And so, you know, we went into these sacrifice zones to show what happens when families, individuals and communities, as well as the environment, are forced to kneel before the dictates of the marketplace. And what you get is personal, economic and environmental devastation.

And now these forces, these corporate forces that have made these sacrifice zones prostrate themselves before corporate profit, corporate greed, are turning on the rest of us, as we rapidly reconfigure this country into a neofeudalistic society, an oligarchic state. And it is, I think, emblematic that the reptilian heart of the Democratic Party is sort of represented by the mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, who has, like—as far as I can tell, all major Democratic figures turn their backs on the union activity and the struggle on the part of the Chicago teachers, including, of course, Barack Obama.

3 Notes

This tribe called “Women of Color” is not an ethnicity. It is one of the inventions of solidarity, an alliance, a political necessity that is not the given name of every female with dark skin and a colonized tongue, but rather a choice about how to resist and with whom.

- Aurora Levins Morales, My Name is This Story from Telling to Live Latina Feminist Testimonios.  

(via mujerinterrumpida)

for future reference when someone inevitably gets offended at these terms for one reason or another. (via velocikrafter-of-the-water-tribe)

(Source: ynannarising, via tomjoadsghost)

2368 Notes

(Source: thinksquad, via tomjoadsghost)

90 Notes

3 Notes

forecastingrain:

(via @CaulkTheWagon) New occupation in Boston: “Camp Alex” 

forecastingrain:

(via @CaulkTheWagon) New occupation in Boston: “Camp Alex” 

(via tomjoadsghost)

5 Notes

jsmooth995:

sitwherethelightcorruptsyourface:

jsmooth995:

After seeing a few people link to this site on my Tumblr feed today, I’m making a personal pledge to help everyone at untilabortionends.com keep improving their diet so that they can live longer and healthier lives.

The members of that site seem quite earnest, and I hope in principle to be respectful of everyone no matter strongly I disagree, so I’m trying not to be TOO snarky here. But the underlying logic of this protest is baffling. They seem to be hoping that women who’ve decided to seek an abortion will visit this site and say “wow, if you feel strongly enough about this that you’re making the irrevocable life-changing decision of giving up Dr. Pepper, maybe I should reconsider having a child that I can’t support!”

Tee hee, yet another reason to support abortion rights! 

Though framing abortion as “women’s reproductive rights” is somewhat cissexist because it completely subsumes the concerns of trans* people who can get pregnant (as well as trans* women whose reproductive rights are denied, but differently) and follows some pretty shitty precedent for excluding trans* folks from access to healthcare. But only rhetorically so okay.

Point well taken, and apologies!

(via tomjoadsghost)

1059 Notes

If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.
— Emma Goldman (via tomjoadsghost)

2 Notes

wtfwhiteprivilege:

Reader submission.
At Occupy Oakland!

wtfwhiteprivilege:

Reader submission.

At Occupy Oakland!

(via tomjoadsghost)

101 Notes

tomjoadsghost:

cultureofresistance:

voicesofearth:

kateoplis:

Occupy protesters disavow Oakland violence

This is more divisive than a busted window. These apologists are so concerned with good press that they’d throw their comrades under the bus because of a difference in tactics. They have no right to say it wasn’t committed by the “99%.” Those who acted are just as much afflicted by the plight of socio-economic collapse and predation as anyone acting non-violently. They can claim that it wasn’t representative of OWS, but not that they aren’t the 99%. Even then, though, if OWS has no leaders and is an open, flowing body, then someone should not be able to suggest that they can speak for the masses in a rejection of the actions of a contingent of their own group. I’m a pacifist, but I believe as an anarchist that everyone ought to be able to dismantle the current system however they see fit (short of murder and warfare of course). Vandalism, sabotage, defensive force, etc, should not be condemned by pacifists, and nonviolence should not be condemned by force-actionists. We are all comrades and need each others’ help. Rejection, isolation, division, splitting, marginalization, etc, have all been the downfall of revolutionary movements before, take it from a historian of social movements. Be the author of your own actions, but don’t shit on the autonomy of your brothers and sisters.

I’m not a pacifist, but thank you for acknowledging that we need a diversity of tactics. Property destruction that is not decisive, dismantling infrastructure of power, is symbolic and serves as a method of expressing the civil unrest against the capitalist class. I don’t think breaking windows is the best use of property damage as a tactic, but it is certainly condescending for pacifists to condemn others for expressing their anger against the system that legalizes and protects the elites’ ability to systematically destroy the planet and steal from the poor. We need to be clear who our enemies are, and they are real enemies, and refrain from engaging is horizontal hostility that only ultimately functions as a self-policing barrier from real resistance taking place. 
Saying “This is NOT the 99%” is saying that the 1% smashed the window, which is nonsense. 

