171. Sitting outside while bread is baking in the oven

172. Teaching Caleb to play Hide-N’-Seek

173. A new niece due in April

174. A Bloggy Break

175. Hubby getting Thanksgiving off

176. A Sunday spent completely with my family

177. Retaining confidence despite failure

178. Playfulness in the midst of sickness

179. Cozy Sundays

180. Freedom to Worship

181. Homemade dishwasher soap

182. Able to throw some homemade stuff together when needed in a pinch (see #181)

183. Humidifiers

184. Children’s Zyrtec to dry up little noses

185. Children’s Advil

186. Lunching with a dear friend

187. Patching Jeans to make them almost like new

188. A one work day week

189. Gearing Up for seeing family

190. Able to act silly depite my age.

191. An Over Abundance of Farm Fresh Eggs.

192. Hearing sweet snoring on the floor next to us.

193. The idea of putting a sleeping bag on the floor next to our bed.  (Thanks, Sweet Sister!)

194. Menu Planning

195. Homemade Tasty Coffee drinks…look here and here.

196. Simple Charlotte Mason Scripture Memory System

197. Packing for family vacation/holiday

198. Little boys and toy trains

199. Needing to add  more verse cards to memory box

200. Seeing family dog so cozy on the bed.

141. Out of town guests from the other side of the country

142. A beautiful day of fellowship.

143. A good friend’s son turns one.

144. “Give thanks in all circumstances for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.” –1 Thessalonians 5:18

145. Finding a way to keep Caleb interested in his reading lessons

146. Index Cards

147. How CHEAP index cards are

148. “Gratitude is a vaccine, an antitoxin, and an antiseptic.”  — John Henry Jowett

149. “The sun will no more be your light by day, nor will the brightness of the moon shine on you, for the Lord will be your everlasting light, and your God will be your glory.”  –Isaiah 60:19

150. Sidewalk Chalk

151. Sitting on the porch while Caleb plays with his chalk

152. “Porch Time”

153. Caleb developing an imagination–so much fun to watch

154. Paid Bills

155. Our budget, and …

156. …the peace keeping a budget provides

157. Trips to Barnes & Noble

158. Finding the perfect book at Barnes & Noble

159. Quietly reading during Caleb’s nap

160. All the wonderful hymn videos on YouTube.com

161. Amazon Associates Program

162. Realizing a stranger’s purchase from my blog pushed me over to my payment threshold.

163. Reconnecting

164. Cheesy Sausage Corn Muffins

165. Learning perseverance through failure

166. The Sexually Confident Wife

167. Our Sabaath Candle

168. Looking forward to a weekend without any plans

169. Trying again

170. Early morning text message from Hubby during his commute

111. The flexibility of in-home workouts.

112. That Caleb is finally becoming interested in helping Mommy in the kitchen.

113. Husband picking up pizza after a really bad afternoon.

114. Change of Routine–> Pizza and Movie Night on a Thursday

115. Sitting on front porch on a beautiful day.

116. Watching Caleb play happily as I sit on the front porch.

117. Abundance in the pantry and freezer

118. Developing a Family Mission Statement.

119. Taking a Spiritual Sabbatical.

120. Paperback Swap

121. Finding my car keys

122.  Homemade Apple Peel Jelly

123. Learning about Catechisms

124. Starting to write a family catechism

125. Receiving three book requests from PaperbackSwap and then ordering three books for our family

126. MOPS

127. “I know that the experiences of our lives, when we let God use them, become the mysterious and perfect preparation for the work He will give us to do.” –Corrie Ten Boom

128. Tropical Storm Ida giving us plenty of much needed rain.

129. Adopting Scripture Memorization program as a family.

130. Working out despite fatigue and feeling better for it.

131. Baking Day

132. The Hiding Place

133. Being caught up on laundry

134. Caleb’s room is clean–even for just a moment

135. Foxe’s Book of Martyrs–finally having our own copy

136. Beautiful Pink Sunrise

137. Early Morning Shower

138. Peanut Butter Granola

139. Extreme Devotion (Devotional Book)

140. Delivering our box for Operation Christmas Child this weekend.

81. “Hear , my son, your father’s instruction And do not forsake your mother’s teaching;  Indeed, they are a grateful wreath to your head And ornaments about your neck.” –Proverbs 1:8-9

