#but to use ‘we choose freedom’ as a slogan

[kralmajales]

OH I’M SO FUCKING MAD.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Michael Livschitz

"Israel was attacked on #October7th in the most brutally barbaric way in modern history.

Hamas, which had terrorized the civilian population of Israel for decades, drowned the holy land in blood in its quest to destroy the Jewish people.

Hamas knew no pity, and its insane acts still shudder anyone who recalls that terrible day.

For most Israelis who have lost family members, relatives, and friends, this nightmare does not end.

Why should Israel have to justify itself to the world community, to the leaders of major powers, and account for its every move while it is fighting a just war for its existence against the most ruthless and implacable enemy?

Israel took extraordinary measures to ensure the safety of the people of Gaza, most of whom supported the events of October 7 and continue to support Hamas.

Has any other nation cared so much about the population of their enemy?

Calls for a unilateral ceasefire are ridiculous because Hamas is not required to do so.

No one is calling on Hamas to release the Israeli hostages and lay down their arms.

No one is addressing the fact that Hamas uses its people as human shields and welcomes more casualties to put pressure on the sympathetic masses.

The mainstream media quotes Hamas statements and presents the figures and data it provides as immutable facts.

Marches with slogans “from the river to the sea,” in which lost people who have suddenly found meaning in life participate, justify Hamas’s methods as “just resistance,” completely unaware that if they had been at the NOVA festival on that terrible day, the terrorists would not hesitate to do the same to them as to all the innocent souls who celebrated the festival of life there.

Many are clamoring for a “free Palestine.”

If we abstract from the fact that such a state never existed, Gaza has been completely on its own since 2005.

What do you think they did with the several billion dollars a year in donations and aid?

Those resources were not used to build a prosperous society or to develop the economy but to dig hundreds of kilometers of multi-level tunnels, buy missiles, explosives, machine guns, and ammunition of all kinds, and train terrorists ready to kill without blinking an eye.

The freedom they were given was used to prepare for war.

They were building the future they dreamed of.

Should Israel then make excuses for having to defend itself and for wanting to bring the war that Hamas started to its logical conclusion and release the hostages?

Why should Israel stop and leave in power a ruthless terrorist organization that values death over life and has never sought peace and for whom the needs of its people do not matter?

Has anyone else lived under endless rocket attacks, continued to work, taken their children to daycare, and yet built a prosperous state, as every resident of Israel does?

More than two million Arabs have Israeli citizenship and the same rights as all Israelis and live with Jews, Christians, and other religions in peace and harmony.

What prevented the people of Gaza from choosing the same path? Absolutely nothing.

It was their choice that led to what happened.

War is a last resort, and it is not the Olympics.

Israel did not start this war and yet it has taken unprecedented measures to minimize enemy civilian casualties and has paid a very high price for its humanitarianism.

However, that is not enough for the world.

Israel has every right to defend itself, has every right to release the hostages, has every right to defeat the enemy and liberate Gaza from Hamas.

No state in Israel’s place would stop one step away from eliminating a mortal threat.

So why should Israel?

The Palestinians had their chance to prove their ability to govern themselves after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, but they rejected a peaceful resolution and never abandoned the goal of one day destroying Israel and seizing all the land “from the river to the sea.”

They spent decades preparing before launching their attack on October 7, 2023, ultimately shattering any lingering illusions about a two-state solution. In the foreseeable future, this solution is off the table.

Moreover, they have learned nothing from the war Hamas ignited with their unprecedented support.

They have no regrets and no intention of changing course.''

[humansofnewyork]

(51/54) “It’s coming. In the streets it is silent. But in the homes, where Iran still lives, the drumbeat is building. The anger is building. The impatience is building, and soon it will come out. Iran will come out. Our young women have been leading us. But we cannot let them march one-by-one into the night. Do not pass by silently if a woman is getting harassed in the street. Do not let them be called whores or sluts. Speak! Say this is not right! Your neighbor will hear you, and they will say it too. Until all of us are saying it together. The only way to take the battlefield is together. Those of us in free societies, with the freedom to speak, and write, and protest. Do not sit behind the walls of your castle. Write. Speak. Protest. We don’t need the same chants, or the same slogans. But let us come together. Even if it’s only around our dining room tables, let us come together. We cannot let them face the enemy alone. In Iran they are standing up: the students of Tehran, the truck drivers of Bandar Abbas, the oil workers of Khuzestan, the factory workers of Pooladshahr, the teachers of Sanandaj, the farmers of Isfahan. Everyone has found their own way of saying: ‘This does not work for us.’ Everyone is choosing their own words, but now let us say them all together. If you can’t find the courage to march in the streets, then just open your doors. Stand on your stoop as the protesters pass. That would be enough. If everyone who is against this regime could only do that, we’d fill all of Iran. It will be the end. These enforcers, these soldiers, these policemen, they will realize. They will finally see: that we are together, and they are alone. There is only one battle left. The fight against fear. When we win against the fear in our hearts, we win Iran. And in the words of Ferdowsi: ‘Without fighting, they will flee the scene.’”

 خیابان‌ها آرام‌اند. اما درون خانه‌ها، جایی که ایران هنوز زنده است، بانگ کوس‌ها رساتر می‌شود. خشم‌ها پدیدار می‌شوند. ایران رخ می‌نماید. زنان جوان‌مان رهبری را بر عهده گرفته‌اند. نگذاریم یکایک در تاریکی شب ناپدید شوند. تنها راه پیروزی در میدان نبرد همبستگی‌ست. ما که در جامعه‌های آزاد زندگی می‌کنیم و آزادی سخن گفتن، آزادی نوشتن، آزادی گرد هم آمدن داریم. پشت دیوارها‌تان نمانید. بنویسید! سخن بگویید! خود را نشان دهید! نیازی نیست که شعارها‌مان، اعتراض‌ها‌مان یا سرودهای‌مان یکسان باشند. بیایید با هم باشیم. حتا اگر پیرامون سفره‌‌مان باشد. بیایید با هم باشیم. نگذاریم به تنهایی با دشمن روبرو شوند! در ایران همه به پا خاسته‌اند. دانش‌آموزان تهران. رانندگان کامیون‌های بندرعباس. کارگران صنعت نفت خوزستان. کارگران کارخانه‌ی پولادشهر. آموزگاران سنندج. کشاورزان اصفهان. هر کدام راه خود را پیدا کرده‌اند تا بگویند: "دیگر این برای ما کارآمد نیست.” هر کسی واژگان خود را برمی‌گزیند، بیایید هم‌آوا و همراه آنرا فریاد بزنیم. خاموش نمانید. بی‌اراده از کنار زنی که در خیابان آزار می‌شود، نگذرید. نگذاریم آنها را فاحشه یا هرزه بنامند. سخنی بگویید! بگویید که این کارتان درست نیست! دست از زشت‌کاری‌هایتان بردارید! همسایه‌تان می‌شنود و او نیز با شما همصدا خواهد شد. تا زمانی که همه‌ی ما همصدا آنرا تکرار کنیم. بیایید با هم باشیم. اگر شجاعت پیوستن به راهپیمایی‌های خیابانی را ندارید، درِ خانه‌‌هایتان را بگشایید. جلو در بایستید و تماشاگر حرکت پهلوانان‌تان باشید. اگر این کار را انجام دهیم، همه‌ی ایران را پُر خواهیم کرد. این نبرد پایانی ماست: نبرد با ترس. هنگامی که بر آن پیروز شویم، ایران از آن ما خواهد شد. هنگامی که ایران بُرون آید، به معنای راستین بُرون آید، به پایان شوربختی‌ها می‌رسیم. سرکوب‌گران، پاسدارها، نیروهای انتظامی، همه خواهند دید و خواهند فهمید که ما با‌همیم و آنها تنها. همانگونه که فردوسی می‌گوید: همه جنگ ناکرده، بگریختند / همه دشت، تیر و کمان ریختند

[mariacallous]

In their 2024 national convention, Democrats reclaimed the mantle of freedom.

