Occupy The White House, The Decade of Resistance

The election of Bernie Sanders would not just be a boom for democracy, it would be the ultimate and final victory of the Occupy movement.

The 2010s were a decade that was defined by Occupy, the camp beginning in 2010 and its effects carrying on well into 2011 as well as the beginning of the Arab Spring all laid the foundation for a decade to be defined by protest. In 2011 Time Magazine called “The Protester,” the person of the year.

Despite the collapse of Occupy due to structurlessness, police raids, and undercover police infiltration, the sentiment of Occupy has flourished.

The rhetoric of the 99% vs the 1% has carried into the 2020 race for the presidency.

The entire decade has been filled with revolt and revolution across the globe. Syria, Haiti, Chile, Zimbabwe, France, and several other countries have seen huge scale demonstrations of public dissent.

The election of Donald Trump was followed by a wave of people filling the streets chanting “Not my President,” and the number of different marches all rejecting his agenda, such as the March for Science, the Tax March, the Women’s March, and the Still Here Still Trans marches, all continued well into his first two years in office.

Occupy went from being a fringe protest to a global movement almost overnight, and sometimes it feels like the movement ended as quickly as it began. However the movement never really ended, it just shifted gears.

Now it has the chance to achieve it’s ultimate validation in a Bernie Sanders presidency.

Bernie Sanders was the only person serving in congress at the time to acknowledge Occupy Wall Street, not only was he the only one to acknowledge us, and he was the only one who would stand by us.

Bernie Sanders has also said he wants to be “the organizer in chief.” Which reminds me of the core sentiment of Occupy, we were not actually a “leaderless” movement, we were a movement of leaders.

The election of Bernie Sanders in 2020 would be the ultimate conclusion to the Occupy Decade. We will have gone from occupying Zuccoti Park to controlling the country. We cannot forsake this chance to over take the 1% masters of capital.

This is our decade, the time of the people, the decade of the 99%, the era of occupy, and we will conclude this era by taking what is ours.

Surprised JK Rowling Is A Monster? Then You Didn’t Pay Attention to Harry Potter

Are you shocked, absolutely shocked, that JK Rowling would out herself so blatantly as a transphobic bigot?

Don’t be. Rowling has never been on the side of the oppressed.

She was one of the agents of smear against the integral Jeremy Corbyn, which helped the Tories sweep the latest general election, and she insisted that the U.K. “welcome” Donald Trump when he makes his state visits.

How could someone who inspired the imaginations of so many be so closed minded?

Well, if we had been paying attention to her work, we could have seen that she has been a class traitor this whole time.

Let us review the overall plot of her magnum opus, the Harry Potter Series:

The series is about an entire class of people (wizards), who are segregated from the general population (they have their own schools, shopping centers, they even have their own trains!) In order to be a part of this class YOU HAVE TO BE BORN INTO IT (eugenics, much?). This wizard class, that is apparently too good to mix with the muggle masses, has total control over a single commodity (magic).

Here is where it starts to get good: to be a wizard you must be born into this class, and theoretically this class COULD cure all of the worlds ills with the commodity at their control. I always found it infuriating that wizards could be curing disease and ending world hunger, but for some reason they just choose not to.

The most infuriating part however is that NO ONE IN THE BOOKS QUESTIONS THIS! Everyone just accepts that it is okay to not use magic to help muggles, in fact the wizards ARE FORBIDDEN to use their magic in the muggle realm for any reason! Much like how the capitalists will make excuses and laws forbidding the redistribution of wealth or the feeding of the homeless on the street.

The books are one giant justification of the existence of billionaires. Billionaires sit on the majority of the worlds wealth while we suffer and toil. Most end up in the ranks of this class through inheritance, as wizards inherit their magic.

So to review, you have the eugenic idea of birth essentialism in how wizards inherit their magic. You have a justification for a small class of people controlling a world benefiting commodity, while they live in a segregated community.

Yeah… I’m really glad I grew up as a Star Wars nerd.

Book One of The Harry Potter Series

Hundreds of lives a year

Hundreds of lives a year,

No rest for the wicked they say.

