note. a ‘SWEEP’ in this context means a mass police attack/eviction on a houseless camp in the US.
a ‘STRIKE’ here means a great success when you knock down all the pins, in bowling
Report on ongoing encampment defense in so-called Minneapolis, MN.
Minneapolis encampment defenders sought to “strike” back against camp sweeps on Tuesday 5/25 with a, “You Sweep? We Strike!,” breakfast and bowling event at a longstanding encampment.
Defenders of camps have been organizing weekly morning get-togethers to defend against potential evictions, and display to the city that camps have popular support as the safest alternative for unhoused neighbors while the city refuses to provide housing.
— Twin Cities Encampment Responders (@TCparkresponder) May 25, 2022
Sweeps split up communities and families; cops and public works employees allow residents only a short time to spare whatever meager belongings they can from the bulldozers.
The city recently shifted responsibility for camp evictions to the Department of Regulatory Services, whose director Saray Garnett-Hochuli recently gave a tirade before the city council in which she declared camps “will not be tolerated” in the city. Hochuli also falsely claimed that a police officer had a leg broken by camp defenders, whom she portrays as violent outside agitators.
We demand Hochuli and city departments stay in their lane, stop playing gutter politics and leave camps alone.
Colombia celebrará elecciones presidenciales en unos días y por primera vez en décadas la izquierda tiene una posibilidad real de ganar. ¿Qué ha pasado para que el país esté a punto de dar semejante viraje? ¿Cómo llega Colombia a estas elecciones y cuál ha sido su camino hacia el cambio?
11:30 La cosa no termina hasta que termina. La derecha aún puede ganar. ¡No se olviden de suscribirse al canal y activar la campañita! También estoy en otras redes:
In a demonstration of repressive policing, Seville cops attacked and destroyed the squatted space on the day it opened for community use – having spent six months largely ignoring it while it was cleared and made useable. The politically-charged eviction at a former concert hall targeted a site that was about to provide a community hub for challenging rampant gentrification in the city. In a statement the Lioness collective described the scene:
After several months of collective work and some very intense weeks preparing the space, on Thursday May 19th it was finally time to make it public and open the space to anyone who wanted to get closer and get involved. Many people came to show their support and joy. There was finally a Self-Managed Okupado Social Center in Seville, after so many years.
We didn’t lose our cool when the police approached, as we were prepared to face the situation, with about a hundred people nearby, with the assembly well organised and united, including a mediator and a lawyer. We told the police that the building had been occupied by us for weeks, so they would need a court order to evict us, which they obviously didn’t have.
After standing for hours in front of the doors, at around 10pm an officer asked to speak to the comrades inside. Then the disappointment became clear: the police put on their helmets, took an aggressive posture and went to the door. They pushed us back without a second thought, until we were in a position where it would be impossible to see what they were doing to the comrades inside. So, in front of everyone out on the pavement, and in front of many cell phone cameras recording and recording everything that was happening, they opened the door by force, with great violence. When they entered, threatening them with tasers, they forced comrades to lie on the ground to later identify them and force them out.
To put the icing on the cake of the series of rules they were breaking, half of the cops weren’t wearing identification badges, because “if there is a fire it burns” or because “I dropped it”, among other regrettable excuses. They refused to identify themselves, and told the lawyer that we should wait to receive the official police report (which was never given to us).
Prior to the occupation, the hall had been rotting for nine years and was full of rubbish.
So they ended the space that had just been born, in a building which which had been abandoned for nine years and to which we were going to give a new life, as you can read in our opening manifesto. But, as we said at the time: They may trash the spaces, but never the ideas.
While the anger and frustration we feel at this situation is enormous, we are not surprised either. It is already common practice in our city that the powerful, and the repressive agents who protect them, ignore their own laws. Many spaces have already been illegally evicted, in the heat of the moment, without order and in an intimidating and violent way. We already know that private property is defended above everything and everyone.
All this only strengthens us in what we do, what we think and who we are. We will never forget the moment of unfurling the banner and reading the manifesto, nor the many hours that dozens and dozens of people spent defending our space, their space. Let’s keep squatting and resisting. WE RETURN.
ONE LOST, ANOTHER OCCUPATION!
I WOULD BE ASHAMED TO BE A POLICEMAN!
IN YOUR HOME AND IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD, LIBERTARIAN FEMINISM!
¿Cuál es la base del individualismo y es compatible con una concepción socialista? Aquí cuestiono a los cercanos al movimiento anarquista.
Llevo mucho tiempo interesado en este movimiento, y me he dado cuenta de todas sus contradicciones, no podría exponerlas aquí.
Pero me gustaría proporcionar un razonamiento primario, aunque superficial, para cualquier activista interesado en la teoría individualista.
Muchos pensadores se han declarado individualistas, muchos anarquistas se han declarado individualistas, y han dado una definición, pero este no será mi tema; pues si es cierto que algunos han dado una definición, no estoy cuestionando esta última, sino la idea misma de utilizar el término «Individualismo», desde un punto de vista semejante.
Porque al final, los individualistas podrían muy bien haber cometido un error en la elección de este nombre, atribuyéndole una definición que ya pertenece a otras luchas, que es lo que yo destacaría.
Aunque en la tercera parte de este ensayo veremos lo cerca que está el movimiento individualista del individualismo semítico que hemos analizado.
Si se entiende como una doctrina política, entonces significa la sacralización del individuo en la lucha; permítanme explicar: ¿Qué significa el feminismo?
