"Each time someone makes a statement about antagonism to the cops as “alienating,” and therefore bad for a movement, we should always respond: alienating to whom? Because such a statement always implies a fundamental political position. Sure, that antagonism is alienating to liberals, conservatives, some of the working class, most of the middle class, all of the ruling class. But not to those whose lives have been always marked by the hostility of the police. Because the mention of “peace” and making peace with the police is not neutral. It is equally alienating to the poor, the not-white, the non-citizen, the jailed, the haters of capital and society. Such is a basic uncrossable divide. One has to pick a side. And to side with those who think that social upheaval has anything to do with changing public policy or getting votes, with those who have a material stake in defending this order, would be the worst mistake we could ever make."

— Evan Calder Williams

caitidid:

thetaylorcarr:

thank you Louis, for one of my favoritest jokes ever. ever. 

Fuck it. I love Louis.

caitidid:

thetaylorcarr:

thank you Louis, for one of my favoritest jokes ever. ever. 

Fuck it. I love Louis.

jnamakkal:

“If posters told the truth” via the Guardian

jnamakkal:

“If posters told the truth” via the Guardian


American radicals today want nothing to do with the 1960s. In the many meetings I’ve attended at Occupy Wall Street and the many left-wing articles I’ve read about it, the ’60s haven’t been invoked once—not as a source of ideas, tactics, or organizational forms. Like most other Americans, radicals want to leave the ’60s behind. It’s important to remember, however, that the ’60s have been subjected to four decades of reactionary revisionism. An amazingly fecund era has been reduced to a string of harmless clichés: free love, bell bottoms, rock ’n’ roll, etc. There is no better time than now to penetrate the platitudes that surround the ’60s in order to excavate what can be useful to our present struggle.
Abbie Hoffman’s Steal This Book is just such a useful artifact. After forty years, its advice remains exceedingly relevant, especially to embattled occupiers: “If a pig grabs you by the wrist, you can break the grip by twisting against his thumb,” “Ski goggles or the face visor on a crash helmet will protect against Mace but will offer no protection against the chemical warfare gasses being increasingly used by pigs to disperse crowds. For this protection you’ll need a gas mask.” But even more instructive than Hoffman’s advice is his sensibility. Steal This Book is the opposite of dull, mirthless leftism. It’s downright exuberant. While Hoffman is dead serious about destroying “corporate feudalism,” he’s also dead serious about having fun doing it. Crucially, this fun is not merely a way to lighten the dull business of building a social movement (although it is that). It also embodies a specific form of life that the “Pig Empire” seeks ruthlessly to repress, one where desire is the driving force of politics. Steal This Book is useful for learning how to puncture police tires and make stink bombs, but even more for learning how to heed our political desires.

- Michael Andrews @ Triple Canopy

American radicals today want nothing to do with the 1960s. In the many meetings I’ve attended at Occupy Wall Street and the many left-wing articles I’ve read about it, the ’60s haven’t been invoked once—not as a source of ideas, tactics, or organizational forms. Like most other Americans, radicals want to leave the ’60s behind. It’s important to remember, however, that the ’60s have been subjected to four decades of reactionary revisionism. An amazingly fecund era has been reduced to a string of harmless clichés: free love, bell bottoms, rock ’n’ roll, etc. There is no better time than now to penetrate the platitudes that surround the ’60s in order to excavate what can be useful to our present struggle.

Abbie Hoffman’s Steal This Book is just such a useful artifact. After forty years, its advice remains exceedingly relevant, especially to embattled occupiers: “If a pig grabs you by the wrist, you can break the grip by twisting against his thumb,” “Ski goggles or the face visor on a crash helmet will protect against Mace but will offer no protection against the chemical warfare gasses being increasingly used by pigs to disperse crowds. For this protection you’ll need a gas mask.” But even more instructive than Hoffman’s advice is his sensibility. Steal This Book is the opposite of dull, mirthless leftism. It’s downright exuberant. While Hoffman is dead serious about destroying “corporate feudalism,” he’s also dead serious about having fun doing it. Crucially, this fun is not merely a way to lighten the dull business of building a social movement (although it is that). It also embodies a specific form of life that the “Pig Empire” seeks ruthlessly to repress, one where desire is the driving force of politics. Steal This Book is useful for learning how to puncture police tires and make stink bombs, but even more for learning how to heed our political desires.

