..Time is on our side*

illusionarysage:

Lonesome for no one when 
The room was empty and 
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial

All we do is talk, sit, switch screens
As the homeland plans enemies

All we do is talk, static split screens
As the homeland plans enemies

Invasion’s so succexxy

Let’s drink to the military
The glass is empty
Faces to fill and cars to feed
Nothing could beat complete denial

All we do is talk, sit, switch screens
As the homeland plans enemies

All we do is talk, static split screens
As the homeland plans enemies

Invasion’s so succexxy

Passive attraction, programmed reaction
Passive attraction, programmed reaction
Action distraction, more information
Flesh saturation, lips on a napkin
Ass ass ass

Where does the time go? 
We’re waking up so slowly
Days are horizontal lately
Out of body, watched from above
Out of body, watched from above

Passive attraction, programmed reaction
More information, cash masturbation
Follow the pattern- the hemlines, the headlines
Action distraction,faster than fashion
Faster than fashion, faster than fashion

Lonesome for no one when 
The room was empty and 
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat denial

illusionarysage:

Lonesome for no one when 
The room was empty and 
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial

All we do is talk, sit, switch screens
As the homeland plans enemies

All we do is talk, static split screens
As the homeland plans enemies

Invasion’s so succexxy

Let’s drink to the military
The glass is empty
Faces to fill and cars to feed
Nothing could beat complete denial

All we do is talk, sit, switch screens
As the homeland plans enemies

All we do is talk, static split screens
As the homeland plans enemies

Invasion’s so succexxy

Passive attraction, programmed reaction
Passive attraction, programmed reaction
Action distraction, more information
Flesh saturation, lips on a napkin
Ass ass ass

Where does the time go? 
We’re waking up so slowly
Days are horizontal lately
Out of body, watched from above
Out of body, watched from above

Passive attraction, programmed reaction
More information, cash masturbation
Follow the pattern- the hemlines, the headlines
Action distraction,faster than fashion
Faster than fashion, faster than fashion

Lonesome for no one when 
The room was empty and 
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat denial

kaptain-khaos:

Professor Jason Read

kaptain-khaos:

Professor Jason Read

illusionarysage:

amen, sir banksy, amen. 

Well done! Banksy is an interesting one. Worth circulating thru the interwebs-thanks illusionarysage*

illusionarysage:

amen, sir banksy, amen. 

Well done! Banksy is an interesting one. Worth circulating thru the interwebs-thanks illusionarysage*

illusionarysage:

my interest has been sparked.(via coupdegrace)

Plantagon International

illusionarysage:

my interest has been sparked.

(via coupdegrace)

Plantagon International

thepeoplesrecord:

mainstreamrevolution:

Occupy Wall St - The Revolution Is Love

“Love is the felt experience of connection to another being. An economist says ‘more for you is less for me.’ But the lover knows that more of you is more for me too. If you love somebody their happiness is your happiness. Their pain is your pain. Your sense of self expands to include other beings. This shift of consciousness is universal in everybody, 99% and 1%.” ~ Charles Eisenstein


Great video! He really talks about how this movement is larger than politics & money. It’s about creating a better world in which everyone can participate & be fulfilled.

thepeoplesrecord:

