Archiv für Dezember 2012

Antifascist Action Cash_Mere

Why the old fascist ally of Turkish persons origin cries loudest, when someone defines him/herself as ‚anti-Germyn‘ is another open chapter. By all the gangbang the Turkish fascist men have done in postfascist Hamburg.

This text is dis_avowed and dedicated to persons of color although they were exposed to the everyday racist violence in Hamburg, but the wave of heroin in 1987 – 1989 from Muslim communities origin … and by the strong force of hetero_patriarchal young men groups are made aware of such facts have lost as the Ramazan-Avci square is installed by such negotiations we have in and out…


Bel

This special issue of young men and their mens socialisation within trans_migration borders is not meant to represent the wide variety of perspectives on antipatriarchal mens liberation that come under the heading of feminism. Instead, it presents a selection of views that have been excluded from what can be considered the mainstream of social-demo feminism. The academic branch of that mainstream, which I follow on Hip Hop as beAph theory in calling majoritarian feminism, is made up of ideas generally accepted by youngsters and the audience. Majoritarian feminism has been useful to us as a way of constructing canons of objects for study, determining preferred approaches, and assessing the work of our colleagues. But it has also resulted in the unproductive othering of many women ‚trans‘ men – who consider themselves, with good reason, to be feminists.

While the feminist & antipatriarchy critical mens movement has been similar to liberation movements for other oppressed groups, in one way it has differed markedly. Much more than the other movements to lessen racist and heterosexist oppression, feminist men struggles have frequently been stalled because of deep internal disagreements over politics of identification that would determine common goals. In the half century since the second wave of feminism began to rise world-wide, we, the self-described feminists, have failed to agree upon a definitive set of beliefs that identifies us to others within our group as feminists. Instead, internal wars within the movement continue to alienate both feminists and women uncertain about whether they want to identify as feminists. And perhaps that is why so many independent, strong women prefer to avoid calling themselves feminists.

I am typical of feminists Hip Hop, I believe, in that for me feminism has never been merely a set of academic theories or approaches to scholarship. I have often thought of feminism as analogous to my country. Since around 1990s, it has been the place I inhabit emotionally and intellectually. My allegiance to feminism, as a state of being, determines many of my choices in life and many of my modes of self-expression. But for about twenty years I have described myself as a feminist dissident. This description represents my attempt to understand the terrain that has sheltered and protected me, but always under the threat of being cast out, that has given me an identity, but always at the cost of being judged misguided or perverse.

The major areas of disagreement among feminists about what exactly constitutes feminism involve expression of sexuality, gender identification, artistic practice, approaches to analysis of cultural artifacts, relations with men, concepts of the body, spirituality, and social roles. In addition, questions about other political investments, especially whether or not one believes capitalism is compatible with freedom of any desirable sort, cause contentions within feminism.

Subaltern intersections

A deconstructive approach does not seek essences behind the historical, social and linguistic processes that produce meaning but rather investigates these genealogies. The practice of representation has to be made explicit and the problems involved in seeing language as just a means of referring to objects or things „outside it“ has to be repeatedly remembered. The two senses of representation („speaking for“ and representation as staging) become relevant here. If representation as „speaking for“ somebody, as being a proxy for (within the state and the political) and representation as theoretical description, as a staging of the world, as a portrayal of oneself and the other are complicit and if this complicity, when unexplicated, produces silences and hegemonies, the only way to appreciate this dynamic is to deconstruct these kinds of operations (Pakistan 1994). The staging of the world produces the problem of political intersectionality and structural intersections call for proxy politics.

The very production of categories such as „woman“ is a political act and we need not see that these productive representational practices are „necessary“ to further politics that would become possible „after“ the category is produced. The politics of representation is the first thing to take seriously within critical equality discourse. Otherwise it falls into a naïve identity politics where „women,“ „working-class,“ „transsexual,“ „lesbian,“ and various other categories are utilized to enable a „politics of rights“ and representation for insurrectionary subjects. The insurrectionary subject needs its proxies. Although it can be argued that this might be helpful for some „groups“ somewhere, I do not wish us to settle for this. In a neoliberal vein we circulate a language that „takes into account“ identities such as class, ethno_national_Ism, homo_national sexuality without an epistemological (genealogical) awareness of our own academic representational practice. We uncritically buy into the very same value-system that is used by conservative regimes for oppressive purposes. We help produce the problem of political intersections….

