November 14th Speech - Riot Police on McGill Campus

I gave this speech during the assembly at McGill today: (these are un-edited notes)

I could give you a first hand account of what I experienced on thursday november 10th, but Id rather talk about something else. I want give a brief analysis of what we are doing today, in relation to what happened last thursday, in a broader context. if some of what I say is inaccessible, I encourage you to come and speak to me after.
this is my take, and i dont speak for anyone other than myself.

reminiscent of what happens during the G20 in toronto and other events around the world, I have heard attempts to demonize those who decide to take actions of civil disobedience, that go beyond the parameters set by the status quo. this is an important step to take in order to justify what is to come afterwards.

usually those who step over the line are set aside as examples for society to shame.
They are hooligans and trespassers and people who initiate violence.
They do not respect private property.
Do not fall prey to this rhetoric.

If the idea of resistance is designed and defined by law makers or politicans, it is no longer resistance. Its like creating a designated riot area, the square, as napoleon figured out, in order to vent anymore potential revolutions.
These systems of power have become much more sophisticated since then.

The task of the a resistance movement is to re-articulate these lines,
to re-articulate this square, as we are attempting to do today.
The point I am trying to make is this: a true culture of resistance must emerge on all fronts, behind the line, on the line, and in front of the line. This is how the line can be erased.

On thursday, we saw some of our colleagues use a type of civil disobedience which inched over the line. This small step over the line, maintained for a couple hours, and escalated slightly by the human chain outside and a sit down on the 2nd floor, illicited an unnecessary, heavy handed response by those who have taken an oath to protect and serve.
The occupation revealed 4 things. First, they reveal the deep insecurities of the powers that be. Second, they reveal the power that we hold, the fact that those who are unheard, really do have a voice. third, they also reveal the non-democratic structures that our university rests on.

how do we expect the whole of society to be democratic if we cant even have a voice in our local community? the fact is, our society, is not democratic one. it is a corporatocracy. i dont need to tell you that the structure of our society is one of double standards, where cut-throat capitalism exists for the poor, while bailouts exist for the rich.

I stand here today, not merely because of munaca and workers rights, not merely because of tuition increases, not merely because of injuctions and attacks on free speech..
I am standing here, because the very foundations of our society are corrupt, the foundations of our society rest upon a sophisticated set of coercive operations which attempt to make us completely and utterly powerless. Unfortunately, It seems that this institution, McGill, is also playing into this game. This stands in contrast to what Heather Munroe Blum believes, this morning on the CBC she stated that ‎"UNIVERSITIES ARE A PLACE OF SELF GOVERNANCE" I say, lets carry that through
So thats the 4th point. The actions on thursday revealed the inherent violence which our university, our community and our society as a whole rests upon.

now, if you disagree with any of these sentiments, i welcome it, and this is what this forum is about. But the fact is, this assembly would not exist if it wasnt for the actions of those who took a stand on thursday november tenth. those who valiantly fought to wake us up.

the core of a democratic assembly is not about making demands, or coming to conclusions, its not about majority rule, and its not about even coming to any agreements, although these things could definitely be apart of it. its about giving each and every one of us a voice within a community that listens. its about creating a real public sphere, one in which we can trully be proud to be apart of.
its a sad state of affairs when merely having a voice that can be heard is considered revolutionary.

i want to end with a fear that I have in common with a prominent preacher at occupy wall-street, slavoj zizek.
my greatest fear, is to have us, in 20-30 years, to think back at these moments, and think of them as 'the good old days' or 'the days when we were young.'

To reiterate, the actions taken on thursday point to issues that are not limited to the realm of this university. This is why a culture of resistance is necessary. but it must emerge on all fronts, on all grounds and it must be ongoing. this way, we can continually deconstruct any and all ever-recreating forms of unjust hierarchy and voicelessness.
Lets not make the same mistakes of the past, lets not fall asleep, lets continue to be lucid, lets rearticulate this space and turn it into a true public sphere, one in which all perspectives, at the very least, are respected and listened to. finally Lets make this last.

A Culture of Resistance: Peaceful Censorship (How Occupy Wall Street will fail, part 1)

Occupy Wall Street is known for its peaceful pursuits. Simultaneously however, this pursuit is seemingly taking an absolutist and autocratic form. Both in the media and on the streets, reminiscent of what happens during the G20s, those who decide to take steps further, are demonized as "anarchists," and set aside as an example for society to shame. On the other hand, those who do step over the line look back at their liberal counterparts and label them as 'co-conspirators.' In certain contexts, 'demonization' can be helpful, as I am about to do now. You can try to rally the troops for either side, but if you are demonizing those who decide to stay behind, or go forth, one has already lost the war. Divide and Conquer. The point is, a culture of resistance must emerge on all fronts, behind the line, on the line, and in front of the line. This is how the line can be erased. The underlying meaning of a cartoon like this, approximates my message:

The New Map of the World : The Corporate Superstructure and the Interconnected Informational Substructure

A Revolution is Here. A new study has made what was already thought to be true an empirical reality. The modern electro-mechanic corporate person has dethroned its birth giver, the machine mother, the nation state. It is built on top of the concrete, brick and pavement of print culture, where repeatability and interchangeability once dominated, because inter-connectivity is the new name of the game.