But what is so wicked about selling something to feed a baby?

When you have nothing to sell but flesh or a high,

Is that really your fault?

Hundreds of lives a year,

Thousands rotting in the cold

Or drowning in the rain.

No rest for the wicked,

No homes for the poor.


Hundreds of lives a year.

Hundreds of lives a year

Hundreds of lives a year,

No rest for the wicked they say.

But what is so wicked about selling something to feed a baby?

When you have nothing to sell but flesh or a high,

Is that really your fault?

Hundreds of lives a year,

Thousands rotting in the cold

Or drowning in the rain.

No rest for the wicked,

No homes for the poor.


Hundreds of lives a year.

No, Democratic Socialism Is Not Redundant

A common argument against organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America and their tactics is that the concept of “democratic socialism” is redundant because “true socialism is inherently democratic.”

Emphasizing the democratic elements of socialism is not redundant when we are at a phase in the dialectic where we do not have true socialism, nor is the left and working class even in agreement about what “true socialism” is.

We live in a late capitalist phase of what Marx called, “the March of History,” where we see the inevitable power struggle for what socialism means. We live in an era that is still hungover from human rights violations being attached to the word socialism.

First we must address what is “true socialism.” Usually those who argue for what is and is not “true socialism” are arguing that countries such as China or the USSR are not actually socialist, or at least have not been socialist since a certain period of time.

I will state here that while I disagree with the model of socialism birthed by Stalin and Mao, I am not going to split hairs over what is and is not socialism. The socialism of China or the USSR was socialism, but it cannot be denied that democratic centralist models of socialism are authoritarian. It is vital to differentiate authoritarian socialism from socialism that is truly democratic, therefore emphasizing the democratic element of socialism is a must.

Democratic Socialism is not redundant, it is merely a term to emphasize the key component of “true socialism,” and that is democracy.

Some will counter that the term “Democratic Socialism” placates liberals and make them more comfortable with associating with our socialist platforms. This is not the case because liberals have already committed to an ideology and the goal of socialists and especially of democratic socialists is not to reach liberals but to reach the unreached. Groups like Democratic Socialists for Bernie are not trying to reach liberals they are trying to radicalize non voter and the unengaged. A liberal has made up their mind about socialism, a non voting independent has not and those are the people who are the most effected by the tyranny of capitalism, and they are the most ignored by both liberal and conservative capitalist politicians.

So no, Democratic Socialism is not redundant, arguing for what is and is not “true socialism” while doing nothing to activate the disillusioned masses, is.

Nancy Pelosi Is No Feminist

Nancy Pelosi is no feminist.  Despite how much liberals and self proclaimed “progressives” will elevate her and celebrate her, Pelosi is a traitor to the cause of feminism.

Pelosi showed the world that she and the old guard of the democratic party are agents of the patriarchy when she encouraged Katie Hill to resign.

Katie Hill, a bi-sexual congressperson, resigned recently because of a wave of online bullying from the right wing.  Hill is going through a divorce and her ex-husband has been posting revenge porn in a series of nude pictures of Katie Hill which have been making their rounds on the internet.

Her ex posted these photos to get back at Hill for sleeping with someone else. In addition to the photos, Hill had an affair with one of her female staffers.  Democrats and Republicans alike are calling this an abuse of power, and Democrats and Republicans alike hyper scrutinized her and bullied her into resigning.

Pelosi was one of these bullies.

Pelosi said that Hill is doing the right thing by resigning, because “We must ensure a climate of integrity and dignity in the congress.”

This is coming from someone who still regularly meets with Bill Clinton.

Hill did technichally violate ethics rules by having an affair with a staffer, yet we have a wave, some would call it an epidemic, of republican men who have affairs and ignore subpoenas, but instead of going after them Pelosi shames a member of her own party into resigning based on some outdated tropes about sex!?  The rules against having affairs with staffers is outdated garbage. You can’t control people’s sexualities with arbitrary rules. People in close quarters (dorms, offices etc) end up fucking, DEAL WITH IT! I could care less who and how congress people fuck as long as it’s consensual.