It’s about time.

The first indication was Vice President Harris’s choice of Beyoncé’s song “Freedom” as her campaign anthem. It has been playing at her rallies and it played at the end of the film before her entrance onto the stage. In addition to placards that said, “Thank you Joe” or “Vote” or “Coach Walz,” the DNC had thousands of placards printed for the delegates to wave that simply read, “Freedom.” Many of the convention speeches invoked the term in some way. Governor Walz’s acceptance speech for the vice presidency was especially heavy on it:

“Freedom. When Republicans use the word freedom, they mean that the government should be free to invade your doctor’s office. Corporations—free to pollute your air and water. And banks—free to take advantage of customers.

“But when we Democrats talk about freedom, we mean the freedom to make a better life for yourself and the people that you love. Freedom to make your own health care decisions. And yeah, your kids’ freedom to go to school without worrying about being shot dead in the hall.”

Freedom was an especially welcome theme in this convention because, in recent political history, Democrats ceded freedom to the Republicans. This was wrong. Nothing is as central to America’s cultural DNA as freedom. After all, we as a nation were born out of a desire for freedom from King George.

One of the seminal speeches of the 20th century was President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union address. In it, he announced what he called the “Four Freedoms”—freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear—principles that were incorporated into the war aims of the Allied Powers, and eventually into the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

A generation later, the Civil Rights Movement marched for freedom from the oppression of segregation and unequal citizenship, goals that the modern Democratic Party embraced. After the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down in 1973, Democrats defended women’s freedom to choose against conservative attempts to restrict access to abortion, and even to prohibit it nationwide.

Since the 1980s, however, Republicans claimed freedom for themselves; starting with the presidency of Republican Ronald Reagan, they narrowed it to mean free markets and limited government. This redefinition rested on the argument that government represented the main threat to freedom, which is at best a half-truth. Yes, government can become oppressive. But weak government can also pose a threat to freedom. Citizens cannot live free from fear unless government minimizes threats to the security of persons and property as citizens act within the structure of law. They cannot enjoy freedom from want unless government protects markets from force, fraud, and threats to competition, and unless it protects individuals from economic privation. In his 1944 State of the Union, FDR declared: “Necessitous men are not free men. Men who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”

Despite the power of such arguments, modern Democrats have found it difficult to persuade the electorate that they were the true champions of freedom. And then in 2022, the Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and jeopardized women’s freedom of choice across the nation. The reaction has been striking; with one decision, the government was suddenly in the middle of the most personal decisions women and men could make.

Since then, not a month has passed without some horror story making national news about a woman denied abortion care that could save her life and/or her fertility. On stage at the Democratic convention, some of these women told their heartbreaking stories. Since then, abortion has been on the ballot in seven states—many of which, like Kansas and Kentucky, are conservative, deep red states. And in every single instance, the pro-choice position won. Since then, abortion has played a major role in the Virginia legislative elections, the congressional midterm elections, and many special elections. In 2024, abortion referendums will be on the ballot in eight states, two of which, Arizona and Nevada, are swing states and where the issue may very well bring out young Democratic voters. 

Against this backdrop, it’s not surprising that Harris’s speech spent more time on abortion than any other single policy issue. Her unique ability to prosecute this issue was evident back when she was a senator from California who asked then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh if he could think of a law that controlled men’s bodies. In addition to warning the country about Republican plans to take away reproductive freedom by enacting a national abortion ban and installing a national anti-abortion coordinator in the White House, Harris expanded on threats to freedoms.

“In this election, many other fundamental freedoms are at stake. The freedom to live safe from gun violence—in our schools, communities, and places of worship. The freedom to love who you love openly and with pride. The freedom to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis. And the freedom that unlocks all the others. The freedom to vote.”

Beyond the articulation of a freedom agenda, the speech had other tasks, which Harris crisply carried out. She introduced herself to the country as a child of a middle-class family and declared that building a strong middle class would be one of the defining purposes of her administration. To that end, she advanced her vision of an “opportunity economy” where everyone would have a chance to compete and where success for some need not mean failure for others. 

Harris took on inflation and immigration, two areas of potential vulnerability for her campaign. She promised to bring down prices of everyday goods and services and to attack the nation’s housing crisis. On immigration, she sought to turn the tables on Donald Trump, reminding her audience that he had subverted a bipartisan reform bill that would have helped secure the border.

Surprising some observers, Harris laid out a tough agenda on defense and foreign policy, promising to maintain the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world, retain our leading position in NATO, defend Ukraine against Russian aggression, stand up against Iran and North Korea, and take democracy’s side in the struggle with tyranny. She articulated a firm pro-Israel stance while mentioning the suffering of Gaza’s inhabitants and endorsing Palestinians’ right to dignity and self-determination.

Taken as a whole, Harris’s acceptance speech positioned her as a center-left Democrat in the mold of Joe Biden rather than Bernie Sanders. It embraced what she termed the pride and privilege of being an American. And as if to show that Republicans have not cornered the market on patriotism and American exceptionalism, she told her audience that together, they had the opportunity to write the next chapter of the most extraordinary story ever told. She ended her speech in the most traditional way imaginable, by asking God to bless the United States of America.

Harris’s speech, which the convention received with unfeigned enthusiasm, did nothing to interrupt the momentum of one of the most explosive campaign launches in American history.

[toddfrom]

Drawfee posted some words regarding the upcoming PCRF stream on saturday (which everyone should be at!)

TLDR they want to reaffirm that while antisemitism is never allowed in their community, they believe that advocacy for Palestine is not hate speech and will not be censoring pro-Palestine speech in their chat during the stream.

Transcript under cut

[Image ID: two instagram post screenshots from @drawfee. Both are black text on a white background with the drawfee logo in the bottom right. The first image reads:

Our PCRF charity stream is this Saturday! While we are looking forward to a fun and entertaining few hours of drawing and fundraising, we also recognize that by choosing this particular cause to get involved in, we are stepping into topics that are significantly more sensitive than the content you are used to on our channel. We've listened to the concerns from the community and want to ensure we're setting the right expectations.

Our primary goal with this stream is to provide aid to Palestinians facing a dire humanitarian crisis. We will be encouraging our audience to both donate to the PCRF and to urge their elected representatives to back a ceasefire. We believe that rallying our wonderful community towards tangible actions is the best use of our platform in this instance.

We hold a strict policy against antisemitism and hate speech across all our streams, and this event will be no exception.

Our moderators will be vigilant in maintaining a respectful and safe environment for everyone.

(The second image reads:)

We recognize that some phrases and slogans associated with Palestinian liberation can be controversial within our diverse community. While there are varied interpretations and feelings towards these expressions, we do not view them as inherently antisemitic. We do not believe it is our place to police the language that Palestinians use to advocate for their own freedom and safety, so we will not censor pro-Palestinian speech in chat during the stream. We recognize that this stance will not please everyone in our community, but ultimately it is what best reflects our values. If you have reservations about our decision on this matter, we respectfully suggest that this particular stream might not be for you.

Choosing to do this stream meant accepting the risk of causing division within our community and potentially losing followers, but the chance to make a real difference for those in need far outweighs any drawbacks.

Thank you to our wonderful community for predominantly being supportive of our decision to do this and for being caring compassionate people. Your encouragement reinforces our decision. Looking forward to Saturday!

End ID.]

