a warm place

anarchism, communism, music, kink & culture.
Home #meabout Themes

“I need a hug or an orgasm.”

Unknown  (via guccier)

Or both

(via dank-bxtch)

wetheurban:

ART: Intense Paintings by Xue Jiye

High level of intensity from Chinese artist Xue Jiye. No additives or preservatives.

Read More

bijikurdistan:

Kurdish YPG Women Fighters hugging each other after intensive fighting against ‪‎ISIS‬ in ‪Kobane

bijikurdistan:

Kurdish YPG Women Fighters hugging each other after intensive fighting against ‪‎ISIS‬ in ‪Kobane

Clark Hecker Clark Hecker

“Hell is the absence of the people you long for.”

— Emily St. John Mandel, Station Eleven (via dustyhalo)
descentintotyranny:

Evo Morales has proved that socialism doesn’t damage economies
Bolivia’s re-elected president has dumbfounded critics in Washington, the World Bank and the IMF. There are lessons for Britain’s left here
Oct. 14 2014

The socialist Evo Morales, who yesterday was re-elected to serve a third term as president of Bolivia, has long been cast as a figure of fun by the media in the global north. Much like the now deceased Hugo Chávez, Morales is often depicted as a buffoonish populist whose flamboyant denouncements of the United States belie his incompetence. And so, reports of his landslide win inevitably focused on his announcement that it was “a victory for anti-imperialism”, as though anti-US sentiment is the only thing Morales has given to Bolivia in his eight years in government.
More likely, Morales’s enduring popularity is a result of his extraordinary socio-economic reforms, which – according to the New York Times – have transformed Bolivia from an “economic basket case” into a country that receives praise from such unlikely contenders as the World Bank and the IMF – an irony considering the country’s success is the result of the socialist administration casting off the recommendations of the IMF in the first place.
According to a report by the Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, “Bolivia has grown much faster over the last eight years than in any period over the past three and a half decades.” The benefits of such growth have been felt by the Bolivian people: under Morales, poverty has declined by 25% and extreme poverty has declined by 43%; social spending has increased by more than 45%; the real minimum wage has increased by 87.7%; and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean has praised Bolivia for being “one of the few countries that has reduced inequality”. In this respect, the re-election of Morales is really very simple: people like to be economically secure – so if you reduce poverty, they’ll probably vote for you.
It’s true that Morales has made enemies in the White House, but this is probably less to do with rhetoric than the fact that he consistently calls for the international legalisation of the coca leaf, which is chewed as part of Bolivian culture but can also be refined into cocaine (via a truly disgusting chemical process). Before Morales was first elected, the Telegraph reported: “Decriminalisation would probably increase supply of the leaf, which is processed into cocaine, providing drug traffickers with more of the profitable illicit substance.” In fact the opposite has happened – in the past two years, coca cultivation has been falling in Bolivia. This inconvenient fact is a source of great consternation to the US government, which has poured billions of dollars into its totally ineffective and highly militaristic war on drugs in Latin America. Morales has – accurately in my view – previously implied that the war on drugs is used by the US as an excuse to meddle in the region’s politics.
Having said this, it would be dishonest to argue that Morales’s tenure has been perfect. Earlier this year the Bolivian government drew criticism from human rights groups for reducing the legal working age to 10. But what most news outlets neglected to mention is that the government was responding to a campaign from the children’s trade union, Unatsbo, which sees the change in legislation as a first step to protecting Bolivia’s 850,000 working children from the exploitation that comes with clandestine employment. Although Bolivia has made massive strides in reducing poverty, more than a million of its citizens still live on 75p a day – a legacy of the excruciating poverty of Bolivia before Morales took office.
Nevertheless, Morales must make reducing the number of child workers a priority during his third term. Not doing so will be a serious failure of his progressive project. In terms of social reforms, Morales should heed recent calls from the public advocate of Bolivia, Rolando Villena, to legalise same-sex civil unions and pave the way for equal marriage. He should also follow the lead of Uruguay’s president, José Mujica, and completely liberalise abortion, which would be a good first step to tackling the country’s high rates of maternal mortality. And Morales must also address the criticism of indigenous leaders who accuse him of failing to honour his commitments to protect indigenous people and the environment.
But however Morales uses his third term, it’s clear that what he’s done already has been remarkable. He has defied the conventional wisdom that says leftwing policies damage economic growth, that working-class people can’t run successful economies, and that politics can’t be transformative – and he’s done all of this in the face of enormous political pressure from the IMF, the international business community and the US government. In the success of Morales, important political lessons can be found – and perhaps we could all do with learning them.

