The End of Empire

socialism-or-barbarism: justpetergabriel: Peter Gabriel - Big...

Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:21:53 -0400

justpetergabriel:

Peter Gabriel - Big Time

The place where I come from is a small town,
they think so small, they use small words
But not me, I’m smarter than that
I worked it out
I’ll be stretching my mouth to let those big words come right out

I’ve had enough, I’m getting out
To the city, the big big city
I’ll be a big noise, with all the big boys
So much stuff I will own

And I will pray to a big god, as I kneel in the big church

Just liked socialism-or-barbarism +10 more
Uphold the revolutionary virtues of Comrade Gabriel. Down with the traitor Collins

thepeoplesrecord: U.S. Military ‘Power Grab’ Goes Into Effect:...

Sun, 16 Jun 2013 05:28:33 -0400

thepeoplesrecord:

U.S. Military ‘Power Grab’ Goes Into Effect: Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances’
May 14, 2013

The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.

The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled“Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

Click here to read the new rule

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.

Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”

A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.” Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn’t “want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It’s one of those red lines that the military hasn’t signed up for.” Nevertheless, he says, “every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.” According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”

As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”

“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” says Afran. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”

Afran also expresses apprehension over the government’s authority “to engage temporarily in activities necessary to quell large-scale disturbances.”

“Governments never like to give up power when they get it,” says Afran. “They still think after twelve years they can get intelligence out of people in Guantanamo. Temporary is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why in statutes we have definitions. All of these statutes have one thing in common and that is that they have no definitions. How long is temporary? There’s none here. The definitions are absurdly broad.”

The U.S. military is prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs except where provided under Article IV of the Constitution in cases of domestic violence that threaten the government of a state or the application of federal law. This provision was further clarified both by the Insurrection Act of 1807 and a post-Reconstruction law known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (PCA). The Insurrection Act specifies the circumstances under which the president may convene the armed forces to suppress an insurrection against any state or the federal government. Furthermore, where an individual state is concerned, consent of the governor must be obtained prior to the deployment of troops. The PCA—passed in response to federal troops that enforced local laws and oversaw elections during Reconstruction—made unauthorized employment of federal troops a punishable offense, thereby giving teeth to the Insurrection Act.

Together, these laws limit executive authority over domestic military action. Yet Monday’s official regulatory changes issued unilaterally by the Department of Defense is a game-changer.

Source

Submitted by: http://dashielsheen.tumblr.com/

radicalarchive: ‘The National Question in Ethiopia: Proletarian...

Sat, 08 Jun 2013 05:24:35 -0400

radicalarchive:

‘The National Question in Ethiopia: Proletarian International or Bourgeois Nationalism?’, in ‘Combat’, journal of the Ethiopian Students Union in North America, Madison, Wisconsin, 1976.

CLASS STRUGGLE ANARCHISM: kropotkitten: prosveshcheniye: cant wait to work and feel like a...

Mon, 03 Jun 2013 03:12:00 -0400

CLASS STRUGGLE ANARCHISM: kropotkitten: prosveshcheniye: cant wait to work and feel like a...:

class-struggle-anarchism:

anarcho-communism:

kropotkitten:

prosveshcheniye:

cant wait to work and feel like a worker instead of a loser who reads about marxism

lol, as a prole, please don’t glorify it

it sucks

i’m not anti-work persay, but how work is organized and performed in the world is incredibly destructive to the…

It feels good to be a worker, even when the alarm rings on Monday morning. Not all work is oppressive and exploitative, I suppose it just depends on the work.

Hmmm, all wage labour is oppressive and exploitative, it all involves the production of stolen surplus value and the alienation from the means of production. Even if we are lucky enough to have a job we enjoy, we’re still being exploited while we enjoy it. Anything you enjoy can be made to be oppressive if you are compelled to do it every day or starve.

It seems to me that there are a kit of good things that come from work - friendship, engagement, activity - many social benefits that we are normally denied… It’s sad, but it seems like nearly all social life and experience has been sucked up into the workplace.