[haggishlyhagging]

But independence is not the sole preserve of widows and singles. It can also occur in the home itself, right under a husband's nose. This is indeed the symbolism of the witch's nocturnal flights, which lead her to desert the marital bed, escaping the sleeping man's vigilance, to straddle her broomstick and take off for the sabbath. In the demonologists' tirades, which betray the masculine obsessions of their times, the witch's flight, as Armelle Le Bras-Chopard describes it, represents:

“a freedom to come and go, not only without the husband's permission but generally without his knowledge (unless he is a witch himself) and even to his disadvantage. By picking up a broomstick or chair leg and placing it between her legs, the witch awards herself a simulacrum of the virile member that she lacks. And by artificially stepping outside her sex and giving herself that of a man, she is also stepping outside her female gender: the witch is able to accord herself the ease of movement that, within the standard social order, is the unique privilege of men. [...] Granting herself this autonomy, and thereby escaping the man whose principal freedom is manifest through his dominance over her, the witch spirits a portion of the man's power away from him: her liberation is also a larceny.”

Contrary to what today's "backlash" would have us believe, women's autonomy does not entail a severing of connections, but rather the opportunity to form bonds that do not infringe on our integrity or our freedom of choice, bonds that promote our personal development instead of blocking it—whatever lifestyle we choose, whether solo or in a partnership, with or without children. As Pam Grossman writes, "the Witch is arguably the only female archetype that has power on its own terms. She is not defined by anyone else. Wife, sister, mother, virgin, whore—these archetypes draw meaning based on relationships with others. The Witch, however, is a woman who stands entirely on her own." Whereas the example promulgated over the period of the witch-hunts, imposed first by violence and then, later, with the nineteenth-century invention of the housewife ideal, by a clever mix of flattery, seduction and menace, locks women into their role as reproducers and disenfranchises them from participation in the world of work. Thus, women are positioned in such a way that their own identity is constantly at risk of being muddled with others,' of atrophying, of being swallowed up altogether. They are prevented from living and fashioning their own lives, for the sake of representing an imagined quintessence of femininity. In New York, in 1969, the WITCH group caused havoc at a weddings trade fair by releasing mice into the main hall. One of their slogans railed, "Always a Bride, Never a Person."

-Mona Chollet, In Defense of Witches: The Legacy of the Witch Hunts and Why Women are Still on Trial

[dailyanarchistposts]

B.4.2 Is capitalism based on self-ownership?

Murray Rothbard, a leading “libertarian” capitalist, claims that capitalism is based on the “basic axiom” of “the right to self-ownership.” This “axiom” is defined as “the absolute right of each man [sic] … to control [his or her] body free of coercive interference. Since each individual must think, learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives man [sic] the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered by coercive molestation.” [For a New Liberty, pp. 26–27]

At first sight, this appears to sound reasonable. That we “own” ourselves and, consequently, we decide what we do with ourselves has an intuitive appeal. Surely this is liberty? Thus, in this perspective, liberty “is a condition in which a person’s ownership rights in his own body and his legitimate material property are not invaded, are not aggressed against.” It also lends itself to contrasts with slavery, where one individual owns another and “the slave has little or no right to self-ownership; his person and his produce are systematically expropriated by his master by the use of violence.” [Rothbard, Op. Cit., p. 41] This means that “self-ownership” can be portrayed as the opposite of slavery: we have the dominion over ourselves that a slaveholder has over their slave. This means that slavery is wrong because the slave owner has stolen the rightful property of the slave, namely their body (and its related abilities). This concept is sometimes expressed as people having a “natural” or “inalienable” right to own their own body and the product of their own labour.

Anarchists, while understanding the appeal of the idea, are not convinced. That “self-ownership,” like slavery, places issues of freedom and individuality within the context of private property — as such it shares the most important claim of slavery, namely that people can be objects of the rules of private property. It suggests an alienated perspective and, moreover, a fatal flaw in the dogma. This can be seen from how the axiom is used in practice. In as much as the term “self-ownership” is used simply as an synonym for “individual autonomy” anarchists do not have an issue with it. However, the “basic axiom” is not used in this way by the theorists of capitalism. Liberty in the sense of individual autonomy is not what “self-ownership” aims to justify. Rather, it aims to justify the denial of liberty, not its exercise. It aims to portray social relationships, primarily wage labour, in which one person commands another as examples of liberty rather than what they are, examples of domination and oppression. In other words, “self-ownership” becomes the means by which the autonomy of individuals is limited, if not destroyed, in the name of freedom and liberty.

This is exposed in the right-libertarian slogan “human rights are property rights.” Assuming this is true, it means that you can alienate your rights, rent them or sell them like any other kind of property. Moreover, if you have no property, you have no human rights as you have no place to exercise them. As Ayn Rand, another ideologue for “free market” capitalism stated, “there can be no such thing as the right to unrestricted freedom of speech (or of action) on someone else’s property.” [Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 258] If you are in someone else’s property (say at work) you have no basic rights at all, beyond the right not to be harmed (a right bosses habitually violate anyway by ignoring health and safety issues).

Self-ownership justifies this. You have rented out the property in your person (labour services) and, consequently, another person can tell you what to do, when to do and how to do it. Thus property comes into conflict with liberty. If you argue that “human rights are property rights” you automatically ensure that human rights are continually violated in practice simply because there is a conflict between property and liberty. This is not surprising, as the “property rights” theory of liberty was created to justify the denial of other people’s liberty and the appropriation of their labour.

Clearly, then, we reach a problem with “self-ownership” (or property in the person) once we take into account private property and its distribution. In a nutshell, capitalists don’t pay their employees to perform the other “vital activities” listed by Rothbard (learning, valuing, choosing ends and means) — unless, of course, the firm requires that workers undertake such activities in the interests of company profits. Otherwise, workers can rest assured that any efforts to engage in such “vital activities” on company time will be “hampered” by “coercive molestation.” Therefore wage labour (the basis of capitalism) in practice denies the rights associated with “self-ownership,” thus alienating the individual from his or her basic rights. Or as Michael Bakunin expressed it, “the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time” under capitalism. [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, p. 187]

In a society of relative equals, “property” would not be a source of power as use would co-incidence with occupancy (i.e. private property would be replaced by possession). For example, you would still be able to fling a drunk out of your home. But in a system based on wage labour (i.e. capitalism), property is a different thing altogether, becoming a source of institutionalised power and coercive authority through hierarchy. As Noam Chomsky writes, capitalism is based on “a particular form of authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private ownership and control, which is an extremely rigid system of domination.” When “property” is purely what you, as an individual, use (i.e. possession) it is not a source of power. In capitalism, however, “property” rights no longer coincide with use rights, and so they become a denial of freedom and a source of authority and power over the individual.

As we’ve seen in the discussion of hierarchy (sections A.2.8 and B.1), all forms of authoritarian control depend on “coercive molestation” — i.e. the use or threat of sanctions. This is definitely the case in company hierarchies under capitalism. Bob Black describes the authoritarian nature of capitalism as follows:

”[T]he place where [adults] pass the most time and submit to the closest control is at work. Thus … it’s apparent that the source of the greatest direct duress experienced by the ordinary adult is not the state but rather the business that employs him. Your foreman or supervisor gives you more or-else orders in a week than the police do in a decade.” [“The Libertarian as Conservative”, The Abolition of Work and other essays, p. 145]

In developing nations, this control can easily been seen to be an utter affront to human dignity and liberty. There a workplace is often “surrounded by barbed wire. Behind its locked doors … workers are supervised by guards who beat and humiliate them on the slightest pretext … Each worker repeats the same action — sewing on a belt loop, stitching a sleeve — maybe two thousand times a day. They work under painfully bright lights, for twelve- to fourteen-hour shifts, in overheated factories, with too few bathroom breaks, and restricted access to water (to reduce the need for more bathroom breaks), which is often foul and unfit for human consumption in any event.” The purpose is “to maximise the amount of profit that could be wrung out” of the workers, with the “time allocated to each task” being calculated in “units of ten thousands of a second.” [Joel Bakan, The Corporation, pp. 66–7] While in the developed world the forms of control are, in general, nowhere as extreme (in thanks due to hard won labour organising and struggle) the basic principle is the same. Only a sophist would argue that the workers “owned” themselves and abilities for the period in question — yet this is what the advocates of “self-ownership” do argue.