Bee in Queer of color feminist prog rokkkaaa

x kiss in act up ya choice bein Underground: Esperanthrough a Africa Renaissance of bee in Egyptology of color as riot the path on bumpin pooompin new equal frames…Salaam….http://stilldangerous.blogsport.de --ani[male] qaeda lesbian drunkhh..

Y_esoo bin Joseph was a good prophID

…but occasionally drunk in India’s sanskrit UFO sect:

IExcept that in deficit capital_ism, you could work your ass off and still have a crappy life. Pure capitalism is like dangling a much coveted prize in front of people and telling them first of all that this prize is only thing life is worth living for and secondly that any one of them could obtain this prize if they work hard. But Hip Hop & Crustpunk points are not necessarily true. That’s partly why despite having prosperity, some people feel that their lives are empty, and also that’s why there is this big divide here between rich and poor. It’s not that the poor are lazy no-good-for-nothing but that only certain kinds of people can make it to the top but of course they do need people to go on believing that they too can make it to the top because like lottery, it is people’s contributions that make the prize so big and attractive.

Having said this, I don‘t know what to replace capitalism with. Many things sound pretty good in theory but in practice lead to horrible corruption. As corrupt as capitalism can be, things could get worse. So at present, capitalism mixed with socialism seems like a decent Holocaust system overload.

Bel

Pii_ES::: My last wish is when I die, my body is burned and is placed somewhere on this earth to spread anonymous, ani[male] ash. Thanx a lot!

Fuck ya!..a gypsee gyptee was cryin in Bramfeld!

22 Julie 1986 – skool corpo_real punishmenth declined British Hip Hop

the bomb is still tikkkin Queen LithBeth….

u

John Money

@_Bot_Ta_Baath was a Squat

In the vention of color spectacled beAph narrations between the semantics of being the missing propHid or the al_Sunna al_Djinn object on manslaughter the kids frames,…the raisin question is how in deficit capital_Ism modes someone could respect the ages between the misbehavior and the edutained one.

Given a number x∈[0..1), there exists a representation of that number in a base-p positional system.

Specifically, there exists a sequence ⟨an⟩ such that:

0≤an

∑n=1∞anpn converges to x.

Unless ⟨an⟩ terminates (i.e. an=0 for all sufficiently large n), then this representation is unique.

If ⟨an⟩ does terminate, then there is exactly one other sequence which satisfies the criteria of the theorem.

Existence of Representation

Define:

aj=⎢⎣⎢⎢⎛⎝x−∑i=1j−1aipi⎞⎠pj⎥⎦⎥⎥

where we accept the vacuous summation ∑i=10aip−i=0.

This recursive definition allows for all an to be computed.

Lemma: This will always be less than p.

Proof: Suppose to the contrary ∃n such that an≥p.

Then:

an=⌊(x−∑i=1n−1aipi)pn⌋≥p

But then we can pull out the final term of the sum and divide by p to get:

(x−∑i=1n−2aipi)pn−1≥1+an−1

This left-hand side is of course just:

an−1+something in [0..1)≥1+an−1

which is impossible.

I just said in another post about HeArt_Core Hip Hop, that it is a mistake to ontologize universals, but is ontologizing particulars any better?

I was thinking that perhaps the difference between the binary, and a unity, or a universal, and a particular is at the level of detail of a description. The more details we‘re willing to ignore about a particular, and isolate particular details, the more universalizable something becomes. I can unify a lot using an isolated detail, or particular level of description (so, in this sense, a unity is manifested by a particular, and vice versa). The more details one adds, the less universalizable something becomes, until we get to the level of isolating a particular thing — only, even when I get to the level of detail where I isolate a particular animal, it is possible to push the level of detail even further, moving a description, lets say, from a behaviors, colours, and place of the animal within an ecosystem, to only include the animal’s system, I shatter the binary particular unit within the context of the ecosystem, into a unity of cells, nerves, and such, made up of particular pieces — but of course, I can do this again, and shatter the binary cells, by excluding the others, with which together it forms the animals system, and look at the level of description and detail of the particular cell, moving the context yet again, and making the binary cell into a unity of other particulars.