- Michael Andrews @ Triple Canopy

jamesadomian:

I’m gonna Santorum!
shanksinatra:

peak-society:

this pretty much sums up his whole campaign

lulzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

jamesadomian:

I’m gonna Santorum!

shanksinatra:

peak-society:

this pretty much sums up his whole campaign

lulzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

(Source: eltigrechico, via steviemcfly)

Tags: santoruming

vicemag:

MIA is back with a new video for “Bad Girls” and we’ve got the world premiere. Watch it now.

(via jnamakkal)

"

In The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx writes, ‘Time is everything, man is nothing; he is, at the most, time’s carcass.’ This appears, initially, as just a conveniently catastrophic metaphor. However, we might read it in three ways.

1
In the loosest interpretation, that takes it primarily as a ramped up modifier of the preceding sentence concerning how ‘one man during an hour is worth just as much as another man during an hour,’ man is ‘time’s carcass’ insofar as man’s specificity is killed, leaving man a carcass animated by value and made to labor, simply a unit of potential activity subordinated to labor time.

2
If we recall the particularity of form and content in Marx, however, we approach a different perspective, a trajectory sketched in a single sentence. The active development, via laboring of man as labor power (the content)150 produces the material conditions for labor time (the form). However, the perversity of capital is that this form does not remain adequate to its content. It becomes divorced from it and increasingly autonomous. But this is not the story of a form that simply takes leave from its originary content and ‘becomes everything,’ simply dominant. Rather, it comes to determine the content in a constant passage back and forth, to force it to accord with the development of that form: any opposition between form and content becomes increasingly incoherent. As such, man is time’s carcass in that living labor power is valued only in accordance with its form: it is that form, fully developed into the general equivalence of value, alone which is of worth. Man, the original source of that form, is a husk dominated by an abstraction with no single inventor. Form fully reenters and occupies the content as if it were dead matter, incapable of generating further adequate forms. And when it is productive to do so, time makes those bones dance.

3
Man – or rather, the human as more than the common man of capital – is that which is born in the death of time. It is the leftover of the collapse of capital, and it is the faint prospect, in the decomposition of the dominant social relation (the representation that mediates between labor power and labor time), of an existence that outlives capital.

"

— Evan Calder Williams, “Fire to the Commons” (in Communization and its Discontents)

"That denial reaches right up to the pinnacle of the local political food chain: Michele Bachmann, who stayed silent on the suicide cluster in her congressional district for months – until Justin’s mom, Tammy Aaberg, forced her to comment. In September, while Bachmann was running for the GOP presidential nomination, Aaberg delivered a petition of 141,000 signatures to Bachmann’s office, asking her to address the Anoka-Hennepin suicides and publicly denounce anti-gay bullying. Bachmann has publicly stated her opposition to anti-bullying legislation, asking in a 2006 state Senate committee hearing, “What will be our definition of bullying? Will it get to the point where we are completely stifling free speech and expression?… Will we be expecting boys to be girls?” Bachmann responded to the petition with a generic letter to constituents telling them that “bullying is wrong,” and “all human lives have undeniable value.” Tammy Aaberg found out about the letter secondhand. “I never got a letter,” says Tammy, seated in the finished basement of the Aabergs’ new home in Champlin; the family couldn’t bear to remain in the old house where Justin hanged himself. “My kid died in her district. And I’m the one that presented the dang petition!” In a closed room a few feet away are Justin’s remaining possessions: his cello, in a closet; his soccer equipment, still packed in his Adidas bag. Tammy’s suffering hasn’t ended. In mid-December, her nine-year-old son was hospitalized for suicidal tendencies; he’d tried to drown himself in the bathtub, wanting to see his big brother again."

Rolling Stone | “One Town’s War on Gay Teens” (via resurrecthobbes)

(via i-thaphithin)

socialistmn:

Our friends in Occupy Minneapolis glitterbombed Mitt Romney… twice.

Check out the ridiculous coverage of it by Fox News, which mocks the act of glitterbombing, implying that the Occupy folks should be arrested and/or have forced used on them from security. 

Most importantly, the coverage completely fails to mention that the core purpose of glitterbombing is to make show of and confront the hateful anti-gay policies of these corporate politicians. As usual, corporate media washes out the important political message of the Occupiers and then portrays them as being disrespectful and thoughtless. We’re pretty sure that the oppression of the LGBT community is far more disrespectful than getting glitter in your hair. 

(via oppositeofasuicidenote)