#On the impotence of revolutionary groups

[etudiantfantome]

In a still-provocative text published in 1939, Sam Moss, a member of a council communist group in the USA, mercilessly undermined the significance which “revolutionaries” and “revolutionary groups” assign themselves.

Moss starts off from how the problem appears: on the one hand, there is a “we” — that of “revolutionaries” — and on the other, there are the masses or the working class. The former wish to overthrow capitalism but are incapable of doing so, while the latter, the only possible agent of a revolutionary struggle, are concerned with everyday needs and not the revolution. Asking himself about the reason for this apparent difference in objectives between the masses and “revolutionists”, he argues that while the masses are socialised by capitalist culture to “play the role of machines”, the “revolutionists” are a harmless “byproduct”. For Moss the masses are an understandable product of the society while the “revolutionists” are merely “deviations from the working class” representing “isolated cases of workers who, because of unique circumstances in their individual lives, have diverged from the usual course of development”.

Going further, Moss suggests the ground of the difference is that the “revolutionists” are “unsuccessful careerists” — workers who have acquired an intellectual interest and a higher level of education than their fellows, but whose personal advance has been blocked. He continues that although their efforts to help the rest of the class may appear to come “from the noblest of motives, certainly it doesn’t take much to see that one suffers for another only when he has identified that other’s sorrow with his own”.

We unhappy few

[market-data-forecast]

The Booming In Vitro Fertilization Market: Driven by Delayed Parenthood and Rising Infertility

The in vitro fertilization (IVF) market has experienced remarkable growth over the past decade, driven by rising rates of infertility and the trend of delayed parenthood. IVF is a medical procedure where an egg is fertilized by sperm in a laboratory dish to create an embryo, which is then transferred into the uterus in hopes of achieving a successful pregnancy.

According to a new market research report, the global IVF market was valued at $638 million in 2021 and is expected to reach $987 million by 2026, growing at a compound annual growth rate of 9.1%. This growth can be attributed to several key factors.

Download PDF Brochure-https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/pdfdownloadNew.asp?id=89198891

Firstly, more women are choosing to delay parenthood and have children later in life due to pursuing higher education and establishing careers. The natural age-related decline in fertility means more older women are turning to IVF for assistance. The median age of first-time mothers in developed countries has steadily risen over the past few decades.

Secondly, rates of infertility and impotence have also increased globally due to modern lifestyles and environmental factors. Problems with sperm quality, blocked fallopian tubes, endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome are just some causes of infertility driving couples to utilize IVF.

Thirdly, advancements in IVF technologies and procedures have improved success rates and accessibility. Cutting-edge techniques like pre-implantation genetic testing, egg/sperm freezing and minimal stimulation IVF have enhanced outcomes. The introduction of automation in IVF labs has also increased safety and precision.

Meanwhile, emerging economies are anticipated to be lucrative markets. Rising household incomes have made IVF more affordable in developing countries. Fertility tourism is also gaining momentum, with couples traveling abroad for cheaper, high-quality IVF treatments. Medical tourism hotspots like Thailand, Mexico and India are benefiting immensely from this trend.

However, high costs and low insurance coverage remain obstacles to IVF access in many countries. A single IVF cycle can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $15,000. Repeated cycles are often needed to achieve pregnancy. These expenses place IVF out of reach for lower-income couples. Advocacy for increased public funding and insurance subsidies for IVF is growing.

Ethical issues also persist around IVF practices. Debate continues around the moral status of embryos, selective embryo reduction, multiple births and laws regulating surrogacy arrangements and gamete donation. Religious groups have raised objections to IVF on grounds of interfering with natural procreation.

Despite such challenges, the IVF industry shows no signs of slowing down. With continually evolving technology and rising demand, the market is projected for robust growth in the coming years. Key players in the competitive sphere include Vitrolife, Thermo Fischer Scientific, Cook Medical and Cooper Surgical among others. Major developments like acquisitions, partnerships and patent approvals are transforming the landscape.

Download PDF Brochure-https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/pdfdownloadNew.asp?id=89198891

The future looks promising for IVF services to meet the needs of the growing infertile population worldwide. With thoughtful regulations and policies to improve affordability and safety, millions more aspiring parents stand to benefit from this revolutionary reproductive technology.

[puertovallartalimousine]

Revolutionary Prostate Cancer Treatment Comes To Puerto Vallarta

 Puerto Vallarta Limo, Mexico is home to the new and modern San Javier Hospital and the even newer Cornerstone Hospital, both of which provide just about every kind of medical service available anywhere in the world. A third hospital, AmeriMed has been in Vallarta about 10 years and it too offers numerous services. AmeriMed currently has another huge new hospital under construction that will rival the San Javier and Cornerstone Hospitals. As a note of interest, the Cornerstone Hospital is modeled after the Cornerstone Group of hospitals in Texas and AmeriMed is headquartered in Arizona.

While in the beautiful, spacious, and comfortable waiting lobby of San Javier a couple weeks ago, we met a group of doctors, nurses, and assistants from the US. They travel to PV on a monthly basis, spending three days at San Javier practicing a revolutionary prostate cancer treatment on a prescheduled group of men; many of which have unsuccessfully tried conventional options. This procedure is minimally invasive, non-surgical, non radiation, and virtually painless. These doctors and nurses split up into two teams and perform this state-of-the-art technique on two patients simultaneously, each procedure typically requiring three hours or less. This group of urologists and nurses, working in conjunction with a local urologist and local nurses, can treat as many as 20 patients in three days.

This leading edge technique incorporates high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) which is provided by means of a Sonablate 500 system. There are two of these state-of-the-art systems at San Javier, a HIFU Certified Specialty Hospital, each having a control console, a power generator, a cooling unit, and a probe that contains a standard imaging and high-intensity ultrasound treatment head.

Prior to this out-patient procedure, the patients are positioned on a standard operating table and given a spinal anesthesia. The ultrasound / imaging probe is then inserted into the rectum and a series of prostate gland images are viewed on the monitor, allowing the surgeon with a mouse, to select the precise treatment area. Next, by either manually adjusting the power or allowing the computer to determine optimum intensity and duration, the highly focused ultrasound waves create an extremely small and well defined zone of heat; similar to using a magnifying glass and allowing the sun's rays to produce a localized spot hot enough to burn a hole in a piece of paper. The pulsing ultrasound is applied with pin point accuracy in doses of less than a second each, generating temperatures in the range of 70-80°C (155-176°F). These warm temperatures are enough to thermally ablate the targeted tissues and because the targeted zone is so well defined, the adjacent tissues remain cool and uninjured.

The success rate for becoming cancer-free is similar to surgical removal and radiation; however, the complication rate with HIFU tends to be lower, especially the rates of incontinence and impotence. The cost for this revolutionary treatment package which includes flight, limo to and from the airport, and shuttle to and from the hospital, is roughly $25,000, which must seem very reasonable after all other options have failed.

The HIFU treatment is approved in Europe, Japan, China, Latin America, Caribbean, and Mexico, but has not yet received FDA approval in the US. Of all the HIFU approved doctors and hospitals in the world, these American urologists have joined up with a renowned and respected local urologist at San Javier to do their work. Not only are the hospital facilities top notch, but the attention and service that the visiting doctors, nurses, and patients receive is first class. Aside from being the most convenient location, it was also very evident that the surgeons and assistants really enjoy visiting PV and generally try to extend their stays as long as practical. We wouldn't be a bit surprised if one or more of the doctors eventually moves to Vallarta and practices this revolutionary prostate cancer treatment here on a daily basis until it's approved in the US. At that time, they'll probably be ready for retirement, and what better retirement haven to remain in than Puerto Vallarta?

Visit Us: https://www.puertovallartatransportation.com/

[irregularincidents]

While actor/director Orson Welles is mostly known these days for Citizen Kane, his infamous War of the World’s radio play, performing in a Transformers movie, and starting an argument over peas, but what is less well known is his work as a social commentator and activist.

Indeed, while his critique of the wealthy in Citizen Kane got him put on a watch-list by the FBI, Welles had been involved in trying to help diversify theatre since 1936, when he worked with an all African American acting company in an adaptation of MacBeth which managed to both win over Shakespeare purists and local activists in Harlem who suspected that Welles was going help made the production insulting towards the actors and the surrounding community.

And in a 1944 column for Free World he talked about the need for social justice and called for "race hate” to be criminalised. The article itself is interesting, especially considering when it was written, here’s a taste:

Race hate isn’t human nature; race hate is the abandonment of human nature. But this is true: we hate whom we hurt and we mistrust whom we betray. There are minority problems simply because minority races are often wronged. Race hate, distilled from the suspicions of ignorance, takes its welcome from the impotent and the godless, comforting these with hellish parodies of what they’ve lost—arrogance to take the place of price, contempt to occupy the spirit emptied of the love of man. There are alibis for the phenomenon—excuses, economic and social—but the brutal fact is simply this: where the racist lie is acceptable there is corruption. Where there is hate there is shame. The human soul receives race hate only in the sickness of guilt.

The Indian is on our conscience, the Negro is on our conscience, the Chinese and the Mexican-American are on our conscience. The Jew is on the conscience of Europe, but our neglect gives us communion in that guilt, so that there dances even here the lunatic spectre of anti-semitism.

This is deplored; it must be fought, and the fight must be won.

The poll tax is regretted; it must be abolished.

And poll tax thinking must be outlawed. This is a time for action. We know that for some ears even the word “action” has a revolutionary twang, and it won’t surprise us if we’re accused in some quarters of inciting to riot. FREE WORLD is very interested in riots. FREE WORLD is very interested in avoiding them.

We call for action against the cause of riots. Law is the best action, the most decisive. We call for laws, then, prohibiting what moral judgment already counts as lawlessness. American law forbids a man the right to take away anothers right. It must be law that groups of men can’t use the machinery of our Republic to limit the rights of other groups—that the vote, for instance, can’t be used to take away the vote.