So if by the term “self-ownership” it is meant “individual autonomy” then, no, capitalism is not based on it. Ironically, the theory of “self-ownership” is used to undercut and destroy genuine self-ownership during working hours (and, potentially, elsewhere). The logic is simple. As I own myself I am, therefore, able to sell myself as well, although few advocates of “self-ownership” are as blunt as this (as we discuss in section F.2.2 right-libertarian Robert Nozick accepts that voluntary slavery flows from this principle). Instead they stress that we “own” our labour and we contract them to others to use. Yet, unlike other forms of property, labour cannot be alienated. Therefore when you sell your labour you sell yourself, your liberty, for the time in question. By alienating your labour power, you alienate the substance of your being, your personality, for the time in question.

As such, “self-ownership” ironically becomes the means of justifying authoritarian social relationships which deny the autonomy it claims to defend. Indeed, these relationships have similarities with slavery, the very thing which its advocates like to contrast “self-ownership” to. While modern defenders of capitalism deny this, classical economist James Mill let the cat out of the bag by directly comparing the two. It is worthwhile to quote him at length:

“The great capitalist, the owner of a manufactory, if he operated with slaves instead of free labourers, like the West India planter, would be regarded as owner both of the capital, and of the labour. He would be owner, in short, of both instruments of production: and the whole of the produce, without participation, would be his own. “What is the difference, in the case of the man, who operates by means of labourers receiving wages? The labourer, who receives wages, sells his labour for a day, a week, a month, or a year, as the case may be. The manufacturer, who pays these wages, buys the labour, for the day, the year, or whatever period it may be. He is equally therefore the owner of the labour, with the manufacturer who operates with slaves. The only difference is, in the mode of purchasing. The owner of the slave purchases, at once, the whole of the labour, which the man can ever perform: he, who pays wages, purchases only so much of a man’s labour as he can perform in a day, or any other stipulated time. Being equally, however, the owner of the labour, so purchased, as the owner of the slave is of that of the slave, the produce, which is the result of this labour, combined with his capital, is all equally his own. In the state of society, in which we at present exist, it is in these circumstances that almost all production is effected: the capitalist is the owner of both instruments of production: and the whole of the produce is his.” [“Elements of Political Economy” quoted by David Ellerman, Property and Contract in Economics, pp. 53–4

Thus the only “difference” between slavery and capitalist labour is the “mode of purchasing.” The labour itself and its product in both cases is owned by the “great capitalist.” Clearly this is a case of, to use Rothbard’s words, during working hours the worker “has little or no right to self-ownership; his person and his produce are systematically expropriated by his master.” Little wonder anarchists have tended to call wage labour by the more accurate term “wage slavery.” For the duration of the working day the boss owns the labour power of the worker. As this cannot be alienated from its “owner” this means that the boss effectively owns the worker — and keeps the product of their labour for the privilege of so doing!

There are key differences of course. At the time, slavery was not a voluntary decision and the slaves could not change their master (although in some cultures, such as Ancient Rome, people over the could sell themselves in slavery while ”voluntary slavery is sanctioned in the Bible.” [Ellerman, Op. Cit., p. 115 and p. 114]). Yet the fact that under wage slavery people are not forced to take a specific job and can change masters does not change the relations of authority created between the two parties. As we note in the next section, the objection that people can leave their jobs just amounts to saying “love it or leave it!” and does not address the issue at hand. The vast majority of the population cannot avoid wage labour and remain wage workers for most of their adult lives. It is virtually impossible to distinguish being able to sell your liberty/labour piecemeal over a lifetime from alienating your whole lifetime’s labour at one go. Changing who you alienate your labour/liberty to does not change the act and experience of alienation.

Thus the paradox of self-ownership. It presupposes autonomy only in order to deny it. In order to enter a contract, the worker exercises autonomy in deciding whether it is advantageous to rent or sell his or her property (their labour power) for use by another (and given that the alternative is, at best, poverty unsurprisingly people do consider it “advantageous” to “consent” to the contract). Yet what is rented or sold is not a piece of property but rather a self-governing individual. Once the contract is made and the property rights are transferred, they no longer have autonomy and are treated like any other factor of production or commodity.

In the “self-ownership” thesis this is acceptable due to its assumption that people and their labour power are property. Yet the worker cannot send along their labour by itself to an employer. By its very nature, the worker has to be present in the workplace if this “property” is to be put to use by the person who has bought it. The consequence of contracting out your labour (your property in the person) is that your autonomy (liberty) is restricted, if not destroyed, depending on the circumstances of the particular contract signed. This is because employers hire people, not a piece of property.

So far from being based on the “right to self-ownership,” then, capitalism effectively denies it, alienating the individual from such basic rights as free speech, independent thought, and self-management of one’s own activity, which individuals have to give up when they are employed. But since these rights, according to Rothbard, are the products of humans as humans, wage labour alienates them from themselves, exactly as it does the individual’s labour power and creativity. For you do not sell your skills, as these skills are part of you. Instead, what you have to sell is your time, your labour power, and so yourself. Thus under wage labour, rights of “self-ownership” are always placed below property rights, the only “right” being left to you is that of finding another job (although even this right is denied in some countries if the employee owes the company money).

It should be stressed that this is not a strange paradox of the “self-ownership” axiom. Far from it. The doctrine was most famously expounded by John Locke, who argued that “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.” However, a person can sell, “for a certain time, the Service he undertakes to do, in exchange for Wages he is to receive.” The buyer of the labour then owns both it and its product. “Thus the Grass my Horse has bit; the Turfs my Servant has cut; and the Ore I have digg’d in any place where I have a right to them in common with others, becomes my Property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine … hath fixed my Property in them.” [Second Treatise on Government, Section 27, Section 85 and Section 28]

Thus a person (the servant) becomes the equivalent of an animal (the horse) once they have sold their labour to the boss. Wage labour denies the basic humanity and autonomy of the worker. Rather than being equals, private property produces relations of domination and alienation. Proudhon compared this to an association in which, “while the partnership lasts, the profits and losses are divided between them; since each produces, not for himself, but for the society; when the time of distribution arrives it is not the producer who is considered, but the associated. That is why the slave, to whom the planter gives straw and rice; and the civilised labour, to whom the capitalist pays a salary which is always too small, — not being associated with their employers, although producing with them, — are disregarded when the product is divided. Thus the horse who draws our coaches … produce with us, but are not associated with us; we take their product but do not share it with them. The animals and labourers whom we employ hold the same relation to us.” [What is Property?, p. 226]

So while the capitalist Locke sees nothing wrong in comparing a person to an animal, the anarchist Proudhon objects to the fundamental injustice of a system which turns a person into a resource for another to use. And we do mean resource, as the self-ownership thesis is also the means by which the poor become little more than spare parts for the wealthy. After all, the poor own their bodies and, consequently, can sell all or part of it to a willing party. This means that someone in dire economic necessity can sell parts of their body to the rich. Ultimately, ”[t]o tell a poor man that he has property because he has arms and legs — that the hunger from which he suffers, and his power to sleep in the open air are his property, — is to play upon words, and to add insult to injury.” [Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 80]

Obviously the ability to labour is not the property of a person — it is their possession. Use and ownership are fused and cannot be separated out. As such, anarchists argue that the history of capitalism shows that there is a considerable difference whether one said (like the defenders of capitalism) that slavery is wrong because every person has a natural right to the property of their own body, or because every person has a natural right freely to determine their own destiny (like the anarchists). The first kind of right is alienable and in the context of a capitalist regime ensures that the many labour for those who own the means of life. The second kind of right is inalienable as long as a person remained a person and, therefore, liberty or self-determination is not a claim to ownership which might be both acquired and surrendered, but an inextricable aspect of the activity of being human.

