TOTW: A Revolution Is Upon Us

  • Posted on: 10 June 2018
  • By: Anonymous (not verified)

Given that we have an idiot in the Whitehouse. Given that we have driven the alt-right back to the shadows where they belong. Given that a blue wave is coming. Given that a whole generation of tyrants are about to pass (can I hear a Kissinger!). Given that the fascist creep is on the run. Given that we are running down the walls. Given that 2018 is the year of Mo. Given that we are finally ready to take environmental problems seriously.

What does anarchist victory look like? Does it look like fighting off repression or does it look like material advances against the state, capitalism, and the industrial world powering both? What would those advances be? How about disarming the police. Full stop. How about celebrating the end of the current economic boom (and hastening the end. How would we do that)? Is the logic of "find each other" & "get organized" enough and how do we get started when we are trapped by these stupid websites (yes, like this one) and social media platforms?

If a revolution is possible in our lifetime, where do we begin?

category: 

Comments

Im very much about celebrating the end of this economic cycle, but that isn't victory. Will be one of the more important moments in the lives of everyone living when it happens. Generally though, not because THE REVOLUTION IS HAPPENING. Instead because it will usher in a new era for humans on this planet. Will finish off the end of the colonial capitalist and credit system that has been propping up states since the 1960s. I guess like, the reason I personally make fun of strugglismo types so much is that this shit is happening and about to "go down" and within their world the most important thing is the fascist creep into the movement (TM.) It wouldn't be a big deal if they weren't so righteous about their worldview.

Maybe there are ways we can hasten it, specially if you live in areas that are teetering economically. Hits to austerity or the gentrification market would help. But really, what we can do as anarchists who aren't deluded or who are at least making an attempt to think critically
is just prepare for it. Think about our ideals in a really uncertain time with a lot of potential. I think a lot of people drawn to anarchy (and who end up here) likely thrive on uncertainty and feel stifled under authority more than others. There will be real potential not just to feel more free but likely set an example for others to follow.

No doubt the "radical left" will be throwing roadblocks into the equation. Maybe, this is us seeing it and already preparing whether we all annoy each other here or not?

anarchists; annoying people (and other anarchists) everywhere since 1840...

otherwise jz and anarchy radio will wither away so I no to any revolution.

to my mind there is no grand state of 'victory' where we have finally attained anarchy. instead there are simply small joys to be had during this ongoing process. I have no interested in a revolution. I feel no need to die or suffer a great cause. I feel no need to 'get organised' over and above the desire I have to do fun things with my friends, whatever that happens to be. but if I do anything, it is for me.

Shinminmetroskyline! Good to see you here.

I agree, but I wonder, what is it that that looks like as far as any sort of projectuality? (Does that concept even carry water any more?). I struggle with walking away from revolution but still wanting to find ways to attack what I hate. Certainly there is not a great hereafter of anarchist victory, but what does it mean to be anarchists doing what we can do to carve out space for ourselves?

What do those not-so-great causes (for lack of better language) look like?

I like when people talk about the process over the outcome. I am sometimes motivated by outcomes, but that motivation becomes self-defeating when I take a more sober view of the reality of living as an anarchist in the world we inhabit.

victory is mine: the grinding of teeth, the hissing of flames and the reeking sighs begin to abate. every squalid memory fades. my last regrets scuttle off: − jealousy of beggars, bandits and the friends of death, backward types of every sort. − all damned, if I avenged myself!

also

“Neither victory nor defeat is important, but only the beautiful shining of our eyes in combat.” Anarchist war on the daily life of the State and the social machinery has nothing to do with accounting, which ‘adds’ and ‘detracts’ losses and gains. What really counts is the strength we feel every time we don’t bow our heads, every time we destroy the false idols of civilization, every time our eyes meet those of our comrades along illegal paths, every time that our hands set fire to the symbols of Power. In those moments we don’t ask ourselves: ‘Will we win? Will we lose?’ In those moments we just fight.