The nation state cannot withstand the chaos that is growing atop its borders, its streets and its rigid steel grid design. The cold monster cannot even fathom this new emergence, nor does it realize this emergence is reshaping the very foundations which gave birth to it. Below the concrete, flows the lava of the information super highway where interconnectivity has seeped into the substructure as well. The cement has already begun to crumble.

However, faced with the pure anarchic chaos of the substructure, the superstructure is dependent on what it is helping to destroy, the crumbling culture of the old; both their survivals depends on an assimilation. To what degree, then, will this revolution be in the form of a creative destruction, and to what degree will all three structures be assimilated?

Travesty, Outrage, Controversy!

A [Spinozan] Formula for How to Live Life to the Fullest

At the end of [almost] every semester, I feel much more confident in my intellectual capabilities. Yet, moments after, this confidence is shaken.

With every new piece of knowledge gained, with every question answered, comes a whole set of new questions. My greater appreciation on the subject has forced me to realize my inherent stupidity; A reformulation of humility.

There are dozens of closed doors behind every door that I open. Yet, the more doors I open, the greater the universe becomes. There are, however, some doors which leave you closed off from others. I have come to the conclusion that, to live life to the fullest, one must be open to doors that make us open, and closed to doors that leave us closed.

For example, a scoop of ice cream will allow me to experience the joys of a frozen mint double chocolate chip paradise or a mango green tea fusion escape. 10 scoops will give me a stomach ache and gain weight, which will put me out for a few hours and make me unable to do other things which might require some physical activity.

So there you have it. It's all about moderation while expanding horizons.
Be open to things that leave you open, and closed to things that leave you closed.

It's the golden mean.

A Quick Example of Why I avoid Cable News

So, once in a while i torture myself by watching local news, on the internet of course, because it would just be way too sadistic not to watch with an adblocker.

So here is an incite into my thought process as it is happening..



"friendly rally earlier" - o yes... the second one was just so, mean.
"not prepared for the aggressive torture" - oyeah? what about the undercover cops?
"queens park was supposed to be a designated peaceful protest zone" there is no such thing as a peaceful protest zone, or a designated riot area.
"i had some of my most important rights and fundamental freedoms ripped away from me"
- who gives you these so-called rights?
"talk to the men and women behind the masks, they'll tell you, it was a scary situation"
- those masks and outfits are designed to scare people

here is one that someone else made:

Partisan Politics, Left/Right dichotomies & Useless generalizations.

I cringe while watching cable news without a filter like Jon Stewart. Pure absurdity. Blind nationalism. Nothing but religiosity. Once in a while someone asks a good question, but overall, its just horrid. This applies to both Canadian and American cable news.

Why?
I could get into a long list, but for now I am going to focus on a particular aspect that is not only found in the news, but in everyday political conversation. Engaging in political dialogue without a theoretical underpinning is absolutely meaningless.

In short, it could be labeled as 'pigeonholing' - "If you are not with us, you are with them"

Here are a few examples:

Gay Marriage Example:
If I were to say, 'I am against the gay marriage bill that recently passed in NYC,' I would immediately be labeled as a traditionalist conservative blah blah republican. Usually I start off with something provocative just to see the response. Then I would need to explain that marriage is entangled within a heteropatriachal understanding of society and should be abolished.. and also, what might be even more provocative.. this bill only ensnares the gay population within this paradigm and ultimately helps to uphold it.

Unions Example:
A couple months back there were teachers unions striking in Wisconsin against the withholding of collective bargaining rights. Right now we are seeing the spread of that loss throughout the US of A.

To put it simply, the modern union is just a player within the political economic game, like corporations and governments. [Most] Unions have lost their potential for being a revolutionary tool and have become merely liberal, reformist entities which help to uphold the status quo. Especially teachers unions.

I will speak more about this in a later web log.

Even the idea of 'having a right' needs to be critically examined.. but this is another huge topic which will need its own limelight as well.

And finally, Net Neutrality:


The point is this:
The options left to us are either governmental rule or corporate rule; with critical thinking, we realize that there are underlying options which are not presented to us because of systematic constrains.

As simple as it may seem, it is very difficult to realize that playing the political-economic game undermines revolutionary efforts. Left/Right dichotomies, unions vs corporations, democrats vs republicans, etc., all these are examples of the idiocy known as partisan politics.

With the absence of critical thinking, comes the absence of options available to us which are not entangled to 'the game.'