Sometimes its hard to square the food feelings of work life or social life more generally with the politics of life. Workplace politics is strategically swept under the rug by management, and everywhere, if you look, it seems to poke its head back out into view… Like when I punched in this morning and worried about whether my boss will notice that I was 15 minutes late, or whether I’d be caught for stepping out for 10 minutes to buy breakfast, or whether I’ll be caught blogging about anti-capitalist work politics on my phone….

Meanwhile, my workmates tremble secretly in there own rooms, wondering whether they’ll get a contract renewal this year, as we’re going through job reviews these days.

This is why I was surprised, though perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised, when I mentioned forming a union on day over lunch, half-joking, at first… Then, heads turned to me, and nodded knowingly, and heard quiet but firm replies of “yeah, we should…”

progressivefriends: you are not crazy the culture that is being imposed on us is crazy Thank you

Wed, 22 May 2013 16:45:50 -0400

progressivefriends:

you are not crazy

the culture that is being imposed on us is crazy

Thank you

“Fuck your father, fuck his narratives, fuck his...

Tue, 02 Apr 2013 04:15:38 -0400

“Fuck your father, fuck his narratives, fuck his authority, and fuck his essential structures.”

-Hennessy Youngman

soupsoup: kenyatta: kansassire: The Century of the Self,...

Wed, 06 Mar 2013 05:45:23 -0500

soupsoup:

kenyatta:

kansassire:

The Century of the Self, 2002, Adam Curtis (Tv Mini-Series)

Edward Bernays on the industry he created.

btw, I highly recommend finding the time to watch Adam Curtis’ The Century of the Self.

Well worth checking out.

thepeoplesrecord: Going beyond the Western gender binary -...

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 14:29:22 -0500

thepeoplesrecord:

Going beyond the Western gender binary - unlearning our backward cultural conditioning

In Western colonial society (which dominates many aspects of the globalized, capitalist world today) we operate under the presumption that there are only two genders, male and female. But gender is a social construction. One’s options for what gender they identify with are shaped by the culture they are born into. Biological factors are most-often the primary driving forces that choose among the available socially-constructed gender categories.

Cultures around the world have different ways of talking about, thinking about, and identifying gender. It’s often a challenge for (particularly cis-sexual) Westerns to think about other ways gender can be socially constructed. Westerns have the false equivalency of gender and sex drilled into their eternal psyche from the time they are very young, and re-enforced through examples in popular culture. There is no biological reality to gender. Many Westerners have the bizarre belief that one’s XY-sex-determination should also inform one’s gender identity, a socially constructed role in society.

In some cultures, there is no distinction made between gender and sexual orientation and the same can be said for sexual orientation - our culture socially-constructs the options and our biology helps us identify which socially-constructed option feels most ‘right’ and best resonates with us.

I’ve attached some photos to offer some examples of non-colonial, non-Western construction of gender. They’ve all been uploaded onto our Facebook page photostream in case you’d like to ‘like’ or ‘share’ them there. There are literally hundreds of ‘third-gender’ identifying peoples around the world. The eight I’ve chosen are mostly examples I remember from some of my anthropology courses but if you google ‘third genders’ you can find many lists and examples.

Who cares? Why it matters.

The most obvious reason to care about the way our culture has constructed gender and sexual orientation is to deepen one’s capacity for solidarity with people who identify as transgender, transsexual, and others whose gender or sexual identity exists outside of binary Western culture.

But there are other reasons as well. Western culture’s binary nature often creates non-sensical, problematic binary identity constructions that are inherently problematic. For example, I believe that Western masculinity (dominance, aggression, lack of communication, lack of emotional expression, etc) is inherently problematic. I believe that to be the reason why most acts of large-scale-violence and terror are committed by men (see: 100% of the mass school shootings in the United States), and I believe it fosters a degree of internal misery within people who heavily adopt these particular ‘masculine’ traits.

