Friday, December 04, 2015

Not your grandfather's working class posted by Richard Seymour

If you listened to the mainstream newspapers, from the Times to the Guardian, and pundits from UKIP's own former Express star Patrick O'Flynn to the incomparable Dan Hodges, you would have thought the Oldham bye-election was going to be a bruising breakthrough for UKIP.  The death of Michael Meacher had opened up a fatal chink in Labour's working class armour, through which the kippers would charge, by exploiting proper working class discontent with a "poncified" Labour that doesn't even believe in nukes, keeping out the foreigners, bombing Syria and extrajudicial executions of brown-skinned people any more.  The workers were thought to be cheering for Hillary Benn, who in this day and age is thought to be both Prime Ministerial material and an earthy, horny-handed son of toil.  The media class salivated, slavered, over the prospect of white, racist vengeance against Corbyn's loony left rabble
Labour actually won with 7.5% swing and a majority of over ten thousand.  Now, without a trace of sarcasm, how could it be that a glut (for I believe that is the collective noun) of self-satisfied, upper-middle-class pundits, could have failed so badly to understand the working class of Oldham?  And how does their evident sense of empathy with the workers square with the typical deference of these same pundits to Blairite and Tory yuppies and flunkies grovelling to the rich?  These are not questions that most journalists and pundits are asking themselves.  The Mirror seems to have deleted its lead predicting a dark day at the polls, The Times's political reporter simply glosses over the figures, the Telegraph blames Muslims, and the Guardian's Helen Pidd repeats every single cliché of liberal metropolitan writing about the north (in sum, she attributes Labour's success to Asian families voting en bloc, while white working class contempt for Islington elitists was overcome by popular local candidate, etc).
Now perhaps this is to be expected; for our media, wish fulfilment is as good as reporting.  Yet the question remains and is more puzzling, the more one thinks about it.  The working class Labour vote is a multiracial alliance that mostly cleaves to the left.  The evidence suggests that the northern working class is politically as left-leaning as Scottish workers.  Meanwhile, there is little evidence beyond anecdotes that workers are desperate for give glorious years of Hillary Benn.  So, given that polls suggest most of the country opposes Trident, and doesn't support bombing Syria, why do journalists kid themselves that the proper working class northern Labour voter is going to find Corbyn's anti-war, anti-nuclear stance indigestible?  Let me summarise what I think they got wrong. 
First of all, they have all succumbed to an ideology of class which is condescending and chauvinistic.  They assume that workers lean to the right, because they understand real workers to be fundamentally intolerant, racist, traditionalist, deferential, white, male, older and concerned only with the narrowest horizon of material goods (viz., they took ur jawbs).  This way of thinking about class emerged in the 2000s, as part of a backlash against multiculturalism, wherein class could only be spoken of in connection with the term 'white', and in relation to certain ideas of respectability, family, culture and tradition.  This melancholic discourse of decline, in which the authentic white working class had been abandoned by liberal metropolitan elites, could have come out of the pages of Spearhead, but it was mainstreamed in the last decade.  And it informed the myth, never sustained by the data, that far right parties from the BNP to the English Democrats to UKIP are primarily parties of the 'left behind' working class.  That is, the myth that white workers cheated by globalisation and multiculturalism were the primary substrate of British neo-nationalism.  In this view, UKIP should be construed principally as a threat to Labour because of its ability to attract white workers with its no nonsense policy of brutalising brown workers.
Secondly, because of this racialised way of interpreting class, they are unable to understand the real psephological dynamics unfolding in core Labour seats.  They don't understand that right-wing, white workers constitute a minority, and that they are not the most likely to vote Labour in the first place.  They fail to understand what the data shows us (cf the British Election Study) which is that the far right parties, especially UKIP, are far more middle class than has generally been assumed, and that insofar as they do make gains in the working class vote this primarily arises from a realignment of existing right-wing voters, redistributing their votes from the Tories, the English Democrats, or whomever.  UKIP's advances in northern towns and cities have come from it energising and hegemonising the right-wing vote.  If the Labour-voting electorate are demoralised and passive and the turnout collapses, this could be sufficient for UKIP to win a northern seat one day.  But that hasn't happened thus far, and it definitely didn't happen here.
None of this is to say that Corbyn is in a strong position.  He isn't.  He polls poorly, including among groups whom he should be popular with such as 18-24 year olds.  Labour's nationwide polling puts it in the low thirties, while the Tories are in the high thirties.  But this just means that Corbyn has failed to reverse Labour's already dismal situation.  Labour isn't plummeting in the polls, despite the frenzied media heat, and there was never any good reason to suppose that it was about to fall apart in one of its core seats.  Such a core vote meltdown was far a more plausible scenario when New Labour was in charge.  There was no bye-election polling carried out and nothing more than anecdotes to sustain the hypothesis that Corbyn was facing such a disaster.  The whole scenario was a bit of dreamwork, staging a bourgeois media desire for, as I say, the firm smack of white backlash.  Tough shit this time.