82. Finally able to write a difficult blog post

83. Trash truck had not arrived when I realized it was trash day and needed to put the trash out.

84. The gift of food for our pantry

85. A day not filled with duties

86. A delightful Sunday spent with family

87. Extra hour from the end of daylight savings time

88.Food stored in the freezer allowing me to save money at the grocery store

89. Celebrating pet dog’s five year birthday

90. A break in the hot weather and getting cool again.

91. Homemade Christmas Gifts

92. Cool Mornings

93. Homemade waffles warming in the toaster oven

94. Family Devotional Time

95. Putting my Bible on the piano so I can read as I walk by

96. Voice of the Martyrs

97. Being Caught up on monthly finances

98. Home Canned Blueberry Pie Filling

99. Gaining confidence as I progress in exercise

100. How good Green Smoothies make me feel

101. Opportunity to share the benefits of green smoothies with family

102. Homemade Tortillas

103. Drinking black coffee

104. “The beginning of wisdom is: Acquire wisdom, And with your acquiring get understanding.” Proverbs 4:7

105. Homemade Apple Pie Filling.

106. Sewing the waistline in to make little pajamas fit better and saving money in the process.

107. Delightful, Sunny days.

108. Finding homemade options for commonly purchased items

109. A “failed” pie filling jar turned into apple pie that evening

110. An unexpected phone call from a dear friend.

AUTONOMIST EVENTS

Antonio Negri

NEW YORK

Silvia Federici and George Caffentzis on the Politics of Oil
On Tuesday NOVEMBER 10th at 6:30PM

Join Silvia Federici and George Caffentzis as they discuss big oil’s cultural and political violence with Peter Maass, contributing editor at The New York Times Magazine and the author of the recently published Crude World: The Violent Twilight of Oil.

The event is moderated by Ashley Dawson, Associate Professor of English, The Graduate Center, CUNY.  The event will take place at the Graduate Center, 365 5th Ave btwn 34th and 35th (The Skylight Room, 9100)

Ariel Salleh on Eco-Sufficiency with Silvia Federici
On Wednesday, November 11th at 7:00PM, ARIEL SALLEH will be presenting on a feminist and ecologically integrated politics of the commons, themes central to her recently edited volume, Eco-Sufficiency & Global Justice: Women Write Political Ecology (Pluto Press, 2009).  She will be introduced by and in dialogue with SILVIA FEDERICI. The event takes place at Bluestockings Bookstore (172 Allen Street, NYC 10002).

Posted here by Glenn Rikowski

The Flow of Ideas: http://www.flowideas.co.uk

MySpace Profile: http://www.myspace.com/glennrikowski

Shaykh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid | Language: English | Format: PDF | Pages: 14 | Size: 1.5 MB
Love of Allah is life itself, and to be deprived of it entails a terrible death; it is the light without which one would sail in a sea of darkness; it is the cure without which one’s heart will be overwhelmed by a multitude of diseases; it is the joy without which one will remain in permanent grief; it is the essence of faith and deeds, without which they become like a soulless body.

-

Download From RapidShare

Download From MegaUpload

-

No Password

Le multitude

For current left political theories, there seem to be two possible foundations, two basic structures out of which develop distinct justifications for what at first appears to be a similar politics. One structure takes mathematics as its basis, the other hermeneutics. One bases its politics in an ontology in turn based on multiplicity. The other bases its non-ontology on difference and its politics on incomparability. For the theory of difference language comes first; for the theory of multitude, first is number. How can we reach a decision on which is the better theory for our politics? This may currently be our fundamental task.

Ideologies of understanding can be easily divided along these very lines into two camps, although the camps differ internally to a great extent. Thus deconstruction and evolution would both cleave to difference. This decision stems from a sense of history as displacement of essence. No being, according to either school, is ever fully itself; the being of a being lies in its actual mutation and continual mutability. Both Badiou’s return to metaphysics and market capitalism, on the other hand, trade in units, under a theory of history in which long stretches of “what-is” are punctuated by catastrophic events. These two decisions, these two theories — for want of a better word — entail moral and intellectual commitments far beyond a single word — difference / multiplicity — or beyond a formal pattern. The decision entails assumptions about the nature of knowledge — the knowability of a being qua being — ethics — how does one relate to a being whose being is unstable, indecipherable, futural, and peculiar — plus language, time, and so forth. There is pompousness on both sides. Evolutionists declare themselves (non-evolutionarily) winners in the biological sciences. The new metaphysicians decree difference to be a trivial parenthesis in the great forward motion of truth.

Another way to frame this debate or lack of a debate would be to compare it to television, whose greatest reader, unbeknownst to himself, was Gilles Deleuze. In popular culture the split runs between cable TV, which thrives on difference, and network broadcasting, which thrives on repetition. What Deleuze showed us was that repetition, the apparent basis of the number system and the empirical, existential face of metaphysics (that which endures in fact merely repeats) is but the other side of difference. Multiplicity, the repetition of “what-counts-as” one, contains — is — internally different from itself in a way that invalidates the idea of the multiple and thus the multitude. The power of Difference and Repetition lies in its exposure to the light of the secret reliance of metaphysics on repetition, and the secret reliance of repetition on difference.