In the age of information, and the age of global connectivity, there is no longer any reason (particularly for young people) to feel isolated or restricted to Western definitions of gender, sexual orientation and identity in general. I think the social ramifications of a generation where more and more people begin to identify outside of the gender binary would be tremendous, and I think we should all consider how we can unlearn our cultural conditioning to embrace other, perhaps less exploitative and dominating identities.

Background information on the identities depicted in the above images:

Hijras
Hijras are male-body-born, feminine-gender-identifying people who live in South Asia (mostly in India & Nepal). Many Hijras live in well-defined, organized, all-Hijra communities, led by a guru.

Although many Hijras identify as Muslim, many practice a form of syncretism that draws on multiple religions; seeing themselves to be neither men nor women, Hijras practice rituals for both men and women.

Hijras belong to a special caste. They are usually devotees of the mother goddess Bahuchara Mata, Lord Shiva, or both.

Nandi female husbands
Among the Nandi in Western Kenya, one social identity option for women is to become a female husband, and thus a man in society’s eyes. Female husbands are expected to become men and take on all of the social and cultural responsibilities of a man, including finding a wife to marry and passing on property to the next generation through marriage. Female husbands may have lived their lives as women and may even be married to a man, but once she becomes a female-husband, she is expected to be a man. Women married to female-husbands may have sex with single men uninterested in commitment in order to become pregnant, but the female-husband (who is often an older woman, often a widow) will father the child of said pregnancy and treat the child like her own.

Two-spirited people
Two-Spirit is an umbrella term sometimes used for what was once commonly known as ‘berdaches’, Indigenous North Americans who fulfill one of many mixed gender roles found traditionally among many Native Americans and Canadian First Nations communities. The term usually indicates a person whose body simultaneously manifests both a masculine and a feminine spirit. Male and female two-spirits have been “documented in over 130 tribes, in every region of North America.”

Travesti
In South America (with a large presence in Brazil), a travesti is a person who was assigned male at birth who has a feminine gender identity and is primarily sexually attracted to masculine men. Therefore, sometimes the distinction between gender identity and sexual orientation is not made. Travestis have been described as a third gender, but not all see themselves this way. Travestis often will begin taking female hormones and injecting silicone to enlargen their backsides as boys and continue the process into womanhood.

The work of cultural Anthropologist Don Kulick (a gay male by Western definitions) in Brazil demonstrated that gender construction in Brazil is binary (like Western gender construction), but unlike Western gender construction, instead of having a male-female binary, there is a male-notmale binary.

In this particular construction of gender:

Males include: men who have sex with women, men who have sex with Travestis but are never on the receiving end of anal sex, men who have sex with men but are never on the receiving end of anal sex.

Not-males include: women, men who receive anal sex from ‘male’ gay men or from Travestis.

Fa’afafine
Fa’afafine are the gender liminal, or third-gendered people of Samoa. A recognized and integral part of traditional Samoan culture, fa’afafine, born biologically male, embody both male and female gender traits. Their gendered behavior typically ranges from extravagantly feminine to mundanely masculine

Waria
Waria is a traditional third general role found in modern Indonesia. Additionally, the Bugis culture of Sulawesi (one of the four larger Sunda Islands of Indonesia) has been described as having three sexes (male, female and intersex) as well as five genders with distinct social roles.

Six Genders of old Israel
In the old Kingdom of Israel (1020–931 BCE) there were six officially recognized genders:

Zachar: male

Nekeveh: female

Androgynos: both male and female

Tumtum: gender neutral/without definite gender

Aylonit: female-to-male transgender people

Saris: male-to-female transgender people (often inaccurately translated as “eunuch”)

Kathoey
Australian scholar of sexual politics in Thailand Peter Jackson’s work indicates that the term “kathoey” was used in pre-modern times to refer to intersexual people, and that the usage changed in the middle of the twentieth century to cover cross-dressing males, to create what is now a gender identity unique to Thailand. Thailand also has three identities related to female-bodied people: Tom, Dee, and heterosexual woman.