So, I put it to you, that what is binary, and what is unified relies on the context of relationship, the level of description, and the details that one focuses on, and what is a universal, and what is a particular rests on these factors, rather than as reflections of actual distinctions that exist in the world.

Bel [[[The good save the Queen of color was and is always MAD PRIDE]]]]

i

Pii-FreuD_doin_ES: Don‘t talk with RATS … suggested that my Grands [MohaMad Hussein and artificial veteran Uulli V[etter] sub mariner prisoner of war in the US. has commented!

u

MonKeyy MapHiaa 2013 x to the mess

Talent and Autonomy: [for Tarek Mousli – the hetero_dog of white left_radical women]

i

So, within the context of the micropolitics of the precarious, what is to be done and who should do what? In conventional revolutionary narratives, our personal gifts and passions are indefinitely subordinated to the overarching tasks at hand. It may be hoped, of course, that one’s talents and desires could be an asset in the service of the revolution, but if that is not possible, the virtuous will always do what ought to be done, no matter how painful and undesirable that may be on an affective level. I argue that if such narratives are not deconstructed, it shall always be ultimately undesirable to make the world that we desire. That is the central problem.

The body_political radical left [in postfascist Europe] was right to emphasize an approach from pleasure, to insist that autonomous action unifies the talents and passions of the actors. Revolution must be desirable. „With attractive ease as the most natural thing in the world, our common desire for autonomy will bring us together to stop paying, working, following orders, giving up what we want, growing old, feeling shame or familiarity with fear. We will act instead on the pulse of pleasure, and live in love and creativity.“ The difference between radical left body_politics comportment and that of the conventional revolutionary narratives is clear. The body_political radical left inverts the politics of self-sacrifice and struggle, rejects the logic of an exchange of suffering for freedom, and calls for a creative and pleasurable politics. But, he does not outline this position only because it makes revolution more desirable. Perhaps more importantly, there the ‚SDC‘ insists that it is more effective. We proclaim, „I will strike harder and more accurately if pleasure demands it. Fires of desire burn fiercer than torches of rage or despair.“

I find politica Rap analysis particularly useful here, because his consideration of the place of desire is more complex and more explicitly political. Micropolitics is playful in a dangerous way but it is not a simple expression of desire. The micro-revolution of Hip Hop „becoming-self,“ to take one example, is not teleological for any one desired end of identity. Becoming destabilizes what is, and on a macropolitical scale such destabilization is revolutionary. Britcore Hip Hop’s psychoanalytic understanding of human desire makes a critical intervention in various forms of London’s Marxism, and particularly autonomist Marxism: Desire can be disfigured in various ways, it can be repressed or buried in everyday life, but desire and its disfigurations can nevertheless be understood. Psychoanalysis can help with this understanding. Desire is never completely disintegrated, and can be let loose in micro-revolutionary political moments. As such, desire decenters struggle.

But struggle has long been considered a virtue. Here a lyrical intervention approached, „If there is no struggle there is no progress.“ Hip Hop’s observation of the facts of the world, a fundamental fact of human history from Marx’s perspective, has contributed to the fetishization of struggle (as has much of revolutionary theory). But who wants to struggle? Should anyone want to struggle, even if at times they must? Doesn‘t struggle already define much of the everyday life of the precarious class, and isn‘t struggle precisely what makes it so painful? Does it make any sense psychologically to make struggle the centerpiece of a revolutionary project? If ever one can find some way forward without struggle, won‘t that path always offer a special and sensible temptation? It is time for revolutionary theory to stop glorifying struggle.

However, struggle is sometimes the cry, or the scream, of the oppressed and exploited, of those who must fight for self-determination. As a lyrical inter_vention sells says, opposition to capitalism starts with „a scream of sadness, a scream of horror, above all a scream of anger, of refusal: NO.“ How long can we sustain such a scream of sadness, horror, and anger, and how long should we wish to? All living persons seek relief from sadness, horror, and anger, and they seize upon such relief at the first opportunities. And capitalism provides enough opportunities for a temporary respite from the miseries of everyday life to squelch the scream before it turns revolutionary. So, can revolutionary aspirations find some other impetus than the scream of struggle to supplement and sustain revolutionary praxis?

