Starts at home.
Q: What are banks for?
A: To make money.
Q: For the customers?
A: For the banks.
Q: How do banks make money?
A: Customers lend it to them, and they lend it to other customers, each time charging interest.
Q: How much interest?
A: It depends on the bank. They set the rate as a rate of profit.
Q: Why isn’t it my profit? It’s my money after all.
A: You make a profit as long as you don’t withdraw your money: usually around half of one percent.
Q: Why do I need a bank at all?
A: You have to pay for goods and services that will not take cash.
Q: Why won’t they take cash? It seems a system designed to guarantee the banks a profit.
Q: And why would I need a bank if I didn’t want to withdraw my money?
Q: Hello? Why would a bank not want me to withdraw my money?
A: Because if you withdraw it they can’t lend it to anyone else.
Q: And if I remove my money which has been lent to someone else?
A: The bank will give you someone else’s money.
Q: But suppose that person wanted his/hers too? What if everyone wanted his/her money at once?
A: It’s the theory of banking practice that they never would.
Adapted from G. Edward Griffin. The Creature from Jekyll Island and Punch.
Roots are certain/
So say the bourgeois profiteers as they ask you to buy into The Revolt.
They sell you roots to keep you from revolting.
After all, your money has no value amongst men who can’t be bought,
Or those who know that you can’t buy nobility.
/Sky is empty.
So becomes the body,
Cut loose on the frontline, the battles raging within: sloughing off the roots that connect it to nothing but the status quo.
The roots that demand submission to certainties that are only true to men who are beneath you,
To men who would sicken at the thought of your battles.
“What we’re interested in is how something works, functions – finding the machine. But the signifier’s still stuck in the question “What does it mean?” Indeed it’s this very question in a blocked form. But for us, the unconscious doesn’t mean anything, nor does language. Functionalism does rule, however, in the world of micro-multiplicities, micro-machines, desiring machines, molecular formations. On this level there isn’t this or that kind of machine, a linguistic machine, say, but linguistic elements along with other elements in all the machines. The unconscious is a micro-unconscious, it’s molecular, and schizo analysis is micro-analysis. The only question is how anything works, with its intensities, flows, processes, partial objects – none of which mean anything.” Gilles Deleuze, Negotiations, 21-22.
“Our own wild nature is the best place to recover from our un-nature, from our spirituality.” Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, Arrows & Epigrams 6.
“He who jumps into the void owes no explanation to those who stand and watch.”
Jean Luc Godard
“A line of flight neither to a new political-cultural alterity nor to a new form of political organization but instead to a radically new plane of consistency – to a new singularity and disaggregation of life’s potentials for assemblage and creation. This line of flight would be a movement of internal desertion, of an irreducibility to the bourgeois man and his heaven, of a total absence from State-Capital: indifferent to its values, ignorant of its provocations, and unresponsive to its stimuli. Autonomy! Desertion! Deserting family; deserting school; deserting the office, the army, the duty, the responsibility, the debt; deserting men, women, and citizen; deserting everything that holds us entrapped, enslaved, and entranced.” From High Mountains, “Becoming-Autonomy,” markdyal.com
“The pit bull with the studded choke chain still barks at the wolves and coyotes in the hills, just like Margery’s Labrador retriever. From the perspective of the wolf or coyote, the pit bull barking ferociously from the safety of his master’s fence or measure of chain is more pathetic than the Labrador that just runs and hides: at least the Lab knows that it is prey. But in demonstrating menace or retreating in shame, the Lab and the pit bull still have far more in common than either does with the wild canine. Science might say that they’re the all the same species but this ignores the violence of the forces used to separate the dog from what it could potentially become. Organs, so to speak, cannot function without first being organized. As a result of such organization, dogs only develop to the mental state of a 10 to 30 day old wolf puppy. This means that mentally dogs never become autonomous, which allows them to be held accountable for their obedience, or lack there of.” Dave Stimpson
“There is a fundamental difference between State history and minoritarian becomings: whereas the State continually adds developments to its past – both in writing and through territorial conquest – a minoritarian becoming subtracts the codifications of its past in order to maximize the potential to take history in other directions. In other words, the narratives of State history and the actions informed by that history retrace and reinforce the causal chains that produce and/or consolidate State rule – this is the one sense in which history is always written by the victor. By contrast, minoritarian becomings strip away (decode) the actual determinations of the past, and restore to the present its virtual potential to become-otherwise in the future.” Eugene Holland, Deleuze and Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus, 136-137.