-Robert

EDIT: So let me clearly say that in no way am I intentionally encouraging white people (or anyone else) to appropriate these identities. Rather, I hope that this post and conversations like this will lead to an understanding of cultural diversity and other gender constructions/identities and an understanding that there is no biological reality to gender, and that gender manifests itself in many beautiful ways across many cultures.

I AM encouraging people in colonial society to have a less-binary, more nuanced approach to gender that doesn’t lead to so much domination and exploitation.

I also understand that in order to talk about these things, words like ‘male-bodied’ or male are inherently western concepts. Each of these societies and cultures have other ways of talking about these identities. Although I wasn’t born in the U.S. I have spent most of my life and the entirety of my adult life in the United States. I speak no languages other than English. There are concepts that I can’t understand, that my language limits me from even talking about, and in order to communicate these ideas, I am restricted by the only language I have available to talk about these concepts with. My perspective is etic. I do not belong to the above cultures, so when I talk about these things and use the English language to describe them, I am limited in my options for describing a concept as abstract as gender. The very categories of gender and sexuality belong to the cultural lens through which I view the world and I could not possibly provide a comprehensive emic analysis of the way the things we call ‘gender and sexuality’ actually are understood (if at all) within these cultures. In that way, mine is a very limited perspective. But it is geared toward other people living in Western society and it is aimed at changing this culture, not to appropriate these others but to not be so terrible toward gender and sexual variant people in this culture and to begin to question the implications of how we define gender and sexuality both personally, and as a whole culture.

Also, there’s some problematic stuff in the way I framed this and some of these only have one source.

-Robert

Noam Chomsky on French Intellectual Culture & Post-Modernism...

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:54:13 -0500

Noam Chomsky on French Intellectual Culture & Post-Modernism (3/8) (by ChomskyInNederland)

Why Be Happy When You Could Be Interesting? (by bigthink)

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 04:13:47 -0500

Why Be Happy When You Could Be Interesting? (by bigthink)

progressivefriends: I knew this was going to happen. wow. this...

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 06:47:43 -0500

progressivefriends:

I knew this was going to happen.

wow. this is too intense.

#drone #imperialism #empire

you forgot “obey a strict hierarchy of alpha and sub-alpha...

Wed, 30 Jan 2013 06:06:59 -0500

you forgot “obey a strict hierarchy of alpha and sub-alpha wolves”
fucking fascist wolves. I only reblog this to expose it as right-wing propaganda

mutualistvanguard: michaelangerlo: sugashane: staticdiplom...

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 03:45:52 -0500

mutualistvanguard:

michaelangerlo:

sugashane:

staticdiplomat:

sdwisener:

staticdiplomat:

alaawesome:

dialektic:

veilofmaya13:

dialektic:

Capitalism didn’t create that. Sorry.

The government sure as hell didn’t create it.

Although, some foundation attribution could be given to the government. But I never claimed the government did create it. I simply stated that capitalism did not create it. What created it was the investment of savings by the people who thought it would be a good idea to have thumb drives. These individuals were not capitalists. They were inventors and marketeers. I’m sure capitalists bought it from them, but they certainly did not invent it.

You literally gave the definition of capitalism to claim that it wasn’t capitalism. Inventors and marketeers are the drivers of capitalism as an economic system; they are the capitalists. Capitalists are more than just bankers; your understanding of the issue ranges from nominal to fictional.

“They were marketeers not capitalists”
Oh dear.

I can see the Disney version now.
“The Three Marketeers!”

Don’t ask me why. I don’t know why.

Some people think they are so smart that they usually end up out-smarting themselves.