1:54:00 pm | Permalink | Comments thread | | Print | Digg | | reddit | StumbleUpon | diigo it | Share| Flattr this

Wednesday, December 02, 2015

Why does Cameron want to bomb Syria? posted by Richard Seymour

Parliament has voted for war, with a sizeable majority for the government's side, with an estimated 67 Labour MPs rebelling against the leadership.  At least part of this is a result of the weakness of the parliamentary opposition to war.  While Labour's right-wingers partially wanted to use the war to shaft Corbyn (particular dishonour goes to Hillary Benn, who shamelessly invoked the International Brigades), the opposition leader and his allies were ideologically weak and made a crucial political mis-step in allowing a free vote.  It's galling to think that Miliband was actually far more effectual, causing the Tories a major crisis at the time, than Corbyn has been, and it indicates something about the strategic dilemmas posed by trying to rehabilitate the left from within a parliamentary context.  Nonetheless, we're about to go to war, on Cameron's terms.  Why?

Of course, the UK is already bombing Syria, as it is bombing Iraq.  And this fact is itself part of Cameron's case for war.  As he explained, "it is working in Iraq" and so it will probably work in Syria.  So what is his mission?  To "degrade ISIL and reduce the threat they pose".

Please note the incredibly obvious evacuation of meaning in this appeal.  'Degrade' and 'reduce' Daesh?  One is reminded of the rationale given for Clinton's bombing of Iraq in 1998, viz. that it would 'degrade and diminish' Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his ability to threaten his neighbours.  Even if Hussein had still been in possession of such weapons, this rhetoric was meaningless.  You can arguably 'degrade' just by breaking a window.  You can arguably 'diminish' just by decapitating a passing teenager.  These are not precise objectives.

On the subject of Iraq, is it in fact, "working" there?  I don't think we should be under any illusion that the superior firepower of the US and its allies, tied to ground forces, can militarily defeat Daesh. And the evidence is that  Daesh has lost territory and important supply routes, its footprint is shrinking.  Most of these losses in Iraq have not come about through bombing, but rather through the exertions of the Iraqi Army and Kurdish peshmerga.  (This is why there is so much emphasis on Cameron's claim that there are 70,000 fighters in Syria ready to support and coordinate with a bombing campaign.)  Yet, as in all such wars, the dominant axis on which these matters are settled is political rather than military.  And in that light, we have to think about why such gains as are made often seem to melt away astonishingly quickly.

One reason given by the military leadership is what Major General Tim Cross calls the low "moral cohesion" of the Iraqi army.  That is to say, even in scenarios where they have outnumbered their Daesh rivals, they have withdrawn from combat rather than being willing to bear losses.  US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter likewise blames a lack of "will to fight" on the Iraqi side.  This is why the US is escalating its involvement on the ground by deploying "special expeditionary forces".  Clearly, this says volumes about the nature of the regime deploying such troops and its ability to summon loyalty, but more fundamentally I suspect that such apparent lack of valour derives from a simple calculus: what will we do once we have taken the territory?

After all, the Sunni triangle was lost to the Iraqi army for a reason: because the government of Iraq has no legitimacy there, having expended all of it in waves of sectarian repression and persistent, structural exclusion.  Nouri al-Maliki, under US tutelage, consolidated a sectarian power base in the south of Iraq, while systematically moving to repress and marginalise non-sectarian Sunni opponents.  Mass protests in Sunni areas produced no change in policy, and in fact protest was met by torture and executions carried out by Shia death squads.  Maliki was elected on a platform nominally committed to opposing sectarianism and the fragmentation of Iraq, but evidently saw no compelling reason to reverse the patterns established since 2003.  So, even if the Iraqi army was able to recapture Ramadi, there is no good reason to think they would be able to keep it.  It would be something, at least, if there was a sincere Iraqi nationalism aimed at preserving the unity and integrity of the state, but that doesn't even appear to be the official doctrine in Baghdad.  And it doesn't strike one as obvious that their soldiers should think of dying just so that Maliki and his patrimonial allies can hang on to another piece of territory. It is for this reason that the fragility of the Iraqi Army is often contrasted with the relative discipline and cohesion of Daesh (who are, to be clear, a motley assortment of ultra-reactionary Islamists, secular Ba'athists, and jihadi tourists).