Additionally, in his 1945 to 46 radio show Orson Welles Commentaries, he used the opportunity to talk about current events, including protesting the 1946 Bikini Atoll atomic test, speaking out against the dissolution of the Office of Price Administration (a service started during World War Two to control prices and rent), and most prominently, denouncing the 1946 assault on African American WWII veteran Isaac Woodard by some white cops in South Carolina.

Woodard was traveling from South Carolina to Georgia by bus, and hours after being honorably discharged, Batesburg (now Batesburg-Leesville) police chief Lynwood Shull and several over officers beat and blinded Woodard after attempting to rob him of $700 (his military pay), fined him $50, and left his injuries untreated so his family were not able to find him until weeks after the attack due to Woodward loosing his memory in addition to his sight.

Initially the NAACP brought the news of the attack to socially progressive news papers and black press, but the organization's Executive Secretary Walter White and cartoonist Ollie Harrington (recently tasked with building out the NAACP's public relations) wanted the assault to become national news, so they wrote a letter to Orson explaining what’s up.

And, indeed, with an affidavit from Woodward, Welles read an account by the man about the circumstances leading up to his assault, the attach and the resulting aftermath. The NAACP’s plan to bring Woodward’s attack to a wider international audience succeeded, with Welles covering the subject for four episodes in total and explicitly comparing the conduct of Shull and his men to that of the Nazis in the first episode.

"The boy saw him while he could still see, but of course he had no way of knowing what particular policeman it was who brought the justice of Dachau and Oswiecim to Aiken, South Carolina," Welles said in that first broadcast. "He was just another white man with a stick, who wanted to teach a Negro boy a lesson—to show a Negro boy where he belonged: In the darkness."

Naming the policeman Officer X, Welles addressed him directly. "Wash your hands, Officer X. Wash them well. Scrub and scour, you won't blot out the blood of a blinded war veteran," Welles said. "Go on, suckle your anonymous moment while it lasts. You're going to be uncovered. We will blast out your name! We'll give the world your given name, Officer X. Yes, and your so-called Christian name. It's going to rise out of the filthy deep like the dead thing it is."

Welles and the NAACP subsequently worked out the names of the officers responsible, and pressured for Shull and his men to be prosecuted by the Truman administration. And, surprisingly, Harry Truman actually agreed and the racist cops were put on trial for their crime...

...And were found innocent by an all-white jury within 30 minutes. While a pro-segregationist congressman attempted to appeal to J. Edgar Hoover for the FBI to investigate Welles and in his “inflammatory broadcasts“.

The week following the final episode based on Woodard’s case, ABC informed Welles that they were cancelling his show, which would finish airing October 6, 1946.

Despite the lack of success in prosecuting the cops, however, the NAACP had brought enough national attention to the issue of police violence against the African American community to lead Truman establishing the Civil Rights Commission. Additionally, in July 1948 Truman issued two Executive Orders, banning racial discrimination in the military and desegregating the federal government.

Following the trial, Woodard would move to New York City, where he would eventually die in a Veterans Hospital in the Bronx in 1995. Shull would die in his hometown of Batesburg several years later at the age of 95, having faced no legal consequences for his actions.

[hazardous-waste-containment]

“Though regenerated by the war, völkisch ideologues no longer enjoyed a monopoly of integral nationalism. They were now just one component in a cluster of ultra-right theories which are referred to variously as the ‘New Right’, the ‘New Nationalism’ or the ‘Conservative Revolution’. The new currents of ultra-nationalism looked nearer afield than the primordial Germans for inspiration. One group of writers saw the solution to Germany's ills, not in the restoration of the monarchy, but in the founding of a new type of dynamic authoritarian Reich to replace the republic and harness national energies. Their most influential publicist, Moeller van den Bruck, helped give currency to the phrase ‘The Third Reich’ by making it the title of a book published in 1923 to offer a definitive diagnosis of the state of the nation. In it he depicted Germany's current problems as symptoms of a malaise affecting the whole of Europe, turned by materialism, Marxism and liberalism into a ‘decaying world’, ‘too beneath contempt to be saved’. The only remedy was for Germany to heal itself through an heroic ‘reconnection forwards’ in which eternal values would be enshrined in a new order. Edgar Jung and Spengler (whose Decline of the West is erroneously associated outside Germany with morbid pessimism rather than heady nationalist optimism) offered their own versions of ‘Conservative Revolution’, the first invoking a German ‘Christianity’, the other a Caesarist (that is Prussian) ‘socialism’ as the key to national rebirth. Far from being inspired by ‘cultural despair’, all three placed their faith in a new national order in which the blend of discipline, virtue, heroism and socialism peculiar to the race would give a new lease of life to a civilization plunged into materialism, internationalism and decadence.

An even more radical departure from pre-war ultra-nationalism was ‘National Bolshevism’. The writers and agitators who were associated with this paradoxical label, such as Niekisch, saw the key not only to ‘the political, but the religious, spiritual and moral renewal of the German people’ in a rapprochement with revolutionary Russia, which they saw as a national culture which had just dramatically rejuvenated itself rather than as the source of an internationalist subversive movement. Another source of assault on the Weimar Republic found its inspiration not in the primordial Volk, eternal truths or the rebirth of Russia, but in the war. In terms which strongly echo the ‘trenchocratic creed’ of the squadristi in contemporary Italy, the key theme of the disparate ideologues who became known as National Revolutionaries was that the Zusammenbruch (‘collapse’) of 1918 had been but one stage in the German Revolution which started in 1914 and which was leading to the creation of a new type of nation. The war had exposed the bankruptcy of the Second Reich just as much as the Weimar Republic laid bare the impotence of liberal parliamentarism. The experience at the front, the Fronterlebnis, however, had given birth to a new generation ‘capable of breaking through to new values and to the belief in a new ordering of things’.”

— Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism

[nclkafilms]

Politically impotent, but highly entertaining courtroom drama

(Review of ‘Trial of the Chicago 7’)

*Warning: contains minor spoilers*

To say that the autumn release of Aaron Sorkin’s ‘The Trial of the Chicago 7’ felt timely following a summer of numerous instances of police brutality against peaceful #BlackLivesMatter protesters would be an understatement. To say that Sorkin’s high speed courtroom drama is revolutionary in any way whether as a film or a contribution to a political debate would - on the other hand - be a serious overstatement. From the sharply constructed and fast paced opening sequence where all our main characters are introduced with fast editing, upbeat music and brilliantly written shifting dialogue, Sorkin’s main mission (or ultimate fate) is clear: ‘Trial’ should above all be entertaining filmmaking.

Its story does not seem as the obvious fit for an entertaining story, however. In the shadows of the Vietnam War’s growing number of fatalities, various protest groups plan to come to Chicago in 1968 for the Democratic Party Convention to voice their contempt towards the US’ involvement in the war and the military service procedures. The protests, however, end in violent confrontations with the Chicago police. In the aftermath of these confrontations the leaders of the different protest groups are prosecuted for inciting riot and breaking various other laws. It is the battle between the Nixon administration and their oppositions represented by Students for a Democratic Society, the Yippies, several smaller figures and for some reason Bobby Seale and the Black Panthers (actually making it the Chicago 8), although they did not take part in the protests. The film follows their trial at the hands of eccentric and controversial Judge Hoffman combined with flashbacks to the events of the protest.

The film won the SAG ensemble award and that stands perhaps as one of the single least surprising awards of this awards season. ‘Trial’ is - as hinted at by the title - an ensemble piece if there ever was one. The film has no real lead, although Eddie Redmayne as Tom Hayden (SDS), Sacha Baron Cohen as Abbie Hoffman (Yippies) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Richard Shultz (Prosecutor) might be at the centre of attention. All involved actors have clearly had a good time with their roles portraying them with great enthusiasm, but for most parts also some degree of limitations.

Redmayne’s Hayden is the typical “good guy” who forgets to stay seated when the group protests the judge and continues to argue with Abbie about their political opinions and especially the manner in which they want them implemented. Redmayne does a decent job, but Hayden never really unfolds as a fully fleshed character to me. I do not feel that Redmayne ever really becomes his character and that is main reason why I never fully connected with him. Baron Cohen has run away with most attention for his portrayal of Abbie Hoffman, which I think partially is down to the fact that he is a somewhat unusually dramatic role for the Borat-actor. Cohen is without a doubt a better actor than he might be acknowledged as, and Abbie allows him a chance to show that. It is, however, still in combination with his classical sarcasm and wit that Cohen fully succeeds with his character. Through a returning stand-up routine throughout the film, Cohen’s Hoffman functions in some ways as a narrator and might be the closest we get to a leading role. He also gets to deliver the most touching lines of dialogue in my opinion as he takes the chair towards the end. Finally Gordon-Levitt tries his best to convey the mixed emotions and increasing doubt as Schultz faces the choice between blind loyalty and his devotion to the law. While I always love to see Gordon-Levitt on the screen, I cannot help but feel that Schultz as a character feels highly constructed and I had a hard time believing him to be that sympathetic towards the Chicago 7.

In many ways, I found Mark Strong as Jerry Rubin, John Carroll Lynch as Dave Dellinger and Mark Rylance as the defendants’ attorney, William Kunstler, to be more fascinating characters than both Hayden and Schultz in particular. Mark Strong continues to be more and more interesting and his Jerry Rubin is easily the most enjoyable character along with Cohen’s Hoffman. Strong, too, manages to balance the vulnerability of the sometimes blue-eyed Yippies with their sarcastic distancing and humour-driven protests in the courtroom. I actually believed in his character, when both the protests and the juridical proceedings become too overwhelming for him and he snaps in various ways. Carroll Lynch is an almost criminally underused actor and here I, too, would have liked to explore his character more as he feels so different from the remaining defendants. With the limited material he gets, he manages to create a sympathetic character. The same can be said about Rylance, who uses all of his theatricality as be battles with Frank Langella’s overdone Judge Hoffman. Langella gives it everything and then some to make Hoffman as unscrupulous, derailed and amoral as possible, which ultimately cooled my resentment towards him. He ended up feeling like a caricature more than an actual character and for that, way less scarier.