The anarchist position on the inalienable nature of human liberty also forms the basis for the excluded to demand access to the means necessary to labour. “From the distinction between possession and property,” argued Proudhon, “arise two sorts of rights: the jus in re, the right in a thing, the right by which I may reclaim the property which I have acquired, in whatever hands I find it; and jus ad rem, the right to a thing, which gives me a claim to become a proprietor … In the first, possession and property are united; the second includes only naked property. With me who, as a labourer, have a right to the possession of the products of Nature and my own industry — and who, as a proletaire, enjoy none of them — it is by virtue of the jus de rem that I demand admittance to the jus in re.” [Op. Cit., p. 65] Thus to make the self-ownership of labour and its products a reality for those who do the actual work in society rather than a farce, property must be abolished — both in terms of the means of life and also in defining liberty and what it means to be free.

So, contrary to Rothbard’s claim, capitalism in practice uses the rhetoric of self-ownership to alienate the right to genuine self-ownership because of the authoritarian structure of the workplace, which derives from private property. If we desire real self-ownership, we cannot renounce it for most of our adult lives by becoming wage slaves. Only workers’ self-management of production, not capitalism, can make self-ownership a reality:

“They speak of ‘inherent rights’, ‘inalienable rights’, ‘natural rights,’ etc … Unless the material conditions for equality exist, it is worse than mockery to pronounce men equal. And unless there is equality (and by equality I mean equal chances for every one to make the most of himself [or herself]) unless, I say, these equal changes exist, freedom, either of though, speech, or action, is equally a mockery … As long as the working-people … tramp the streets, whose stones they lay, whose filth they clean, whose sewers they dig, yet upon which they must not stand too long lest the policeman bid them ‘move on’; as long as they go from factory to factory, begging for the opportunity to be a slave, receiving the insults of bosses and foreman, getting the old ‘no,’ the old shake of the head, in these factories they built, whose machines they wrought; so long as they consent to be herd like cattle, in the cities, driven year after year, more and more, off the mortgaged land, the land they cleared, fertilised, cultivated, rendered of value . .. so long as they continue to do these things vaguely relying upon some power outside themselves, be it god, or priest, or politician, or employer, or charitable society, to remedy matters, so long deliverance will be delayed. When they conceive the possibility of a complete international federation of labour, whose constituent groups shall take possession of land, mines, factories, all the instruments of production … , in short, conduct their own industry without regulative interference from law-makers or employers, then we may hope for the only help which counts for aught — Self-Help; the only condition which can guarantee free speech [along with their other rights] (and no paper guarantee needed).” [Voltairine de Cleyre, The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, pp. 4–6]

To conclude, the idea that capitalism is based on self-ownership is radically at odds with reality if, by self-ownership, it is meant self-determination or individual autonomy. However, this is not surprising given that the rationale behind the self-ownership thesis is precisely to justify capitalist hierarchy and its resulting restrictions on liberty. Rather than being a defence of liberty, self-ownership is designed to facilitate its erosion. In order to make the promise of autonomy implied by the concept of “self-ownership” a reality, private property will need to be abolished.

For more discussion of the limitations, contradictions and fallacies of defining liberty in terms of self-ownership and property rights, see section F.2.

[bobcatmoran]

Oprah Winfrey. Hey, okay, sure.

The audience is on its feet for her.

"Who says you can't go home again?" she says, having hosted her show from Chicago for years and years.

There are people who say books are dangerous and assault rifles are safe, she says.

But if we stand together, it is impossible to conquer us.

She quotes John Lewis: No matter what ship our ancestors arrived on, we are all on the same boat now.

"Freedom isn't free," she says, a recurring jingoistic, yay ra ra military slogan, but in this case it's being applied much more generally, talking about how freedom for everyone in the country - to live without fear of discrimination - cannot be obtained without effort.

"Complicated times require adult conversation," she says.

And a shout out to people who talked about their experiences to make sure that no one would have to go through the same - the new freedom fighters, the best of America.

Oprah honors Tessie, Leona, and Gail, who were children who paved the way for integrating schools in New Orleans, who paved the way for another young girl who was a member of only the second integrated classes in Berkley, CA (Harris).

She emphasizes how this is within living memory, and yet, Harris is now the nominee for president. (U-S-A! U-S-A! the crowd chants)

Oprah then says that you cannot just vote in one election. She's always voted, as an Independent, for her values and has always, always voted. Because it's incredibly important. And she calls for other Independents and Undecideds to vote.

(I think this is as long as Bill Clinton's speech, but she's so much better of a speaker and also not a sex pest)

(Unless they skip the rest of the speakers, Walz is never gonna get on stage before 10 pm)

"Let us choose common sense over nonsense! And let us choose the sweet taste of tomorrow over the bitter taste of yesterday."

The crowd chants "We're not going back!"

C'mon, Oprah, you've hit like 5 ending points. Ah. Okay, never mind, that "Let's choose Kamala Haaaaariiiiiiiissss" was the end.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Erec Smith

Published: Jun 13, 2023

In many social justice circles, especially ones dedicated to racial justice, individualism is considered a negative quality. Those who embrace this idea typically understand individualism as diversity, equity and inclusion consultant Tema Okun does: “a toxic denial of our essential interdependence and the reality that we are all in this, literally, together.”

Those who deem race a person’s primary characteristic may, either implicitly or explicitly, embrace and promote race essentialism: the belief that racial groups are monolithic, comprised of people who share the exact same values, beliefs, outlooks, fears and hopes. One’s status as an individual is secondary, tertiary or simply not taken seriously at all.

But Okun’s take on individualism is erroneous. Group identification devoid of true individualism is one of the main obstacles to real social justice because it suggests a dogma that, by definition, does not take into consideration the details and distinctions of an individual life. By extension, such group consciousness hampers our ability, as a society, to have generative conversations across ideological differences.

Fortunately, Okun’s take on this topic is not the only one. Classical liberals also have ideas about individualism. For example, what F.A. Hayek calls “true individualism” also includes the concept of interdependence, or the idea that each individual needs other individuals to some degree. No one can do it all on his or her own. Even a hermit living a reclusive life needs the surrounding ecosystem to survive. However, the fact that one can choose hermetic living over other lifestyles in the first place is a result of individual freedom.

In truth, Okun’s interpretation is the opposite of true individualism. The hyper-individualism she inveighs against is a strawman and not possible, even if people believe, contrary to their lived experience, that it is. Civil society would not work without acknowledging our interdependence.

Importantly, true individualism is not a rejection of group affiliation. It is a rejection of the idea that groups, especially racial groups, are necessarily monolithic and all-encompassing.

The main issue is “group consciousness,” but this concept should not be confused with an all-out dismissal of groups. As Duke University political scientists Paula McClain and her co-authors have written in a 2009 paper, group consciousness “is in-group identification politicized by a set of ideological beliefs about one’s group’s social standing, as well as a view that collective action is the best means by which the group can improve its status and realize interests.”

Most certainly, this is what Nikole Hannah-Jones meant when she tweeted there is a “difference between being politically black and racially black.” Although group consciousness applied to race is often called race consciousness, this is not what is meant by “racially Black.” Specifically, those who are race conscious abide by a particular ideology that involves in-group preference, out-group culpability for the in-group’s problems, and a disapproval of narratives and ideas that do not align with the group’s ideology.