What “counts-as” one, to quote Badiou, makes use of the verb “count” in a deceptive way. “Count” in this case means not to denumerate but to make a forceful decision on the meaning of a being, such that it is made uniform — given being — and can subsequently be numbered and belong to politics. That which does not quite count as one — the two-in-one, for Plato; the “now” for Aristotle; dissemination for Derrida, among other terms — shows number to be contingent on quality. What can be counted cannot then necessarily be numbered. What would mathematics be without the assumption of a number series? The series subordinates difference to repetition, difference being a difference in position of the same — the aggregation of repetitions of a one. What would it mean then, to be able to designate a one without being able to construct a mathematics on top of it, a one that corresponded to no other?

The answer may be found, we assume, in literature…

This passage covers the period before the second coming of our Lord that Jesus tells us about in Mark 13:6-8. It is about calamities, tumults, and chaos that are expected in suffering because of the impact and veracity of sin in the world. It is a continual experience, as the people in John’s time were going through this and, in varying degrees, we have already or will go through it. But, this is also an apex and a climax coming just before the final judgments, when the world gets a “break” and an opportunity to know Christ before His final pronouncement (Matt. 24:14). This passage’s primary purpose was not to predict the details of final events; rather, it was meant to encourage us to go through them with increased faith and our eyes focused upon our Lord. It is not important to know what takes place when, what our presumptions are, or which “end times” theory is best, as we will all be wrong on that. The important lessons are how Christ will be glorified and how we will learn and grow through it!

The sufferings and trials of life did not derail this crowd from His plan and purpose. Not even their hurt feelings, their being betrayed themselves, or the tribulations of life, whether overt or benign, dejected them. These are the Christians whose faith is real and applied. They have succeeded in their faith and now they take their triumphant entry into His presence and their reward. It is always worth it, because no matter what we face or what we go through, there is an intention from our Lord; His leading is what is best for us, including our growth and rationale. In Christ, we will succeed and prevail! 

Questions to Ponder: 

1. What would cause a Christian to praise Christ one day, and on another day betray Him? How so?
2. What does it mean that Christ is also your Shelter and your Hope? How do you feel that He will get you through your life and circumstances, no matter what you see, feel, or face?
3. Do you have a favorite theory of “The Great Tribulation?” How can our theories get in the way, and cause us to miss the main point? What is the main point of The Great Tribulation?
4. How have you celebrated victory andor God’s faithfulness in your life? Right now, carefully consider how you can celebrate God’s work in your life. How would it strengthen your faith and demonstrate victory to others? 
5. How can you better point to Christ, showing others they have the opportunity to get their priorities in line with God’s? Think of it this way, evangelism is basically one homeless person telling another where the shelter is.”  

© 2006 R. J. Krejcir Ph.D. Into Thy Word Ministries www.intothyword.org

The Preterist view: They see this passage as referring to the saints who escape (emerge from) the tribulation or are the martyrs from the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. Many see this as Judaism’s end and that the church replaces Israel. (I do not believe this is biblical). See Romans 9:1-13.

The Futurist view: They see this passage as literal, and that a greater number of Gentiles will be saved than the 144,000 Jews who will be saved. There is an in-house debate over whether the Gentiles who are saved are taken before the rapture and tribulation, or new converts after the rapture, or if there is a post-tribulation rapture. Many of this view see these convents as a lesser level of Christians because they did not come to faith through the “proper” channels. Others do not believe this is the heavenly throne as the passage indicates, but rather an “earthly throne” because it contradicts their theory. They see these “Elders” as distinct from the “24 elders” who are representatives of the Church. Some see this as the rejoicing of the Christians who claim victory after the tribulation is over.

The Idealist view: They see the winds in the passage as symbolic for the “church triumphant” being glorified in heaven. The symbols of purity and victory are preeminent as the earthly trials and tribulations are over. The robes being washed in blood (that normally stains) is the ultimate “whitener” that cleans and purifies us so we can stand before God. It is all about Christ and His sacrificial death and atonement for us, His Church. Most see this as Christians overcoming the trials and persecutions of life, and overcoming, by faith in Christ, at any time in church history, not necessarily one, great, final, seven-year tribulation. It would rather include the ordeals and hardships that have besieged the Church ever since her inception. The tabernacle is representative of the shelter and refuge we have in Christ. He is our hope and leads us because He dwells with us; He has a plan and purpose, and will carry us through when we have faith in Him.

The Historicist view: They see this passage as an encourager to the Church when the Church will face (or has faced) extreme hardships and persecutions. The crowd is the sealed, as previous noted; they are the triumphant and victorious conquers who fought the good fight…perhaps a small grouping of the same people who are given special favor.