If we prioritise the political analysis over the military analysis, it becomes easier to understand how this has happened, how Daesh has been able to significantly increase its global recruitment in the context of the bombing campaign, and how it might continue to metastasise globally even if it is deprived of its present territorial resources.  This should be borne in mind each time Cameron or a pro-war MP says that the question is whether we fight them here or over there: the answer is that you'll be doing the former more on account of the latter.  It also puts the question of 'civilian deaths' in its correct context.  This is not only a humanitarian issue - and we should be wary of allowing it to be reduced to such, as the ruling class often proves fairly adept at neutralising and manipulating humanitarian sentiment which isn't appropriately politicised.  The murder of large numbers of residents of large population centres by aerial bombardment is, in this context, in this world, precisely what is most likely to galvanise support for Daesh.  And it is clear that in Iraq at least, they do enjoy some support.

But Cameron argues that the bombing of Daesh in Raqqa is part of a wider, sophisticated strategy in which, through political pressure and international dialogue, a "new government" will be brought to power in Syria.  Leaving aside, for the second, all arguments about the merits of such a policy, the idea that bombing Daesh-controlled population centres in Syria is an essential aspect of relieving Assad of power is absurd.  Even if the stated goal of 'degrading' and 'reducing' ISIS suddenly acquired some sort of urgent precision, even if Daesh started to concede territory rather than consolidating their dominion, it is not obvious what effect this would have on the balance of power between Assad and the Syrian opposition, or upon the diplomacy. It is quite possible that Assad would be the major beneficiary by using his superior military clout to take the vacated territory.  Notably, this is exactly what has happened as Assad, backed by Russian military clout, took towns near Homs from Daesh - they began to use that territorial gain to escalate the offensive against the opposition in Homs.  That leads us to another aspect of the war, which is precisely the Russian intervention on behalf of Assad.  There is thus far no sign that this will abate.  Indeed, if a new bombing campaign begins and the stakes are raised, it is likely that Russia will intensify its bombing of opposition-held territories.  Indeed, there are already claims - denied by the Kremlin - that Russia has despatched ground troops.

So given that there is no apparent commitment to entering into military combat either with Assad or with his Russian backers - and I think that is a good thing - it is not obvious what kind of military yield is expected.  There is unlikely to be any kind of convincing breakthrough that will validate the campaign any time soon, and it seems that before long the question of ground troops will be posed.

We are still, then, left with the question we began with.  The explicit rationales offered for the bombing campaign plainly make no sense, and the government's propaganda looks incredibly shaky around it. It seems to me that there is a logic to the bombing, but it has far less to do with Syria than it does with: i. the calculus of consolidating the Conservative leadership in parliament, reversing the setback in 2013, and weakening the opposition (which, mission accomplished); ii. the domestic politics of putting any potential anti-austerity alliance centre on the Corbyn-led Labour Party on the back-foot; and iii. the geopolitics of augmenting the global prestige of an imperialist military.  This can be done in a low-cost way (the estimated tens of millions of pounds cost being insignificant in government spending terms), and in an era when the government has been significantly cutting the military budget.  It is also easy to effect, as the bombers will simply be diverted from their existing missions in Iraq as of tomorrow.

It is not that imperialist states would not have good reason to want to destroy Daesh.  Of course they do.  They don't appreciate massacres in their major cities, and the US doesn't feel like ceding a big chunk of Iraq, which they expended a lot of blood and treasure to get control over, to the jihadis.  It is just that the bombing campaign is peripheral to that objective.  The problem is political.  The reason Daesh could take control in parts of Iraq is because of the pathologies of a sectarian state.  The reason it has ground in parts of Syria is because of a civil war in which Assad, backed by Russian imperialism, is massacring the opposition.  Neither problem is amenable to this bombing campaign.