Es una lucha que sitúa a las mujeres en el centro de su pensamiento. ¿Qué significa Ecologismo? Es una lucha que sitúa al medio ambiente en el centro de su pensamiento.
¿Qué significa colectivismo?
Es una lucha que sitúa el bien común en el centro de su pensamiento. ¿Qué significa entonces el individualismo? Es una lucha que pone en el centro de su pensamiento: el individuo, nada más.
El socialismo, con la misma fórmula, extrae las mismas definiciones: el socialismo es la lucha que pone lo social en el centro de su pensamiento. Así como el pacifismo pone la no violencia en el centro de su lucha, como el liberalismo pone la libertad económica en el centro de su lucha, como
El marxismo pone en el centro de su lucha la lectura de Marx, el socialismo pone en el centro lo social, el entorno social, lo común, el bienestar público.
Los términos individualismo y socialismo son, de hecho, opuestos, ya que ambos son antítesis, al igual que el colectivismo y el liberalismo son opuestos.
El colectivismo ve el organismo social, el liberalismo ve el individuo; lo mismo ocurre con la dualidad individualismo-socialismo.
Uno podría estar tentado de decir que el socialismo y el individualismo son dos caras de la misma moneda, una cara comunitaria y la otra que defiende la libertad del individuo, pero esta visión es semánticamente falsa.
Ser marxista es declararse partidario de Marx; ser feminista es declararse partidario de las mujeres; ser individualista es declararse partidario del individuo, y este acto no es inocente.
Ser individualista es declararse partidario del individuo, y esto no es un acto inocente, pues tomar partido explícitamente «por el individuo» es situarlo por encima de la colectividad, del contrato social, del resto, de cualquier cuerpo político, de cualquier agrupación social.
Es decir, anteponer los intereses individuales a los colectivos, hacer que la individualidad invada la comunidad al considerarla más importante.
Querer la libertad antes que la igualdad, o el bien público, ¿no es una forma estrecha de miras y egocéntrica de ver el mundo?
Quien quiere el bien público quiere el bien de los demás, ve el mundo social, que compromete la libertad civil de las partes contratantes.
El socialismo, o comunismo, antepone los intereses de lo social, de lo común, al individuo; considerándolo más importante. Si no existiera esta distinción, no serían necesarias dos palabras.
Por poner un ejemplo, un pensamiento comunista sería decir que todo el mundo tiene derecho a expresarse, siempre que no llame al odio contra nadie (el interés colectivo prima sobre el interés individual), un pensamiento individualista sería decir que el individuo tiene un derecho fundamental a decir lo que quiera, aunque desagrade o perjudique a los demás (el interés individual prima sobre el interés colectivo).
En realidad, una doctrina política no sólo pone un tema central en su lucha, sino que también combate su opuesto y lo que le impide prosperar: el feminismo lucha contra el masculinismo, el feminismo aboga por la liberación de la mujer del hombre, el masculinismo aboga por la dominación del hombre sobre la mujer.
There has been a concerted effort, through governments and organisations globally, to implement a campaign of fear amongst the population.
Specific narratives have been executed to establish a global culture of irrational fear, blame, compliance, conformity, collectivism, scapegoating and a distrust of data coming from non-government sanctioned sources.
Three months after the start of Russia’s Operation Z in Ukraine, the battle of The West (12 percent) against The Rest (88 percent) keeps metastasizing. Yet the narrative – oddly – remains the same.
On Monday, from Davos, World Economic Forum Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab introduced Ukrainian comedian-cum-President Volodymyr Zelensky, on the latest leg of his weapons-solicitation-tour, with a glowing tribute. Herr Schwab stressed that an actor impersonating a president defending neo-Nazis is supported by “all of Europe and the international order.”
He means, of course, everyone except the 88 percent of the planet that subscribes to the Rule of Law – instead of the faux construct the west calls a ‘rules-based international order.’
Back in the real world, Russia, slowly but surely has been rewriting the Art of Hybrid War. Yet within the carnival of NATO psyops, aggressive cognitive infiltration, and stunning media sycophancy, much is being made of the new $40 billion US ‘aid’ package to Ukraine, deemed capable of becoming a game-changer in the war.
This ‘game-changing’ narrative comes courtesy of the same people who burned though trillions of dollars to secure Afghanistan and Iraq. And we saw how that went down.
Ukraine is the Holy Grail of international corruption. That $40 billion can be a game-changer for only two classes of people: First, the US military-industrial complex, and second, a bunch of Ukrainian oligarchs and neo-connish NGOs, that will corner the black market for weapons and humanitarian aid, and then launder the profits in the Cayman Islands.
A quick breakdown of the $40 billion reveals $8.7 billion will go to replenish the US weapons stockpile (thus not going to Ukraine at all); $3.9 billion for USEUCOM (the ‘office’ that dictates military tactics to Kiev); $5 billion for a fuzzy, unspecified “global food supply chain”; $6 billion for actual weapons and “training” to Ukraine; $9 billion in “economic assistance” (which will disappear into selected pockets); and $0.9 billion for refugees.
US risk agencies have downgraded Kiev to the dumpster of non-reimbursing-loan entities, so large American investment funds are ditching Ukraine, leaving the European Union (EU) and its member-states as the country’s only option.
Few of those countries, apart from Russophobic entities such as Poland, can justify to their own populations sending huge sums of direct aid to a failed state. So it will fall to the Brussels-based EU machine to do just enough to maintain Ukraine in an economic coma – independent from any input from member-states and institutions…….
The Free 