• One of the elders asked me. It was common for Jewish teachers to ask rhetorical questions to guide their students, with questions that they knew but the people did not, or questions that the other person did not know (Dan. 7:16; 8:13-16; 12:6-8).

• Great tribulation refers to the sufferings and trials Christians go through. Great meant a more significant period of it, such as war and pestilence like the Seven Churches were going through. These great trials come about frequently throughout church history, such as the Roman occupation of Israel and the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., as well as our more current civil wars, world wars, or extreme persecutions such as in Sudan. This may also refer to “the great tribulation,” as stated in Daniel, denoting extreme persecution and hostility that comes about at the end of the age, and that may come about before Christ’s return. However, the application is more likely in mind here, and not just the foretelling of events. The point is that when we persevere in our faith, in spite of the obstacles that a sin-infested world provides us, and we prevail as we persevere in our faith, we will come out of the tribulation because neither great or small crises or doubts will have gotten us since we are in Christ (Dan. 12:1; 2 Thess. 1:5-6; 1 Tim. 3:1-12; Rev. 1:9; 2:9-10).

• Washed their robes… in the blood of the Lamb denotes more of a ritual cleansing than just an image. It is acknowledging what Christ has done on our behalf. It refers to sacrifice and how the blood in ancient Jewish rituals was a cleansing that preceded worship (Heb. 9:21-22).

• Before the throne of God is the Jewish image of a messianic banquet at the end of the age (Isa. 25:8; John 10:1-18; Rev. 4:6-7).

• Serve him. This echoes a new “exodus” where the faithful Elect leave their troubled lives on earth and ascend to a new home in eternity. This also denotes that we still will have a plan and a purpose in Heaven; we will not merely sit on a cloud playing a harp! 

• In his temple means God is our refuge. The word used for “temple” in this book indicates the inner shrine and the tabernacle (used before the temple), where God’s presence dwells, not the campus or main, outer building (Lev 26:11-13; Psalm 121:5-6; Isa. 4:5-6; 49:10; Rev. 4:6-7).

• Shepherd. He is the One who leads; He is the One we look toward to lead us. Some ancient kings considered themselves to be the shepherds of their kingdom (Gen. 48:15; 49:24; Psalm 23; 80:1; Micah. 7:14; Matt. 2:6; John 10:11-18; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet. 5:4).

• A great multitude. These people may be a different group of people from those in the previous passage, or perhaps a different depiction of the same grouping, a common Jewish use of expression. Some have suggested these are the martyrs from chapter six (Gen. 41:25-27; Rev. 5:9; 6:11; 7:1-8; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6. 17:15).

• No one could count/innumerable indicates that this crowd was so big it was impossible to count, but it does not mean infinite.

• Standing before the throne infers that because of Christ, we now have direct access to Him!

• White robes indicate coming before the Lord in worship, clothed with the proper attire of attitude and reverence. (See Revelation 3:1-6.)

• Palm branches pointed to a celebration of victory, such as Israel’s victory over Egypt in the Exodus, as well as God’s faithfulness. They were used for celebrations such as the “Feast of the Tabernacles.” This was also a prediction from Zechariah that all nations will partake in this celebration (Lev. 23:34-43; Num. 29:12-38; Duet. 16:13-15; Zech. 14:16; Luke 19:28-40; John 12:12-13).

• Cried out. We come before God’s throne as unworthy guests, clothed in His atonement and reserved by His love. This is a vow to follow Him as Lord!

• Salvation belongs to our God/Salvation comes from the LORD. He delivers us, as He is the only One who can. This is a prayer seeking His help (Gen. 49:18 John 2:9).

• Fell down is an aspect of real reverence and worship. In context, this is also how we are totally dependent upon God for every aspect of our lives.

• Praise acknowledges Christ as Lord over all, including us; it is recognizing His attributes, His sovereignty, and His control, and then seeking His strength. The purpose, for us, is to realize that we must eventually learn to surrender to Him and be trusting and obedient to Him (Gen. 18:18; 22:18; Isa. 60:1-5; Gal. 2:20-21; Phil. 1:6; 3:1-14; Rev. 5:12; 10:11; 12:5; 13:7; 14:6-8; 15:4; 17:15; 18:3; 19:15; 20:3; 21:24-27).

Introduction 

The Great Multitude   

Suddenly, John sees a crowd of people so vast that it cannot be numbered, standing before the Throne of the Lamb. This multitude comes from all walks of life and people-groups where there is no division in caste or pedigree, where there is no separation of color or wealth or language, all in Christ, all glorifying Christ. This is reminiscent of Christ’s “Triumphal Entry” (Mark 11:1-11) just before His execution, where He is first praised, and then betrayed. But, here there is no betrayal, only praise; there is no separation, only those who are assembled in Him; there is no fear, only triumph and achievement. This is an image of strength and unity, of victory and assurance, of hope that is achieved and received, then expressed by the shouting of praises to Christ for who He is and what He has done. This crowd is not just shouting praises—they are experiencing them; they are involved as they partake in the worship of Christ. They are overcome with His presence, and in awe as the crowd, angels, and witnesses again fall, prostrate before the Sovereign Lamb. 