11:05:00 pm | Permalink | Comments thread | | Print | Digg | | reddit | StumbleUpon | diigo it | Share| Flattr this

Monday, October 12, 2015

EasyJet and Gap Yahs. posted by Richard Seymour

This is the Britain Stronger in Europe first campaign video:


As you can see, the basic argument for remaining within the EU is that the union has been wonderful for deregulation, cut-price travel, flogging wine and travelling abroad on your gap yah. So this is the state of play at the moment. The left critique of the EU says that it's a Europe of the neoliberal bourgeoisie, a Europe of spivs, business mercenaries and yuppies. Meanwhile, the major campaign for the EU defends it on the grounds that it's a Europe of the neoliberal bourgeoisie, a Europe of spivs, business mercenaries and yuppies. Also note that it opens fire with a fairly obvious piece of racist dog-whistling. Far from there being the slightest progressive, internationalist content to the 'In' campaign, let alone anything remotely centre-left and solidaritous, it looks very much like the opening float in a carnival of reaction about to plough through British politics.

5:15:00 pm | Permalink | Comments thread | | Print | Digg | | reddit | StumbleUpon | diigo it | Share| Flattr this

Monday, October 05, 2015

The Meaning of the Precariat posted by Richard Seymour

My early-morning talk at the Subversive Festival, in Zagreb.

6:47:00 pm | Permalink | Comments thread | | Print | Digg | | reddit | StumbleUpon | diigo it | Share| Flattr this

Thursday, October 01, 2015

The culture of genocide posted by Richard Seymour

Jeremy Corbyn is opposed, under any circumstances, to the use of weapons of mass destruction.  He is opposed to weapons whose use is inherently genocidal.  There is no circumstance under which it is conceivable that the military use of nuclear weapons would be anything short of insane, and Corbyn is opposed to that.  He would not push the button.  And our political and media class finds this to be outrageous.

The pundits are noisy and truculent.  But behind their noisy rationalisations, there is this symptomatic aporia.  They will not say it.  Not a single one of them can or will say under what circumstances they would consider the use of nuclear weapons.  Instead, we get mysteriously complacent bluster along the lines that "it would be lovely to live in Corbyn's world of magical elves and fairies, faw faw faw, where no one is ever unkind, faw faw faw, but this is the real world, faw faw faw, what would he do if the Islamic State threatened Britain with a dirty bomb, faw faw faw...".

The Westminster consensus is monstrous.  It couldn't be clearer that for its adherents, Britain's role in the world, and all of the immense material gains that businesses and investors derive from this dominance, depends upon the continued implied threat of nuclear genocide - and they're ultimately very comfortable with that.

It is better that we know this than that we don't.  We have endured years of histrionics over weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.  The 'Iran deal', about which there is some misplaced triumphalism, followed years of belligerent falsehoods and tub-thumping for war, because someone might break Israel's nuclear monopoly in the region.  And the very same state elites and a media claques that would not hesitate to 'push the button', and for whom the idea of not ever doing that is something absurd and drippy, to be scoffed at, are the ones who raised the alarm.  It is, as I say, good to know.

2:11:00 pm | Permalink | Comments thread | | Print | Digg | | reddit | StumbleUpon | diigo it | Share| Flattr this

The two faces of Labourism posted by Richard Seymour

This is a party political broadcast for the Scottish Labour Party broadcast today.

The children in the advertisement are not just annoyingly obsequious in the questions they are given to ask: they are all white, and code as middle class in how they are dressed,  how they are groomed and in how they deliver their lines. That reeks of 'aspiration'. So, I would suggest that the pitch is not to the working class voters who have gone over to the SNP as an alternative party of reform, but to middle class voters who don't like the SNP but could never vote Tory. The phrase 'Red Tories' isn't so much an insult as the self-conscious electoral positioning of Scottish Labour.

And there is something else.  The broadcast has the look and feel of a 1997 re-enactment promotion.  It presses all the right buttons: the children are our future, meritocracy, opportunity, fairness, education, education, education.  These thematics entirely omit, of course, the huge and central questions facing Scottish voters.  Such as the future of the nation, austerity, Trident, and other related matters.  They are self-consciously oriented toward some other era, when progressive-sounding themes could be articulated within an aggressively pro-business ideology.