How come - despite all the characters’ flaws and limitations - that the film is still entertaining, then? Well, the main answer is Aaron Sorkin. While he is still to fully proof himself as a director (Molly’s Game also had some issues), he still is one hell of a writer. You can accuse him (rightly so) of over-writing his stuff, taking to many freedoms with his source material and balancing on the edge of using too much pathos, but it is hard to resist his razor sharp dialogues and tongue-in-cheek one-liners. He is no stranger to courtroom dramas and it is clear that he is on home-turf with all of these juridical and political exchanges of beliefs. For this reason, alone, ‘Trial’ never feels dull or slow. Additionally, this is aided by an often fast-paced editing and the fact, that it never dwells to long on one point before moving on to the next.

This, however, also stands as the main reason as to why the film never feels anything other than impotent as a political work. It never gets too dangerous or too controversial. It gets most dangerous, when it comes to the inclusion and portrayal of Bobby Seale and the Black Panthers. As Seale, extremely talented Yahya Abdul-Mateen II, is highly forgettable mainly down to the fact that Seale is reduced to a prop in the overall story. During the film, the court is accused of including Seale in the trial in order to scare the jury with a black man; adding a layer of racial injustice to the story. But in reality, it also feels as if Seale’s story line has been added to the film to “tick off” the race box; Fred Hampton is also thrown in there as Seale’s legal counsellor with his untimely death just briefly touched upon. The story of Seale, Hampton and the Panthers deserve more time, more attention and more gravity than given here; an initial opinion of mine that was only made clearer after watching ‘Judas and the Black Messiah’.

Ultimately, ‘The Trial of the Chicago 7’ is a highly flawed film and as a political work it stands as oddly harmless and undaring considering its timing and topic. However, thanks to another fast paced and sharp script by Aaron Sorkin, inspired performances from its all-star ensemble lead by Baron Cohen and Jeremy Strong and interesting plot it ends up as a highly entertaining courtroom film. A well-looking, satisfying meal, although it does not last for too long and leaves a somewhat questionable taste in the very back of my mouth.

4/5

[sciencespies]

How Denim Became a Political Symbol of the 1960s

https://sciencespies.com/history/how-denim-became-a-political-symbol-of-the-1960s/

How Denim Became a Political Symbol of the 1960s

In the spring of 1965, demonstrators in Camden, Alabama, took to the streets in a series of marches to demand voting rights. Among the demonstrators were “seven or eight out-of-state ministers,” United Press International reported, adding that they wore the “blue denim ‘uniform’ of the civil rights movement over their clerical collars.”

Though most people today don’t associate blue denim with the struggle for black freedom, it played a significant role in the movement. For one thing, the historian Tanisha C. Ford has observed, “The realities of activism,” which could include hours of canvassing in rural areas, made it impractical to organize in one’s “Sunday best.” But denim was also symbolic. Whether in trouser form, overalls or skirts, it not only recalled the work clothes worn by African Americans during slavery and as sharecroppers, but also suggested solidarity with contemporary blue-collar workers and even equality between the sexes, since men and women alike could wear it.

To see how civil rights activists adopted denim, consider the photograph of Martin Luther King Jr. and Ralph Abernathy marching to protest segregation in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963. Notably, they are wearing jeans. In America and beyond, people would embrace jeans to make defiant statements of their own.

The Rev. Drs. Ralph Abernathy and Martin Luther King Jr. in Birmingham, Alabama, en route to a protest on April 12, 1963.

(Charles Moore / Getty Images)

Scholars trace denim’s roots to 16th-century Nîmes, in the South of France, and Genoa, in northwestern Italy. Many historians suspect that the word “denim” derives from serge de Nîmes, referring to the tough fabric French mills were producing, and that “jeans” comes from the French word for Genoa (Gênes). In the United States, slaveowners in the 19th century clothed enslaved fieldworkers in these hardy fabrics; in the West, miners and other laborers started wearing jeans after a Nevada tailor named Jacob Davis created pants using duck cloth—a denimlike canvas material—purchased from the San Francisco businessman Levi Strauss. Davis produced some 200 pairs over the next 18 months—some in duck cloth, some in denim—and in 1873, the government granted a patent to Davis and Levi Strauss & Co. for the copper-riveted pants, which they sold in both blue denim and brown duck cloth. By the 1890s, Levi Strauss & Co. had established its most enduring style of pants: Levi’s 501 jeans.

Real-life cowboys wore denim, as did actors who played them, and after World War II denim leapt out of the sagebrush and into the big city, as immortalized in the 1953 film The Wild One. Marlon Brando plays Johnny Strabler, the leader of a troublemaking motorcycle gang, and wears blue jeans along with a black leather jacket and black leather boots. “Hey Johnny, what are you rebelling against?” someone asks. His reply: “Whaddaya got?”

In the 1960s, denim came to symbolize a different kind of rebelliousness. Black activists donned jeans and overalls to show that racial caste and black poverty were problems worth addressing. “It took Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington to make [jeans] popular,” writes the art historian Caroline A. Jones. “It was here that civil rights activists were photographed wearing the poor sharecropper’s blue denim overalls to dramatize how little had been accomplished since Reconstruction.” White civil rights advocates followed. As the fashion writer Zoey Washington observes: “Youth activists, specifically members of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, used denim as an equalizer between the sexes and an identifier between social classes.”

But denim has never belonged to just one political persuasion. When the country music star Merle Haggard criticized hippies in his conservative anthem “Okie From Muskogee,” you bet he was often wearing denim. President Ronald Reagan was frequently photographed in denim during visits to his California ranch—the very picture of rugged individualism.

And blue jeans would have to rank high on the list of U.S. cultural exports. In November 1978, Levi Strauss & Co. began selling the first large-scale shipments of jeans behind the Iron Curtain, where the previously hard-to-obtain trousers were markers of status and liberation; East Berliners eagerly lined up to snag them. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, when Levis and other American jean brands became widely available in the USSR, many Soviets were gleeful. “A man hasn’t very much happy minutes in his life, but every happy moment remains in his memory for a long time,” a Moscow teacher named Larisa Popik wrote to Levi Strauss & Co. in 1991. “The buying of Levi’s 501 jeans is one of such moments in my life. I’m 24, but while wearing your jeans I feel myself like a 15-year-old schoolgirl.”

Back in the States, jeans kept pushing the limits. In the early 1990s, TLC, one of the best-selling girl groups of all time, barged into the boys’ club of hip-hop and R&B wearing oversized jeans. These “three little cute girls dressed like boys,” in the words of Rozonda “Chilli” Thomas, one of the group’s members, inspired women across the country to mimic the group’s style.

Curiously, jeans have continued to make waves in Eastern Europe. In the run-up to the 2006 presidential elections in Belarus, activists marched to protest what they characterized as a sham vote in support of an autocratic government. After police seized the opposition’s flags at a pre-election rally, one protester tied a denim shirt to a stick, creating a makeshift flag and giving rise to the movement’s eventual name: the “Jeans Revolution.”

The youth organization Zubr urged followers: “Come out in the streets of your cities and towns in jeans! Let’s show that we are many!” The movement didn’t topple the government, but it illustrated that this everyday garment can still be revolutionary.

Why the dye that would put the blue in jeans was banned when it reached the West —Ted Scheinman

Fabrics soaked with indigo dye in Dali, Yunnan Province, China. “No color has been prized so highly or for so long,” Catherine E. McKinley writes.

(Alamy)

It might seem odd to outlaw a pigment, but that’s what European monarchs did in a strangely zealous campaign against indigo. The ancient blue dye, extracted in an elaborate process from the leaves of the bushy legume Indigofera tinctoria, was first shipped to Europe from India and Java in the 16th century.

To many Europeans, using the dye seemed unpleasant. “The fermenting process yielded a putrid stench not unlike that of a decaying body,” James Sullivan notes in his book Jeans. Unlike other dyes, indigo turns cloth vivid blue only after the dyed fabric has been in contact with air for several minutes, a mysterious delay that some found unsettling.

Plus, indigo represented a threat to European textile merchants who had heavily invested in woad, a homegrown source of blue dye. They played on anxieties about the import in a “deliberate smear campaign,” Jenny Balfour-Paul writes in her history of indigo. Weavers were told it would damage their cloth. A Dutch superstition held that any man who touched the plant would become impotent.

Governments got the message. Germany banned “the devil’s dye” (Teufelsfarbe) for more than 100 years beginning in 1577, while England banned it from 1581 to 1660. In France in 1598, King Henry IV favored woad producers by banning the import of indigo, and in 1609 decreed that anyone using the dye would be executed.

Still, the dye’s resistance to running and fading couldn’t be denied, and by the 18th century it was all the rage in Europe. It would be overtaken by synthetic indigo, developed by the German chemist Johann Friedrich Wilhelm Adolf von Baeyer—a discovery so far-reaching it was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1905.