Following Sever in Black Seed, I think it is important to have a place to stand on to watch the tower of Empire fall down. Otherwise, it may fall and we fall with it. With this in mind, I like the rhetorical thrust of https://inhabit.global

I am sure lots of people think "a revolution" is impossible, when, like, it's actually true that a major and permanent change in the arrangement of both political power and cultural norms in the near future, and on a world-historic scale, is totally possible, and in fact one of only a few very probable outcomes of what's happening now. (For saying this, will someone call me... a leftist? lol)

But a revolution has nothing to do with anarchist victory. There will be no Ultimate Anarchist Triumph, even in more or less the best case of things (which is not gonna happen on this bitch of an earth). "Anarchist victories" are probably, like, not worth even trying to define, but they are more something to position ourselves to try and achieve, rather than think we are ever going to obtain, lol. Which might be the same as saying, we should position ourselves to avoid suffering "anarchist defeats" also.

I have no specific suggestions for anyone, lol

we're friends irl so I'll disagree respectuflly, lol ;)

revolution in any traditional sense is super unlikely. States are so fucking strong, it's crazy. Syria is a weak state and it got flooded with weapons and people there were determined as fuck but there's not much your horizontal organizing can do when you're getting bombed every single day.

It breaks my heart, but as people who dream of revolution we haven't come to grips with why the revolution that went the furthest of any of our time was drowned in blood.

That's a FAIL example me thinks... People in Syria were determined but also multi-instrumentalized by several external parties and interests, while the Syrian government was suported in its repression by Russia. This was nowhere a legit revolution, with so many Islamist factions fighting for their own power. A real-life Game of Thrones is not a revolution you'd want.

I agree that States are very tough, but the only reason of their strenght is due to what La Boétie said of their inner workings. They are a voluntary, open conspiracy involving different members or interests of society. People choose to support the established power because they believe it's the best system to allow for stability and increase of wealth, or going up the social ladder. In most developed countries you're sure to have most proles against you if you push for a rev.

Canada for instance has a small military dedicated to special ops in foreign countries. If you'd have a huge insurrection in here and the police would be overrun, the military would likely have to negotiate peacefully with the insurgents. But the reason why I don't see it anywhere near close to happen is not related to this State's capacity for violence.

Revolutions I've seen have drowned in booze and social media likes...

in the sense that I mean.

Anarchist revolution - the making of the world in a way we would want it to be - is certainly not within our capacities globally, and probably nowhere is it in our capacities locally. The best approach to making a revolution happen, in the sense of re-ordering things to our benefit and in line with our values (lots of problematics in that very notion, which will be set aside temporarily), would be something that looks like councilism and/or mass organizing of the proles, but uh, the best may not be good enough. I have yet to see evidence of it being good enough. The point about Syria being some of the best to that effect in our day, and failing, is salient.

When I saw revolution is one of only a few very likely outcomes of how things are going, I do not mean our revolution. In fact, revolution might look world war - that is, a situation in which a certain state or power bloc makes a bid to rearrange the world system to its benefit, and actually succeeds in its way.

I think it is clear enough that revolutions are disruptive, and also, "how they settle" is an open question in the early years.

Wondering if that was more or less clear, now, haha

If a revolution is possible in our lifetime, where do we begin?

Considering how apt humans are at undermining the health of relationships, it is no slight to acknowledge this inherent skill-set in relation to the persistence of our enemies. With this, it seems pragmatic to accept the possibility for revolution existing in every moment.

I no longer have any expectation of any "we" instigating a satisfying anarchist revolution through any kind of systematization. It is only a loss to the jabbering, sacrificial, and paranoiac that I have become exhausted by broad strategies.

If there's a conclusion needing to be found in my participation as an anarchist for the ends of revolution, it is currently found in my inhabiting strategies of negation. I cry out for affinity, yet I do not require it. Without the creation of a multitude, I insist on creating witnesses. These witnesses will either flatter me or conspire to destroy me. In spite of this isolated, antagonistic and distrustful story, my mere existence as a practicing "contra" is guaranteed igniting on a heated breeze. This is where my anarchy begins and ends.

I made this comment on da twitter to rebelsdarklaugh but revolution if it is to be anarchist pretty much has to be it's own regional specific thing. Only social not political economic and informed by insurrection(Stirnerian of course).

Anarchism will never have a scaled up affect in regards to revolution. In fact I would be very distrustful of big H historical revolutions. Anarchy is more on the unregistered side of things then the registered which usually goes with new information and power apparatuses.

To anarchy lawlessness and selfhood.

