“People have to get out of the idea, that individuals lead movements, the revolutionary is the individual who’s on the other side of that camera; these are the people who will make the revolution, they have responsibility, to the revolution and to themselves and if individuals articulate position, it perhaps because they have public forums, not because they know more than anybody else, not because they are more oppressed than anybody else, so BLACK people have to begin to understand, the role they have to play in that revolution is determined by them”
— H.Rap Brown/Imam Jamil
A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.
— Mao Zedong
“I’m telling you, you don’t know what a REVOLUTION is, cause when you find out what it is, you’ll get back in the ally, you’ll get out of the way”
— Malcolm X
This is my first departure from gender theory (which has been mostly centered around lesbian identity and gendered embodiment) into political philosophy. The foundation of the piece is a critique of identity politics, a de-centering of the revolutionary subject. Whereas much of radical left politics rests on the articulation of marginalized communities as such against their oppressors, I deny the viability of a categorical revolutionary subject (whether it is women for the abolition of patriarchy, the proletariat for the abolition of class, etc.) insofar as a community (read: identity) cannot represent what it claims to signify and the bolstering of constructed identity as a sense of agency for resistance further legimitizes the dominating structures which construct that identity.
Heavily influenced by the work of Walter Benjamin, Jacques Derrida, and Giorgio Agamben, as well as the Jewish theology and ethics that precedes them, I pose a concept of Community as a singularity beyond signification. In order to undo the partition of the world, a politics seeking the end of class, domination, and hierarchy cannot make recourse into the very partitions as vehicles of liberation. Instead, an immanent ethics of the affirmation of life, the drive towards happiness and well-living, itself guides our actions against the matrix of domination. Rather than solidarity on the basis of common interests, such a political ethic conceives of solidarity as not a means but an end. We fight because our lives compel us to, and as such, our interests may not necessarily be common but we seek the same end of the destruction of dominating structures. Based on the writings of Benjamin, the manifestation of Community is the messianic experience of revolution. If we answer the call to unify existence, we must construct such a future in the present, hastening the arrival of Community. In the sense that it is very theological, I’d like to consider this my “Theologico-Political Fragment” like Benjamin’s text.
It would be hard to overstate what Bernie Sanders has already achieved in his campaign for president, or the obstacles he’s had to surmount in order to achieve it. Not only has he turned a planned Hillary Clinton coronation into an exercise in grass-roots democracy, he’s reset the terms of the debate. We are edging closer to the national conversation we so desperately need to have. If we get there, all credit goes to Bernie.
Many of those obstacles were put in place by Democratic national party chair and Clinton apparatchik Deborah Wasserman Schultz. Without pretense of due process, Schultz slashed the number of 2016 debates to six, down from 26 in 2008, and scheduled as many as she could on weekends when she figured no one would be watching. To deprive would-be challengers of free exposure, Schultz robbed voters of free and open debate and ceded the spotlight to the dark vaudeville of the Republicans. That Sanders got this far in spite of her is a miracle in itself.
It sucks because Mehaffey is one of those characters who you can infer so much about and carries herself in a way that makes her someone you can instantly latch onto as this Minerva McGonagall kind of figure…
…but we’ll probably never see or hear about her again in future Halo fiction.
If they go back to exploring the Insurrection pre-Human-Covenant war and don’t use her and Audrey Lasky then I will riot.
I have not slept. Between the acting of a dreadful thing And the first motion, all the interim is Like a phantasm, or a hideous dream: The Genius and the mortal instruments Are then in council; and the state of man, Like to a little kingdom, suffers then The nature of an insurrection. Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare
On the 20th of January 2017, power will change hands in the United States. The current leader will abdicate his position and a new one will be installed. That’s right, abdicate. He isn’t even trying to prevent this. To maintain power, he has massed no armies; exiled no dissidents; and burnt no books. He’s just going to pack up and walk away.
There are several people vying to fill the gap he’ll leave. Miraculously, despite this, there are no gangs fighting in the the street to secure the power of their favourite candidate. The candidates have not been assassinating each other. In fact, the candidates haven’t even kidnapped each other’s children for ransom. It’s as if they aren’t even trying to win.
Ordinary people are openly voicing support for one leader or another. The people who brought the current leader to power are arguing over who should be his successor, but not trying to keep him on forever, or even planning an armed insurrection to support his successor. They aren’t murdering each other over who should be the successor, or even murdering their actual opponents. They’re downright peaceful.
And all of this means that, if you’re an American, then as far as the vast majority of human history is concerned, you live in a utopian fantasy world. I hope that, every now and then, you stop to appreciate where and when you are.
Revolutionaries from all over the world gave an official statement last week calling for solidarity with the resistance in Bakûr. The masked militants held a ceremony in Qamişlo, Cizîre canton, Rojava across the border from the besieged city of Nusaybin amidst a demonstration in support of the struggle in Northern Kurdistan.
The statements were given in Kurdish, German, Spanish and English and called for people worldwide to join the armed forces of the revolutionary movement in Kurdistan and fight for a free Middle East.
Far from being obsolete, feminist political philosophy and analysis can be fruitfully brought to bear on the new conditions that ICT [information-communication technology] has created for women. For example, we need much more research on the specific impact of ICT on different populations of women whose lives are being profoundly altered by the new technologies, often in ways that lead to extreme physical and mental health problems. This is as true for highly educated professional women in academia, the sciences, medical, and computer industries, as it is for clerical and factory workers in the just-in-time telecommunications and home-work industry, as well as rural and urban women working in chips factories and assembly sweat-shops.