What’s more, group consciousness is so ingrained that anything that happens to an individual in a group has, in effect, also happened to everyone in the group. Slogans like “I am Michael Brown,” for instance, exemplify this.

This is not to say that empathy is a bad thing, but existential identification with someone based on a trait like race is misguided and stifling, leading to what may be the most detrimental and erroneous aspect of group consciousness: linked fate. As McClain et al. explain, linked fate denotes the use of the social standing of a group as a proxy for one’s individual identity, i.e., an individual’s fate is inevitably and intricately linked to that of the group. Any individual that seems to escape this fate is considered an exception.

Sen. Tim Scott recently made headlines when he countered the idea of linked fate during his appearance on the daytime talk show “The View.” When confronted with the idea that successful Black people from downtrodden upbringings are an exception, he stated, “I believe America could do for anyone what she’s done for me: restoring hope, creating opportunities, and defending and protecting the America that we love. It’s such an important combination.” He concluded that the “exception” of Black fulfillment can be made into the norm through education.

“One of the ways that we can restore hope in this country is to focus on our education system. We have too many kids in poor zip codes trapped in failing schools. I want parents to have a choice so kids have a bigger chance.” Scott’s point is that one’s zip code is not one’s life sentence; fates are not existentially linked to such things. Sadly, for having such optimism about the power of individual gumption, he was sardonically labeled “Professor Positive” and someone who “doesn’t get it” by one of the show’s hosts, a well-to-do white woman.

In addition to politicians, like Sen. Scott, who denounce the idea of linked fate, the concept also has been debunked by behavioral science mainly because it relies on the idea that individuals who have the same skin color experience the world in the same ways. Scott’s insistence that Black achievement can be normalized regardless of background, combined with the critique from the behavioral sciences, illuminate the fallacious reasoning behind linked fate and group consciousness in general.

A salient difference between those who do and do not embrace group consciousness is a matter of what psychologists Dolores Albarracin and Amy Mitchell call “defensive confidence.” Individuals who feel they can confidently defend their ideas are less likely to embrace group consciousness strongly, if at all.

Those who do not feel confidence in defending their ideas may see group consciousness as a ready-made shortcut to thinking; the answer to critical inquiry or refutation is always already in some or all of the group’s ideological tenets, maxims and talking points. Those who embrace group consciousness do not have to think of ways to defend their ideas; the group does it for them.

Perhaps most importantly, people with defensive confidence seem more likely to entertain opposing ideas and, therefore, are more likely to understand and even potentially align with those ideas. Perhaps counterintuitively, individuals with the most defensive confidence are more likely to have their minds changed by opposing views simply because they are willing to engage them.

Not surprisingly, individuals who embrace group consciousness and enjoy a kind of group confidence are less likely to entertain opposing viewpoints. This suggests defensive confidence better ensures communication across differences than does group consciousness.

So individualism is not a symptom of a divided society but one of its remedies. It is more conducive to self-actualization (as opposed to group actualization), and it actually fosters communication across differences.

Defensive confidence—aligned with self-efficacy, agency, positive self-regard—is a kind of empowered individualism that, when not beholden to race or some other form of group identity, is more open to exploring possibilities ignored by those who fear scrutiny of their group-oriented outlook.

Such individualism is liberating and empowering, whereas group consciousness—even if it staves off fear and anxiety—is an ideological prison.

[alexeimarco1997]

Customized fridge magnets from Kustominds are more than just decorative pieces; they are versatile promotional tools and personalized keepsakes. These magnets are fully customizable to align with your branding needs and personal preferences. Whether you're looking to add a touch of flair to your kitchen, promote your business in a creative way, or create memorable souvenirs for special events, our custom fridge magnets are the perfect solution.

Key Features of Kustominds' Customized Fridge Magnets:

Endless Customization: You have the creative freedom to design magnets that suit your style or brand. Choose from various shapes, sizes, and materials to create a unique magnet that stands out.

Branding Opportunities: Businesses can leverage these magnets as promotional items to increase brand visibility. Add your logo, contact information, or a catchy slogan to leave a lasting impression on clients and customers.

Durable and Functional: Our magnets are built to last and can securely hold up notes, photos, and more on your refrigerator or any magnetic surface.

Personalized Gifts: Create thoughtful and personalized gifts for special occasions such as weddings, birthdays, and anniversaries. Customize them with photos, messages, or artwork that hold sentimental value.

Event Souvenirs: Commemorate events like conferences, trade shows, or product launches with custom magnets. They serve as memorable tokens for attendees.

Environmental Responsibility: Kustominds offers eco-friendly options made from sustainable materials, catering to environmentally conscious consumers and businesses.

Bulk Ordering: Whether you need a few magnets for personal use or thousands for a marketing campaign, we accommodate bulk orders with quick turnaround times.

Customized fridge magnets from Kustominds are a versatile and creative way to express your individuality, promote your brand, or commemorate special moments. With our commitment to quality and customization, you can trust us to deliver magnets that exceed your expectations. Discover the endless possibilities of personalized fridge magnets and enhance your branding or personal style with Kustominds.

[juvenalesque]

I wanted to include the video here, but tumblr seems to refuse to allow it. I recommend watching before reading my article following. Welcome to my blog:

This video begins a very important conversation in a way almost everyone can understand. Each "different economic system" in our history has only been repeating the one proceeding it in every way: except for those minimum concessions made that are appeasement enough that the oppressed willingly accept the enthusiastic new way of presenting the roles and rituals of the ways of life. Propaganda has been effective each time more readily than the last for the ones who barely grasped to keep ahold of their power educated themselves & cooperated with more zeal to promote their agenda. Whether it be the religion that stands for building a firm foundation for the construction of loyalty or those that conveniently reach the same result while claiming freedom from the cultural constructs of religion, these power modules do not rest when it comes to finding ways to increase their benefit while never releasing a life of extreme luxury as to avoid any useful labor or participation in the function of society. If there is one thing they engrain into their ways it is a simple fact that the truest power is knowledge. This provides the knowledge that to divide is to conquer, to destroy unity and utilize discontented disorder for their justifications, or even to go so far as to allow large parts of the system to be pruned for the preservation of the desired organism. When you see an apocalypse, a war-torn nation of dust, ancient languages lost as quickly as the literacy of a nation of revolution, leaving way for the oath of new ownership called freedom. This is freedom at last. Never again, but every time. To obliterate anyone with a new way of looking at things so that we can bury our heads in the sand of cognitive dissonance for the truth is inconvenient. This is the history of the world, but it is our present. Colonization moved locations, servitude became employment, and loyalty to one another became nationalism/patriotism to the ruling class, and time to yourself become a luxury because if you have time to tarry you have time to think, & that makes you dangerous. If you have basic decency & kindness, you have brotherhood, & that breeds altruism. If you have United thinkers, you start a controlled demolition. The mistake always made by the masses is the one built into the training of every mind born into the existing world as one knows it: foresight becomes the afterthought. It is only by grassroots organizational patterns, voluntary associations, education on facts & commonalities of compromise that the human race can survive this time. IF humanity fails to unite with a new slogan, "Earthlings for Terra & Terra for all Earthlings" or a phrase of the same sentiment, then tick-tock will go the clock, & past stops existing in the present while the future is obliterated by nuclear proportion...possibly literally. People think about how their very presence in the past would change their present if they had access to time-space-travel, but nobody stops to think about how each thing they can do in the present has the same ripple effect on the future. Non-objection is compliance is to be complicit. Wake up every day and choose to always be open to new ideas and change your mind when presented with new and valid information. Maybe you'll be the most valuable piece in saving the world. Above all: be kind. You may realize that this short story also alludes to how our for-profit prisons have been used in this same manner, as we replaced ourselves with nationalism/patriotism, our ears perk at the posh remodeling of language to quench our thirst for peace with pleasant lies so we don't have to swallow the truth. We are not free. We all should be. Yet, just as colonialism never ended, now the capitalist ideology has implemented the military-industrial complex as a means to the expansion of territory and resources-- one of those resources being human beings.

