movement politics

If #congress succeeds in passing the #TrumpBudget cuts then the rest of us are going to have to grab the forks and knives to eat the rich and any member of congress that voted for the budget cuts.

How Taylor Swift Played The Victim For A Decade And Made Her Entire Career

Ok, so Buzzfeed released this article about Taylor Swift on January 31st and here are some key points that really stood up for me. 

  1. On Taylor´s feminism: “But, as the Washington Post pointed out: “There’s a difference between being a feminist and calling yourself a feminist. Feminism is more than just supporting your girlfriends or churning out charming catchphrases about girl power; it’s a political movement, with political aims.”
  2. About Taylor´s squad: And, in actuality, her squad flouts inclusive feminist principles by being an exclusive club, and skews overwhelmingly white, slim, and heterosexual – and this is because Swift views feminism in relation to her own personal experience alone.
  3. Again on Taylor´s feminism: Far from expressing feminist values through actual, tangible means – such as, for example, speaking publicly about Kesha’s alleged sexual assault, offering an opinion on Trump’s campaign and election, or acknowledging the Women’s March through means other than a contrived tweet – Swift invokes feminism to ensure her posture as victim.
  4. On her feud with Katy Perry and the Bad Blood song: Put differently, she prevented the eruption of an undesirable rumour by creating a new one, which reveals Swift’s true genius: her ability to manipulate the lyrics and subjects of her songs in whichever way best suits her PR desires.
  5. On her feud with Nicki Minaj and the lack of recognition for black women in the music industry: Swift has become such an expert at building narratives that she doesn’t just see herself as the victim in stories explicitly about her, but the subject of every story. (…) She prioritised herself at the centre of a struggle faced by women of colour, while ignoring the fact that the system inherently benefits her.
  6. On the feud with Kim and Kanye about that line in Famous: The feud exposed the truth that white fragility is the most imperative component of Swift’s success. Performing white female melodrama has enabled Swift to establish her posture as victim and navigate any conflict with ease, devoid of culpability. But her conflict with West cannot be dismissed as an insignificant celebrity feud, leaving a trail of snake emojis in its wake – there are sinister undertones. It proved that Swift recognised the power her white womanhood affords her – presumed innocence and empathy – and used this to her advantage in repeated acts that she surely knew would damage West’s reputation and strengthen her own. Swift propagating this narrative of fragile white womanhood to villainise a black man is “ruthless” at best, and at worst, dangerous.


I think this article really explains why I don’t really like Taylor Swift and how her playing the role of the victim is really getting old and overused. No one believes she´s the victim and this has been shown ever since the ¨break up¨ with Harry Styles and overusing that one month relationship for over two years. And it became evident to the public how fake she really is with the Kanye and Kim feud and directly after that the whole deal with her ¨relationship¨ with Tom Hiddleston. So I finish this with the final paragraph of the article which summarizes my feelings in general about her. 


She’s all about narratives, and the reinvention of her image is the start of a new one. The question is, however, after being exposed playing the victim in plain sight for over a decade, will anyone believe it?

Let's talk about the "Drop the T" movement.

So, the last couple years y'all may have noticed a movement taking hold on both conservative and radical exclusionist gay circles called “Drop the T.” This movement, started possits that the LGBTQ movement is only the Gay movement and everything else is “appropriation” of Gay History.

This is, of course, total horse shit for a large number of reasons, so I’m going to go in point by point deconstructing this shit:

1) These people say, “It was gay people, not BTQ, that were targeted.” This is false even on it’s face. Even if you want to say trans people weren’t there because Stonewall happened in a time when the term trans wasn’t in popular usage (more on that in point 4), there were sure as shit crossdressers there, and they were ALWAYS the first ones targeted and carted off. The night of Stonewall, Storm DeLaverie, who wasn’t trans, was “Crossdressing” and the first arrested, so we’re Marsha Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, who were trans. And guess what? Those three were the first to fight back. We owe this movement to them, and how dare you revise and erase our history for your ideology.

