Republic! Just so! I had reached the second elementary class (the first revelation of the civic virtues of the carter!) and I had begun to think, in the month of November, of doing the release examinations, to proceed to the fourth class by leaping over the third: I believed myself capable of as much, but when I presented myself to the Director of Studies to answer the call according to protocol, I faced, at point-blank, the question: ‘But do you know the eighty four articles of the Constitution?’ I had never even thought of…
§(29). Sarcasm as an expression of transition among historicists. In an article by Bonaventura Tecchi, "Il Demiurgo di Burzio" (Italia Letteraria, October 20th, 1929), from, which the above cited passage by Burzio is taken, the element of "irony" is often mentioned as characteristic of this position. "Irony" is appropriate in literature to indicate the detachment of the artist from the sentimental content of his creation; but in the case of historical action, the element of "irony" would be, precisely, excessively literary (it would be suffice to say simply "literary") and would indicate a form of detachment connected, rather, to a somewhat amateurish skepticism (caused by disillusion, weariness, or even a "superman" complex). Instead, the characteristic element in this case (namely, in historical
The history of industrialism has always been a continuing struggle (which today takes an even more marked and vigorous form) against the element of ‘animality’ in man. It has been an uninterrupted, often painful and bloody process of subjugating natural (i.e. animal and primitive) instincts to new, more complex and rigid norms and habits of order, exactitude and precision which can make possible the increasingly complex forms of collective life which are the necessary consequence of industrial development. This struggle is imposed from outside, and the results to date, though they have great immediate practical value, are to a large extent purely mechanical: the new habits have not yet become ‘second nature’. But has not every new way of life, in the period in which it was forced to struggle against the old, always been for a certain time a result of mechanical repression? Even the instincts which have to be overcome today because they are too ‘animal’ are really a considerable advance on earlier, even more primitive instincts. Who could describe the ‘cost’ in human lives and in the grievous subjugation of instinct involved in the passage from nomadism to a settled agricultural existence? The process includes the first forms of rural serfdom and trade bondage, etc. Up to now all changes in modes of existence and modes of life have taken place through brute coercion, that is to say through the dominion of one social group over all the productive forces of society. The selection or ‘education’ of men adapted to the new forms of civilization and to the new forms of production and work has taken place by means of incredible acts of brutality which have cast the weak and the non-conforming into the limbo of the underclasses or have eliminated them entirely.
"Events are the real dialectic of history. They transcend all reasoning, all personal judgements, all simple and irresponsible wishful thinking. Events, with the unbreakable logic of their development, teach the working and peasant masses, who are conscious of their destiny, these lessons: The class struggle reaches at a certain point a stage in which the proletariat no longer finds in bourgeois legality — that is, in the bourgeois State apparatus (armed force, courts, administration) — elementary guarantees and a defense of his basic right to life, liberty, personal dignity, and daily bread. He is forced to create his own legality, to create his own apparatus of resistance and defense. At certain moments in the life of the people this becomes an absolute historical necessity, and it transcends every desire, every wish, every whim, every personal impulse. Events present themselves as a universal fatality, with the engulfing rage of natural phenomena. Men, as individuals and as a mass, are brutally thrust into facing this dilemma: guaranteed probability of death, or a slight chance of survival. A choice must be made. And men always choose the chance of survival, even if it’s slight, and even if the survival in question is grueling and miserable. They fight for these slight chances. And their impetus is such, and their passion is so great, that it smashes every obstacle and it overwhelms even the most frightening apparatus of power."