#History

[dmgrundy]

[71] Ice (1970, dir. Robert Kramer)

A more fictionalised, more extreme, more clandestine, more single-minded version of the sprawling cast of ‘Milestones’, Kramer’s more condensed and fictionalised ‘Ice’ depicts the planning of a Tet-style ‘Spring Offensive’ by a group of would-be urban guerrillas engaged in strategy meetings, armed raids, and—in a self-conscious move no doubt relating to Kramer’s own work in collective political film-making (from which some felt this individually-directed film was a step back), the making of propaganda films, whose intertitled slogans flash up throughout the film. The members of the group are all young, all white (though in one brief scene they negotiate with a group who, it seems to be implied, are the Panthers), more Weather Underground than Symbionese Liberation Army, but beset by the suspicion and isolation of the close group—the paradox where the path to accomplish total societal transformation is now felt to lie in necessarily secret and small-scale activity. The scene where the group kidnap and then explain to the residents of an apartment block their vision is the awkward test case for the beginnings of bridging this gap: having taken oneself out of circulation for the sake of one’s ideas, one’s methods, how to put oneself back in, how to spread such action? Filmed before the collapses and revelations of such groups documented in excruciating detail in Wakamatsu’s ‘United Red Army’ some decades later, the film reserves judgement. The group is of mixed gender, and women appear to play equal roles in the organisation, but it’s unclear to what extent Kramer shares the apparent obsession with impotence and depleted masculinity literalised here in the figure of the castrated revolutionary now in a purely defensive position, typing up reports and waiting with his shotgun behind a desk in an office. These are not glamorous rebels (as per ‘The Baader-Meinhof Complex’), nor sociopathic terrorists, but, given the demands they’ve placed on themselves, ironically enough, professionals who must act with a total focus on the task and little time for an un-fraught human intimacy. For me, the most striking moment is one of the least flashy. Temporarily alone in the snow while on a training retreat, the figure who adapts the role of protagonist—or at least of leader (though the structure of both film and group itself refuses such roles)—imagines that thought is like a river which exceeds the subject in whom the thought supposedly originated. ‘What we have here is a situation where we find ourselves in the midst of a river with very strong currents and with no way of getting out of the river, but that's not bad. And you just go ahead and do what you can't avoid doing. And your mind follows along. So, you've got to change your mind around, […] no need to even ask some of those questions you used to be asking… Interesting to think of the ideas being not your ideas but being part of a movement… What do you make of that? A little crazy?’ Conceptualising the individual as part of the currents of history isn’t new to revolutionary thought—or to other kinds of thought—but there’s something terrifying about this—the movement of the river not that of a collective of people, but of some impersonal, natural, abstracted force. Is this the force which the melting of the titular ‘ice’ through revolutionary action might release? Or is that ‘ice’ the coldness, the suspension of affect and emotional responsiveness to accomplish revolution? Or to ‘ice’ someone—as when the same individual is abruptly thrown into a river on his return to the city, presumably by a group of government agents? If this is a movement, it’s not the movement of public protest, marches, and declarations of togetherness, but of an atomised, fractured and precarious collective that at times seems like the mirror image of the alienated society it seeks to destroy.

[one-divides-into-two]

[I]f the general contradiction (it has already been specified: the contradiction between the forces of production and the relations of production, essentially embodied in the contradiction between two antagonistic classes) is sufficient to define the situation when revolution is the ‘task of the day’, it cannot of its own simple, direct power induce a ‘revolutionary situation’, nor a fortiori a situation of revolutionary rupture and the triumph of the revolution.

If this contradiction is to become ‘active’ in the strongest sense, to become a ruptural principle, there must be an accumulation of ‘circumstances’ and ‘currents’ so that whatever their origin and sense (and many of them will necessarily be paradoxically foreign to the revolution in origin and sense, or even its ‘direct opponents’), they ‘fuse’ into a ruptural unity: when they produce the result of the immense majority of the popular masses grouped in an assault on a regime which its ruling classes are unable to defend. Such a situation presupposes not only the ‘fusion’ of the two basic conditions into a ‘single national crisis ‘, but each condition considered (abstractly) by itself presupposes the ‘fusion’ of an ‘accumulation’ of contradictions.

How else could the class-divided popular masses (proletarians, peasants, petty bourgeois) throw themselves together, consciously or unconsciously, into a general assault on the existing regime? And how else could the ruling classes (aristocrats, big bourgeois, industrial bourgeois, finance bourgeois, etc.), who have learnt by long experience and sure instinct to seal between themselves, despite their class differences, a holy alliance against the exploited, find themselves reduced to impotence, divided at the decisive moment, with neither new political solutions nor new political leaders, deprived of foreign class support, disarmed in the very citadel of their State machine, and suddenly overwhelmed by the people they had so long kept in leash and respectful by exploitation, violence and deceit?

If, as in this situation, a vast accumulation of ‘contradictions’ comes into play in the same court,  some of which are radically heterogeneous – of different origins, different sense, different levels and points of application – but which nevertheless ‘merge’ into a ruptural unity, we can no longer talk of the sole, unique power of the general ‘contradiction’. Of course, the basic contradiction dominating the period (when the revolution is ‘the task of the day’) is active in all these ‘contradictions’ and even in their ‘fusion’. But, strictly speaking, it cannot be claimed that these contradictions and their fusion are merely the pure phenomena of the general contradiction.

The ‘circumstances’ and ‘currents’ which achieve it are more than its phenomena pure and simple. They derive from the relations of production, which are, of course, one of the terms of the contradiction, but at the same time its conditions of existence; from the superstructures, instances which derive from it, but have their own consistency and effectivity from the international conjuncture itself, which intervenes as a determination with a specific role to play. This means that if the ‘differences’ that constitute each of the instances in play (manifested in the ‘accumulation’ discussed by Lenin) ‘merge’ into a real unity, they are not ‘dissipated’ as pure phenomena in the internal unity of a simple contradiction. The unity they constitute in this ‘fusion’ into a revolutionary rupture, is constituted by their own essence and effectivity, by what they are, and according to the specific modalities of their action. In constituting this unity, they reconstitute and complete their basic animating unity, but at the same time they also bring out its nature: the ‘contradiction’ is inseparable from the total structure of the social body in which it is found, inseparable from its formal conditions of existence, and even from the instances it governs; it is radically affected by them, determining, but also determined in one and the same movement, and determined by the various levels and instances of the social formation it animates; it might be called over-determined in its principle.

L. Althusser, ‘Contradiction and Overdetermination.’ For Marx.

[ayurvedictreatments]

Arogyavardhani Vati – Uses, Functions And Therapeutic Benefits

Arogyavardhani Vati.

clad by the vernacular names Arogyavardhani gutika, Arogyavardhani rasa or Sarvroghar vati is a supernatural home grown cure utilized for treating a heap of sicknesses mostly of the heart, liver, stomach, digestive tract, nerve bladder, skin, teeth and gum.

The word 'arogya' implies 'great wellbeing' while 'vardhani' means 'improver', for example an ayurveda detailing that can totally kill illnesses and improve or advance great wellbeing.

Consistently, this home grown cure is generally referenced in the antiquated ayurvedic writings of Rasaratnasamucchaya for the treatment of kustha for example sickness and furthermore valued as Sarvarogaprashamani for example a solution for a wide range of sicknesses. It is additionally unequivocally pushed in the writings of Bhaishyajyaratnavali for treating yakritvikara for example liver issues. The comprehensive study of Ayurveda likewise guarantees the utilization of this strong drug for jaundice, skin diseases, fever, oedema, acid reflux and corpulence.

Arogyavardhani vati

Readiness Of Arogyavardhani Vati

Fixings:

2 pieces of each Triphala

a. Haritaki - Terminalia chebula organic product skin

b. Bibhitaki - Terminalia bellirica organic product skin

c. Bhumi Amalaki - Emblica officinalis organic product

3 pieces of Shilajatu (mineral pitch) - Asphaltum

4 pieces of Guggulu for example Indian bedelium (gum) - Commiphora mukul

4 pieces of Chitrakmool for example base of Indian leadwort - Plumbago zeylanica

22 pieces of Kutki - Picrorhiza kurroa

Juice concentrate of Nimba leaf (Neem) - Azadirachta indica (according to necessity)

1 piece of Shuddha Parada (natural sanitized mercury)

1 piece of Loha Bhasma (debris got from iron)

1 piece of Shuddha Gandhaka (natural decontaminated sulfur)

1 piece of Abhraka Bhasma (purged and handled mica)

1 piece of Tamra Bhasma (debris acquired from copper)

Starch (restricting operator)

Technique for arrangement

Technique:

The home grown fixings, for example kutki, chitramool and triphala are powdered and put away in isolated water/air proof vessel.

Shilajit and guggulu are refined through swedana measure utilizing triphala kwath.

New nimba patra swaras (for example neem leaf remove) is set up by granulating and pressing the leaves.

The home grown powders are blended in with the neem concentrate and exposed to the bhavana cycle (for example implantation of powder with liquid) for 3-4 hours.

The powder is then air dried at a temperature of 60°C.

Sanitized shilajit and Amritadi guggul are then blended in with the air-dried powder.

The metallic remains of loha, tamra, abhrak, parad and gandhaka are exposed to the mardana cycle (for example granulating) to get dhatukajjali (a compound of mercury)

All the above fixings are blended homogeneously in a blender.

Ultimately, the coupling specialist is added to hold the powder particles together.

Circular tablets or vatis are set up by moving them onto your palm or utilizing tablet making machine for extreme amount of blend.

Elements of vati

Restorative Benefits of the Ingredients:

Triphala:

It is a powdered blend of 3 powerful myrobalans in equivalent amount in particular amlaki, haritaki and bibhitaki. The powders when included any plan goes about as a powerful cure against a large group of maladies like blockage, weight, acid reflux, fart, jaundice, iron deficiency, asthma, throat contamination, hair issues and pyorrhea.

Shilajatu:

At the point when natural issue gets caught under layers of rocks more than many years and are exposed to extraordinary weight and temperature conditions, a thick clingy exudate is gotten which is profoundly plentiful in minerals like triterpenes, fulvic and humic corrosive. This rejuvenative cure is exceptionally fundamental for kidney stones, dysuria, phthisis, breathing issues, sickliness, epilepsy, heaps, oedema, mental failures and skin contaminations.

Guggulu:

This is a gum tar got from the bark concentrate of the mukul tree. The concentrate is then sanitized with triphala decoction to utilize it in different ayurvedic plans. It holds high importance in the treatment of cardiovascular issues, hypertension, weight, joint inflammation, and atherosclerosis.

Chitramool:

Chitramool is gotten from the sun-dried base of the Chitrak plant. The root extricate is incredibly basic in advancing processing, animating hunger and dealing with a large number of infections like stomach torment, anorexia, hemorrhoids, rhinitis, hack, sprue, liver issues, feminine issue and barrenness.

Kutki:

This incredible ayurvedic spice is profoundly successful in normalizing the tridoshas and has a katu rasa (for example severe sharp taste), consequently the name. The severe spice is useful for treating liver issues, stomach related problems, respiratory issues, skin diseases and furthermore disposes of poisons from the body.