As Novatore wrote, their revolution has already begun. Socialists are those waiting for the revolution to happen becuause they rely on the bigger numbers, on the mass movements, on the proles, on "the public opinion", on the society. Their ethics are a void that takes shape only through externalities and with the support of "el pueblo". Therefore their lobal revolution will not happen as the world is not made of one monolithic revolutionary subject, but a infinitely diverse cosmos of social realities and contexts. Urbanites don't even duckin know what it is to live on the countryside or even the suburbs. Their revlution is, indeed, localized, and metaphorically is the refletion of their own specific struggle for more power. Then sadly, since they are not really connected with the realities of the "masses" (nobody can!), once they accumulate some power, their minds falther and they become authoritarian sellouts., the same pimps, phallocrats, and manipulators they were already, once the protective layer of externalization is gone.

"The Lord is my shepherd." is what the Christian shepherd says to his herd of sheeple... this makes him the only true Lord around, the only Christ there is. A similar pattern happens with the revolutionary. He wants his flock of oppressed proles (often women) to submit and follow him through his own quest for becoming the caliph of his underworld. The revlolutionary rock star will use his flock to his own advantage, at the bottom line.

The superstars are the ubermansch, they conduct their own insurrection from within and against the mainstream revolution such as the liberal Idpol one going on now!

I'm pretty sure I know exactly which "rockstar" insurrecto he's talkin about... Pretty apt analysis, imv.

I followed the link in the description, and there is nothing there that is decidedly Luddite, discussing overpopulation, or anti-mass-society. If you are not talking about those things and basing your actions on them, then you are not "tak[ing] environmental problems seriously." There is nothing in there to suggest that the "Inhabit" clique would not try to create some sort of communist mass society that would just despoil the world anew. It honestly stank like some new Tiqqunist nonsense, and I am surprised and disappointed that the @news collective is giving it air time. These people do not want anarchy; they want communism.

A- Serve the Party

B- Serve the Imaginary Party

So when they tell ya to clean up road D281 and abandon your squats, then beat up those who don't agree you know this came from either A or B. But more like both.

Calling Trump an "idiot" is not paying him respect for what he's FREELY doing to you. You're talking aboout the man who's bringing down Western capitalism at an incredible pace... At the end of his term you'll be thankful to him for how the ghost of bourgeois liberal democracy will have been gotten rid of, once and for all, as the wrld will be run by a bunch of Red capitalist maoists/national bolcheviks from Beijing and the Kremlin.

Today, you call him an idiot; tomorrow you'll call him "Comrade Trump"!

the bolsheviks/maoists will never gain traction in this country, NEVER. Not that i would want them to, they are way worse than trump/obama/bush

"Is the logic of "find each other" & "get organized" enough and how do we get started when we are trapped by these stupid websites"

It's definitely not enough but why even bother trying to discuss the much MORE complicated shit where we don't just repeat the worst mistakes of the marxist perspective, why even GO there? Why bother discussing something as huge as revolution if there's so much hesitation for step 1, phase 1? aka: going outside?

Besides, it's better to learn by doing than trying to convince the cyborg creatures why their electronic escape is meaningless noise, worse than doing actual nothing because dopamine hits.

There's so much space in between most current @ activity (in klanada and the US) and a serious discussion about what to do on a larger scale with a power vacuum, I'd settle for a milieu that even deserves to have that discussion and be taken seriously.

Perhaps a sort of accelerationist narrative will make that happen in my lifetime, as more and more austerity and extreme climate change sobers people up from hippy nonsense and IdPol sophistry. We'll see! Meanwhile, yeah, always start with finding each other dammit!

PS: Not talking to the jaded old eyerollers here but if you're honestly wondering how to "find each other", it's fucking easy. The hard part is that when you DO find people, they're almost always incredibly disappointing and you'll want to be like, this-is-stupid-why-bother but instead of climbing back in to your pod … just don't! and soon enough, you won't need advice from a snarky stranger online! haha

I don't think anarchist revolution is likely today. Anarchists in America, Europe, and Britain are at the weakest we've been since the 50s. There were a lot more of us and a lot more activity in 1999-2001 and in 2011 for example. The most extreme, open Nazis are hiding in the shadows again but the alt-right is still very much on the rise. Things are bad right now with the far-right elected in Italy, AfD on the rise in Germany and the other parties aping them, similarly in France, Sweden, Greece etc. The democratic-socialist left is also in the ascendant - Sanders, Corbyn, Syriza, Melanchon, Podemos - but they don't seem to have a vision to seriously fight neoliberalism. If they get in power they'll either have to radicalise or sell-out (see Chavez/Morales for former, Syriza for latter).