How can you, in the age of austerity, claim that the children will have a better future, if you are supporting austerity?  How can you, post-credit crunch, claim to support a meritocracy when the social basis of your growth strategy is a reviled financial oligarchy?  And how, in the name of Hades, can you tell Scottish voters about education when your party introduced tuition fees?  No amount of soft-focus camerawork, and no number of human children can make this look like anything other than a flight into the past.

This is Jeremy Corbyn's first Labour Party conference speech as leader.

It spells out a synthetic 'vision' of what a left-reformist government could do for the majority.  It spells out a range of policies, such as building council houses and supporting the self-employed, all of them directly related to facets of experience in contemporary British capitalism.  It also links these policies to a wider discourse on 'values'.  The speech is, of course, unapologetically left-wing.  But what distinguishes it for me, and what really deserves special credit, is one particularly good presentational turn: the utterly ruthless and maliciously witty appropriation of Blairite language. 

It was as if Corbyn had approached the glittering generalities of the old triangulations (endless invocations of "values" and "the many not the few" being salient) and thought to himself, "what would be good for a laugh would be if we were to actually imbue some of this shit with substance". Much of the denouement of the speech was taken from something written by Richard Heller some years ago and offered to Ed Miliband.  It is not difficult to see why Miliband turned it down, as it's far too rebellious.  The recurring refrain, "you don't have to take what you're given", is so general that it could touch on various, polyvalent discontents, but it was also very specifically linked in the speech to class antagonism.  In context, it was an exhortation to dare.

Now, John Harris was complaining in The Guardian yesterday that the 'visionaries' of Marxism Today had been left behind and misunderstood.  The article is interesting if slightly revisionist as to the full depth of Marxism Today's implication in the Blairite project.  However, I want to suggest that Harris has missed the point.  Insofar as that group of intellectuals diagnosed some real problems and reacted against real backwardness on the left, the lessons have long since been learned, if not by everyone.  In fact, if you want to see a thoroughly Gramscian job of appropriation of the existing ideological detritus for a left project; if you want to see an articulation the 'national-popular' where the emphasis is on the popular rather than the national; if you want to see a form of left-reformism that is relevant, modern, diverse, and technophilic, then Corbyn's speech had it, all of it, in abundance.

The point is this.  Corbyn's critics in the media, upon hearing a speech that they barely understood, rehashed the predictable line that it was aimed at the party not the public.  This rests on the questionable premise that journalists are the public, or at least a reliable cipher for the public.  They are mistaken.  Corbyn's speech was incredibly contemporary, and he can say with some plausibility that the agenda he now articulates is the only truly modernist current in Labourism.  His scepticism toward markets and profits, his pro-immigrant discourse, his support for student grants, even his resistance to a macho, patriarchal form of politics, are all operating on the most progressive ideological developments in Britain, and those most associated with the young.  Blairism was always justified as a form of modernism, a tendency whose currency was its ability to fight and win on a terrain shaped by globalisation and related developments.  But now the major discourses of the Labour Right, from Blairism to Blue Labour, resemble nothing so much as a longing look backwards.

1:19:00 am | Permalink | Comments thread | | Print | Digg | | reddit | StumbleUpon | diigo it | Share| Flattr this

Saturday, September 19, 2015

Our feral, lying, good for nothing media posted by Richard Seymour

You don't see the consensus in all of its suffocating conformity until someone challenges it.

If you want to know what the consensus is made of, just look at what the media considers a gaffe.  Corbyn, a republican, doesn't sing the royalist national anthem.  Gaffe.  Corbyn, a socialist, appointed a hard-left socialist as shadow chancellor.  Gaffe.  Corbyn refused to answer journalists' questions.  Ultra-gaffe.  That's just rude.  From the Guardian to the Express, from the New Statesman's craven toeing of the Blairite line to the lies in supposedly neutral dailies like the Metro, from The Sun's made-up 'exclusives' to the queue of Labour MPs and liberal pundits lining up to spew bile for the Daily Mail, from Tory attack ads to the Telegraph screaming for Corbyn's head, the media and the political class have near total unanimity in their ferocious anti-socialism.  I know we call them 'the bourgeois media', but not even the most crass, petty-minded Stalinist apparatchik could have produced a caricature as venomous and despicable as our lot.