Behold all the people who have been virtuous, who have persevered in life, have overcome obstacles, withstood temptations, and have remained faithful to our Lord. He is our shelter and our hope, and He will get us through no matter what we see, feel, or face. His leading has a reason, and our experiences have a purpose when we remain faithful in Him; this is our purpose here on earth and this is what booms and echoes throughout eternity (Rev. 14:1-5). 

This passage gives us great comfort and hope. Christ shows us He is always with us; thus, we can live a life that is worthy¾a spirit-filled, empowered life that will be acknowledged by Him both now and in the future, and will have an intention for us in the present. When we face hardships, we can know for sure that He will wipe away both our tears and our fears! 

This passage comes to us like a “parenthesis,” a seemingly addendum or digression in the midst of the context of judgment. However, it is not some detour or distraction. Rather, it is a telling of God’s mercy and love (Rev. 10:1-11:13). This passage is about hope and a reason for us to persevere in whatever we may face, both now and/or in the future. This is a respite in judgment and a look at what lies ahead. 

If you could spin around the world faster than once each day, maybe you could observe what is going on, and figure out things to do to help solve some of the multitude of problems that exist. Since you can’t do that, you can let your computer spin arund the world for you. You know how it works. You know how it can gather information for you. You know all you have to do is type in a word, or more, and it will do the searching for you. Be careful what you type in, because there are many bad things out there, but there are many good things, too. There are a lot of good programs that can help you build your business online, and help you do the things you want to do. Let’s take a look at just one of these right now.   This is one of the better, legitimate, programs I have found, and I want to pass it on to you!  http://realcpamarketing.com

Autonomia

AUTONMIA, OPERAISMO AND CLASS COMPOSITION

Call for Papers

Autonomism, Class Composition, and Cultural Studies

2010 Cultural Studies Association Conference – Berkeley, CA – March 18th – 20th, 2010

Coordinators: Stevphen Shukaitis (Autonomedia / University of Essex) & Jack Z. Bratich (Rutgers University)

The publication of Hardt and Negri’s Empire (2000) brought new attention to a previously ignored current of revolutionary theory and practice, namely that of autonomist Marxism, or more broadly, autonomism. While the work of Hardt and Negri have receive quite a deal of attention within cultural studies research and writing since then, this have tended to neglect the vast wealth of engaged theoretical reflection contained within the history of autonomist thought and organizing, reducing it to the work of a few recent works by particular authors. For instance, the concept of class composition, or the ways in which class formations emerge from contestation and the primacy and determining role of social resistance, shares much in common with various strains of thought in cultural studies. Similarly, workers’ inquiry as a method of inquiring into the conditions of working class life to rethinking its ongoing subversive political potentiality, functions in similar ways to how early cultural studies shifted to an analysis of the everyday based on renewing and deepening radical politics.

Autonomist political analysis involves something very much like a form of cultural studies, exploring how the grounds for radical politics are constantly shifting in response to how capital and the state utilize social insurgencies and movements against themselves. How do cultural studies and autonomism converge and diverge over matters of power, the state, and subjectivity? The panel will explore the future behind our backs, focusing on how autonomist politics and analysis can inform cultural analysis and vice versa. Possible topics for consideration could include:

- Autonomy through and against enclosures

- Class composition and the creative class

- Immaterial labor and cultural production

- Libidinal parasites and desiring production

- Escape and the imperceptible politics of the undercommons

- The multitude and its dark side

- Affective labor and social reproduction

- Work drawing from/on particular autonomist theorists (Tronti, Virno, Fortunati, etc.)

- Precarity and the autonomy of migration

- Post-hegemonic & post-dialectical interventions

- Schizoanalysis & class formation

- Autonomism and the political

Send proposals of 500 words to Stevphen Shukaitis (stevphen@autonomedia.org).

The deadline for submissions is September 7th, 2009.

Stevphen Shukaitis is an editor at Autonomedia and lecturer at the University of Essex. He is the editor (with Erika Biddle and David Graeber) of Constituent Imagination: Militant Investigations // Collective Theorization (AK Press, 2007). His research focuses on the emergence of collective imagination in social movements and the changing compositions of cultural and artistic labor. For more on his work and writing, see http://stevphen.mahost.org.

Jack Z. Bratich is assistant professor of Journalism and Media Studies at Rutgers University. He is the author of Conspiracy Panics: Political Rationality and Popular Culture (2008) and co-editor of Foucault, Cultural Studies and Governmentality (2003), and has written articles that apply autonomist thought to such topics as audience studies, reality TV, secession, and popular secrecy.