What kind of feminist enables slut shaming and sex negativity?  What kind of feminsit enables revenge porn? What kind of feminist refuses to stand with a bi-sexual woman being bullied out of her job?  What kind of feminist enables patriarchal forces by refusing to go after the estranged ex husband who is posting nude pictures WITHOUT CONSENT!?

No kind of feminist, that is who.

By asking Hill to resign Pelosi did two things: 1. Perpetuated the sex negative cultural norms that are inherent in our society, norms that are intent on controlling womens sexualities.  2. Pelosi demonstrated that liberals are selective with their solidarity and lack an intersectional lens when it comes to fighting oppression.

Our society’s out dated sexual tropes and fear of sex exist only to control women, period.  What we have here is a case of slut shaming, and what is worse is Pelosi, a so called feminist, is enabling it!

A true feminist would never tolerate an act of revenge porn, nor would they ever turn their back on a queer person being bullied, nor would they ever enable slut shaming.

Pelosi literally did all three.

What I find especially infuriating is the idiotic loyalty so many liberal “feminists” have to her.  They think she is some sort of beacon of hope to women because she occasionally gets snidy with Donald Trump.  Well, she at least does that when she isn’t giving him a standing ovation at his speeches.

Pelosi was one of the people to applaud Donald Trump’s state of the union when he said, “America will never be socialist.”  Call me nearsighted if you must, but I think anyone who applauds Donald Trump, a rapist, at any point should have their feminist cards revoked.

Liberals need to stop “yas Queen”-ing Pelosi.  Pelosi is not standing up for feminism and she never will.  Pelosi would rather protect her crappy, unpopular party from scandal than stand in solidarity with one of the most oppressed identities in her party.  That is one of the most infuriating things and one of the things demonstrating how out of touch Pelosi is, there is no actual scandal here. Most people don’t give a crap who politicians sleep with anymore as long as it is consensual.  She didn’t call for Bill Clinton to resign in 1998, why is she encouraging Hill to resign?

I do not care that Hill took naked photos, it’s 2019, we all have smartphones, if you haven’t taken at least one naked photo then i feel sorry for you.  Live more!

Further, Hill engaged in a consensual affair to escape a loveless, abusive marriage.  I see no scandal in that. So long as we have a president who is a rapist, and facing accusations of raping teenagers with Jeffery Epstein I might add, then I see no scandal in anything Hill did.  I see a scandal in how the democratic party handled the situation.

It doesn’t matter if you love Pelosi, it cannot be denied that by encouraging Hill’s resignation Pelsoi perpetuated and defended the sexist cultural constructs and institutions which perpetuate the patriarchy.  By not standing with Hill Pelosi has revealed how liberal “feminists” are selective in their solidarity.

You cannot call yourself a feminist if you protect the same institutions that enable patriarchy. By enabling slut-shaming, revenge porn, and refusing to stand in solidarity with a bullied bi-sexual woman, Pelosi has protected patriarchy.

Nancy Pelosi is not a feminist, period.  Liberals need to pick better heroes.

Love Them or Hate Them, You Need to Learn Robert’s Rules

Disclaimer: I try to avoid talking about internal DSA matters on this blog. Usually I save these articles for DSA specific publications. However, this topic comes up so much in my life that it would be bad for my mental health if I didn’t speak up on this.

Article upon article has been written about them and DSA members debate about them constantly.

Practically every single DSA member has an opinion about them.

Some love them, some hate them.

Some will say they are the only way to run a truly democratic meeting. Some say it has too much jargon, others see no problem with the jargon at all.

Everyone in DSA, has an opinion about Robert’s Rules.

But whether you love them or hate them, the DSA has an obligation to make our members the most effective organizers we possibly can, therefore the DSA is obliged to teach Robert’s Rules to all of its members through workshops, classes, and yes, by using them in general meetings.

No matter how you feel about Robert’s Rules there is one simple factor that is continually overlooked; knowledge of Robert’s Rules makes one a better organizer.