descentintotyranny:

Evo Morales has proved that socialism doesn’t damage economies

Bolivia’s re-elected president has dumbfounded critics in Washington, the World Bank and the IMF. There are lessons for Britain’s left here

Oct. 14 2014

The socialist Evo Morales, who yesterday was re-elected to serve a third term as president of Bolivia, has long been cast as a figure of fun by the media in the global north. Much like the now deceased Hugo Chávez, Morales is often depicted as a buffoonish populist whose flamboyant denouncements of the United States belie his incompetence. And so, reports of his landslide win inevitably focused on his announcement that it was “a victory for anti-imperialism”, as though anti-US sentiment is the only thing Morales has given to Bolivia in his eight years in government.

More likely, Morales’s enduring popularity is a result of his extraordinary socio-economic reforms, which – according to the New York Times – have transformed Bolivia from an “economic basket case” into a country that receives praise from such unlikely contenders as the World Bank and the IMF – an irony considering the country’s success is the result of the socialist administration casting off the recommendations of the IMF in the first place.

According to a report by the Centre for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, “Bolivia has grown much faster over the last eight years than in any period over the past three and a half decades.” The benefits of such growth have been felt by the Bolivian people: under Morales, poverty has declined by 25% and extreme poverty has declined by 43%; social spending has increased by more than 45%; the real minimum wage has increased by 87.7%; and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the Economic Commission on Latin America and the Caribbean has praised Bolivia for being “one of the few countries that has reduced inequality”. In this respect, the re-election of Morales is really very simple: people like to be economically secure – so if you reduce poverty, they’ll probably vote for you.

It’s true that Morales has made enemies in the White House, but this is probably less to do with rhetoric than the fact that he consistently calls for the international legalisation of the coca leaf, which is chewed as part of Bolivian culture but can also be refined into cocaine (via a truly disgusting chemical process). Before Morales was first elected, the Telegraph reported: “Decriminalisation would probably increase supply of the leaf, which is processed into cocaine, providing drug traffickers with more of the profitable illicit substance.” In fact the opposite has happened – in the past two years, coca cultivation has been falling in Bolivia. This inconvenient fact is a source of great consternation to the US government, which has poured billions of dollars into its totally ineffective and highly militaristic war on drugs in Latin America. Morales has – accurately in my view – previously implied that the war on drugs is used by the US as an excuse to meddle in the region’s politics.

Having said this, it would be dishonest to argue that Morales’s tenure has been perfect. Earlier this year the Bolivian government drew criticism from human rights groups for reducing the legal working age to 10. But what most news outlets neglected to mention is that the government was responding to a campaign from the children’s trade union, Unatsbo, which sees the change in legislation as a first step to protecting Bolivia’s 850,000 working children from the exploitation that comes with clandestine employment. Although Bolivia has made massive strides in reducing poverty, more than a million of its citizens still live on 75p a day – a legacy of the excruciating poverty of Bolivia before Morales took office.

Nevertheless, Morales must make reducing the number of child workers a priority during his third term. Not doing so will be a serious failure of his progressive project. In terms of social reforms, Morales should heed recent calls from the public advocate of Bolivia, Rolando Villena, to legalise same-sex civil unions and pave the way for equal marriage. He should also follow the lead of Uruguay’s president, José Mujica, and completely liberalise abortion, which would be a good first step to tackling the country’s high rates of maternal mortality. And Morales must also address the criticism of indigenous leaders who accuse him of failing to honour his commitments to protect indigenous people and the environment.

But however Morales uses his third term, it’s clear that what he’s done already has been remarkable. He has defied the conventional wisdom that says leftwing policies damage economic growth, that working-class people can’t run successful economies, and that politics can’t be transformative – and he’s done all of this in the face of enormous political pressure from the IMF, the international business community and the US government. In the success of Morales, important political lessons can be found – and perhaps we could all do with learning them.