"The concept of the "lesser evil," most relativizing, can be conceived as this kind of apologia. There is always a lesser evil than the previous lesser evil, a greater danger in comparison to the previous greater danger. Each greater evil becomes lesser in comparison with an even greater one, and so on indefinitely. This turns out to be nothing more than the form taken by the process of adaptation to a regressive movement, such as that while reaction proceeds efficiently, the antithetical force is determined to capitulate progressively, in small stages, and not all at once. If it were otherwise, the condensed psychological effect might give rise to an active competing force, or to a reinforcement of it if such a force already existed. Insofar as the regressive unfolding in the most advanced countries foreshadows what will happen in countries where the movement is in its infancy, comparison is in order." - The Movement and the Goal (1932) Roderic Day
The question is this: of what historical type is the conformity, the mass of which he is a part? When his conception of the world is not critical and coherent but haphazard and disconnected he belongs simultaneously to a multiplicity of masses, giving his own personality a bizarre composition. It contains elements of the cave-man as well as principles of the most modern and advanced learning; shabby, local prejudices of all past historical phases as well as intuitions of a future philosophy of the human race united all over the world. Criticizing one's own conception of the world means, therefore, to make it coherent and unified and to raise it to the point reached by the most advanced modern thought. It means criticizing all hitherto existing philosophy in so far as it has left layers incorporated into the popular philosophy. The beginning of the critical elaboration is the consciousness of what one really is, that is, a "know thyself" as the product of the historical process which has left you an infinity of traces gathered together without the advantage of an inventory."
A pamphlet from 1936 with the headline "THE FASCIST MENACE IN THE U.S.A, ISSUES AND PARTIES IN THE 1936 ELECTION". The text reads "There are two chief and opposite directions of possible development in American political life in the 1936 elections. All parties and groups must be judged by their relation to these two fundamental political tendencies. One stems from the most reactionary circles of finance capital, Wall Street; its direction is toward fascism and war. The fundamental aims of this camp can be summarized in five points; 1. Restore capitalist profits by cutting wages, raising prices, checking the growth of trade unions, subverting them, and eventually wiping them out; squeeze out the poor farmers from agriculture, transforming them into propertyless workers. 2. Wipe out social and labor legislation, balance the budget by eliminating unemployment relief, cutting taxes of the rich, and throwing the tax burden onto the poor by means of sales taxes. 3. Remove all remnants of popular influence upon the government, by vesting all final power in the hands of an irresponsible judiciary---the Supreme Court; drive towards the curtailment and eventual destruction of democratic liberties and civil rights; create the storm troops of reaction, Black Legions, Ku Klux Klans, etc. 4. Seize control of all governmental machinery, moving toward a full-fledged fascist regime, in "American" and "constitutional" ways. 5. Develop extreme jingoistic nationalist moods among the masses; drive toward war under cover of "American isolation" and "neutrality"; support to and alliance with Hitler and other fascists, preparing the new world war."
Rocket
from Cairn Post 1941 September 9th - GANGSTER GOES TO WAR. HITLER'S "WHITE HOPE." Portrait of Hitler's White Hope: he is Erich Rommel, the man he sent to Tripoli to conquer Egypt. It is as well to know the man---you will hear a good deal more of him before this war is won. Rommel, now a lieutenant-general, is that rarity in the German army, a high officer not drawn from the Prussian military class. No "von" nonsense about Erich, nor the code of conduct--such as it was--that most Prussian officers honoured in war. He is a gangster general trained in a harder school than Chicago. He was Hitler's thug organiser before he came to power. His band of gangsters ended up with a notable list of murders, maimings, and burnings to its discredit. Of course, it was rather illegal, but when Hitler became Chancellor, it could be put on a proper footing.
Ferret playing with a toy on a string
Trans woman taking a very cool selfie
Cozy sleeping ferret in a blanket filled drawer
Automatic AI Summary under YouTube video "Romolla Ch. plays Ball x Pit, a challenging action game, while discussing Thanksgiving and various opinions. The streamer's back pain adds humorous commentary to gameplay..."
Ferret asleep under blanket, only her chin and one paw sticking out in a goofy position
Ferret in a pile of clothes
YouTube Community post from Romolla "In case you missed it - I ran a dual stream test and it was great, so I'll also be streaming on YouTube starting from Monday. I'm usually live @ noon est Monday/Tuesday/Thursdays/Friday. Much love." followed by a comment saying "I had a dream last night that you were building IKEA furniture on stream and you were so unbelievably awful at building a shelf that I woke up in a bad mood."
A picture of the Spotify app highlighting "Audiobooks for you" with the first featured audiobook being "On Guerrilla Warfare" by Mao