Nimba:

The new neem leaf remove utilized in this detailing builds the restorative adequacy of the item. An amazing cancer prevention agent, neem remove disposes of free revolutionary from the body subsequently effectively partaking in treating intestinal worm pervasion, vision issues, acid reflux, ulcer, heart diseases, blood issue, liver issue, teeth and gum contamination.

Sanitized Metallic Ashes:

The metallic remains utilized in this plan are totally filtered through a progression of steps called sodhana (refinement), mardana (granulating) and swedana (disintegrating). These cinders are utilized for making the kajjali for example a combination of parad which is compelling in normalizing the tridoshas in the body. Among these different cinders, loha bhasma is profoundly compelling for treating liver issues, spleen issue, pallor, hernia and impotency while abhrak bhasma is utilized for treating extreme cerebral pain, dementia, Alzheimer's infection, epilepsy, vertigo and so on. Also, tamra bhasma is possibly helpful for acid reflux, nerve stones, liver and spleen development.

Starch:

This is utilized in an insignificant amount as a coupling specialist to hold the powdered particles together when defined into vatis or tablets.

Different advantages of arogyavardhani vati

Advantages and Therapeutic Uses:

Instilled with a large group of restoratively successful fixings, the ground-breaking ayurvedic plan is firmly upheld for its viability in a heap of diseases.

Powerful Digestive Stimulant:

Arogyavardhani vati is a brilliant stomach related definition. The counter pretentious property of this item lessens the development of gas in the wholesome waterway, along these lines diminishing fart, swelling and stomach distension. A higher centralization of the Kutki spice, makes this vati a strong starter, which builds hunger, decreases heartburn, animates better ingestion of supplements in the body and subsequently advances a sound stomach related framework.

Fixes Skin Diseases:

The plan is a mysterious solution for treating different skin contaminations. The bounty of triphala in this plan is exceptionally viable in eliminating the AMA poisons from the body. The mitigating and powerful pain relieving properties of this vati is very useful in treating skin break out and dermatitis. Being stacked with cell reinforcements, Arogyavardhani vati rummages free extremists from the body and its antipruritic nature lightens tingling sensation caused because of unfavorably susceptible conditions like psoriasis, dermatitis, skin inflammation, burn from the sun and so forth.

Advances Weight Loss:

Ordinary utilization of the vati improves body digestion and fixes liver illnesses, stomach issues and heftiness. The basic supplements in the plan satisfies the yearnings aches and forestall indulging and thus can assume a urgent part in one's weight reduction routine.

Treats Liver Problems:

Arogyavardhani vati having powerful mitigating and hostile to viral properties is very successful in dealing with different liver issues like hepatitis, jaundice and greasy liver. The cholagogue idea of the natural definition invigorates the emission of bile from the liver into the small digestive system and furthermore effectively takes an interest in cleaning out the unnecessary bile from the body before being assimilated, consequently lessening dangers of spleen and liver issues.

Fixes Heart Ailments:

Arogyavardhini vati goes about as a strong cardiovascular cure. It fortifies the heart muscles, improves the sarcoplasmic reticulum elements of the heart and limits arrhythmias. By managing the heart rhythms, it successfully decreases the danger of heart blocks, blood clusters, cardiovascular failures, ischemic cardiomyopathy, mitral spewing forth, and so on. It likewise lessens hypertension and monitors circulatory strain levels, This is best ayurvedic treatment for heart blockage.

[orgasmiccontagion]

In light of recent events and the pouring out of despair that I’ve seen on here among the various anarchist/insurrectionists/anti-civ individuals for the inevitably reformist recuperation of the uprisings in response to police brutality and white supremacy in America, I want to highlight a passage that I read in ‘ Critique of Chrisso and Odeteo’s Barbarians” by Frére Dupont, one of the authors responsible for writing “Nihilist Communism”. It may not be something we want to hear right now in response to what is transpiring, but there are some crucial points of critique being expounded here: “On what level does the militancy that C+O (Chrisso and Odeteo) validate signify to the self yes, we feel good to come off best after an encounter with the authorities, but to the authorities themselves and beyond them, to the existing structure, what value does any instance have? A burnt-out bank is a boon for builders, cleaning companies, cops, security advisers, property developers. A riot, like a forest fire, is good for business, cleans out the old, shock and awe. Capitalism makes capital out of conflict and disaster. Rioters and insurrectionists are not the most resistant elements in society, they are perhaps the most conscious, the most confrontational but they are also the most spectacular, the most self-conscious, the most prey to delusions of ‘people power.’ The insurrectionist is fine in his moment, and so many of them fall away exhausted, but they act only for themselves, they are not creating a better world, they are not at the front. They act for themselves, the extreme acts of a few will never be a substitute for the small acts of becoming human of the many. to acknowledge this, to accept the essentially selfish and subjective nature of the ‘black block’ is not to say we must not resist. On the contrary, we must continue. It is only to say, that there is no necessary connection with the outside through our desire for it. It is likely that our resistance, in the end counts in favor of existing authority and against the possibility for revolution. All we can say with certainty is that we can recognize what is not outside.” At a first glance of course we could dismiss this as counter-insurgency misrepresentation of insurrectionist action that has no purpose but to undermine the efforts made by the anarchists really out there throwing down. However, I think what Dupont is doing here is highlighting the burnout that anarchists feel time and time again is due to their failure to acknowledge that a few intensely radical individuals simply cannot through their own will annihilate a system as all encompassing as capitalism (and by extension the state and civilization) without acknowledging the efforts needed from those who are not already radicalized. Throughout my time spent on here the last couple of weeks I see pro-insurrectionist anarchists (myself included) giddy with excitement that because of riots/looting/precincts being burned down that we were on the cusp of a true apeshit moment in America. Unfortunately, within just over a week corporations, media, and the innumerable activist/careerist/opportunist rackets captured the virulent rage spreading throughout the metropolitan areas of America and beyond in order to reform us back in line once again. Due to the fact that (as is all too obvious) the vast majority of people do not have any ideas of a world “outside” the one which has ensconced all life within its totality (insert discussions on domestication, spectacles, the hyperreal, desire etc etc), the reformists are gaining the upper hand and the radical potentials are fizzling out due to counter-insurgency propaganda and worries among leftists and centrists of “de-legitimizing the movement”. However, getting excited about violent rebellion is one thing, but the subsequent crash into the reformist rackets shouldn’t lead anarchists into disappointment and defeatism, but rather revaluating and transparent criticism. Hence, this is why I want to launch deeper into what’s being said here. For one, the beginning of the passage discusses the emotional high radicals get off of clashes directly with the state and the institutions that protect them. Of course, this is a predictable reaction and one that should inspire more and more people to embrace their rage against the state. However, if the only places where these actions take place is in a few dozen large urban territories around the country, and if only an isolated number of businesses/police stations/institutions are attacked, how can we expect that this wound sundered in the death machines of capital will not close up in the blink of an eye? @corvid420​ pointed out that cops that are resigning from large city police forces (NYPD for example) will likely move into the suburbs or smaller districts and be hired as cops there, suburbs which house the petit-bourgeois/bourgeois sectors of society (not to mention majorly white). These places have seen far less action in comparison but still encompass many of the characteristics as the big cities (shopping malls, police stations, jails, courthouses), and while these spaces of society still remain untouched there will not be any significant strides in working towards an abolition of capital.

To build off the previous point, insurrectionists run the risk of spectaclizing their efforts as we have already seen the media continue to use the rioting/looting argument to discredit the most angry portions of the revolt. The ontological problem of “becoming-imperceptible” in an age of smart phones, mass surveillance and police helicopters continues to pose an immense obstacle in struggles such as these. Isolated incidents of a burned AutoZone or shoe stores being looted in New York make it easy to highlight and demonize a subset of “unlawful individuals” who are “not paying honor to the legacy” of the state sanctioned murders of black people in America. More importantly, due to the ways in which people in capitalist society create identities based on brands and commodities, they will empathize with business that have suffered from the riots and looting first. They will mostly ignore the economic crisis brought on by COVID-19 that is influencing a lot of this action in the first place (and even if this devastating crisis wasn’t occurring, why should we care if we deny the surplus value from corporations and engage in our own excess?). Insurrection needs to be treated as an all or nothing affair, otherwise its integration into the spectacle is only a matter of time. Of course, as Dupont points out later in this passage, he doesn’t want the banks to stop burning, but rather wishes to point out that smaller actions against the logic of capital by the majority will do far more than a few insurrectionists trashing a Target (or other similar large displays of disobedience). Fortunately, I have seen more and more anarchists highlighting the importance of this lately on here as of late, although at times like these those suggestions get buried under the desire to go out and break shit (I’m guilty of this as well).

Finally, and perhaps the most controversial portion of this excerpt, is Dupont’s discussion on the insurrectionist’s position in the overall revolutionary potential against capitalism. They highlight the individualistic nature of insurrectionists, and how in the moment they act mostly for their own desires. They are not, as Dupont argues, the “most resistance group” among those that suffer under capitalism, but rather the “most conscious”. This consciousness is perhaps the greatest strength insurrectionists have, in that these anarchists will embrace the most violent and extreme measures to go to in order for the current order to collapse. However, it is what also leads anarchists to feeling burnout when revolts and protests continue to get recuperated. This is where I agree the most with Dupont and see this passage as mostly coming across from a point of empathy rather than contempt. However, wanting to attack the state/capitalism/civilization from an individualist perspective is a necessary means to act within the context of the current struggle. This I think is a misunderstanding on Dupont’s part. The individualist tendencies of insurrectionary anarchists does not stop at the singular level but creates trajectories toward molecular forms. Through individuals enunciating their own struggles in the various spaces of the capitalist world, we can found relationships unmediated by the haunting specters of civilized life and use each other to the advantage of all. However, to the credit of Dupont, the desires of most people do not align with a revolutionary trajectory and therefore those individualistic tendencies can come across as impotent and ineffective. This of course is where future struggles and crises will have to compound on each other in order to make a push toward a different direction. The sobering observation of the crisis still being out of sight for most of those around us does not mean it can always be pushed to the periphery forever. Insurrectionists cannot be at a “front” because simply put there is nothing to be in front of, and they cannot create a better world because it isn’t up to them alone to create it. This is the real struggle not just for anarchists but anyone who rejects the current state of things. It is the struggle to form a movement, a revolutionary trajectory, when at the present there is hardly anything to mobilize. 