Since most women are already doing a “double shift” (production and reproduction) the demands and pressures of the high-speed, just-in-time economy affect them differently than it does most men. The high levels of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, depression, and stress disorders even among professional women (the most documented group) attest to the high human costs of our economic and cultural systems of productivity. In order to strategize action we must examine the impact of the new technologies on women’s sexuality and subjectivities; the conditions of production and reproduction––always already linked for women; gender roles, social relations, and public and private space; and we need to contest the naturalized value placed on speed and efficiency when they take no heed of the limits and needs of the organic body.
Pan-capitalism has blurred the distinctions between developed/underdeveloped, first world/third world as these conditions coexist in almost all geographical locations. In the aftermath of colonialism, there are more migrants, refugees and exiles than ever before and many of these migrants are women. These people have tremendous impact on the urban environment, the home, the careers, the language, culture, diet, and, ultimately, the subjectivity of people from the traditional imperial centers. As women from developing countries increasingly become the home-service and child-care labor employed by wealthier families—as well as the world’s electronic parts manufacturers, assemblers, and data maintenance workers—the lives of white women and women of color are mutually reliant. This interdependence stresses the relevance of postcolonial studies for critical cyberfeminisms. Far from being subjects irrelevant to electronic media and cyberfeminism, migrants often result from devastations caused by the interventions of empire. We must begin de-colonization in our own networks and embodied relations.
Developments in biogenetic technologies that will profoundly affect environmental and human futures must be a major focus of cyberfeminist concern, particularly since much cutting edge medical technology is being developed and tested by the military, with the proviso that there be lucrative civilian applications. Some of these military technologies are already having far reaching effects on women, as for example in ultrasound pregnancy monitoring, telesurgery, robotic medical monitoring and care, and invasive imaging techniques. Organic bodies and bodily processes—particularly those of women and fetuses—are being invaded at the molecular level and re-engineered to meet the cyborgian and eugenic needs of the global market place. Cyberfeminist scientists and technicians—as well as artists ––working with these technologies are well positioned to expose and subvert the ideologies and practices of the new flesh, reproductive, and genetic technologies, and assess their particular political, economic, social and eugenic impact on different groups of women globally. In the ’70s the Feminist Women’s Health Movement challenged the medical establishment in the U.S. by establishing its own clinics, new abortion procedures, alternative healing practices, and feminist sexual counseling. These tactics subverted patriarchal medical authority and eventually forced women’s health care providers in the U.S. to change some of their standard gynecological and obstetric practices. Similarly, cyberfeminists could spearhead activism and education about Assisted Reproductive Technologies and new eugenics to expose how profoundly traditional conceptions of women’s bodies and gender roles are implicated in the deployment of these technologies.
A contestational cyberfeminism must also address the circumstances of young women now entering the technocratic class. As Wilding and CAE have written in a previous essay: “We do not support a reductive equality feminism, i.e. support the existing system, but believe there should be equal gender representation in all its territories. We do not support pan-capitalism. It is a predatory, pernicious, and sexist system that will not change even if there was equal representation of gender in the policy-making classes. Our argument is that women need access to empowering knowledge and tools that are now dominated by a despicable “virtual class” (Kroker). We do not mean to suggest that women become part of this class. To break the “glass ceiling” and become an active part of the exploiting class that benefits from gender hierarchy is not a feminist goal, nor anything to be proud of.”10 In this context, bell hooks’ definition of feminism proposed almost two decades ago, remains relevant to cyberfeminists: In her words, feminism “is not simply a struggle to end male chauvinism or a movement to ensure that women will have equal rights with men; it is a commitment to eradicating the ideology of domination that permeates Western culture on various levels—sex, race, and class to name a few—and a commitment to reorganizing U.S. society so that the self-development of people can take precedence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material desires.
Maria Fernandez and Faith Wilding, “Situating Cyberfeminisms”
CONCLUSION: The multicultural paradigm presupposes a false totality within which are subsumed a set of false particularities. These differences are represented and packaged as “lifestyle choices” and “ethnicities”, commodities to appease the genuine passion for genuine difference with mere “traces” and images of “dignity” and even of “rebellion”. Against this, cross-cultural synergism proposes actual autonomy, whether for individuals or cohesions of individuals, based on radical consciousness and organic identity. In this sense, cross-culturalism can only oppose itself to “multiculturalism”, either through a strategy of subversion, or through open assault. Either way, “multiculturalism” must be destroyed.
I’m not into big lists, because it’s painful to try to live up to a perfect expectation. If you’re thinking about a guy, focus on character, but understand that no one can ever be perfect. Love accepts a whole person, not an ideal of a person. I’d recommend looking for a man who is kind. Find someone that truly loves Jesus and would keep loving him even when you’re not around. Does he demonstrate the love of God to his family and friends? Does he get along with your family? Do you agree on important topics (eg how finances should be handled, theology, family values, etc.)? Is he truly a friend to you first or is he just wanting things from you? These things take time and effort to find out.
I’ve found even more that what I was ever hoping to find in Jordan (@redemptive-insurrection). God has blessed me to be a part of his life.
Edward Snowden’s revelation that the US government had been spying on its own citizens came as shock to many people.
But maybe it shouldn’t have been such a surprise because during the Civil War, the Union did pretty much the same thing.
The Civil War was a battle on our own turf against our own people. Neighbors in the same community couldn’t be sure they were on the same side. An entire section of the country had already turned against the federal government and seceded and the Union army had to be sure there weren’t any further insurrections.
So they started spying on their own people, going through people’s private mail, and getting concerned citizens to report any suspicious behavior.
The Civil War was our government’s first foray into mass surveillance–but it wouldn’t be its last.