Stevphen Shukaitis: Autonomedia Editorial Collective, http://www.autonomedia.org, http://info.interactivist.net

“Autonomy is not a fixed, essential state. Like gender, autonomy is created through its performance, by doing/becoming; it is a political practice. To become autonomous is to refuse authoritarian and compulsory cultures of separation and hierarchy through embodied practices of welcoming difference… Becoming autonomous is a political position for it thwarts the exclusions of proprietary knowledge and jealous hoarding of resources, and replaces the social and economic hierarchies on which these depend with a politics of skill exchange, welcome, and collaboration. Freely sharing these with others creates a common wealth of knowledge and power that subverts the domination and hegemony of the master’s rule.”  – subRosa Collective

 aut-op-sy mailing list: aut-op-sy@lists.resist.ca

https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aut-op-sy

Posted here by Glenn Rikowski

The Flow of Ideas: http://www.flowideas.co.uk

MySpace Profile: http://www.myspace.com/glennrikowski

Jeremiah 32:17
Ah, Lord God! Behold, You have made the heavens and the earth by Your great power and outstretched arm. There is nothing too hard for You.

Our minds tend to see our problems as big or small. Even when we pray for the sick, we say things like, “You have a headache? No problem. Let’s pray for your healing.” But when it is cancer, we say, “Oh, let’s tell the senior pastor about it. It would be better if he prayed for you.” We think of headaches as small problems and cancers as big ones.

But that is not the way God thinks. There is nothing too hard for Him who made the heavens and the earth! With God, there is no such thing as a “big” problem. In fact, the “bigger” the problem, the “easier” it is for Him! In the feeding of the 5,000, it took only five loaves to feed the multitude. (Matthew 14:15–21) But in the feeding of the smaller multitude of 4,000, it took seven loaves. (Matthew 15:32–38)

In man’s scheme of things, it should take more loaves to feed more people. But this is not so with God. It took fewer loaves to feed more people. This is God’s way of telling us that the “bigger” the problem, the “easier” it is for Him. I am not saying that small problems are hard for God. But it is so encouraging to think that it is “easier” for God to heal cancers than headaches!

Imagine coming to God with a big problem. “So, what is your problem, son?” God asks. You say, “Father, it is a huge financial debt — not thousands but millions!” He says, “Easy. It is already cancelled.”

In another scenario, God asks, “So, what is your problem, son?” You say, “Father, I have lost my job and I can’t find a new one. I am already in my fifties and I don’t have the necessary qualifications.” He says, “No problem. Consider yourself employed. And in this new job, you won’t just have a job, you will have a position.”

Beloved, with God, it is never a problem because there is nothing too hard for Him!

I’ve been participating in a couple online debates about Critical Mass. (one and the other)  I’ll do something with these raw notes a little later…

There’s a difference between making your world a better place and making the world a better place. Critical Mass, and really is developing community, connecting with real human riders only a selfish indulgence? Are the car driver stuck in traffic, who get angry, and not all the drivers get angry, happy in the current transportation system? Is it possible that cyclists are scapegoats of drivers and planners trapped in an inefficient, and frustrating system? Road Rage is a cultural phenomenon that has nothing to do with cyclists. Is the desire to shift traffic patterns, and create transportation alternatives selfish?

I read Luke’s post and think Critical Manners is more than somewhat open to interpretation. And fixed thinking, fixed meaning, the lack of open ability to interpret is, and I’m using this word with an understanding of the full possibility that you’ll recoil in smug indifference, fascist. I haven’t checked, but I’m pretty sure freedom of movement is a human right. I’d like to decide for myself, in community (read democratically) what that means, not have it decided for me by a self-legitimating power, or sycophants who ally themselves with that power.

One concern seems to be that this democratic expression (Critical Mass Ride) violates the rights of others. Are “freedom from delay” or “freedom from inconvenience” rights? I think it’s a stretch to call Critical Mass a violation of others’ rights.

Another concern is the flouting of law. Law is an institution of power, which in this case is confronted by a democratic multitude. But even this concern is weak. Critical Mass is a procession, like a parade or a funeral, a celebration of cycling in the city and as such it stays together. I don’t think the maintenance of a procession is too far outside accepted social behaviour.

We’re working with different definitions and not really understand each other.

Darren wrote:
“Just to be clear, you’re saying that if I choose to “ally myself with” a democratically-elected power, I’m a fascist? Does that make every citizen who voted for a government in power a fascist? That’s a peculiar point of view, particularly given the definitions of ‘democracy’ and ‘facism’.”

The definition of democracy on wikipedia includes this: “Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of ‘democracy’, there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom. These principles are reflected by all citizens being equal before the law, and have equal access to power.”