Overall, I find Dupont’s insights to be valuable at a time like this, despite some of the points I found a bit off. Using this passage as a way to focus on the response to not only what’s going on now but the inevitable crises of tomorrow will allow some necessary reflections on how things went down undesirably. I welcome any positive or negative feedback/commentary to this response and how it fits with the unrest going on currently in the United States and abroad. I do not wish to speak on behalf of anyone else, only from my own perspective and how I see the current movement unfolding and how other anarchists around me (who have much more experience in this than I) are reacting.

[meta-squash]

Lipstick Traces Review/Thoughts

(I wrote this 2 years ago but didn’t have a tumblr to post it to at the time)

So I’ve just finished reading Lipstick Traces by Greil Marcus. And it’s fucking long with so much information and I’ve been having a lot of thoughts. Some just about little specific things mentioned in the book, and some more about the themes of the book written in the 80s compared to our current epoch of technology and politics and art and culture industry etc.

I mean, a lot of the stuff in the book/the thoughts the book gave me are things I’ve rambled about before on tumblr. But I guess it’s stuff that’s still in my head, that still bothers me, that I still have no solution for, or that I can find cracks in my arguments for solutions.

Mostly what I took away from this book was a giant feeling of conflict and ambivalence and uncertainty. It is, ultimately, a book of regret. It’s a book that explores these artists and movements and ideas and people that made a series of tiny but huge impacts to art and creation, who could have made a huge revolutionary change, but whose small revolutions were lost to time. It is a book about anger or frustration that incites a change, an avant garde, and how that anger fizzles out or is smothered and forgotten. It is a book about the cycles of history and how the new, the angry, the ones pushing back, are always eventually suppressed. In a 1994 quote Richey said, essentially, that you only really get remembered if you’re an Einstein or a Newton– a person who creates or discovers something that is such a massive revolutionary change that it affects the way the world is perceived and how it is believed to function. This book talks about those who aren’t Newtons and Einsteins. Those artists that made little waves that changed a few but didn’t change enough.

And it’s simultaneously fascinating and exciting and depressing, reading and thinking about this. That this book is a book of regret written in the 1980s, and 35 years later things have only gotten more extreme, and the regret can only feel heavier. The anger is still there, too, but it was more potent in the 80s and 90s, it had more potential. Now the anger is becoming impotent, or trapped. Either the meek inherited the earth and forgot what it was like to be meek, or the ones who inherited the earth were strongmen wearing the masks of the meek and the ambition of the avant garde.

Honestly, the biggest takeaway I got from this book is how drastically things have changed. How the way the book compares the Dadaists to the original punks is a fairly close, similar type of comparison, with similar movements, ideas, ideals, messages, and actions. And how the comparison to both of those with any sort of movement that might happen in the next decade or so will be massively, drastically different because of how much culture has changed, media has changed, access and accessibility has changed, government, education, class awareness, and on and on. How, honestly, I’m not sure if there could be another movement like the dadaists and like the punk scene, because to be reactionary and avant garde and revolutionary is something very different these days.

Already Greil Marcus discusses speed and the culture industry. Which makes sense, since his primary theoretical sources are Guy Debord and Theodor Adorno. But it’s fascinating to see these theories–both written and published in the 40s and 60s–being used to critique and analyse culture and art back then, much closer to the texts’ inception. Those theories were new-ish in terms of being put into words back then. The idea of the prison of capitalism, the labor that turns the proletariat into machines and then sells them back to themselves, the speed and change of media, the homogenous nature of entertainment and pop culture. All of that was relatively new, at least in terms of being stated outright.

And people were frustrated! People have always been frustrated! The Dadaists were frustrated by the war they didn’t want to participate in, and then in the monotony of the post-war expectations that everything go back to normal, when nothing was normal. They were frustrated by the Modernists, by the Expressionists, by art becoming something that gave you Status rather than something that you just did because you had the urge. Punks were frustrated with the economic and social malaise, the labor issues, the failed ideals of the hippies, art and music stagnating, the lack of platforms for them to express themselves. But they were able to use art to express that anger, that frustration, that feeling of nihilism or of glee at meaninglessness, that feeling of “fuck it, we have nothing so let’s do what we want.” Both generations did it in different styles, but both threw convention out the window, focused on what was taboo, what was weird, what was scandalous, what they wanted to say but society didn’t want them saying.

What’s interesting about the book is that it expresses admiration for this, for the daring and avant garde and original and clever and badass nature of both Dada and Punk ideals/styles/philosophies/actions/etc. But it also expresses regret. Regret that it only lasted so long. That it didn’t leave any major effect on art or politics or life or society (that is, aside from what capitalism stole or what minor underground movements admired or were inspired by). That it was stolen by capitalism. That it inevitably fell apart as time moved forward.

But for those glorious few years….

And what it made me think of, which (like I said) Marcus talks about quite a bit, is the effect that the culture industry and the speed of culture/media/news had on both movements. For the Dadaists, it was more about the speed of the news and also just blindly making, with no knowledge of a goal or ultimate desire, that resulted in the group eventually separating into other factions and the movement petering out into other artistic ideas and styles. The Dadaists were reacting to the war, to the newness of certain parts of culture, to the personal conflicts between artists. The punk movement was more affected by the ever-increasing speed of culture and media as well as news. Things were moving faster. Styles and ideas were coming into fashion and then becoming old hat more quickly. Punk started out as avant-garde, as a refusal to conform, as an excuse and/or reason to speak out and act out and express oneself. Especially in communities that weren’t being heard. It started out as a way for individuals to force society to acknowledge them. And then capitalism and the culture industry got their hands on it and began to use it as a marketing ploy, as fashion, selling punk back to the masses it was intended to belong to.

It’s pretty obvious that the world has sped up immensely since the 1970s– media, news, and culture industry included. Things that are new on Monday are old by Friday. Memes that are hilarious and circulate social media for weeks are dead by the time companies try to capitalize on them (see: Zumiez etc making Grumpy Cat shirts etc). Music or films that are popular fall out of popularity in just a few weeks, unless they’re vapid pieces of media or unless the creators/artists continue to hype themselves over and over again in different ways. It is impossible to create focused critical art because there is always so much going on in the news and in world politics or social issues; everything is so intertwined it’s impossible to pick out certain things to criticize. Artists and art movements and things of meaning and import fall by the wayside. It’s hard for me to imagine an avant garde or artistic movement within a community growing in popularity and staying strong for long enough to really make an impact or a difference. And the speed of the news is insane now. Things are only big news for a few days before vanishing under the avalanche of new stories and new events. Things stay big news within the communities that care about them (ie Black Lives Matter, Flint MI, Grenfell, DAPL, etc) but not within the eye of the media. News changes as fast as a feed can refresh.

I also have the feeling that art doesn’t have as much power. Subliminal marketing power, sure. But the last few art pieces I remember hearing even random people talking about were Shepard Fairey’s 2008 portraits for the Obama campaign, Ai Weiwei’s Han dynasty vase smash (which was from 1995 but came back into the spotlight in the mid-2000s for some reason) and Yayoi Kusama’s infinity mirrored room. It’s hard now, with the constant barrage of information and images and sounds, to figure out what is important and impactful art, and what is rubbish (or advertisement). It’s also hard to figure out what to focus on when making critical art: what moments or events in politics and current events will be remembered long enough to be used in critique; what will people remember and be affected by? Maybe hindsight is 20/20 tunnel vision or the gaze towards the past is tinged with roses, but it seems as though art had a larger significance. Barbara Kruger, for example. The Sex Pistols, The Guerilla Girls, Robert Mapplethorpe, Keith Haring, Annie Liebowitz, and (obviously) Jenny Holzer. All used their art to critique various current events, social/political/global issues. They had an effect on viewers in their time as well as after it. It seems as though, now, there’s no during-and-after. There is only during (like Shepard Fairey’s portraits).

A big reason for that, I think, is because of the disintegration of Dadaism and Situationism due to speed and capitalism. Basically, Situationism was created to force those going about their daily lives to stop for a second and think about their situation, to make a moment of “real living,” to jolt people out of the stupor of the daily grind and make them remember. Remember they’re alive, remember they shouldn’t be living a life of a drone, remember they’re consuming things they’re being told to instead of doing what they want to. And those moments were created through graffiti, through the detournement of taking normal comic strips and rewriting dialogues to critique the world, through the music and fashion of punk, which shouted out the flaws in society without caring that it was supposed to be kept hush-hush, through visual art that confronted the viewer with critiques (like Barbara Kruger or Jenny Holzer), etc etc. But now, do something like that and you’re called “edgy” and mocked. Why? Probably because of the likes of Banksy. I say this because Banksy often creates graffiti pieces that probably should or would have meaning, or should or would make you stop and think. Except that they’re pieces by Banksy, famous for being edgy, whose pieces are worth thousands or millions of dollars. Who rarely actually has a statement, except money-making. How many of us howled with laughter when he made that nightmare-Disneyland piece? Because it was edgy and unoriginal. Because we already know we’re living in a slowly growing dystopia, and being told that by a guy who benefits from said dystopia and gets so much money from criticizing it is bullshit.

It’s also because it feels like there’s nothing new under the sun. Now, Greil Marcus kind of talks about this. The punk movement expressed this too. The nihilism that nothing is new, that everything has already been said. But it did so gleefully, embracing the nihilism in order to laugh at it and point it out and roll in that glee. There is nothing new to be said, they thought, but there are new ways to say it. Because we’ve been saying things for centuries but nothing has changed, except the way it gets said. The problem now, in the 21st century, is that nothing new under the sun is now nothing new under the sun and that can no longer be used as a statement. “It’s all already been done, just say it in a new way” is no longer good enough. Ideas have to come out of a vacuum— except if they come out of a vacuum, they’re either never noticed or they’re appropriated by the media and capitalism.