True words above

tomjoadsghost:

cultureofresistance:

voicesofearth:

kateoplis:

Occupy protesters disavow Oakland violence

This is more divisive than a busted window. These apologists are so concerned with good press that they’d throw their comrades under the bus because of a difference in tactics. They have no right to say it wasn’t committed by the “99%.” Those who acted are just as much afflicted by the plight of socio-economic collapse and predation as anyone acting non-violently. They can claim that it wasn’t representative of OWS, but not that they aren’t the 99%. Even then, though, if OWS has no leaders and is an open, flowing body, then someone should not be able to suggest that they can speak for the masses in a rejection of the actions of a contingent of their own group. I’m a pacifist, but I believe as an anarchist that everyone ought to be able to dismantle the current system however they see fit (short of murder and warfare of course). Vandalism, sabotage, defensive force, etc, should not be condemned by pacifists, and nonviolence should not be condemned by force-actionists. We are all comrades and need each others’ help. Rejection, isolation, division, splitting, marginalization, etc, have all been the downfall of revolutionary movements before, take it from a historian of social movements. Be the author of your own actions, but don’t shit on the autonomy of your brothers and sisters.

I’m not a pacifist, but thank you for acknowledging that we need a diversity of tactics. Property destruction that is not decisive, dismantling infrastructure of power, is symbolic and serves as a method of expressing the civil unrest against the capitalist class. I don’t think breaking windows is the best use of property damage as a tactic, but it is certainly condescending for pacifists to condemn others for expressing their anger against the system that legalizes and protects the elites’ ability to systematically destroy the planet and steal from the poor. We need to be clear who our enemies are, and they are real enemies, and refrain from engaging is horizontal hostility that only ultimately functions as a self-policing barrier from real resistance taking place. 

Saying “This is NOT the 99%” is saying that the 1% smashed the window, which is nonsense. 

True words above

278 Notes

Let me tell you a wonderful old joke from communist times.

A guy was sent from East Germany to work in Siberia. He knew his mail would be read by censors. So he told his friends: Let’s establish a code. If the letter you get from me is written in blue ink ,it is true what I said. If it is written in red ink, it is false. After a month his friends get a first letter. Everything is in blue. It says, this letter: everything is wonderful here. Stores are full of good food. Movie theaters show good films from the West. Apartments are large and luxurious. The only thing you cannot buy is red ink.

This is how we live. We have all the freedoms we want. But what we are missing is red ink. The language to articulate our non-freedom. The way we are taught to speak about freedom war and terrorism and so on falsifies freedom. And this is what you are doing here: You are giving all of us red ink.

— Slavoj Zizec, Speaking to Occupy Wall Street, Oct. 9th 2011 (via tomjoadsghost)

1 Notes

tomjoadsghost:

Street Sweeper Social Club. Boots Riley & Tom Morello.
Like.

tomjoadsghost:

Street Sweeper Social Club. Boots Riley & Tom Morello.

Like.

1 Notes

2 Notes

Foxy linguist.

Foxy linguist.

50 Notes

stfuconservatives:

flapjackstate:

[image: protest sign that says “warning: do not confuse the complexity of this movement with chaos”].
kinsey-val-kyrie:

livelaughawesome:

Found here.

BOOM.
ROASTED.

True democracy has as many aims as it does participants.

I was at dinner this weekend with some new acquaintances, and one of them said, “The Occupy protesters just don’t have a clear message! What are they angry about?” I was like “EXCUSE ME. They have SO much to be angry about — Bush tax cuts, unemployment, abortion restriction, corporate greed, underemployment, student loans — that’s it’s hard to boil it all down to one pithy message. That doesn’t mean they don’t have any right to be angry.”
-Jess

stfuconservatives:

flapjackstate:

[image: protest sign that says “warning: do not confuse the complexity of this movement with chaos”].

kinsey-val-kyrie:

livelaughawesome:

Found here.

BOOM.

ROASTED.

True democracy has as many aims as it does participants.

I was at dinner this weekend with some new acquaintances, and one of them said, “The Occupy protesters just don’t have a clear message! What are they angry about?” I was like “EXCUSE ME. They have SO much to be angry about — Bush tax cuts, unemployment, abortion restriction, corporate greed, underemployment, student loans — that’s it’s hard to boil it all down to one pithy message. That doesn’t mean they don’t have any right to be angry.”

-Jess

(via tomjoadsghost)

1890 Notes