Theory and Practice in the “Occupy Movement”  by Shamus Cooke

For a movement that started with one strategy and  a couple of slogans, Occupy has preformed brilliantly. Having based  itself on the examples of Egypt and Wisconsin, the Occupy Movement has  raised the political consciousness of millions and created a large layer  of new activists. But the uninterrupted string of successes of Egypt  and Tunisia haven’t materialized for Occupy. We’re in a lull period.  Next steps are being considered and some tactics are being re-thought.
This is where revolutionary theory comes into play: a  set of ideas that help guide action. Sometimes theory is learned  unconsciously, where it resembles a set of non-ideological “assumptions”  about movement building and politics. Occupy’s theory began mostly with  assumptions, many of them true.
One assumption was that previous political theories  have failed — that past social movements contained deep ideological  flaws. There is more than some truth in these conclusions, but other  truths were thrown out as well.
The youth who built Occupy were born as the Berlin  Wall was falling; “communism” had failed. Mass disillusion followed the  loss of a socialist movement that had inspired dozens of revolutions in  Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe when half the globe declared  itself for “socialism.” Many socialist-leaning countries inflicted heavy  damage on capitalism while a few had crushed it outright.
The United States spent the 20th century fighting  these movements: the Korean and Vietnam wars, the failed invasion of  Cuba, the dirty wars in Central America, countless CIA coups in South  America, Africa, Asia and elsewhere (the history of the CIA is a history  of fighting “socialism” by any means necessary). A U.S. domestic war  was waged by the FBI and police against socialists and other left  activists during McCarthy’s Red Scare of the 1950s. Nuclear war against  the USSR and China was a button push away during the Cuban Missile  Crisis. All of this madness was in the name of fighting socialism and  revolution.
The U.S. wars against these socialist movements was  not irrational. A very real fear existed that capitalism was in danger —  that corporations would instead be run in the public interest. In some  countries capitalism was destroyed. But what replaced it seemed no  better, and in some cases worse. Why? The popular (corporate)  explanation is that any break from capitalism equals “authoritarianism.”  Another popular argument is that without rich people running the  economy it would cease to run; there is no alternative to capitalism, we  were told.
This analysis is biased, shallow, and stupid. The truth makes far more sense anyway.
To this day no wealthy country has had a successful  socialist revolution. Many have come close, especially several European  countries before and after WWI and WWII. The 1968 general strike in  France pinned capitalism to the floor, but its life was spared;  corporations were allowed to continue to run social life, the super-rich  remained so.
Real socialism cannot exist in a poor country. If  Haiti implemented a “socialist” economy tomorrow it would still suffer  under post-earthquake rubble, mass homelessness and life-sucking  poverty. A “healthy democracy” cannot exist in these conditions. A  socialist economy cannot transform mud into gold.
But capitalism took centuries to transform poor  countries into rich ones, and even today a tiny minority of rich  countries dominate a hundred plus poor capitalist nations. Poor  capitalist countries — like their poor socialist counterparts — suffer  from a chronic democracy deficit, forever destined to remain poor.
If Haiti were to leave capitalism, however, it would  be allowed to escape the profit motive of development; items could be  built with social need in mind, not simply profit. China and Russia were  able to develop into powerful countries by escaping capitalism.  Eventually, however, their undemocratic leaders decided to give  capitalism a second chance; these leaders wanted to exchange their  bureaucratic privileges —access to better food and nicer cars, etc. —  for the billions of dollars that come with ownership rights (it’s no  coincidence that China and Russia are #2 and #3 on the “nations with the  most billionaires” list).
Occupy is right not to embrace the fake socialism of  the past, undemocratic as it was. But past socialist experiments  contained progressive elements that shouldn’t be forgotten.
For example, revolutionaries learned that they could  not let a tiny group of super-rich shareholders own and run giant  corporations that employed thousands of workers and made socially useful  goods. Instead, these companies could be made into public utilities,  run by the workers, engineers, and office staff that already do all the  work for the benefit of society in general.
Revolutionaries also learned that organization and  collective action was instrumental in overcoming the organized  opposition of the rich. Capitalism can only be overthrown by a real  revolution that draws into action the majority of working people, using  the tactics of mass demonstrations, mass strikes, mass civil  disobedience, and other mass actions that help to give shape,  organization, and unity to working people. Once a powerful and united  movement emerges, it must ultimately challenge the corporate elite  nationally, which means wresting the levers of state power from their  hands and using new organizational methods to make the  post-revolutionary country more democratic.
How have these lessons been ignored by Occupy?
In reaction to the non-democratic USSR, Occupy  eschews “centralization” in favor of “decentralization.” Instead of  decentralization simply meaning “democracy,” in practice it often means  “disorganization” and extreme individualism. Any powerful social  movement must inevitably be organized; and although Occupy seems to  realize this with its useful experiments in direct democracy, the  movement as a whole remains incredibly disorganized and uncoordinated.
This is important insofar as disorganization prevents  collective action. The Pre-Occupy Movement — what little there was —  consisted of “issue-based activism,” i.e., different groups working  disconnectedly towards various goals. Occupy has the power to change  this, to create real power for working people. Initially, Occupy had  united all the various left groups while bringing in new blood. But the  old habits of issue-based, fragmented activism were hard to break.
Many Occupiers are content with “autonomous” actions,  i.e., small groups acting independently of a larger body towards  various ends. Small actions have their time and place, but a powerful  movement is one that inspires. Working people are given hope when they  sense that a movement is able to achieve victories for working people,  i.e., when it is powerful. And working people are only truly powerful  when they are united and acting collectively in massive numbers (the  corporate elite uses divide and conquer tactics for a reason).
One reason that Occupy is fearful of centralization  (organization) is because being organized inevitably creates leaders.  And since much of Occupy is “anti-authoritarian” (again in response to  the failed USSR), “leaders” are not welcome. But leaders exist within  Occupy regardless of intentions; saying that Occupy is a “leaderless  movement” does not make it so.
The inevitable leaders of Occupy are those who  dedicate their time to the movement, organize events, are spokespeople,  those who help set agendas for meetings or actions, those who set up and  run web pages, etc. In reality there already exists a spectrum of  leadership that is essential to keeping the movement functioning.
Occupy needs both leaders and organization while  still operating entirely democratically. It already has leaders who  refuse to accept the title as such, much like Noam Chomsky does, the  famous anti-authoritarian and leader of the anarchist left, who thinks  that by saying he is “not a leader,” he ceases to be one. In reality his  massive authority continues to exist outside of his humble intentions.
Occupy seems, at times, so fearful of power or  creating leaders that many Occupiers would focus on neutering the  movement, so as to prevent Occupy from ever having real power, and  therefore preventing the movement from ever making real change. The left  has long suffered from the self-induced fear that, if we have actual  power, we’ll become like our oppressors, since “absolute power corrupts  absolutely” (a hangover from yet another shallow analysis of past  socialist experiments).
In Occupy, this expresses itself by a fanatical fear  of the movement being co-opted. Yes, Occupy should be wary of Democratic  Party representatives in sheep’s clothing, but this fear has infected  and has spread throughout Occupy and now includes internal finger  pointing and accusations of “co-opting,” creating more unnecessary  divisiveness.
It is a healthy impulse to strive towards greater  democracy and away from charisma-based leadership, but any idea taken to  its extreme can become nonsense. To denounce real organization and  leadership “on principle” is to vastly oversimplify the real processes  of movement building while erecting unnecessary barriers in Occupy’s  path to real power. To self-mutilate a movement because of  leader-paranoia is similar to euthanize a puppy because of its  potentially dangerous sharp teeth. In fact, true leaders can only emerge  in the context of real democracy; both need the other.
There is no blueprint for movement building, but  general principles can be erected based on the revolutionary experiences  of the past. The key strategies of Occupy should be based on those  ideas that unify and promote collective action against the 1%.
Ultimately Occupy needs to organize for power; we  need a greater power to displace the current power of the 1%. This  doesn’t mean that we must adopt the same forms of power utilized by the  state, but that new ones must be created, while using EVERY opportunity  within the existing structure to organize, educate, and mobilize working  people.
Luckily, an upcoming action has the potential to put  the above ideas into action. The current struggle of the Longview,  Washington ILWU Local 21 is a chance to see real power in action. The  Longview Longshoremen have asked for Occupy’s support to create massive  mobilizations against the union busting corporate-conglomerate EGT.  Hopefully this action has the potential to unite Occupy in practice over  a concrete struggle. If the action— or actions— are effective it will  prove that Occupy needs to organize and mobilize in large numbers over  issues that connect with working people — proving that theory is best  learned in action.
Shamus Cooke is a social worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org)