This does not mean that to be a good organizer one must use Robert’s Rules in every single meeting they run, that is a false equivalency. It means that teaching our members Robert’s Rules prepares them to organize outside the realms of DSA and therefore increase the odds that our members can go outside of our organization to bring more people into our campaigns.

We at DSA want to increase our membership AND we want our members to go into their own communities to organize for the cause of socialism. We want them to become active in their unions, their churches, and other organizations which are ripe for radical organizing.

We also want our members to run for office, do we not?

Well, if you don’t want to teach our members Robert’s Rules but still want them to go into these communities to build socialism, here are some realities you must face:

Most unions use Robert’s Rules in their assemblies.

Most churches, when at convention, use Robert’s Rules.

Most social organizations, such as Toastmasters and even homebrewer associations, use Robert’s Rules.

And literally, every single level of public office, from city council to congress, uses Robert’s Rules.

I understand the need to make Robert’s Rules more accessible to DSA members, I even understand the disdain some have for them because of its bulky emphasis on dated jargon. If we are going to use them in DSA meeting spaces then we do owe it to our members to prepare them for that fact. We owe it to our members to make our meetings accessible, any emphasis on Robert’s Rules should be on the procedural structure they offer, not on the jargon which can be dense and off-putting.

It is also fair to expect most people you are meeting with do not know Robert’s Rules very well since our education system does not bother to teach basic civics. However it is unfair to our members to enable their ignorance on a topic that is so inherent to modern civics. Letting them sit with this ignorance of what is the most universally used parliamentary procedure will only hold them back from being more participatory in the community institutions where they could potentially radicalize.

A common argument against Robert’s Rules is that they are too easily exploited to use for sabotage. Some will refer to the DSA convention and how Robert’s Rules was being extorted to slow procedure so that certain factions could push their agendas. People who make this argument also tend to push for the idea that we should create an alternative to Robert’s Rules.

However, who is to say that the people who develop this alternative system wouldn’t then use the new rules to their advantage? Isn’t it more undemocratic to use a system only a few comprehensively understand than one that is universally applied and accessible? That is the argument of the anti Robert’s Rules side yet I find it much less accessible to use a new system created by a handful of people and will only be applicable to certain meeting spaces than a system that is used so universally. Further, I can think of no greater undemocratic advantage than being the one who both writes and understands the rules.

Rewriting the rules does not change the fact that anyone who understands the rules can then use them unethically. That is the problem with rules in general, the people who know them the best will always have the advantage. Creating an alternative to Robert’s Rules will not change that fact. If anything it will make the lack of accessibility to DSA procedure even worse because knowledge of the rules will no longer be universally accessible, it will be in the hands of the few who create the new system.

I concede that I do think finding an alternative to Robert’s Rules is possible, however it is a grandiose task that I think in the long run distracts us and perpetuates the issues of excessive procedure. In other other words, this attempt to create a more accessible system actually just makes matters more complicated. The task of creating an alternative that is as comprehensive as Robert’s Rules is daunting. What is easier, teaching people some already existing jargon or developing a whole new system and teaching and implementing that system? I argue the former is easier. Also, even if a new system is created there is no way to prevent its use for exploitation. Knowing the rules always puts one in a position of advantage, even if you change them and make them less dependent on jargon.

However, as stated at the beginning of the article, learning Robert’s Rules isn’t just for the benefit of running DSA meetings. We hold our members back from going outside of DSA to organize if we don’t teach them Robert’s Rules.

When we use Robert’s Rules in DSA meetings it is not just to maintain order it is to teach and prepare our members for attending and participating in meetings outside of DSA. If we want our members to radicalize their unions and churches, or to be in a position where they can run for public office with confidence, then we must teach them Robert’s Rules.

People should also understand that learning Robert’s Rules and supporting their use are totally separate things. Understanding something and supporting it are not the same. You do not have to love Robert’s Rules, but that will not change the fact that you are at a serious disadvantage if you do not know them, and this disadvantage WILL be used by the capitalists against you.

