578 notes
“And now what do we have? We have the right to vote while we are homeless. We have the right to vote while we are jobless. We have the right to vote while our children are miseducated; this right that we were told would bring us a cornucopia of blessings and freedoms. We have the right to ride the front of the buses, we’re the only ones riding on it. Yes. We have the right to sit at the lunch counter with white folks and we ain’t got the money to buy a sandwich. We got all of these abstract rights but nothing real. This is the situation we face. We inhabit neighborhoods where the industries have flown away and left us of jobs and opportunities. Why? Because we have not paid attention to the realities of our lives. And now we are overrun with violence, because violence is the result of social disorganization. Violence is the result of a nation not being able to feed and clothe it’s people legitimately.”
— Dr. Amos N. Wilson 

27 notes
“Capital collects the workers in great masses in big cities, uniting them, teaching them to act in unison. At every step the workers come face to face with their main enemy—the capitalist class. In combat with this enemy the worker becomes a socialist, comes to realise the necessity of a complete reconstruction of the whole of society, the complete abolition of all poverty and all oppression. Becoming socialists, the workers fight with self-abnegating courage against everything that stands in their path.”
— V. I. Lenin, The Lessons of the Revolution (via foucault-the-haters)

0 notes

Belly (Hype Williams, 1998)


2 notes

wrongkar-wai said: Belly > Scorsese’s last 10 films

shiet, i would have to agree


5 notes

Belly (Hype Williams, 1998)


7 notes

Belly (Hype Williams, 1998)


4 notes

The opening sequence renders Belly the best thing I’ve seen so far all year 


0 notes
“If it is true that the inner criterion of whether or not Christian theology is Christian lies in the crucified Christ, we come back to Luther’s lapidary statement: Crux probat omnia*. In Christianity the cross is the test of everything which deserves to be called Christian. One may add that the cross alone, and nothing else, is its test, since the cross refutes everything, and excludes the syncretistic elements in Christianity. This is a hard saying. To many it sounds unattractive and unmodern, and to others rigid and orthodox.”

The Crucified God, Jurgen Moltmann

*The cross proves/probes everything


15 notes
“It is precisely on account of the parallax nature of Kierkegaard’s thought that, apropos his “triad” of the Aesthetic, Ethical, and Religious, one should bear in mind how the choice, the “either-or,” is always between the two. The true problem is not the choice between aesthetical and ethical level (pleasure versus duty), but between ethical and its religious suspension: it is easy to do one’s duty against one’s pleasures or egotistic interests; it is much more difficult to obey the unconditional ethico-religious call against one’s very ethical substance. (This is the dilemma faced by Signe de Coufontaine in Claudel’s The Hostage, this is the extreme paradox of Christianity as THE religion of modernity: how – as with Julia in Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited - to remain faithful to one’s unconditional Duty, one should indulge in what may appear aesthetic regression, opportunistic betrayal.) In Either/Or, Kierkegaard gives no clear priority to the Ethical, he merely confronts the two choices, that of the Aesthetic and of the Ethical, in a purely parallax way, emphasizing the “jump” that separates them, the lack of any mediation between them. The Religious is by no means the mediating “synthesis” of the two, but, on the opposite, the radical assertion of the parallax gap (“paradox,” the lack of common measure, the insurmountable abyss between the Finite and the Infinite). That is to say, what makes the Aesthetic or Ethical problematic are not their respective positive characteristic, but their very formal nature: the fact that, in both cases, the subject wants to live a consistent mode of existence and thus disavows the radical antagonism of human situation. This is why Julia’s choice at the end of Brideshead Revisited is properly religious, although it is, in its immediate appearance, a choice of the Aesthetic (passing love affairs) against the Ethical (marriage): what matters is that she confronted and assumed fully the paradox of human existence. What this means is that her act involves a “leap of faith”: there is no guarantee that her retreat to passing love affairs is not just that – a retreat from the Ethical to the Aesthetic (in the same way there is no guarantee that Abraham’s decision to kill Isaac is not his private madness). We are never safely within the Religious, doubt forever remains, the same act can be seen as religious or as aesthetic, in a parallax split which cannot ever be abolished, since the “minimal difference” which transubstantiates (what appears to be) an aesthetic act religious cannot ever be specified, located in a determinate property.”
— Zizek, Only a Suffering God Can Save Us- Section 2: Kierkegaard 

7 notes

reblooged:

The Radical Theology Lectionary: Easter Sunday

Text: John 20:1-18 Interpretation: “The reality is that we don’t know exactly what historically happened on that first Easter Sunday morning, and if we do take a historical position we just create an argument.