Great insights on the Occupy movement!

thepeoplesrecord:

Theory and Practice in the “Occupy Movement” by Shamus Cooke

For a movement that started with one strategy and a couple of slogans, Occupy has preformed brilliantly. Having based itself on the examples of Egypt and Wisconsin, the Occupy Movement has raised the political consciousness of millions and created a large layer of new activists. But the uninterrupted string of successes of Egypt and Tunisia haven’t materialized for Occupy. We’re in a lull period. Next steps are being considered and some tactics are being re-thought.

This is where revolutionary theory comes into play: a set of ideas that help guide action. Sometimes theory is learned unconsciously, where it resembles a set of non-ideological “assumptions” about movement building and politics. Occupy’s theory began mostly with assumptions, many of them true.

One assumption was that previous political theories have failed — that past social movements contained deep ideological flaws. There is more than some truth in these conclusions, but other truths were thrown out as well.

The youth who built Occupy were born as the Berlin Wall was falling; “communism” had failed. Mass disillusion followed the loss of a socialist movement that had inspired dozens of revolutions in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe when half the globe declared itself for “socialism.” Many socialist-leaning countries inflicted heavy damage on capitalism while a few had crushed it outright.

The United States spent the 20th century fighting these movements: the Korean and Vietnam wars, the failed invasion of Cuba, the dirty wars in Central America, countless CIA coups in South America, Africa, Asia and elsewhere (the history of the CIA is a history of fighting “socialism” by any means necessary). A U.S. domestic war was waged by the FBI and police against socialists and other left activists during McCarthy’s Red Scare of the 1950s. Nuclear war against the USSR and China was a button push away during the Cuban Missile Crisis. All of this madness was in the name of fighting socialism and revolution.

