British Dinosaurs (not The Rolling Stones)

A history professor once pointed out that in order to have a successful revolution one needs violence. "You need violence" he said a few times. Though he's actually quite a jolly man and loves his job. Though he did swear although it was used to emphasize certain points, not just using fuck every other word.

I've often thought about those words and what he may have really meant by it. I doubt he meant to break someone's jaw and yell "No more government meddling!" while at it. Because the following week, you'd break another person's jaw and yell that the government should be doing more. At least, that's the logic I follow in these scenarios: everything has a consequence which comes in varying degrees and intensity.

Similar to that idea of time travel into the past: crushing an insect, even if accidentally, will cause the British to use dinosaurs to maintain their empire well into the 21st century. A rather adverse effect. Not because of the British maintaining their empire but because of the wanton devastation caused by the use of dinosaurs who should have been extinct ages ago (assuming this warped timeline is the status quo and not just the imagination of a slightly deranged and deluded blogger). In a way, I'm upset that history textbooks don't include the words "the British and their velociraptors". But ultimately, I'm thankful for it. Moreso because the amount of violence is decreased radically and thus creates a safer place- safer than having dinosaurs, adorned with the Union Jack, stomping the fuck out of George Washington. Excuse me while I shudder and get back on topic.

"You need violence in order to have a successful revolution" alone implies that one is already smart enough to know what they're getting into.

You can't be some sheep that hurls half a dozen molotov cocktails just because someone tells you to do so. It doesn't make you a revolutionary if you're fighting for the wrong cause- the wrong cause being one that you know absolutely nothing about. The wrong cause is the one you choose to fight for not because you genuinely believe in it but because you think you think [sic] you believe in it. This makes you a complete tool and a waste of space. Why think for yourself when someone else will do it for you? Why decide when it can be dictated?

On that note, violence serves as that plan B people tend to jump to rather than implement plan A, or see it all the way through.

I just think you need to be able to control your anger and release at the right time, in appropriate amounts. Or to be more precise: you need to know what the fuck you're doing. Be a full grown cobra, not a baby cobra.

I say that because violence is often misconstrued as acts of hatred and destruction. This becomes the case especially in situations in which one is susceptible to falling into a state of mob mentality. Unable to think for themselves. Someone slightly more conscious throws the first punch, and then there are 15 others who are imitating the impact of the first punch with varying implementations and varying degrees of success. In some cases, something as civil (albeit irritating- based on one's perspective) as a sit-in could do the trick.

When you've exhausted diplomacy, roll up your sleeves and give them what for.

Herd of Mob Mentality?

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."

Crowds test the individual. Oftentimes, the individual fails and joins in. Though that failure can be manipulated into a type of twisted victory in which one can justify the failure by saying that the event the crowd was a part of was fun. Examples include concerts. That's the only positive example I can think of. Other examples I think of are immediately negative with no redeeming or justifiable explanations like Black Friday. I still can't shake the 2008 trampled to death at Wal-Mart during Black Friday thing. It still makes me sick that people would blatantly disregard the life of a fellow human being for lower prices.

So, why are we compelled to seek people out (for the most part)? Why are we told from early on that we must belong? That we must make friends and connections and "get out there" and get out of our respective shells?

Well, not everyone understands that humans need moments of silence and self-reflection. Damned extroverts. The need for moments of self-reflection, however, is not synonymous with isolation and extreme bouts of introversion in which one finds themselves on an empty city street alone. Rather what we really should encourage current and future generations is to find that sweet common ground. That balance between being Hamlet and Feste (or Touchstone if you want to be extra foolish).

Why be part of the crowd? Why detach at all costs? To belong? To belong to nothing?

Other times, the individual wins and rather than run into the wall of death, they go outside for a smoke or to read a book. Not to smoke a book. That would be very strange and difficult to explain to anyone else. They stand out but still belong in some strange but effective way.

O to walk that tightrope way up high
stretching for miles
making you wonder
Why?

The Clam [sic] before a Storm or: "Straight A's"

You don't have to study
To get straight A's
You'll get straight A's

If only that was true. Unfortunately, you have to study extensively.

How to drown the Ocean.

You basically have to set the sun on fire first.

Your hands stop bleeding.

Abandoning the double-edged sword is a double-edged sword in itself. Your hands stop bleeding but you get horrible whiplash (or withdrawal) symptoms. Of course, this implies instant abandonment, not a healthy distancing. Regardless, you won't return to Oz or Kansas. You'll most likely take a right turn at a crossroads and wind up in the middle of nowhere. Then you'll return somewhere. Slowly but surely, triumphantly. Wide grin. Quiet smirk. The winds of fortune blowing at your back. Lifting you up, messing up your hair.