1. (Source: pvoland, via skeetshoot)

  2. metaphoricallydressed:

    Soha Bechara, a Lebanese woman and a member of the Lebanese Communist Party, attempted to assassinate Antoine Lahad; chief of the South Lebanon Army (SLA) militia. The SLA fought alongside with Israel to take control over Lebanese territory and were provided by Israeli equipment and arms. She managed to shoot Lahad once in the shoulder and chest before he was rushed to the hospital. Bechara was held captive for 10 years in the infamous Khiam prison and was released in 1998. 

    (via vul-va)


  4. "The problem with the European Left is that they care a little bit about just about everything, and yet there is nothing in particular about which they care deeply. This is very similar to what my old teacher Philip Rieff used to call “the Monroe Doctrine”—not the famous President James Monroe doctrine of warning Europeans to keep their hands off the Americas, but the little known Marilyn Monroe doctrine, named after the famous actress for having once said, “I believe in everything,” and then pausing for a moment before saucily adding, “a little bit.” The difference between European and colonial intellectuals is summed up in the difference between Sartre and Fanon, or between Foucault and Said. Sartre and Foucault cared widely about the entirety of the colonial and colonizing world, while Fanon and Said cared deeply about Algeria and Palestine, and from these two sites of contestation they extrapolated their politics and ethics of responsibility towards the rest of the world. Žižek is precisely in the same tradition and trajectory as those of Sartre and Foucault—caring widely but not deeply enough, for (and here is the philosophical foregrounding of their political proclivity for vacuous abstractions) they know widely and variedly but never deeply and particularly. What passes for the Left in the US is even worse. Since they have seen me (as one example among many) preoccupied with Iran, they think I have compromised my stand vis-à-vis American imperialism or its Israeli colonial outpost—for they too care in abstraction and act in generalities. I am preoccupied with Iran in 2009 precisely in the same way I have been with Iraq since 2003, and with Afghanistan since 2001 (when the best of these Americans thought Afghanistan was a “just war”), and precisely the same way I have been with Palestine all my adult life: from the site of specific crimes against humanity opens up your frame to see the rest of the world."
  5. lecinematheque:

    Taste of Cherry - dir. Abbas Kiarostami (1997) // Iran

    (via dialecticsof)


  6. ghost-of-algren:

    lumberjack aesthetic is a bad aesthetic and we need to expel it from within our communities.



  7. banji-realness:





    if you’re white and going to try and nitpick with me on this, then you missed the entire point and of that post and I’m not going to try and convince you of something you can easily Google.  

    I know you don’t care about MLK or Mike Brown or Ferguson or the state of black bodies/humanity in this country, you don’t have to bother and waste your own precious time, you will be blocked on sight and you can do the same for me, I recommend it. 

    Oh great. Now anyone who disagrees with you can be silenced with impunity and labeled an apathetic racist. Sounds like a valid way of opening up a constructive dialogue.

    You can always block me, it’s free. 





  8. "

    What were the protesters in Ferguson actually protesting on Sunday night? More than the death of an innocent black man, they were protesting the very disposability of the Black Body. The disposition of ‘ontological death’, meaning what constitutes a ‘full person’ (by any interpretation) is not recognized in the black population of America by the prevailing social institutions. So little significance does the Black Body hold that the media would rather talk about broken windows and burned out corner stores than the death of a living, breathing, human being.

    The murder of Michael Brown was not a coincidence nor is it unrelated in the scope of American history. It must be contextualized in a long and ongoing lineage of violence against the Black Body and specifically that national oppression of Black peoples which works on behalf of the racist white supremacist capitalism of the United States. Michael Brown wasn’t the first innocent Black man to be murdered by racist pigs and he won’t be the last if we cannot change the course of the future.

    There is a war being waged right now against the most basic existence of an entire population, and it’s happening on your street. The systemic oppression of the black population is integral to the very development of the United States as has been observed historically. Black people were and still are the free labor, they were and still are the most poor and vulnerable, they were and still are the ‘societal excess’ by which every ‘symptom’ of capital accumulation could be blamed upon. The war against the Black community is an ‘American war’ in the most authentic sense of the phrase.