In that vein, let me draw your attention to a story that has appeared in The Independent, with these words in the headline: "Jeremy Corbyn 'loses a fifth of Labour voters'".  Understand, this headline is a complete lie.  The first warning is those scare quotes.  Before the authors even get to the story, they're distancing themselves from its major argument.  The next is the fact that the article opens, not - as would be logical - with a quick summary of the point of the story, but with some entirely other statistics.  The third is that, when they actually do refer to the main point of the story in the second paragraph, it is already watering the story down, saying that one in five people who previously voted Labour are "more likely to vote Conservative next time".  That is already not the same as Corbyn 'losing' a fifth of Labour voters.  Unsurprisingly, even this claim is given no elaboration.  Instead, the juice of the story is presented in a series of charts, which represent the results of the study.  What the figures actually show is as follows:

63% of Labour voters say they are more likely to vote Labour in the next election with Corbyn as leader, as opposed to 20% of those voters who say they are more likely to vote Conservative.  There are similarly polarised responses among other voters.  So, for example, over a third of SNP voters, approximately a third of Lib Dems, about one fifth of UKIP voters and 8% of Tories are more likely to vote Labour with Corbyn as Labour leader.  By the same token, four fifths of Tory voters are more determined to vote for their own party, just under a fifth of SNP voters would be more likely to vote Tory, while a third of Liberals and a whopping 40% of Ukipers would be more likely to vote Conservative.  Corbyn has not lost a fifth of Labour voters.  What he has done is polarised the voters.  And polarisation, in this context, is a good thing.  It shows that there's something in the fight, for once, and that people are being motivated.

What is more, these results give us a clue as to how evaluate the responses to other questions.  In ORB and Yougov's polling, there have been questions asked which follow the agenda of the Conservatives and the anti-Corbyn media, inquiring as to exactly how much like a Prime Minister Corbyn looks, how much you'd trust him with this or that.  The results, of course, don't look good.  Corbyn is a new figure for most of the public, his policy ideas are new, and they are being brought up in a context of near total ideological monopoly of neoliberalism for over thirty years.  His first days as leader have been characterised by an intense campaign of character assassination.  I think it would be odd, in the best of circumstances, for a majority of people to suddenly find him utterly trustworthy on the economy and schools, and these are not the best of circumstances.  And yet, here you have evidence that far from being put off, a very considerable number of people are attracted to Corbyn's Labour.  The only electoral poll we've had since Corbyn's election as Labour leader thus far, has given Labour a small bounce, rather than registering some sort of collapse in the Labour vote.  To me, this is a good reminder of how carefully to handle such polls - the answers to polling question are as polysemic as the questions themselves.  If asked whether Corbyn looks Prime Ministerial, you could quite honestly answer 'no', given the way the image of Corbyn is mediated, and still think he's a huge improvement on everyone else thus far.

Understand this.  The ferocity of the British media in this instance has nothing whatever to do with Corbyn's media strategy, spin or lack thereof.  Certainly, they're offended at Corbyn's refusal to play their game.  Certainly, they would be kinder to a slick, amoral businessman bashing immigrants.  But the media will never coddle Corbyn in the way that it does Farage.  Not for him the complicit, stagey antagonism with which right-wing populists are greeted.  The difference is that the mass media in this country agrees with and defends and articulates the principles upon which Farage stakes his claims, but can barely understand let alone sympathise with the principles underlying the current Labour leadership's position.

You can't understand the reasons for this in simple commercial terms.  It isn't about securing advertising accounts, or selling copy.  Nor is it simply about the short-term interests of their proprietors.  It is primarily about their integration into the party-political machinery.  It is about their dependence on, and participation in, the exercise of state power. They are active participants in policy debates, the selection of political leaders, and the outcome of elections.  Apart from the schools, they are the major institutions through which the dominant ideology of the national state is reproduced.  They are, in short, "ideological state apparatuses".  And the reason they are going feral is because the traditional mode of their domination is under attack.  That, too, is a good thing.

12:03:00 pm | Permalink | Comments thread | | Print | Digg | | reddit | StumbleUpon | diigo it | Share| Flattr this

Friday, September 18, 2015

Thank you, Lord Jesus, for President Trump posted by Richard Seymour

9:35:00 am | Permalink | Comments thread | | Print | Digg | | reddit | StumbleUpon | diigo it | Share| Flattr this

Search via Google


Against Austerity cover

Subscription options

Flattr this

Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Recent Posts

Subscribe to Lenin's Tomb




Organic Intellectuals

Prisoner of Starvation