We must teach our members Robert’s Rules, and we cannot just teach them through classes and workshops. I am a former teacher and I sincerely believe that the best way to learn is through practice, so we should use Robert’s Rules to give our members that practice.

Robert’s Rules is not just about keeping order, their use in DSA spaces will make members better organizers because it will prepare our members with information they can use to their advantage.

You can hate Robert’s Rules for whatever reason, but if you are against teaching it to DSA members then the fact is you are against seeing fellow DSA members organize outside of the realms of DSA. We can’t send our members into the realms of organizing without every possible tool at their disposal, and whether you love them or hate them, it cannot be denied that Robert’s Rules is a very common tool.

It also cannot be denied that one who knows Robert’s Rules has an advantage when in meeting spaces that use them. The DSA should be intent on giving our members every advantage possible.

The importance of learning and teaching Robert’s Rules can be summed up in a quote from the late South African president and skilled parliamentarian Nelson Mandela, “One cannot play chess when one only knows how to play checkers.”

Comrades, we owe it to each other, to our community, and to ourselves to learn how to play chess.

We have a world to win, and a chess game to play for it, it is time to learn the rules of that game so we can win.

This Screen

There is something less romantic

About the way you read my poems.

You hold not the paper I scribbled my soul on

But a screen.

I write these words on a screen and send it to yours.

This screen.

These screens connect us,

So why do are we so alone?

Why is isolation the firs price we must pay

To make our bosses rich

And to keep our landlords lazy?

How many coups, how many deaths

Just to keep the battery running.

How many hours, minutes, and seconds each day to we stare?

This screen.

This screen.

This damn, fragile screen.


Blog posts will now be ever Monday and Wednesday.

Monday will be articles. Wednesday will be poems or fiction.

Friday there will be posts only available on my Patreon. (You can join for as low as $1.50!)

Thanks and Solidarity Comrades.

Impeachment, The Right Thing To Do Being Done For The Wrong Reasons

Donald Trump is an embezzler, fraud, national security threat, and a rapist.

Multiple women have accused him of harassment and sexual assault, including his own ex-wife and a thirteen year old victim of Jeffery Epstein.

In 2016 multiple contractors hired by Trump have shown than Donald Trump never paid them for their labor.

Let us not forget the crime against humanity that is happening at the US-Mexico border and in the concentration camps.

He has also fired multiple cabinet members for petty, personal reasons, compromising the federal government by denying agencies proper leadership.

Pelosi and liberals scoffed at the idea of impeachment for the majority of Trump’s first term despite all of this. Impeachment was argued to be “impractical,” or worse their was this naive faith that the Mueller Report would find something punishable in Trump’s 2016 conduct.

Yet when it comes to light that Donald Trump attempted to smear Joe Biden, the undemocratically self selected candidate being forced down our throats by the capitalist liberal establishment, suddenly liberals are up in arms.

Or at least they want us to think they are.

Peter Daou, the former Clinton surrogate who has become enlightened and gone #toofarleft, tweeted that what we are seeing is a “botched impeachment.” There is little to no evidence being gathered from these proceedings and the odds of any criminal convictions coming from it become slimmer and slimmer with each fruitless testimony.

Despite the record of crimes against humanity and sexual assault, Trump will most likely suffer zero consequences from impeachment. What is worse is that Daou is probably correct, Trump will be able to tote his acquittal in the 2020 race as a victory, a victory practically being handed to him by Nancy Pelosi.

Impeachment is the right thing to do to stop Donald Trump, but it is being done for the wrong reasons, and by doing it for the wrong reasons Pelosi and the Democrats are giving Trump free fodder because they will lose the impeachment.

Trump would have a much harder time explaining himself for why he tortures migrant children or why an Epstein victim is accusing him of rape. Anyone can explain away digging up dirt on the Bidens though.

I support impeachment, but I am not holding my breath that anything good will come from this one. I want to see impeachment happen so that women and migrant children can have justice, not so the Biden’s are protected.

Impeachment is supposed to at least inconvenience Donald Trump, but the bastard seems to be doing just fine.

Peter Daou is right. This impeachment is botched.

%d bloggers like this: