Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

The issues and concepts presented in this video with respect to imagery are not affiliated with The Chemical Brothers or with Anwar SuperStar. Rather, they are my own interpretation of the lyrics. Although some may disagree, I believe the central message of this song is calling for the global unification of people (regardless of race, ethnicity or nationality) to stand up against the corruptions of various governments and political systems on both national and international levels. I am sure, that some will definitely be of the opinion that this video is a gross misinterpretation the artist's intent. Others may think that I have characterized this video as a dedication to 'conspiracy theories' related to the new world order. However, regardless of whether people agree or disagree, the idea of the new world order has definitely become a globally recognised concept- to an extent where it can no longer be regarded as simply a 'theory'. It may be of interest to know that the UN has previously hinted on what may appear to be ' the united states of the world'; "The turn of the century is a unique and symbolically compelling moment for the 189 Member States of the United Nations to articulate and affirm an animating vision for the Organization in the new era." There is a need for Americans and British citizens in particular, to realise that they have been forced into paying for wars- one of which has been argued to be illegal. The leaders of these countries went as far as saying that it was our 'duty' to support the war. The corporate media definitely supported this idea and they were very successful in painting a picture of how 'dangerous' countries like Iraq and Afghanistan are to our freedoms. Yet if this were true, how come it only took a matter of weeks to almost cleanse the country of any Iraqi political influence by over-throwing the government? The answer is because the war in Iraq was never about Saddam Husein. It was to do with oil, amongst other things which ben

A collage of Youtube clips to the original recording from Gil Scott Heron's classic first album. Please rate & share - and Check out other stuff on my channel. Words from the later, and more well-known recording are: You will not be able to stay home, brother.You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip,Skip out for beer during commercials,Because the revolution will not be televised. The revolution will not be televised.The revolution will not be brought to you by XeroxIn 4 parts without commercial interruptions.The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixonblowing a bugle and leading a charge by JohnMitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eathog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.The revolution will not be televised. The revolution will not be brought to you by the Schaefer Award Theatre and will not star NatalieWoods and Steve McQueen or Bullwinkle and Julia.The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal.The revolution will not get rid of the nubs.The revolution will not make you look five poundsthinner, because the revolution will not be televised, Brother. There will be no pictures of you and Willie Maypushing that shopping cart down the block on the dead run,or trying to slide that color television into a stolen ambulance.NBC will not be able predict the winner at 8:32or report from 29 districts.The revolution will not be televised. There will be no pictures of pigs shooting downbrothers in the instant replay.There will be no pictures of pigs shooting downbrothers in the instant replay.There will be no pictures of Whitney Young beingrun out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process.There will be no slow motion or still life of RoyWilkens strolling through Watts in a Red, Black andGreen liberation jumpsuit that he had been savingFor just the proper occasion. Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies, and HootervilleJunction will no longer be so damned relevant, andwomen will not car

When I first began writing about politics in late 2005, the standard liberal blogosphere critique -- one I naively believed back then -- was that Democrats were capitulating so continuously to the Bush agenda because they "lacked spine" and were inept political strategists: i.e., they found those policies so very offensive but were simply unwilling or unable to resist them.  It became apparent to me that this was little more than a self-soothing conceit: Democrats continuously voted for Bush policies because they were either indifferent to their enactment or actively supported them, and were owned and controlled by the same factions as the GOP. 

It's hard to think of another time when there has been such a gulf between intellectuals and activists; between theorists of revolution and its practitioners. Writers who for years have been publishing essays that sound like position papers for vast social movements that do not in fact exist seem seized with confusion or worse, dismissive contempt, now that real ones are everywhere emerging. It's particularly scandalous in the case of what's still, for no particularly good reason, referred to as the 'anti-globalization' movement, one that has in a mere two or three years managed to transform completely the sense of historical possibilities for millions across the planet. This may be the result of sheer ignorance, or of relying on what might be gleaned from such overtly hostile sources as the New York Times; then again, most of what's written even in progressive outlets seems largely to miss the point-or at least, rarely focuses on what participants in the movement really think is most important about it. As an anthropologist and active participant-particularly in the more radical, direct-action end of the movement-I may be able to clear up some common points of misunderstanding; but the news may not be gratefully received. Much of the hesitation, I suspect, lies in the reluctance of those who have long fancied themselves radicals of some sort to come to terms with the fact that they are really liberals: interested in expanding individual freedoms and pursuing social justice, but not in ways that would seriously challenge the existence of reigning institutions like capital or state. And even many of those who would like to see revolutionary change might not feel entirely happy about having to accept that most of the creative energy for radical politics is now coming from anarchism-a tradition that they have hitherto mostly dismissed-and that taking this movement seriously will necessarily also mean a respectful engagement with it. I am writing