2) They point to Sodomy laws as proof it was gay people specifically targeted, while forgetting the existence of Crossdressing Laws, which were on the books LONGER THAN SODOMY LAWS. In New York, y'know where Stonewall happened, there were Anti Crossdressing Laws on the books until 2011 while they eliminated sodomy laws in the 1970’s! There was a federal ban on sodomy laws in 2003, Lawrence v Texas, but still none for Anti-Crossdressing laws.

3) “People were arrested because they were homosexual, not bi or trans.“ No, they just didn’t care if were apart of the L, G, B, or T, we were Queers that had to be Taken Care Of. Why do you think we banded together in the first place?

4) The Nazis’ first target for book burnings was Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, which was the first medical institute to perform Sex Reassignment Surgery in the 1930s and the works of Magnus Hirchfeld, who coined the term “Transsexual.” The reason “trans people didn’t exist” in the time of Stonewall is because it took us almost half a century for us to recover. You’ll notice quite a few of Stonewall Veterans who were “crossdressers” back in the day, ID’d as trans later in life when the language became available again. The Nazis were the first to try this, and they wiped us off the face of the Earth for decades.

5) Divide and Conquer. We are strong together, and weak apart. It is an attempt to weaken our movement now that it isn’t specifically focused on helping topass legislation benefit only cis gay people. We fought for your rights, and now you got yours so screw us? Fuck that. It’s ENDA, when Barney Frank and the HRC pushed to exclude trans people so they could have it for themselves, all over again.

6) It’s apart of a larger transphobic movement in which conservatives and radical exclusionists teamed up. Remember when the Reagan administration banned funding for trans healthcare? Yeah, they used writings of Janice Reymond as supporting evidence. These groups wrote to the fucking UN to have trans rights removed from International Human Rights laws. They team up for bathroom legislation, including sending cis men into women’s bathrooms to scare cis women into supporting bathroom legilsation. ENDA. What did we do that’s equivalent to that? Why do you despise us so much?

You have no basis for your movement, not histrocial, not political, not anything other than pure hatred. Go fuck yourselves. We’ll eliminate exclusionist before trans people.

2

Judge in the deported “Dreamer” case is the same one Trump attacked for his Mexican heritage 

  • Trump will once again have to face U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the Mexican-American judge whose impartiality Trump famously questioned during the campaign because of his Mexican-heritage.
  • The Trump administration will now have to go before Curiel in the case of Juan Manuel Montes, the first undocumented “Dreamer” protected by the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program to be deported during the Trump administration. 
  • The 23-year-old Montes was arrested and deported in February while visiting his girlfriend in Calexico, California. 
  • U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents claimed that his DACA had expired, but Montes’ lawyers have reportedly produced evidence showing that his protected status does not expire until 2018.
  • Curiel has been asked to rule on whether the CPB must release information on Montes’ arrest and deportation to his team of attorneys. Read more (4/20/17)

follow @the-movemnt

youtube

Trevor Hill is the gay socialist revolutionary we need right now.

2

Trump said he would only deport “bad hombres” — but noncriminal deportations have doubled

  • During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump distanced himself from accusations of rank xenophobia by insisting the only immigrants he wanted to send home were the criminals: the “murderers,” “rapists” and “bad hombres.” Few will be surprised to learn that’s not the case.
  • Under Trump so far, the number of immigrants arrested without a criminal record has more than doubled, according to numbers obtained by the Washington Post
  • From January to mid-March, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 5,441 “noncriminal” immigrants; arrests of immigrants with criminal backgrounds only rose 15% during that same time. Read more (4/17/18)

follow @the-movemnt

Watch on berniesrevolution.tumblr.com

Last night, MSNBC held a town hall in Chicago and it was just as great as you think.

I don’t think I’ve seen a better example of the need for a Class & Race approach to politics in a long time.