#me

intercedeth:

Source: twitter.com/imransiddiquee

Wish I would’ve gotten to this sooner since it’s late to be posting, but I really love this particular message and the discussion around “being a man” and how it relates to the treatment of women as well as gay men (or anyone else perceived as “less” / equivocated with being undesirably weak)

sans soleil (chris marker, 1983)

scaredykropotkitten:

Vallibierna Peak, Pyrenees: Solidarity with the #YPG/#YPJ#Kobane #Rojava #Syria #Kurdistan #Spain
Back during the Spanish Civil War/Revolution, foreign volunteers would often scale the Pyrenees mountains, as it was the only way to get into  Spain without having to land at a port. Most European countries and the U.S. would not allow volunteers to take ships to assist in the resistance against fascism.
.

scaredykropotkitten:

Vallibierna Peak, Pyrenees: Solidarity with the #YPG/#YPJ

#Kobane #Rojava #Syria #Kurdistan #Spain

Back during the Spanish Civil War/Revolution, foreign volunteers would often scale the Pyrenees mountains, as it was the only way to get into  Spain without having to land at a port. Most European countries and the U.S. would not allow volunteers to take ships to assist in the resistance against fascism.

.

your-sinking-ships:

lukehadtobail:

"there is nothing wrong with our school system"

Fuck it I’m reblogging

Anonymous asked: john lennon syndrome?

neptunain:

john lennon syndrome is when a dumbass thinks they’re concerned about peace and social issues and believe they are in touch with nature when in reality they just say the n word, smoke weed, throw a bunch of hindu and buddhist imagery together and call it “inner peace,” and don’t shower. you probably know a lot of these people

liberalsarecool:

smdxn:

This is what the legacy of ‘white privilege’ looks like in Bill O’Reilly’s hometown

Levittown, the Long Island community where Bill O’Reilly grew up, holds a unique place in history for two reasons: It was the original subdivision, a mass-produced town of neatly uniform, affordable Cape Cod homes that would serve as a model for postwar suburbs for decades to come.
And it was available only to whites.
The latter detail — now at the center of an epic standoff between O’Reilly and Jon Stewart over race, suburbia and the legacy of “white privilege” — wasn’t an innovation specific to Levittown. Racial discrimination in housing wasn’t merely commonplace in the 1940s and ’50s; it was government policy. The Federal Housing Administration helped finance the construction of many suburban places like Levittown on the condition that they exclude blacks. And it underwrote mortgages to white families there with the expectation that their property values would only hold if blacks did not move in.
At first, the requirement that homeowners in Levittown not rent or sell their homes to minorities was included in the deeds to their homes. Yes, homeowners in Bill O’Reilly’s hometown were contractually bound to keep out blacks.


So typical of conservatives like Bill O’Reilly to NEVER acknowledge they are a product of privilege. A “whites only” town and Bill pretends to not have a clue? What an asshole.

liberalsarecool:

smdxn:

This is what the legacy of ‘white privilege’ looks like in Bill O’Reilly’s hometown

Levittown, the Long Island community where Bill O’Reilly grew up, holds a unique place in history for two reasons: It was the original subdivision, a mass-produced town of neatly uniform, affordable Cape Cod homes that would serve as a model for postwar suburbs for decades to come.

And it was available only to whites.

The latter detail — now at the center of an epic standoff between O’Reilly and Jon Stewart over race, suburbia and the legacy of “white privilege” — wasn’t an innovation specific to Levittown. Racial discrimination in housing wasn’t merely commonplace in the 1940s and ’50s; it was government policy. The Federal Housing Administration helped finance the construction of many suburban places like Levittown on the condition that they exclude blacks. And it underwrote mortgages to white families there with the expectation that their property values would only hold if blacks did not move in.

At first, the requirement that homeowners in Levittown not rent or sell their homes to minorities was included in the deeds to their homes. Yes, homeowners in Bill O’Reilly’s hometown were contractually bound to keep out blacks.

So typical of conservatives like Bill O’Reilly to NEVER acknowledge they are a product of privilege. A “whites only” town and Bill pretends to not have a clue? What an asshole.