I actually hate how all these idiots try to redefine capitalism simply because they hate the current system and falsely believe it to be capitalism.

mutualists. lol

knowledge =/= “whoever agrees with me”

briefly; saying “these idiots dont understand capitalism” is literally saying “these people do not agree with my definition of capitalism”: which is generally used by american libertarians— starting in the early 20th century”. compare this to a universal: not only was the term capitalism first used to describe a system of exploitation and privilege wayyy before libertarians started to use the term, almost everyone in the world except libertarians would disagree with the libertarian understanding of “capitalism”. try reading what is seen and what is not seen by bastiat. try reading the wealth of nations by adam smith.try to find the term “capitalism” in either one of these works. you won’t find it. they didn’t use that word. 2 works that are extremely important to libertarianism’s understanding of “capitalism” that never used the term. you can’t “redefine capitalism” if capitalism is our reality. either distinguish between theory and reality, or stop using that definition for both.

oh and yeah, “capitalism created it”. that flash drive is a product of capitalist society. what the fuck else could have made it. BUT if your definition of capitalism = the free market, i am actually wondering how you would agree that it was created by capitalism. we dont have a free market, and all kinds of government privileges are involved with making this (specifics are unknown, but there is definitely 1. division of labor—explitation 2. capital accumulation 3. externalized costs via US tax code 4. some sort of government regulation of the market) to say “markets made this” is wrong because you’re holding this ceteris parabis— which completely ignores the point of explaining why/how it exists. if you think “capitalism made this, because capitalism *is* the free market” you’ve made the same mistake— this was mentioned earlier i believe. not only are you holding it constant, you’re necessarily defining it in the most simple terms: innocuous & ambiguous human action. reality is more complex than that. if you ignore the material conditions of capitalist society, and that economic environment— you have not even begun to answer the question of whether or not capitalism created it. you’re dealing with a hypothetical reality, where you have explained the existence of objects that dont actually exist. we’re not dealing with something simple like “the market for flash drives”, we’re dealing with radical monopoly. state capitalism, corporate capitalism, late capitalism, or as libertarians like to say “crony capitalism” (even though im not sure that that actually means because i only see it used in situations where you want to admit that capitalism is fucked up just in certain situations, not as a whole). everyone in the this thread is wrong. hail satan, see u in full communism u fckn liberty dorks

See you in full communism! Heeyaah!

"Dress suitably in short skirts and strong boots, leave your jewels in the bank, and buy a revolver."

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:14:42 -0500

“Dress suitably in short skirts and strong boots, leave your jewels in the bank, and buy a revolver.”

- Countess Markievicz (1868 - 1927), a politician, revolutionary nationalist, suffragette, and socialist. (via unladyliketales)

wow. Incredible woman

swintons: Q: What are your thoughts about 9/11?Leila Khaled: l...

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 05:00:08 -0500

swintons:

Q: What are your thoughts about 9/11?
Leila Khaled: l don’t agree with the murder of civilians, wherever it is in the world.
Q: Could you be described as a terrorist?
Leila: Our enemies say so. Our enemies call any form of popular resistance terrorism
Q: What you did was an act of terrorism.
Leila: Who decides and define what terrorism is? As far as I’m concerned, occupation is terrorism. My people and I have a right to fight it. I don’t care what others call it. People have a right. People have a right to fight those who occupy their country by all means possible including weapons. That’s what it says in the UN declaration.
Q: But Leila, if you look up ”terrorist” in a dictionary…
Leila: You, the whole of Sweden and Europe and the USA can travel to Haifa. But l can’t, l’m not allowed to. Not just me. 5 million Palestinians can’t see Palestine. lsrael doesn’t care about international law. Why should we accept that? What have we done to deserve this? We have suffered a lot. Why is what l did wrong? lsn’t it our right to resist? When we hijacked the planes the whole world wondered who we were. Regardless of what they thought about it, they wondered. But when we were tortured in lsraeli prisons, who heard our screams? We had to do what we did in order to get your attention. Our people suffered injustice. No sound person accepts that! No one.

— Leila Khaled: Hijacker (2006), documentary directed by Swedish-Palestinian filmmaker Lina Makboul → watch here

Can you #ff [follow friday] on Tumblr? My #1 choice this week is femaleguerrillas tumblr “anti fascist women”

1. Agreed 2. I can’t believe news time is dedicated to...

Fri, 25 Jan 2013 03:41:00 -0500

1. Agreed

2. I can’t believe news time is dedicated to irrelevant crap like this. To use some economics terms, the opportunity cost of this broadcast time is way too high to have let this pass. Good thing CNN doesn’t care.