I agree we're coming to a turning point. The stage of capitalism which began roundabout 1973 or 1968 or the 1980s (neoliberalism) is coming to an end. This in turn is the downturn phase of a Kondratiev wave which began a lot earlier, maybe in the 30s-40s, with Fordism and Taylorism. We've overdue a big economic crash and neoliberalism barely survived the last one (they literally spent 50% or more of government revenues bailing stuff out).

When the crash comes, there's several possibilities.

1. Same thing as last time. World powers come to a head, there's a trade war and cold war if not a real war. Amidst all this, someone stumbles on a new organising model for capitalism, a new fuel source, and probably geopolitical power shifts to a new global hegemon (China, EU, maybe a decentralised federation of global cities or a siteless transnational capitalist class). Capitalism grows again on a new scale. This will be neo-Fordist and neo-Keynesian, there will probably be a basic income or guaranteed work. More worryingly, it might look like Chinese social credit and intense biopolitical regulation of workers like we're seeing in China now (brain/mood scanners, highly surveilled workplaces, performance micromanagement etc). The hope for anarchists in this situation is renewed dole autonomy relying on basic income, hacking of new technologies, self-employment on the margins of the now-booming new economy, and building networks in preparation for the next "1968" in about 20-30 years.

2. Capitalism can't find a way out, it's reached its environmental limits, and it collapses the way the Roman Empire did (for example). There's a period of implosion or slow decline during which power becomes more dispersed, populations move outwards and decrease in size, areas on the margins fall outside state control (c.f. early medieval Europe). The hope for anarchists in this scenario is that autonomous zones of the ZAD or Chiapas type will become increasingly common and increasingly viable.

3. There's a final crisis, a world war (or catastrophic ecological collapse, or economic collapse leading to loss of food supplies) and everyone dies. This is the worst scenario for humans, but it's possible some species will survive and the earth will gradually recover.

In terms of "is there such a thing as an anarchist revolution" and "do anarchists need a revolution", I'd say that anarchy isn't a power-structure or a model of society, it's a distribution of power. Anarchy exists where power is informal and dispersed/diffuse. Anarchy is fully achieved when power is so dispersed that no group can create concentrated power (e.g. Clastres' account of the Guarani). Anarchy can also exist in localised zones, particular spheres, and in combinations with political power (Kropotkin's social and political principles), so it makes sense to talk about "creating anarchy" in one's own life without revolution, and about increasing the quantity of "anarchy" relative to "statism" in society. I don't know if there will be one big explosion which sweeps away capitalism and statism and creates diverse localised forms of power, or if there will be a gradual process through which hierarchical logics lose their power a bit at a time. In Graeber's study of rural Madagascar it seems to be the latter - a gradual process. But the ancient Maya seem to have given up statism all at once, and the Somali state collapsed with surprising rapidity in the early 90s.

I was thinking about some possible scenarios similar to these, then I saw Blade Runner 2048, and remembered Brave New World, and thought its gonna end up like that, a total sustainable solar-nuclear coast to coast metropolis drug-pleasured poor-man's Utopian ghetto with global panopticon surveillance run by elite Alpha class technocrats.

There could be a general stagnation age where Leviathan does not develop major apparatus innovations. This was happening in China before the Western model came and shocked everything up.

This could also be good for anarchism and anarchy seeing as certain organizing principles could come up the middle beyond more authoritarian rule. It would be sort of similar to a dark/decentral age but happen at a much slower pace. In terms of a economic new deal I've been saying that anarchists need their own plan B as opposed to waiting for a state/capital satiation scheme to help reboot things. I think the other option lies in the fact that anarchism began as a political economic idea. Now obviously there's no going back to political economic orientation but perhaps there could be some sort of discursive trojan horse scheme where anarchists could get some type of alternative marginal political actors to execute libertarian political economy.

I would imagine it would be some light orange left ideological tendency that would essentially be a sort of minarchistic political option. Blockchain economics might be part of this. It's interesting to look at the Persian historical period of Kavadh and Mazdak. That was an example of a head of state(former) being influenced by a more libertarian form of existence(the latter's doctrine). You sort of have that with Rojava but it would be interesting to get a political figure in Leviathan land to loosen things up somewhere. The monopolies abolition would be a good place to start.