[rare-vos-in-socks]

Okay, so this actually relates to my favorite US Supreme Court case ever: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/319us624

A religious family in Pennsylvania had gotten into a kerfuffle with their local school board (Minersville School District v. Gobitis) and the court established that religious freedom would not stop a school from kicking students out if the students (and/or their families) tried to use religion to get out of strictly secular affairs... in this case, the flag salute.

Something similar happened in West Virginia, but this time the Supreme Court ruled rather differently. The minority opinion was basically, "What about Gobitis?!?" However, the case made to the court hadn't been framed as a separation of church and state issue (ala Gobitis), but as breach of basic rights of all belief - including secular. The majority opinion is masterclass on the role of public of public education within a nation-state:

"Here, however, we are dealing with a compulsion of students to declare a belief. They are not merely made acquainted with the flag salute so that they may be informed as to what it is or even what it means. The issue here is whether this slow and easily neglected route to aroused loyalties constitutionally may be short-cut by substituting a compulsory salute and slogan."

"Free public education, if faithful to the ideal of secular instruction and political neutrality, will not be partisan or enemy of any class, creed, party, or faction. If it is to impose any ideological discipline, however, each party or denomination must seek to control, or, failing that, to weaken, the influence of the educational system. Observance of the limitations of the Constitution will not weaken government in the field appropriate for its exercise."

"National unity, as an end which officials may foster by persuasion and example, is not in question. The problem is whether, under our Constitution, compulsion as here employed is a permissible means for its achievement. Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good, as well as by evil, men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, but, at other times and places, the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard."

"

Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous, instead of a compulsory routine, is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us."

[jefarawol]

Is this truly so complex a puzzle? Or have you no stomach for the obvious solution?

What in the hells are you doing here!?

A pleasure to see you too, Garlond. Now, if you would be so kind as to explain to these good people why you should be begging me for my assistance, that would be most appreciated.

Who is this man?

A pain in the ass...

Oh, how terrifically rude of me! Nero tol Scaeva, former tribunus of the XIVth Legion of the Garlean Empire. These days, however, one might say that I am something of a free agent.

What do you want, Nero? 

I was getting to that. Although you already know what I am about to propose, old friend. As you have rather belatedly realized, within that frail binding lurks an entity alike in strength to the great Bahamut. And the only force in existence which might conceivably contend with such a foe is the very creation which captured the elder primal in the first place. I speak, of course, of Omega.

Omega!? That hulk has been gathering dust beneath the plains of Carteneau since the Allagans breathed their last! And none alive knows how to wake it.

I'm sorry─do you understand who it is with whom you have the privilege of speaking? I am Nero tol Scaeva, master engineer─the mechanical genius who restored the Ultima Weapon to full operational capacity! And, as luck would have it, I am graciously offering you the use of my considerable expertise.

And, what, you just expect us to accept? You're a fool if you think your deeds at the Crystal Tower were enough to win my trust, Nero.

Trust? You wound me, Garlond! All those years studying side by side at the Academy, sharing both trial and triumph. We were countrymen, once, you and I. But sentiment aside─have you a better solution? Or do you mean to send in your vaunted hero there, as you always do, and pray the world is not engulfed in flame? Let us approach the problem in a rational manner. Does not the fact that Omega slumbers in stasis point to the existence of some overriding technology? A means of control?

I would ask a question, if I may─Nero, was it not? In the event that we succeeded in using Omega to shackle the primal in the manner you propose, what then would become of it? Do we not risk repeating the mistakes of the Allagans?

Omega is but a tool. How we choose to employ that tool is entirely up to us. Of course, if you would rather leave it buried beneath Carteneau while you continue your petty squabbles above, then I suppose that is also your choice.

Spare us, Nero! The Seedseer's concern is a valid one. He who controls Omega wields the power of the gods. The very power which led the Allagans to destroy themselves.

And does it not fall to we engineers to prevent such misuse? What was your company's proud slogan? “Freedom through Technology”?Cid: Hah. A creed you follow, is it?

What say you? Do we take this villain at his word?

No, but I'll keep and eye on him.

As will I. I don't like it, but then it doesn't look like we have much choice. Would the council be willing to entrust this matter to a pair of former imperials?

Yes. The task of restoring the Allagan relic will be yours. But the responsibility for its reawakening must remain with the council. Do we condone this course of action?

Aye. 'Twould seem we do. Let the records show that we invest this contingent with the authority to enter Carteneau and take command of Omega. Cid, I appoint you leader of the expedition. Scions─I would ask that you assign some few of your number to escort Master Garlond and supervise the other one.

[spanishsongs]

Herbert Pagani - Pleading for my Land

... I, a left-wing Jew, have nothing to do with a left that wants to liberate all men to the detriment of some, because I am precisely one of them. We should all strive for equality but also fight for the right to be different. If the left wishes me to adhere to its precepts, it cannot ignore my problem.

[...]

It would take me three days only to name all the pogroms of Spain, Russia, Poland and North Africa. As he was forced to flee and to move around, the Jew went everywhere, ending up being of nowhere. We are among the people similar to the welfare children. I don’t want to be adopted any more. I don’t want my life to depend on my owners’ moods any more. I don’t want to be a ‘rented citizen’ any longer.

I’ve had enough of knocking at History’s doors and of waiting until I’m told: ‘Come in!’ So, I enter and I yell! “I am at home on this earth and in it I have my land: it was promised to me, and it will be mine!” What is Zionism? It is summed up in a simple sentence: “Next year in Jerusalem.” No, it’s not a slogan of the Club Med. It is written in the Bible, the book that has sold more copies than any other, and has been misunderstood more than any other book in the world.

And this prayer became a roar, a roar that is over 2000 years old; the fathers of Columbus, Kafka, Proust, Chagall, Marx, Einstein, and even Mr. Kissinger, have repeated this sentence, this roar, at least once a year, on Passover. Then, is Zionism equal to Racism? Don’t make me laugh! Is ‘Gentle France, dear country of my childhood’ a racist anthem? Zionism is the name of a struggle for freedom! In the world, everybody has its Jews. The French have theirs: they are the Breton, Occitans, Corsicans, and the immigrant workers. The Italians have their Sicilians; the Americans have their Blacks; the Spaniards their Basques.

As for us, we are EVERYBODY’S Jews. To those that tell me: ‘What about the Palestinians?’, I answer: “I am a 2000 year-old Palestinian. I am the oldest oppressed man in the world.” I will negotiate with them, but I will not yield my place to them. There’s enough space there for two peoples and two nations. The borders are to be determined together. But the existence of one country cannot in anyway exclude the existence of the other. And the political options of a government never called into question the existence of a nation, whatever the nation.

Then why should Israel be an exception? When Israel is out of danger, I will choose among the Jews and my Arab neighbors, those who share my philosophy, my ideals. But until then, I must be united with all of my people, even those whom I hate, in order to counter RACISM, that terrible enemy. Descartes was wrong when he stated: ‘I think, therefore I am’. To me, it means nothing whatsoever. We have been thinking for 5000 years, and we still don’t exist! My motto therefore is: ‘I defend myself, therefore I am!’

[londonscreenprinters]

Do you provide custom t-shirt printing?

Introduction

At London Screen Printers, we pride ourselves on offering top-tier custom t-shirt printing services tailored to meet the diverse needs of our clients. Whether you're looking to promote your brand, celebrate a special event, or create unique merchandise, our custom t-shirt printing services are designed to deliver high-quality results that exceed your expectations.

Why Choose Custom T-Shirt Printing?