By the standards in this definition we do not live in a democracy, and I’ve noticed over the past month that most of the people opposing Critical Mass are arguing under the assumption that we do live in a democracy or under a democratic government, when it would be more referent to our reality to speak of living in an oligarchy or under a pastoral government. I think it’s this confusion of definitions that places Critical Mass outside the notion of democracy in public perception (a confused public that also erroneously perceives itself as democratic.)

I wrote “allying yourself with power against those confronting power is” fascist. I said nothing of a democratically-elected power, because the terms cancel each other out. The creation of a hierarchy is the end result of elections, and hierarchic power structures are not democratic (by definition which requires equality) I’ll try to be more clear this time around because I think these definitions are very important for bridging the gap in perception that has been expressed in this thread.

Because of the difference in power between those who rule and those who are ruled, this can be seen when thousands of people are systematically excluded from the decision making process, (don’t confuse an exclusive decision making process with democracy, it’s an oligarchy, let’s call things by their name) the excluded are confronted with a decision making power, a power that must be contested.

The contestability of freedoms written or desired is the basis of confrontational politics. So you can check any list you want but when a multitude appears on bicycles exercising that freedom you’ve got your reality.

This debate was started by a police warning and monopoly capitalist media sensationalism. How are these institutions of power democratically elected? How then is public perception important to consider if it has been manipulated by these powers? We often see what we know, and we know how power informs us. Why do the people who ride in critical mass have such a different perception of the meaning of the event than those who read the Province or the Sun? (or who side with the police force?) Critical Mass is definitely confronting institutional and capitalist power. Things are not the way they are for no reason. To try to change things is to confront those reasons.

Those reasons concern the systems of money and power; systems which in no way can be referred to as democratic. These systems have criminalized dissent/protest. So yes, Critical Mass operates outside the system, democratically mobilizing in public.

My point of view may be peculiar to liberal capitalists who’ve accepted the misnomer of democracy, but there is a huge body of work called Critical Theory written by Jews who fled from Nazi Germany, this stuff is definitely the point of view of outsiders. And the link I put to the guide to a non-fascist life is definitely worth reading. And then there’s Noam Chomsky, he’s also written extensively on the illusion of democracy. Point is, if we called things what they are and restarted this conversation, which I’ll say it again, was started by the institutional powers of the police and capitalist media, Critical Mass would be the democratic expression, opposed by non-democratic, oligarchical, capitalist, armed power.
Which side are you on?

Do you see that we are at odds in our terms?

There are two clear, reasonably well written posts preceding, but are in no way addressed by your question. I tried to express earlier the communal and democratic appeal of Critical Mass, which you constantly reduce to “personal enjoyment” and then even the term “entitled” is anti-democratic.

You say there are “infinite ways to find personal fulfillment” and you’re totally right on the mark with that. What’s missing are ways to find free communal fulfillment. Critical Mass is a rare free communal event. In a democracy access to power is equal, there is no need to produce a title. Critical Mass is an expression of this social alternative, and in our current totalizing system, an alternative can only be confrontational. I think it’s necessary for democracy to create the ability to say, “We are here.” Critical Mass presents an alternative. And I think the issue you have is with the alternative. There are people in our social body who think differently, and in our representational system, they don’t really exist, but for a few hours once a month, the last Friday of every month to be specific, Downtown, between the hours of 5:30 and 8 or so. Would you like to pretend that difference doesn’t exist? And that the difference will not sometimes express itself in blocked flows?

Critical Mass is about more than traffic, it’s an alternative form of social organizing, free and democratic, which just happens to get in the way of law and order.

I think liberal capitalists need to understand that their order impinges on the enjoyment, more the full development of life of a multitude that desires that full development. This desirous multitude is without access to media of power and money(capital/resources) towards the process of communal and human development, and every once in a while, through different channels, this multitude will make itself known. This is the world we live in for now.

There is a major bias or false foundation in all the arguments against CM here. (except Morten who doesn’t express the bias at all. He clearly sees our reality.)

I’m talking about the uncritical acceptance of a democratic society.

Raul starts with this statement: “One of the most powerful manifestations of a democratic society is the ability of citizens to raise their voices wanting to be heard on policy issues.”

Is this really one of a democratic society’s most powerful manifestations? That’s it? …the ability to raise your voice wanting to be heard? How do you define democracy? How do you define what is not? One problem with empirical research lies in its inability to discover the unrealized possible. I’d contend that democracy is a Utopian notion worth creating, and that the society in which we’ve found ourselves (selves created and socialized, prior to that discovery (I’m just saying..)) is not democratic.