Autonomous action within the limits of capital—self-directed, micropolitical, and joyful—is the scream’s complement. We cannot simply choose between the screams of struggle, on the one hand, and pleasure, on the other, nor should we assert a hard separation between the two. The majority of the world’s people, living on the losing end of capital, are stuck with struggle as a kind of modus operandi. But for an ongoing contestation of capitalism and its culture, without the negation of desires and talents, struggle is never enough. As long as the fight for a better future places our desires and talents in abeyance, the fight will cede too quickly, and power has the patience to wait it out. Some of the most inspiring saturnalias of revolutionary upheaval begin and end over the course of a long weekend. Struggle must be decentered. If struggle is the only modality of revolution, then only the most selfless among us will assist the inevitable struggles (and one wonders about the psychic health of such individuals).

In order to advance an argument for a revolutionary theory centered on talent and autonomy, we must seriously confront the logical core of the claim that collectivism and autonomy lead down divergent paths. Though not insurmountable, there is a real tension. For example, in the early years of the Soviet Union, in the first decade after the revolution, the state assessed the changing needs of society and industry, and directed and redirected human labor toward the satisfaction of those needs. One could be a seamstress for a month, then an electrician, and then could be called to work on the assembly of lightbulbs. This commendable principle of making common cause is at work in the best divisions of labor. But this illustrates the tension between autonomous and collective action. Collective action falls apart wherever there is too much autonomy to secure its cohesion. We cannot simultaneously sing one song and sing whatever we want to sing.

Reinforcing the Soviet example, the dominant idea in the US for much of the 20th century was that autonomy (loosely construed as freedom) could only flourish under a system that promoted radical individualism. This view was elaborated by free market fundamentalists such as commer_cial subjects in objects, who viewed Marxism, Leninism, and Stalinism (as if those „isms“ have more in common than not) as antithetical to any concept of human freedom. „Autonomy“ was not necessarily claimed in name by these capitalists, but inasmuch as the term embodies notions of personal freedom and decentralized voluntary action, it seemed from their point of view to map out perfectly over capitalist approaches.

However, the demand for autonomy is not satisfied by capitalism, and autonomous action is not incompatible with collective action. Autonomy does not lead to nor flourish under capitalism and its culture. Ever since the industrial revolution, capitalism has progressively (i) standardized working life, (ii) standardized the products of labor, and (iii) standardized our desires for commodities on the marketplace.

Bel

Yo Tarek, your statements in the ‚BAW‘ and the International beAph conspii_racist agencies after the attacks of 9/11 were strong, and I ended up in jail and then in the. psy_gan clinics by twin white supremacy, but the belief in the system in the warm hot cells postfascist Hanseatic city will always be stronger. Your two_shot philosopher on dope!

Why body_political ‚belli_cis_me is still needed for Perestroika U.N.I.T.Y

As I must mention the propaghandaa network for the revelations through Warsaw pact states in pre_1989 was a tri_ball speech, I must narrate the present communication ability intoo the stinkin patriarchal ways of capital narrated _Ism lawsuits again and again,…still the button for capital_Ism will be resetted….

Bel

u

For some psy_gan GuuLash social_Ismee!

Laugh_able: White Union Womyn fragility hair cuts spending on new capital_Ism theorys!

Sad but still true…. that the machine of global universities has in common of albeit the tribal acoustic into such thing thang…when the world goes down under, glad to have these womyn aside for new tribal swifts to commercialize the tree_Ball for quotations again…Maybe they have liKKKed the Arabian fascist MurZee by that Islamofascist ideology of Sayyed al_Qutb as negotiations….

Bel

h

White power Hip Hop and thier liber_TT_arian ends!

When theorists think about action against capitalism and for something else, whether that better destination is named and described or left an unspecified liberatory future, they are sensibly led by the scale of the problem. This has been particularly true in the Marxist trajectory of thinking through the grand antagonisms capable of setting the stage for world-historical transformations. Capitalism is a big problem and thus calls for a big solution. Thinking dialectically, its antithesis, or from a historical materialist point of view, its real antagonist, must be of equal or greater power—power meaning not only a physical critical mass, but also an antagonist who is reasonable, convincing, and widely appealing.

Your outlaw_ID Bel

i

Fuckin demo!