**Correction**

On second thought, I have to say, at least Anderson Cooper is also treating this as non-scandal, and relative non-issue: “scandal of scandals”

I wonder how much Fox and other networks have picked up on this. I’m not on US soil right now, I can’t gage the status of the corporate media whirlwind. If she’s being hung up to dry, especially by Fox, the comment is more warranted.

Bottom line - this is why I don’t get my news from corporate news tv

Yesterday and Today: A look at the 1950 film "United Together for Tomorrow"

Wed, 16 Jan 2013 04:29:34 -0500

I have a confession to make: I got a little bit teary-eyed while watching this 1950 Chinese propaganda film. It’s a fairly famous movie in Chinese film history. I’ve translated the title as “United Together for Tomorrow” [团结起来到明天]. Please let me know if there’s an established English name for it, as I haven’t seen one.

The whole film is available online here.

The film is set only a year before it was made, in 1949. The People’s Liberation Army is on their way to liberate Shanghai. There, workers in a yarn factory go on strike in response to their bosses attempts to take their identity card and rig their union election in favor of the ruling Nationalist Party. The Nationalists respond to the strike with a brutal crackdown, while the workers stand together and fight. At one point, some workers decide to stand down an advancing Nationalist tank, and one of them is crushed to death as a result.

Call me a sap, but every time I see that scene, my eyes get a little wet and my throat constricts - it’s a real tearjerker. Her comrades hold her as she dies. The crackdown becomes a rallying point for the workers, and they organize a massive demonstration against the ruling Nationalists and the imperialist exploitation [by the Americans, backing up the Nationalist government].

Perhaps what is truly sad is the terrible irony of this story as it may be seen today, now that the CCP has been in power for so many tumultuous decades. In this film from the 1950s, the workers looked to the CCP as their vehicle of liberation, that would soon make them masters of their own labor and their own society. Looking at the events of recent decades, I am not pointing out any secret when I say it won’t be the last time workers’ identification documents have been taken from them, as has happened to so many migrant workers, or that shop floor organizations have been corrupted to serve the ruling party, as has happened all too often with the ACFTU, or even the last time a dissident has stood down stands down a government tank…

I hope you can forgive the terse commentary on the film, but at the same time, I felt that I could not let these things go unsaid.

Here are a few pictures from the film:

Movie poster

Great picture of some of the main characters

Workers defiant, as they are asked to give up their identification cards

Great photo of strike leader “Big Sister Zhang”, lookin’ hard!

Government crackdown on a rally after the violence against the strikers

From a 1950 movie “Unite for Tomorrow” about a 1949...

Mon, 14 Jan 2013 03:39:26 -0500

From a 1950 movie “Unite for Tomorrow” about a 1949 Shanghai strike of textile workers just before the arrival of the People’s Liberation Army.

Propaganda piece, but seriously made me teary-eyed at one point :)

killermikegto: From 2dopeboyz In episode two of Killer Mike and...

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 03:55:22 -0500

killermikegto:

From 2dopeboyz

In episode two of Killer Mike and Trackstar’s Educated Villains podcast, Mike speaks on his successful 2012, shares highlights from the Coachella Cruise, including freestyling on DJ Z-Trip’s set as the Mayan calendar didn’t kill us all and El-P being called racist for refusing to buy Bahamian trinkets. On the music side of things, they premiere Killer Mike’s freeverse over Trinidad James “All Gold Everything,” and play other tunes from the likes of Royce Da 5’9″, Raekwon, ScHoolboy Q, Action Bronson and more.

So, I was just listening to Smiley & West. This is a whole ‘nother level of radical podcast. Lemme try this out…

"Students don’t get interest free loans the way investment bankers do."

Sat, 12 Jan 2013 03:48:26 -0500

“Students don’t get interest free loans the way investment bankers do.”

- Cornell West, on the crippling student debt situation

Heard on the Smiley & West podcast