Trump administration cites a segregation-era Supreme Court ruling to defend Muslim ban

  • Trump’s Justice Department is arguing that segregationist history is on its side when it comes to its so-called “Muslim ban.”
  • In an effort to defend its travel ban on refugees and citizens of six Muslim-majority countries, Trump’s justice department wrote a brief that cited a 1971 Supreme Court ruling that courts shouldn’t investigate the motivations of officials who closed public pools in Jackson, Mississippi rather than integrate them, reports the Huffington Post.
  • The HuffPo article makes clear that the 1971 ruling in the case, known officially as Palmer v. Thompson, didn’t explicitly uphold segregation, “but it did call for courts to avoid investigating the constitutionality of officials’ motivations.”
  • The Trump administration brief argues that investigating “governmental purpose outside the operative terms of governmental action and official pronouncements” is “fraught with practical ‘pitfalls’ and 'hazards’ that would make courts’ task 'extremely difficult.’”
  • But, according to Stanford University’s Law and Policy Lab director Paul Brest, it was crucial then to uncover officials’ motivations — just as it is now. Read more (5/10/17)

follow @the-movemnt

Guerrilla Girls, [no title], from Guerrilla Girls Talk Back, 1985–’90

ask-changeling-eight  asked:

Your movement of anti fascism will fail. Do you know why? Because fascism doesn't exist. We killed it after world war 2. Honestly if you did even a little research into fascist Italy Japan or Germany you'd see you're just like them. Black uniforms, masks with skulls, attacking people to instill total fear into the hearts of people who don't agree with you. Fighting fascism with fascism doesn't make you the good guys, it makes you a slightly different version of fascist.

Sigh.  The sad thing is that we get messages just like this from clear, well-informed experts on fascism like ask-changeling-eight all the time.  

Because fascism doesn’t exist. We killed it after world war 2

Oh, that’ll be a huge surprise to Francoist Spain or the Estado Novo regime in Portugal or the people suffering under the fascists of Daesh/ISIS/ISIL or the 200+ fascist cults, political parties, and terrorist groups that have existed since WW2.  You should tell them.

you’d see you’re just like them. Black uniforms, masks with skulls,

Of course, because fascism (which we’ll remind you no longer exists according to yourself) is defined by the clothes people wear.  That’s in the dictionary-definition of fascism, right?

fas·cismˈfaSHˌizəm/nounan authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.synonyms:authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy; More (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

fascism [fash-iz-uh m] noun1.(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.2.(sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.3.(initial capital letter) a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

fascism noun  fas·cism \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\

1often capitalized :  a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2:  a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge

attacking people to instill total fear into the hearts of people who don’t agree with you.

Right.  Because advocating for apartheid and genocide = just another, perfectly normal opinion that we may not agree with and should just have a polite debate about over tea.  

Or maybe fascism (which, of course, you’ve informed us doesn’t exist), isn’t even a valid opinion but instead is a historically & scientifically-discredited belief that is common to the beginning of every genocide in human history.  

Fighting fascism with fascism doesn’t make you the good guys, it makes you a slightly different version of fascist.

Now where have we heard this liberal false equivalency bullshit before?  


hooligan-nova “Fighting fascists makes you a fascist” makes no sense. The defining feature of fascism is not violence.

If I fight a mugger I’m not a mugger. If I fight a bear it doesn’t make me a bear.
Fascism is about control and antifascism is about refusal of that control. 


Let’s leave the last word for Holocaust survivor Frank Frison, shall we?

“If fascism could be defeated in debate, I assure you that it would never have happened, neither in Germany, nor in Italy, nor anywhere else. Those who recognised its threat at the time and tried to stop it were, I assume, also called “a mob”. Regrettably too many “fair-minded” people didn’t either try, or want to stop it, and, as I witnessed myself during the war, accommodated themselves when it took over … People who witnessed fascism at its height are dying out, but the ideology is still here, and its apologists are working hard at a comeback. Past experience should teach us that fascism must be stopped before it takes hold again of too many minds, and becomes useful once again to some powerful interests.”   

ask-changeling-eight, if you’d like to actually learn about what fascism is and how it developed so you don’t look like such an ill-informed jackass the next time you decide to opine on the topic, we’d recommend having an adult read & explain this book to you.