  9. simulatedcity:



    This is so FUCKING SCARY

    what the fuck is going on

  10. dagwolf:

    from anonymous



  11. "sessionable: This is a bail and legal fund set up to assist our brothers and sisters arrested last night for taking direct action against the murderous Ferguson Police Department. Two days ago, Michael “Mike Mike” Brown was gunned down by police after eyewitnesses stated he had thrown his hands in the air and was complying with police orders. Racial tension in Saint Louis has simmered for decades with some of the highest recorded levels of white flight in history, mass segregation and police violence directed primarily at people of color. The unjustified murder of Mike Brown by the state was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. Hundreds came for a candlelight vigil held yesterday at the scene, vigil goers were met with riot cops armed with assault weapons and K-9 units. As people tried to leave the vigil they were forced back by a police line, who reportedly fired rubber bullets into the crowd. Things boiled over and the streets were taken, after tear gas and backup from surrounding areas proved no match for the crowd the police retreated. The unrest continues tonight with even greater response from heavily armed police, local media was ordered to leave the area or face arrest.
    Rest In Power Mike Mike NO JUSTICE NO PEACE

  13. skeetshoot:

    hooooooooooold up

    (via skeetshoot)


  14. In Snow, and in all his best writing, Pamuk creates a drama of modern life in the process of moving toward radical polarization. Modern men and women are under pressure, and they know it. What is to be done? There are two radically different roads people can take: (1) They may reach out toward the most open and generous inclusiveness; this, for Pamuk, is the meaning of modern art, the reason it has flourished, and still lives. Or else (2) they may plunge into the most rigid and violent exclusions; among the first to go will be modern writers and artists, whose love for modern life is greater than anyone’s. Pamuk makes it clear that he is rooting for Plan (1), but he worries about the raw demagogic power of Plan (2). He identifies with (1) because he thinks it is morally right, but also because, in the real modern world, it can bring us a happiness that is not only more intense and “hot,” but more solid and lasting. However, he thinks, in order to fulfill its human promise, (1) has to find a way to envelop (2). In other words, Modernism has an existential task, to somehow assimilate the people and the powers that want to destroy it.

    One thing that will magnify this task—but also make it more profound and absorbing—is that the prime enemy of modernism is not, as people used to say when I was young, “tradition,” but something much weirder and more complex, which we might call Modernist Anti-Modernism. (For short, I’ll call it MAM.) More than any writer since Thomas Mann, Pamuk grasps the world-historical importance of MAM.

    In the triumphs of the Third Reich, MAM shook the world. When the Nazis were defeated in 1945, liberals like my parents thought that it was gone for good, and that an age of honesty and openness had dawned. Alas, it didn’t work out that way. MAM has had a continuing enormous human appeal, and despite many defeats it keeps coming back. It fits comfortably into the most diverse political cultures; it unites parts of the left—not my part, and not Pamuk’s—with parts of the classical right. It haunted the whole second half of the twentieth century, and it is still alive and well.

    Marshall Berman

    (Source: vvirtuous)

  15. robhorningtni:

    I think that’s well-put, and that the similarity between the terms is no accident; hipsterism is an especially salient iteration of neoliberal subjectivity, one that gains currency by being slippery and inarticulable. These concepts become normalized by becoming boring and frustrating to talk about. The apparent vagueness in the terms seems to make them unalterable. The struggle to define them reflects the stakes of keeping them amorphous, capable of absorbing more and more behavior, making the way of thinking they describe feel inescapable, natural.

    In a post called “We Are All Neoliberals” (just as no one is a hipster/neoliberal; everyone is), Jason Read argues that the inconsistent usage of the term neoliberalism hasblunted its critical usefulness, turned it into a euphemism rather than an analytical tool.

    the meaning of the word has been reduced to a few vague inclinations about the truly bad kind of capitalism held together by invocations of competition, markets, and individualism. It has become what Althusser called a descriptive theory at best, and at worse a way to speak about capitalism without speaking about capitalism. In the worse case it became the name for a kind of nostalgia for an earlier kinder and gentler capitalism, one that we could get back to as soon as the full impact of the recession was felt and people started really paying attention to Paul Krugman.

    When one looks at economic inequality or injustice or other forms of immiseration, one can drop in a “because neoliberalism” and bring the discussion to a futile close. The discussion can then dissolve into arguments about what that is supposed to mean.