Basic Adorno, basic culture industry theory. But Adorno would have a fucking aneurysm if he could see how his theory holds up in the 21st century compared to 1944. And honestly, that is a terrifying sentence to type. That Adorno and Horkheimer published Enlightenment as Mass Deception in 1944, that they were noticing this in the 1940s. And every point in their essay has only increased exponentially since then.

Greil Marcus hints at the whole “punk is dead” thing throughout the book without actually saying those words. I don’t think the phrase really existed as a buzzword type thing when the book was published. But I think the points and ideas expressed in Lipstick Traces kind of say what my thoughts have always been on that idea. Punk is dead, and punk is also not dead. Punk is dead; its looks and sound were stolen by the media and by capitalism and sold to the masses, sold back to the kids who created and popularized it. Punk was the sound and creativity and style of the kids who had nothing and wanted to be everything, so they made it all themselves. They created their own style and said what they wanted to say. High fashion stole it, television stole it, department stores stole it, ad agencies stole it, and sold it back. “Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?” Punk is dead, as an original movement, as an original fashion. But! But, punk thought is not. Punk as an ideal, as a philosophy, as thought, is very much alive. Punk, as the idea that you make your own, that you use your own creativity and express yourself the way you want to. That it’s passion and not necessarily talent that matters. That wearing what you want, saying what you want, confronting the issues that need confronting, being whoever you are so long as you’re not hurting or fucking over an innocent person, that’s still very much alive. The original punk fashion has been stolen. But punk fashion still exists, in people that make their own clothes or wear strange things even though they get stared at. Punk in art still exists, in people that make their art for themselves, or who make art with friends despite knowing they might go nowhere, just because they have the passion. Punk music is the same. The ideals and thought is still thrumming and alive. Its parent has been consumed by consumerism, devoured by capitalism and marketing and fashion. But the orphaned offspring is still hiding and alive.

And yet there’s another ‘but.’ The depressing one. Which is that it feels as though punk, in the early, original days, gave the youth a label, an identity. This goes for plenty  of other youth movements as well, and art movements, etc etc. But these days it seems a community identity hardly exists. And it’s hard to push a movement, create a feeling of community or solidarity, without some sort of shared identity. Perhaps the label of “Millenials” and “Gen Z” are the closest we’ve come so far. But those are so broad, and so often used in a derogatory fashion (although, I suppose, so were “punk” and “mod” and “hippie” and “teddy boy” etc etc).

And I also think that everything is so fast now, and moments are so fleeting, events are so quick to be forgotten, that it is hard to impress an idea or affect change or put an artistic statement or movement out there for long enough to make a true impact. I would say that maybe a large amount of the generation(s) banding together to make a statement would do something, would make that change. But Black Lives Matter was made up mostly of Millenials, young people, people under the age of 35. And yet it slowly petered away into almost nothingness with no changes.

But the kids of the next generation, Gen Z, do give me hope. Like that other person’s post going around says, they’re pissed, they were raised on a steady diet of dystopian literature with strong main characters, they’re highly aware of the state of politics and the job market and the economy, they’ve seen how fucked Millenials are and they know it’s not going to get much better for a while. And maybe they’re the next ones, the next to say “fuck it, we have nothing and we are nothing, let’s do whatever we want because we haven’t got anything to lose”. And maybe the millenials will join.

That’s what I hope. That’s what Greil Marcus’ book seems to be trying to say. That these sorts of movements don’t always have massive, lasting effects in the grand scheme of the world and society. But they leave cracks, and fragments, and shrapnel, and artefacts, for the next generation or the next movement to find and use. That dadaism might have faded away and punk might be dead but the dadaist yell is still echoing and punk thought is still very much alive. And it’s up to us to hear it, to use it, to find the crack in the culture industry and capitalism and society and somehow find the next avant garde, the ideas and movement that will stick and create an identity for unfettered expression, if only for a little while. That “the moment of real poetry brings all the unsettled debts of history back into play,” and it is up to us to figure out what we have to do or say to ignite all of that history and to wield its power. And how we can make our own history or try and settle the debts of the past.

(And yet…. And yet…. And yet I can’t help but doubt that the speed of the world will allow this to happen. And yet I want to believe that something can be done to create critical work that sticks. And yet how do you make critical work without it being eaten up by the culture industry and disappeared into homogeneity. And yet we have technology and creative mediums now that we didn’t in 1977. And yet punk is dead. And yet punk thought is not. And yet, and yet.)

[nondescriptperson234234123423]

Leftist (social) media and its effectiveness

Call to action: if you know of any attempts to do any of the things in this post (specific or achieving the same aims) and think it appropriate, please reply to this post and describe/link to them! More ideas are also welcome, as is active investigation of what has worked well or poorly in the past.

This is going to be a personal post of little interest or relevance to anyone else, but I wanted to get some thoughts down. I'm coming from a background of almost no organising work outside of anti-racist protests and Food not Bombs work, so this post contains almost no investigation and no trial in the crucible of actual activity. With that health warning in place, in summary: there are things that leftist content consumers (including myself - this is primarily a personal post), leftist discoursers, content creators and online leftism in general can do differently, to encourage more active participation and growth beyond Communism 101 type consciousness.

It feels like there has been an explosion of leftist ~content~ over the past few years: Breadtube (despite its obvious and infuriating flaws), podcasts (RevLeft Radio is my current favourite), and the gradual, partial normalisation of radical leftist talking points on some social media platforms. Whether this is actually true, or whether it merely reflects my own developing interest, I don't honestly know. (I think the question demands investigation, actually - perhaps even an online survey, measuring perception of growth alongside how many years the respondee has engaged with online leftism, could help begin answer this question.) This is a good thing, of course. But it feels important to examine the limitations of this form of political education and how they might be overcome.

Clearly, at the level of propaganda, any useful contribution to the ongoing battle for consciousness must be welcomed. But there is a danger that such work can only ever lead to a helpless, shallow understanding of our condition and our enemies, with neither theoretical depth nor a convincing path (or action schema) towards collective liberation. The danger is that this actually contributes to what Mark Fisher called Capitalist Realism: essentially, defeatism, impotent undirected rage and an inability to theorize a way forward. Even work aimed at more advanced content consumers, such as RevLeft, while laying out one possible way forward, can never impart the sort of deep understanding and agency necessary to turn passive listeners into effective wielders of the theory that is being discussed: such dexterity can only come from active engagement. Such active engagement, whether practical or theoretical, is essential not only in combating passivity, but in preventing book worship (Mao's term) and a failure to perform concrete analysis of concrete conditions.

The question, then, is how to bridge the chasm in the road from primitive, immediate, reactive class consciousness, to passive consumer, to active participant. This is of course dependent on the stage of development of the movement(s).

Engagement with the masses has been well-covered from Maoism's Mass Line to some genuinely insightful Anarchist works on the interdependent development of means and ends in the progression of revolutionary consciousness (well-summarized in some of YouTube's Anarchopac's videos and during her RevLeft appearance). Careful work is needed, however, to strengthen the early stages of the pipeline and overcome the disparateness and inherent isolation of online communication.

With regards to the more theoretically inclined, what is absolutely obvious is that passive consumption of theory is useless. It breeds complacency, anti-experimental/"scientific" dogmatism (Engels: Socialism Utopian and Scientific, expanded into useful philosophy and praxis by Mao) and theoretical helplessness. The medium of online leftism greatly expands our reach, but that medium demands passive engagement - it does not even facilitate active reading, just hours of listening, often without even a pause of a few seconds for thought. Demanding that listeners do background reading and join IRL orgs where possible is essential. This post is partly a call to action for less engaged leftists (including myself) to actively read and participate more. To help transform geographically isolated listeners into users of theory (and perhaps cadres for proactive online activism), however, creating communities focussed on active theoretical engagement that goes beyond sectarian mud slinging seems essential.

The Guillotine podcast, before its downfall, had begun to build such engagement, and podcasts could provide one focus for more active, constructive engagement. Some other ideas:

* An actually-existing example: the Rebel Steps podcast, which describes various ways of getting involved with the cause in real life.

* Discord-based quasi-"reading groups", with one room per book, so that there is less pressure to keep up and so that ideas and interpretations may spread beyond a single group of individuals. Room ground rules/ethos could be inspired by those of Mao's Combat Liberalism and similar works. Technologically, both Discord (the mainstream) and open-source alternatives (resilient) should be used, preferably wired together or at least linked to each other channel by channel - one technology would predominate but the other would sit in reserve, and open source capabilities and know-how would be spread.

* Promotion of the use of WiFi mesh networks where there is a sufficient density of people, and the hosting of community message boards on them.

* An app(s) containing study questions and literature. "Solutions" in the form of secondary literature, and answers to "right/wrong" type questions.

* a 4chan style message board. Could be the basis of campaigns, discussion etc.. We can never out-lie the alt right or achieve the same effectiveness in self delusion, so do not try to blindly copy /pol/ - but we have to counter the takeover of neutral subreddits by right wing trolls, for example. Must not be hosted in fascist-infested boards such as 8chan.

* ways of publicising events to which we want to attract new potential activists, at the risk of fash knowing about them. E.g. counterprotests in my area, info evenings, etc.

* self help resources, practices, tools.

* collective help groups (for addictions, loneliness etc.) with an explicitly leftist character.

* platforms or use of existing tools for collaborative content creation.

We must then deliberately connect these with mainstream spaces, in a two-way fashion: build selective channels from the mainstream to these more advanced spaces, and use the spaces to muster engagement with the mainstream.

Recreation is also important, and our down-time must be channelled effectively. Just as IRL, community gardens can provide not only relaxation, healing and a social space, but community engagement and visible power, so our online spaces and online recreation must be neither dissolved into the mainstream nor isolated from it.

A final random thought: if you're a Breadtuber and you want to make a video about a mainstream subject, think about what sort of audience you want and title your video accordingly. If you want Youtube to flag it as extremist content and only show it to committed leftists, then by all means start the title with "Capitalism and". (And maybe there's a legitimate reason why you'd only want leftists to see it.) But often I see deeply moving and highly effective videos, that often contain a fantastic, non-explicit anticapitalist message, pushed from the mainstream into the subcultural sphere by lousy titles.