This could be good for anarchism JennAY, some sort of light orange tendencSAY JennAY!

(ok, this is just mean, go ahead and delete it)

The Persian example can be used to illustrate the phenomena of recurring cycles of social structure which emerge out of that region of the Earth. Diamond may have mentioned the coincidence of latitudinal compatibility of crops and livestock to explain the inventiveness and creativity of civilized systems of existence for the larger northern hemisphere, but for the birthplace of the mercantile civilization I lean towards the specific religious roots of thebroad desert wilderness of Arabia as the seed of Zoroastrianism. Communal pooling of wealth as Mazdak proposed was a refinement on the primitive surplus potlatch spree and if it had remained in this simple form it would have had to be limited to populations of about 5000 people. From this, a decentralized collection of homogenized communities exchanging surpluses would have prevented the monopolization of capital and denied the possibility of a commodity value being created and a currency being controlled by an authority.,.

we've already won!
this is just exactly what winning looks like.
everything else is loser talk.
enjoy your freedom.

Anarchists are anti-revolutionary subculture cabbages, projecting their own monolithic incapacity onto the world at large.

If only any revolutionary Lefitst out there had reached any revolutionary capacity at all... or managed to do anything worthy out of it, then yeah that claim woul be not laughable at least.

So you went to a march the other day with a bunch of red flags and unions then felt like revolution's coming? That was me 15 years back, bro. But sure keep on ranting against anarchos like that's gonna bring your rev.

Yeah no... I mean you can order a Gallup survey over this, but in real life, people are not made or Pro Vs Anti binaries. That's just the dumb democratic rhetorical bullshit saying that, continuously splitting people between option A and option B, between Coke and Pepsi, or like the "it's either this or that" fatalism in this silly article. What did this text from Hamilton people published during the Syrian civil war was saying about authoritarians pushing people towards polarization?

I think only after a successful revolution can we truly identify who are the true counter-revolutionaries, and this may include some of our cocky, chest-pounding revolutionaries themselves. So, yeah, perhaps you could focus on your revolution > on chasing those who would perhaps oppose it, in your opinion.

So not pretending to be revolutionary doesn't make me anti-revolutionary by default. I just don't see it as a serious cause for action. When it becomes serious, then sure I might opt in... if the movement isn't led by a bunch of authoritarians or profiteers.

Since when has any movement NOT been led by authoritarians, profiteers or even martyrs in the guise of righteous moralists or idealistic humanitarians. You're gonna find that the only ones who pass the test of infallible purity are the masochists with martyr complexes. Thus, movements are doomed to flounder in self-emorilization and surrender with no specific aim other than the glorification of sacrifice and the death wish.

You apparantly don't have a clue on what a "movement" is. You're confusing it with religion apparantly. There's been plenty of antiauthoritarian social movements since maybe Spartacus in and around Europe, only some of them were recuperated and taken over by authoritarians. Rioting, protesting and popular asemblies were invented in late Medieval times in opposition to both Church bureaucracy and local feudal administrations. There's damn pictural proof of it, from before they invented the Perspective. They were mostly succesful when not co-opted by religious groups even tho there was often a religious element.

Black revolts of the 19th century were also huge and not controlled by any known despots. Harriet Tubman, Fred Douglass and even liberal bourgie Harriet Beecher Stowe nowhere tried to control the uprisings to take power. Tubman led many revolts but being a "general" doesn't mean being a Secretary General of the Party for life. Only since the entry of African-Americans into academia and the bourgeoisie did we see the patterns of elitism, political recuperation and controlled dissent. Which says a lot of our growing "anarchist" academia in the English-dominated Western countries.

Moral of the story: movements are really just movements. The most spontaneous CAN be subjuguated to hierarchies, but that doesn't they WILL.

Okay, okayyyyy, I get your point, I'll concede that my research was not up to yours and that there can by non hierarchically structured movements.

Also fauvenoire, could Jesus be said to have led a movement for insurrection, because he was actually distancing himself from religious orthodoxy and aiming for a subjective liberation?

According to Matthew, I guess that was more or less the story. Paul would disagree tho. Given the insurgencies happening at the fringes of the Empire -including Judea- it wouldn't be too surprising that Jesu was a kind of archaic Malatesta

I am for seeing religions as political ideologies, pre-modern age. You couldn't have a doctrine without aligning with rabbis, deities and saints, back in the days.