    If we use such terms as neoliberal and hipster affectively, as ill-defined pejoratives, we inadvertently strengthen the ideology behind them. This is not only because vague terms help naturalize the phenomena they are in the process of organizing. (Read notes that “this paradox defines much reactionary, or conservative thought, which always declares some hierarchy or principle natural while actively working to produce it.”) It is also because they make identification and description of the problem seem sufficient. That is to say, hipster (or neoliberal) describes an ideology (or a rationality) more than it does a person, and applying it to people can just make them scapegoats.  

    So what is that ideology? Read, reviewing Dardot and Laval’s The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society in the aforementioned post, starts to trace their definition of the term, which they are anxious to differentiate from old liberalism, laissez-faire:

    Neoliberalism is not the simple matter of leaving the market alone, of deregulation. Competition is not something that just exists, it must be actively produced and cultivated. As Dardot and Laval write, “Competitive capitalism is not a product of nature, it is a machine which requires constant surveillance and regulation.” 

    Neoliberalism is largely about fostering competition among atomized individuals and suppressing any sense of collectivity within society. Its tool for doing this, by and large, is quantification: surveillance to yield measurements. By combining an expanded Taylorism with entrepreneurial conceptions of the self as an enterprise, these measurements can be used to make efficiency a requirement of more and more of one’s life, effectively turning it all into work. When measured and circulated, all forms of behavior can become “productive” — can be recast as a kind of value that capitalism can capture. By making the self an enterprise, “growth” becomes the only means to make the self continue to seem real.

    Of course, that surveillance is increasingly conducted through smartphones and social media, and through the passive collection of data assigned to individuated “users,” who are connected within networks as strictly discrete nodes. Surveillance articulates social networks (in explicit terms, in comprehensive archives) so that individuals are defined and isolated by the connections they make. This way, connectivity never leads to collectivity. The emphasis on efficiency and streamlined, mechanized social relations as a supposed form of convenience also reinforces this.

    As Read notes in the review, the ideal of competitiveness is used to inculcate subjects with an “infinite demand for performance”: always be striving, always be trying. Contentment is turned into weakness, lack of imagination, cowardice, failure, the hallmark of an anti-entrepreneurial loser. And the denigration of collectivity in favor of personal responsibility makes risk a purely individual matter, and all failures personal failures. Fail more, strive harder.

    Neoliberalist subjectivity, then, is about bringing a mentality of “winning” to every aspect of life — every little thing is a performance, a contest — while being forever discontented with the fruits of such success. The winning and losing is mediated by metrics, which induce one to assent to more invasive surveillance. The surveillance merely assures an audience for one’s performances and makes sure they are evaluated, given meaning. The metrics also overlay a veneer of objectivity to the endless evaluative process — numbers masquerade as a general equivalent. Neoliberal subjects want to “win” by amassing the most “human capital” across all the various dimensions of their lives, and they are invited to participate in the processes that harvest that capital as way of proving to themselves that it ever existed.

    Talking about “hipsterism” is one way of evoking that kind of competitive self-production. Complaining about it is a muted way of complaining about neoliberal demands on identity to be productive for capital. Bemoaning “inauthenticity” seems a veiled way of talking about how the value of that self-production feeds the expanding capitalist system rather than the transcendent ego of the individual agent. Read notes that quantified “modes of evaluation are seen to be at odds with the qualitative missions of such institutions”; the spontaneous critique of hipsterism is likely a reflection of that, expressing dismay at the qualitative “mission” of having a self being turned into nothing more than a scoreboard.

    The resilience of neoliberalism may have to do with how it allows criticism to be recast as opportunism: e.g., you are complaining about hipsters to score better than them on the same scale of distinction. You mock people for trying too hard, because it inflates the value of your effortful effortlessness. (See Prickett’s critique of this strain of Lana Del Rey’s critics; and Jennifer Pan’s critique of the criticism of marketing.) 

    Anyway, I’ve been reading Dardot and Laval as well as William Davies’s The Limits of Neoliberalism and Jamie Peck’s Constructions of Neoliberal Reason, and I hope to synthesize it all into something that might help make the term neoliberalism less obfuscatory for me.

    (via androphilia)