Known resources:

* MutualSupport subreddit

* Rebel Steps podcast

* RevLeft discord channel (patrons only)

* BadEmpandana discord channel (patrons only)

[zerogate]

Ultraviolence is a symptom of impotence. If the far left courts totalitarian theocracies as it courted one-party dictatorships, it is also out of solidarity with other losers: it is taking revenge for its setbacks by associating itself with the only force capable of worrying the Western world, Islamic radicalism. It is a conjunction of resentments, a grouping of the afflicted. The left has lost everything – the working class, the USSR, China, Cambodia, the Third World – with the exception of Islam, the new International of the outcasts. The neo-Bolshevist bigotry of the lost believers in Marxism is touching in so far as it forces activists to make the most painful ideological contortions. Islam becomes the last great narrative to which they can cling and which replaces communism, decolonization, and pan-Arabism. In the category of the good revolutionary subject, the Mujahideen, the Fedayeen, the Jihadists, and the martyrs of Hamas or al-Qaeda replace the proletarian, the guerrillero, the wretched of the Earth, the Palestinian. The revolution, that great absence, is now borne by the faithful of the Crescent. The grandeur and dignity of Muslims comes from the fact that they and they alone are now the Bearers of the Promise.

Pascal Bruckner, An Imaginary Racism

[berniesrevolution]

Writing in an August 2018 issue of the London Review of Books, Susan Pederson listed centenaries “queued up like planes coming into Heathrow: 1914, the Easter Rising, the Battle of the Somme, the Balfour Declaration, the Bolshevik Revolution, not to mention the Armistice, the Treaty of Versailles, and the Spanish flu epidemic still circling overhead.” Another then still circling seems to have escaped her attention: the German Revolution of November 1918. Pederson is not alone in ignoring this centenary, which has not even received the subdued remembrance the Bolshevik October was accorded at this time of declining faith in the Leninist creed. There have been a few responses: notably, the invaluable digitization of their collection of revolutionary publications by the German National Library and a London conference in October on “Living the German Revolution, 1918–19.” But there is no outpouring of books and articles such as one might have expected on such an occasion.

Part of the reason, I am sure, is the equivocal nature of the event. While indubitably a major social upheaval, the republic it produced led in a decade and a half to the founding of the Third Reich. From a left-wing perspective, the revolution itself left a bad taste: it was the Social Democratic government installed by the popular uprising that paved the way for Hitler by massacring the revolutionaries to its left—those who had opposed the world war seconded by the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) and demanded the direct exercise of political and economic power by the working class. This was not just a matter of facilitating the murder of a few leaders by protofascists in tactical alliance with the Socialists, but involved the killing of tens of thousands of rebellious workers over years of civil conflict. It is not surprising that the “lessons” of such a period can seem unclear.

Of course, lessons from the past are generally useless, as changing realities render earlier patterns of activity irreproducible. If the Leninist party is dead for all practical purposes today, it’s not so much because lessons of the past have been learned as because the purpose that gave it a function—the push to transform a preindustrial population into a waged working class in underdeveloped countries lacking a business class capable of doing so—no longer exists. If social democracy cannot be revived today, even in the impoverished form of Bernie-ism, it’s because the ongoing stagnation of the global economy rules out the accelerated accumulation of capital and rising real wages that gave such movements meaning in the past.

On the other hand, there are historical moments that reveal structural truths about the social system that nonetheless have enduring significance, without imparting doctrinal “lessons.” The Paris Commune was certainly among the most irreproducible of events, shaped as it was by the particular history of the French working class in the nineteenth century. No one understood this better than Marx, with his focus on the historical specificity of social realities, yet the actions of the Parisian population in 1871 clarified for him the fundamental idea that the destruction of capitalism requires at once the abolition of “that class property which makes the labor of the many the wealth of the few” and “the destruction of the state power” by means of revocable workers’ delegates directly administering social affairs.

“Based in the actual position of the working class as producers of social goods, the councils were structured by workers’ relationship to each other as workers, taking over the capitalist organization of production for their own purposes.”

The German Revolution was another such revelatory moment. Prior to the First World War it had seemed axiomatic to revolutionaries that the key to the abolition of capitalism was the creation of socialist organizations. For some, these were to be small conspiratorial groups; for others, mass electoral parties and trade unions; for others still, syndicalist unions which would one day transform themselves into agencies of social power. By the time the war had showed the impotence of the parties and unions in opposing the mutual slaughter of European (and, eventually, American) workers, the waves of mass strikes that had developed in various European nations in the early 1900s, independently of or even against the will of the labor organizations, had suggested the idea of the working class itself, not carefully constructed organizations, as a basis for radical struggle. This idea found another example in the factory-based protests against the war that broke out in Germany from 1916 on, coordinated by a network of “revolutionary shop stewards” (revolutionäre Obleute) who by the end of the war numbered several thousand. In May 1916, for instance, the shop stewards called a general strike in Berlin to protest the arrest of the Spartacist (left socialist) Karl Liebknecht, which drew some 55,000 workers from forty factories for two days. Another strike a year later “brought out between 200,000 and 300,000 workers from hundreds of factories and workshops, with marches and demonstrations throughout [Berlin] and at workplaces. Trade union officials were shouted down or ignored.”

(Continue Reading)

[elliedarek24-blog]

How Does X Last Plus Male Enhancement Supplement Works?

X Last Plus Male Enhancement Reviews {Updated 2019}: Just Pay Small Shipping $1.99 For Delivery!

What is X Last Plus?

X Last Plus is a revolutionary formula designed for all age male group to keep their demands and performance on a high level. It is considered one of the best penis pills that leads to improve the erection hardness, enhance the size, and improve the penile power for great performance without any side effects arrival. The rockhard steel like erection size leads to drive great pleasure hours and consistent utilization of the pills allow boosting the testosterone hormone production inside the body. With the addition of powerful ingredients like pycnogenol and L Arginine power-up the flow of nitric oxide inside the chambers of corpus cavernosa of the penis. This leads to drive up to 92% improvement in hardness, pleasure hours with intensified orgasm level. Sex Hormone Binding Globulin (SHBG) is one of the key element that arrives with the supplement use and makes your strength and energy level go high.

Who is the Manufacturer of X Last Plus Male Enhancement?

X Last Plus Male Enhancement is one of the best attention seeker formulae that has been talked in The National Health Federation and Retail Digest, and Natural Health Chronical regarding its premium quality and assurety with the results. You also need to know here that X Last Plus is a registered trademark of Friedland Laboratories, Paris, France 75008, and approved by Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The company deals in varieties of trademark health and wellness products related to male health and look carefully to their health demand. They claim that entire of their product collections are totally safe and free from hazardous additives.

How Does the X Last Plus Works?

X Last Plus male enhancement supplement works in three different phases. The first phase starts where the male testosterone Production Skyrockets and shows incline up to 90% and make the sexual desires go higher and pumps up the stamina power. The second phase starts with Nitric Oxide Explosion inside the penile chambers that raises the blood flow and leads to drive harder and long lasting erection size. The third and final phase starts with Decrease + Neutralize the SHBG, which is Sex Hormone Binding Globulin. The supplement leads to control the erection killer symptoms and maintains the erection size for complete sexual satisfaction.

X Last Plus Ingredients- Are they Safe and Effective?

The officials of X Last Plus have mentioned few ingredients list that is tested clinically and verified from every aspect to check their safety and drive safe results on the user health. Makers of the supplement also claim that all additions made here are free from hazardous additives. Some famous inclusions that are filled inside the pills include:

Tongkat Ali or Malaysian ginseng– It is one of the most important elements included in the supplement that drives libido and energy level. It controls the loss of sexual desires and improves performance activities. It is filled with vital amino acids that regulate the hormone balance inside the body and improves mental energy, and overall quality of life.

What are the Advantages of X Last Plus?

Steel hard erection size

Boosts testosterone hormone production

Controls SBHG production that is erection killer

Improves the recovery duration after the performance

Boosts libido and endurance level

Boosts virility and vitality

Improves growth hormone count

Enhanced pleasure hours with a higher fertility rate

Controls premature ejaculation

What are the Disadvantages of X Last Plus?

Only available for sale at its official webpage

Not prescribed for the use of minors

Results might vary from person to person

Not arrives with free trial bottle

FAQs

How often should I take X Last Plus?

There is no harm in taking X Last Plus male boosting supplement daily. One pill during breakfast session and one pill at the night with an empty stomach. Do not overeat the pills because that might cause some irritations to your health.

How long should I take X Last Plus?

Depends on how soon you observe the results. But it is advised to take the pills until you experience an expansion to your penis size with an improvement up to 3 inches naturally. You may continue taking the pills even after the size expansion because they are safe and never harm health.

How many bottles should I order?

X Last Plus supplement arrives with different bottle packaging and it depends on your choice regarding the number of bottles to choose during the starting phase. Big discounts you might order 5 bottle pack for the long impression.

How Should I Order X Last Plus?

To order the package of X Last Plus you need to click the provided banner images, which takes you to the official page of the supplement. The bottle arrives with a 90-day money back guarantee and is absolutely free from shipping charges.

X Last Plus – Final Verdict

With male impotency and erectile dysfunction becoming enhanced today there is a need to supercharge your performance and sexual wellness. That only arrives with the utilization of X Last Plus male enhancement supplement that works great and gives safe results naturally.

Other Searching Terms Below:

x last plus, x last plus review, x last plus reviews, x last plus benefits, x last plus ingredients, x last plus side effects, x last plus price, x last plus cost, x last plus customer’s reviews, x last plus scam, x last plus scam reports, x last plus results, x last plus before and after results, x last plus before & after results, x last plus buy, x last plus buy online, x last plus where to buy, where to buy x last plus, x last plus pills, x last plus for sex life, x last plus male enhancement, x last plus free trial, x last plus male enhancement reviews, x last plus male enhancement free trial, x last plus before & after results