The U.S. wars against these socialist movements was not irrational. A very real fear existed that capitalism was in danger — that corporations would instead be run in the public interest. In some countries capitalism was destroyed. But what replaced it seemed no better, and in some cases worse. Why? The popular (corporate) explanation is that any break from capitalism equals “authoritarianism.” Another popular argument is that without rich people running the economy it would cease to run; there is no alternative to capitalism, we were told.

This analysis is biased, shallow, and stupid. The truth makes far more sense anyway.

To this day no wealthy country has had a successful socialist revolution. Many have come close, especially several European countries before and after WWI and WWII. The 1968 general strike in France pinned capitalism to the floor, but its life was spared; corporations were allowed to continue to run social life, the super-rich remained so.

Real socialism cannot exist in a poor country. If Haiti implemented a “socialist” economy tomorrow it would still suffer under post-earthquake rubble, mass homelessness and life-sucking poverty. A “healthy democracy” cannot exist in these conditions. A socialist economy cannot transform mud into gold.

But capitalism took centuries to transform poor countries into rich ones, and even today a tiny minority of rich countries dominate a hundred plus poor capitalist nations. Poor capitalist countries — like their poor socialist counterparts — suffer from a chronic democracy deficit, forever destined to remain poor.

If Haiti were to leave capitalism, however, it would be allowed to escape the profit motive of development; items could be built with social need in mind, not simply profit. China and Russia were able to develop into powerful countries by escaping capitalism. Eventually, however, their undemocratic leaders decided to give capitalism a second chance; these leaders wanted to exchange their bureaucratic privileges —access to better food and nicer cars, etc. — for the billions of dollars that come with ownership rights (it’s no coincidence that China and Russia are #2 and #3 on the “nations with the most billionaires” list).

Occupy is right not to embrace the fake socialism of the past, undemocratic as it was. But past socialist experiments contained progressive elements that shouldn’t be forgotten.

For example, revolutionaries learned that they could not let a tiny group of super-rich shareholders own and run giant corporations that employed thousands of workers and made socially useful goods. Instead, these companies could be made into public utilities, run by the workers, engineers, and office staff that already do all the work for the benefit of society in general.

Revolutionaries also learned that organization and collective action was instrumental in overcoming the organized opposition of the rich. Capitalism can only be overthrown by a real revolution that draws into action the majority of working people, using the tactics of mass demonstrations, mass strikes, mass civil disobedience, and other mass actions that help to give shape, organization, and unity to working people. Once a powerful and united movement emerges, it must ultimately challenge the corporate elite nationally, which means wresting the levers of state power from their hands and using new organizational methods to make the post-revolutionary country more democratic.

How have these lessons been ignored by Occupy?

In reaction to the non-democratic USSR, Occupy eschews “centralization” in favor of “decentralization.” Instead of decentralization simply meaning “democracy,” in practice it often means “disorganization” and extreme individualism. Any powerful social movement must inevitably be organized; and although Occupy seems to realize this with its useful experiments in direct democracy, the movement as a whole remains incredibly disorganized and uncoordinated.

This is important insofar as disorganization prevents collective action. The Pre-Occupy Movement — what little there was — consisted of “issue-based activism,” i.e., different groups working disconnectedly towards various goals. Occupy has the power to change this, to create real power for working people. Initially, Occupy had united all the various left groups while bringing in new blood. But the old habits of issue-based, fragmented activism were hard to break.

Many Occupiers are content with “autonomous” actions, i.e., small groups acting independently of a larger body towards various ends. Small actions have their time and place, but a powerful movement is one that inspires. Working people are given hope when they sense that a movement is able to achieve victories for working people, i.e., when it is powerful. And working people are only truly powerful when they are united and acting collectively in massive numbers (the corporate elite uses divide and conquer tactics for a reason).

One reason that Occupy is fearful of centralization (organization) is because being organized inevitably creates leaders. And since much of Occupy is “anti-authoritarian” (again in response to the failed USSR), “leaders” are not welcome. But leaders exist within Occupy regardless of intentions; saying that Occupy is a “leaderless movement” does not make it so.

The inevitable leaders of Occupy are those who dedicate their time to the movement, organize events, are spokespeople, those who help set agendas for meetings or actions, those who set up and run web pages, etc. In reality there already exists a spectrum of leadership that is essential to keeping the movement functioning.

Occupy needs both leaders and organization while still operating entirely democratically. It already has leaders who refuse to accept the title as such, much like Noam Chomsky does, the famous anti-authoritarian and leader of the anarchist left, who thinks that by saying he is “not a leader,” he ceases to be one. In reality his massive authority continues to exist outside of his humble intentions.