Brand Visibility

Custom t-shirts are a powerful tool for enhancing brand visibility. By incorporating your logo and brand message into a wearable item, you create a walking advertisement that can reach a wide audience. T-Shirt Printing London offers this form of marketing, which is not only cost-effective but also highly impactful.

Unique Designs

With custom t-shirt printing, you have the freedom to create unique designs that reflect your personal style or business ethos. Whether you want intricate graphics, bold slogans, or subtle branding, our services allow you to bring your vision to life with precision and flair.

Versatile Applications

Custom t-shirts are incredibly versatile. They can be used for various purposes, including corporate events, team uniforms, promotional giveaways, and personal gifts. The flexibility of custom t-shirt printing makes it an ideal choice for a wide range of occasions and audiences.

Our Custom T-Shirt Printing Process

Initial Consultation

The process begins with an initial consultation where we discuss your ideas, requirements, and goals. This helps us understand your vision and provide expert advice on the best printing techniques, materials, and design options to achieve the desired results.

Design and Proofing

Our talented design team works closely with you to create a digital proof of your t-shirt design. This allows you to visualize the final product and make any necessary adjustments before printing begins. We ensure that every detail is perfect and aligns with your expectations.

Printing Techniques

At London Screen Printers, we offer a variety of printing techniques to suit different needs and preferences:

Screen Printing: Ideal for large orders, screen printing offers vibrant colors and durable prints. This technique is perfect for bold designs and logos.

Direct-to-Garment (DTG) Printing: Suitable for small orders and intricate designs, DTG printing provides high-resolution prints directly onto the fabric. It allows for a wide range of colors and complex details.

Heat Transfer: Great for small batches and quick turnaround times, heat transfer printing involves transferring designs onto t-shirts using heat and pressure. This method is excellent for detailed images and photographs.

Embroidery: For a premium, textured finish, embroidery involves stitching your design directly onto the fabric. This technique is perfect for logos and monograms.

Quality Control

Quality is our top priority at London Screen Printers. Every t-shirt undergoes a rigorous quality control process to ensure that the prints are sharp, vibrant, and durable. We use high-quality inks and materials to guarantee long-lasting results that withstand regular wear and washing.

Eco-Friendly Practices

We are committed to sustainability and eco-friendly practices. Our printing processes utilize water-based inks and environmentally responsible methods to minimize our carbon footprint. By choosing London Screen Printers, you support a business that cares about the planet.

Customization Options

Fabric Choices

We offer a wide selection of t-shirt fabrics, including 100% cotton, polyester blends, and organic materials. Each fabric type has its own benefits, and we help you choose the best option based on your needs and preferences.

Color Variety

Our t-shirts come in a vast array of colors, allowing you to select the perfect shade to complement your design. Whether you prefer classic white, bold primary colors, or trendy pastels, we have options to suit every taste.

Sizes and Styles

From small to XXL, we cater to all sizes to ensure everyone can enjoy a custom t-shirt that fits perfectly. Additionally, we offer various styles, including crew neck, V-neck, long sleeves, and tank tops, to match your specific requirements.

Benefits of Choosing London Screen Printers

Expertise and Experience

With years of experience in the industry, our team possesses the expertise and skills necessary to deliver exceptional custom t-shirt printing services. We stay up-to-date with the latest trends and techniques to provide innovative solutions that meet your needs.

Personalized Service

We believe in offering personalized service to each client. From the initial consultation to the final delivery, we work closely with you to ensure your vision is realized. Our dedicated team is always available to answer your questions and provide support throughout the process.

Competitive Pricing

We understand the importance of budget-friendly options without compromising on quality. Our competitive pricing ensures you receive excellent value for your investment. We offer transparent pricing with no hidden fees, making it easy for you to plan your project.

Fast Turnaround Times

We know that time is of the essence, especially for events and promotions. Our efficient processes and dedicated team enable us to offer fast turnaround times without sacrificing quality. We ensure your custom t-shirts are delivered on time, every time.

Conclusion

At London Screen Printers, we provide comprehensive custom t-shirt printing services that cater to your unique needs and preferences. As T Shirt Printers in London, our expertise, state-of-the-art equipment, and commitment to quality deliver exceptional results that make your designs come to life. Whether you need custom t-shirts for branding, events, or personal use, we are your trusted partner in creating high-quality, customized apparel.

[evo9x2]

Elevate Your Style and Comfort With EVO9X Custom Football Sweatpants

In sports, comfort and style are essential elements that can make or break your performance. Whether on the field or cheering from the sidelines, the right attire can boost your confidence and elevate your game. In football, where agility and flexibility are paramount, finding comfort in sportswear can be a game-changer. EVO9X custom sublimated football sweatpants are a revolutionary choice for athletes seeking unparalleled comfort and impeccable style.

Our football sweatpants are designed with the modern athlete in mind. Crafted from premium materials and tailored for optimal performance, these sweatpants offer a perfect balance of style and comfort. Whether you're training rigorously or lounging casually, these sweatpants are engineered to meet the demands of your active lifestyle.

In this blog post, we'll discuss how our custom football sweatpants are perfect for all levels of players to elevate the game.

The Importance of Style and Comfort in Sportswear

In any athletic endeavour, your clothing is more than just fabric; it's a tool that can enhance your performance and reflect your identity as an athlete. Comfortable attire allows you to move freely and focus on your game, while stylish design boosts your confidence and makes a statement on and off the field.

Features 

What sets our custom football sweatpants apart from the rest? The following are some of their standout features:

High-Quality Fabric: We understand the importance of fabric quality in sportswear. That's why our football joggers are crafted from top-quality materials that withstand the rigors of athletic activity and ensure breathability and comfort. Say goodbye to uncomfortable chafing and restrictive fabrics – our sweatpants are designed to keep you fresh and focused throughout your training sessions and games.

Athletic Fit: While comfort is paramount, style should never be compromised. Tailored to provide maximum mobility, these football straight-fit sweatpants hug your body in all the right places, enhancing your silhouette without restricting movement. Whether you're sprinting down the field or stretching for a pass, you can trust us to keep you looking and feeling your best.

Moisture-Wicking Technology: Sweat happens – especially during intense workouts and matches. But with our youth football sweatpants, you can say goodbye to that uncomfortable, clammy feeling. Due to advanced moisture-wicking technology, these sweatpants draw moisture away while playing, keeping you comfortable and dry even when the heat is on. Say hello to a sweat-free, distraction-free performance every time you step onto the field.

Customizable Design: We offer our custom sublimated football sweatpants with a high level of personalization that is unmatched by other brands. Whether you want to showcase your team pride with a custom logo or add a personal touch with your name or number, the customization options are endless. Select from various colors, fonts, and design elements to create a unique pair of youth football sweatpants that reflect your  style and identity as an athlete. With EVO9X, you're not just wearing a garment but making a statement.

Benefits Of Choosing Custom Football Sweatpants

By opting for our football straight-fit sweatpants, athletes can enjoy a myriad of benefits, including:

Enhanced Performance: The comfortable fit and freedom of movement allow you to perform at your best.

Confidence Boost: Stylish design and personalized customization make you stand out on and off the field.

Durability: Built to withstand the game's rigors, ensuring longevity and value for money.

How to Customize Your Football Sweatpants

One of the most exciting aspects of our custom sublimated football sweatpants is the ability to personalize them according to your preferences. Whether you want to add your team's logo,  name, or motivational slogan, the customization options are endless. Simply choose your design and preferred colors and fonts, and watch your unique sweatpants come to life.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our football sweatpants offer the perfect blend of style and comfort for players of all levels.  Their top-quality quality, customizable design, and performance-enhancing features make them a must-have addition to any footballer's wardrobe. Up your game and make a statement with us – where style meets comfort on the field. Contact us for football sweatpants near me!