...but yet we gotta assume that the man has existed, at all.

Personally I strongly feel he did, but that may be a remnant of my past Catholic faith.

Alright, there's nothing wrong with being wrong, and wronged, as long as you can accept being wrong... ;-)

YEAH I was freakin WRONG. Why can't you get over YOUR victory? ;-)

Unless it is EXPLICITLY social and libertarian in nature it should really be a stay home event(Egypt comes to mind).

emorilization = narcissistic self-punishing dysphoria

No, narcissistic self-punishing dysphoria = Amuhricanization

Another fine neologism I'm compelled to add to my personal reserve! Over time, it will ferment and take some meaning. 2018 seems to be a good year, all in all.

Thanks, I felt there was a need for a new 21st Century word which had nothing to do with computers or social networking ;)

from the revolution of everyday life e.g. makeovers, habits of consumption and identity to small affinity groups, gangs, crews and families but to do something like CNT did in Catalonia you need regional or at least citywide organization which a lot of people are averse to. So the US needs an anarchist umbrella organization and we need a new international which some people are working on. Until then think small.

Can you hear the drums Fernando?
https://youtu.be/dQsjAbZDx-4

GO3

Franchising anarchist clubs would be a good start, like the scouts.

isnt that the IWW?

Its whole lot of various groups of all creeds, basically franchise means branches which all have a common produce to sell which are individually managed and a percentage of produce paid back to the brand agent. Product can be anything from books to cash, it could be non profit if that be in its constitution, it runs independent of the agent, it's public relations is common to the brand and it follows the brand guidelines. Mainly, it means every town has a known anarchist merging point and focus of creative outlet and input. It's lifestyle convenience in a one stop one shop venue.

Wobblies are a lame workerist club who can't think of anything outside of "think of the proletariat!" and various other trends of liberalism and IPs. Why not a Hellfire Club or Bohemian Club for a change?

but they never sent me my membership card so I'm a little disappointed with their leadership. I did get the newsletter which is nice but considering there is no DSA group in this town yet it would be nice to at least get a confirmation letter and maybe a sticker.

There is an umbrella group here called CF Collier Freedom which can put a few hundred people on the street at any given time but the biggest display of power to date was without a doubt the Women's March for Social Justice which turned out almost 3000 people.

I could start a group like Wobblies or DSA pretty easily but since there is a Black Rose group in Miami that would probably be the best bet because we could collaborate. What I really want to do is start a feminist longboard/art crew along the lines of Brujas:

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-feminist-collective-bringi...

I wouldn't mind going partners with you in organizing a group I want to call " The Artsy-farts Disgruntled Voluntary Servitude to Activism " . Interested?

I had a skate/party crew in the 80s called NATO (North Austin Thrash Organization) and another crew in Florida called Outlaw Skim Heads and we actually started making skimboards out of wood, fiberglass and pigments until we got foam boards.

I like the model of organizing in the voguing families.

How the LGBT community created voguing
https://youtu.be/XJ6fqQX_e9U

Well yes, the whole Muhrican entertainment industry includes idpol theatre as an alternative fringe art, a way of avoiding confrontation and fighting by infiltrating the established modes of expression with the soft approach rather than barricades in the street. The trouble with art as a revolutionary tool is that it becomes a bourgeois decoration.

We can talk about military doctrine if you want to but I don't think there is much political will for offensive action in the core of the empire. I asked @critic if he wanted to find a hill to die on and he didn't get back to me on that.

I just read this article and these people have a reasonable idea of how to take over the world, they understand scalability and sustainability.

How radical municipalism can go beyond the local
https://theecologist.org/2018/jun/08/how-radical-municipalism-can-go-bey...

The Historiography of the French Revolution
https://youtu.be/bFPY2QxPaXE

All the “givens” here are fucking crazy.
Where do you get your analysis? What even is “Mo”?

by the Fat Bastards is the only revolution in the UK right now. And I'm not talking nutritious food scarcity or prohibitive costs.I don't get why people are so fat, so fat that they struggle to even walk! Maybe it's subliminal depression? It ain't typical of the human body to be so big...something is definitely going on!

Its a symptom of the capitalist system is all.

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
Human?
5
M
c
b
y
c
K
Enter the code without spaces.