Occupy seems, at times, so fearful of power or creating leaders that many Occupiers would focus on neutering the movement, so as to prevent Occupy from ever having real power, and therefore preventing the movement from ever making real change. The left has long suffered from the self-induced fear that, if we have actual power, we’ll become like our oppressors, since “absolute power corrupts absolutely” (a hangover from yet another shallow analysis of past socialist experiments).

In Occupy, this expresses itself by a fanatical fear of the movement being co-opted. Yes, Occupy should be wary of Democratic Party representatives in sheep’s clothing, but this fear has infected and has spread throughout Occupy and now includes internal finger pointing and accusations of “co-opting,” creating more unnecessary divisiveness.

It is a healthy impulse to strive towards greater democracy and away from charisma-based leadership, but any idea taken to its extreme can become nonsense. To denounce real organization and leadership “on principle” is to vastly oversimplify the real processes of movement building while erecting unnecessary barriers in Occupy’s path to real power. To self-mutilate a movement because of leader-paranoia is similar to euthanize a puppy because of its potentially dangerous sharp teeth. In fact, true leaders can only emerge in the context of real democracy; both need the other.

There is no blueprint for movement building, but general principles can be erected based on the revolutionary experiences of the past. The key strategies of Occupy should be based on those ideas that unify and promote collective action against the 1%.

Ultimately Occupy needs to organize for power; we need a greater power to displace the current power of the 1%. This doesn’t mean that we must adopt the same forms of power utilized by the state, but that new ones must be created, while using EVERY opportunity within the existing structure to organize, educate, and mobilize working people.

Luckily, an upcoming action has the potential to put the above ideas into action. The current struggle of the Longview, Washington ILWU Local 21 is a chance to see real power in action. The Longview Longshoremen have asked for Occupy’s support to create massive mobilizations against the union busting corporate-conglomerate EGT. Hopefully this action has the potential to unite Occupy in practice over a concrete struggle. If the action— or actions— are effective it will prove that Occupy needs to organize and mobilize in large numbers over issues that connect with working people — proving that theory is best learned in action.

Shamus Cooke is a social worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org)

Great insights on the Occupy movement!

In response to “The American Overhaul Act”

Link: http://www.americanoverhaulact.org/

While I agree with most of the points, we should begin to ask ourselves if congressmen, senators, governors, etc., are even needed? In the past we had great communication restraints and representatives were vital in traveling to Washington or their state capitals to express the needs of the people and of their respective provinces. Today all most everyone has access to the internet, text-messaging, and or telephone line. This is a quantum leap in technology that allows the individual citizen, for the first time in human history, to vote independently, on the issues which concern OUR country, via independent surveying and polling.

    Our mission is simple and our focus should be in developing polling/surveying systems whose results can be cross-checked and integrated with other independent systems with the primary aim to achieve un-biased results pertaining to governmental decisions.  Everyone will be encouraged to vote, not forced. We believe that this will improve voter participation significantly and will greatly improve public support of government.  This can be extremely helpful in times of economic calamity or where there is wide-spread social unrest.

    This can be done with the advent of P2P networks that run independently from corporate or political influence. The results will yield a better represented, informed, and active public. Citizens will be notified, at random, thru the use of random social security drawing, that a polling question will need to be answered in an appointed time frame. This will allow the citizen sufficient time to research the topic and come to his or hers’ decision. The time-frame will greatly complicate the ability of private interest groups to target and influence the voter through the use of propaganda and disinformation. This will be a huge break from the current complacent consumerism and victimized docility which our public is subjected to by its current system.

    Many of us just don’t see corruption ending when we continue to expect our representatives to play by the rules and not let their power and political influence skew their commitment to public service. We will always find individuals with their hands caught in the “jar” as long as money exists and people are ambitious.  We recognize the need to shift consensus from individual, self-rewarding means to rational, unbiased systems which can effectively and responsibly delegate where our tax dollars go. Nonetheless, I understand a complete OVERHAUL is unlikely so I commend these people on their efforts and hope we can all start moving towards overhauling existing governmental systems and take a revolutionary stance on ridding it of corruption and by extension, the self-destruction of countries.

    I hope we can continue speaking about taking: congressmen, senators, governors, etc., out of the picture and allow the public to speak to its government on a direct level thru the use of technology, and for the first time in human history, free of any kind of bias or ambition. This may be the closest representation to an actual democracy. “One person, one vote”, not, “one dollar, one vote”. Thank you.

“Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark in the hopeless swaps of the not-quite, the not-yet, and the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists.. it is real.. it is possible.. it’s yours.”
― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

(via ilovequotes23

)