It, that we don’t live democratically, comes through in what Victoria writes: “I’m fully for having mobility options versus vehicle usage, but when mobs like Critical Mass take to the streets it seems that far fewer influential ears are prepared to actually listen to our cry.” We live in a society where a larger number of bodies are classed ‘mobs’ and where a lesser number of bodies are classed ‘influential’. And it is through obedience to this smaller influential class that our cries will be answered. This is not democratic, but pastoral society.

The expression of desire by the multitude in a pastoral society will logically lead to conflict. but Victoria writes: “Critical Mass has no place in civilized, logical protest.” And in a confused society, one that names things what they are not, maybe protest can be civilized, whatever that means to you, but in our world, where civilization is an imposition, sometimes called colonization, and to be civilized is to be obedient, protest can never be that.

The society in which we’ve found ourselves and its institutions are not democratic. (Morten gives a good example to show this. And then he writes: “the utopian and unrealistic notion that the masses are better equipped to do the right thing than people in power. (sometimes called democracy!) It’s a nice thought but fundamentally flawed because most people are not equipped to actually make decisions that are for the betterment of everyone – in the end we are all pretty selfish!” Morten doesn’t believe in the possibility of democracy!!) That we believe society and it’s institutions to be democratic confuses our perception of nascent democratic (self-determining) practices like Critical Mass. Do you know what democracy looks like?

Riding in Critical Mass I feel democratic.

I’d define democracy, like sustainability, not as a concept, but as a practice. I also see the Critical Mass ride as a democratic practice/act. This democratic practice has been called “illegal” and a “criminal act” by the monopoly capitalist media in Vancouver (see this and this ) What researcher of social movements would miss the trend towards the criminalization of dissent? (And in the history of social movements tyranny hasn’t quieted democratic voices. Voices don’t cry out to be heard because some form of government allows it. And if it is grudgingly “allowed” today it is only because we cannot be stopped.)

Are you open to being convinced of your bias, or that we do not live in a democratic society? If you define democracy as rule by anyone or everyone, then the descriptions of our society by Morten and Victoria showing us (the mob) being ruled by the few should be enough to convince you that we are not ruled/governed democratically. What’s interesting is that both Morten and Victoria are opposed to Critical Mass in much the same way, but Morten clearly opposes democracy in favor of a rule by those in power (the entitled few) while Victoria sees the same thing, the same way and understands it as democracy.

I wonder if I could convince you of your bias… I also called it a false foundation. I could also call it a presupposition. If you desired a democratic society, that would be idealistic. Believing that we live in a democracy is false, not idealistic. A false belief, is paradigm shifting, and a bias is clearly expressed in your conclusion: “I asked online – “when is the tipping point? when does disruption become unruly social order?”. I think Critical Mass creators and their proponents should re-think this and their strategies. A democratic society is a collaborative society, not a confrontational one.” Raul, you show a bias toward social order, an order you falsely believe to be a democratic society. Our contemporary social order is heavily mediated by money and power. It is exclusive, unequal, and hierarchical. In our society where the titled expect compliance, the untitled voices/democratic voices can be nothing other than confrontational. If you re-think your foundational paradigm, that a collaborative society is a society of equals is a democratic society, not a confrontational one, you’ll hopefully recognize your error. We are not a society of equals and as such the political order of the day is confrontational. We must assert our voices, against an oligarchical regime of money and power who call us “illegal”. Our voices are untitled and deemed illegitimate. This regime must be confronted until every and any voice is legitimate, until democracy.

If the psychic has suddenly become such an important television personality, it is not only because of the rise of a vague “new age” spirituality.  Nor is it that the psychic is essentially, radically telegenic: that the psychic’s vision is nothing but a form of tele-vision, and thus coincides perfectly with the medium that would represent it.

Rather: the psychic stands for the perfect passive intellect: the mind of everybody, conceived not as the power to produce conventions and fictions (crime is always a fiction in this sense, a creative act, and the detective, despite extraordinary powers of the imagination, is merely the interpreter. A subtle political theology is at work here: the demonization of creativity. The ethical demand to only interpret, and not create).

Thus the psychic is good for two things: recognizing trends in the stock market, and communicating with the dead, and especially those who have died a violent death.  It each case: the psychic registers a rupture with the norm, a new convention. Psychic intuition is the passive reflex of productive intelligence.

Yet these two forms of psychic intuition also suggest a fundamental, critical tension.  It is this tension that appears, with stunning speculative rigor, in a interlocked trilogy of episodes of the Medium (5.13-5.14).

Two psychics square off in a battle of dreams, anticipations, and preemptive strikes. (In the Medium we find the glorification of a the neo-conservative synthesis of just war theory with the  doctrine of preemptive strikes.  Of course, Minority Report had already exposed the most sinister tendencies of this psychic criminology.)

Each psychic must answer to a patriarch: Alison Dubois to the District Attorney; her nemesis, Caitlyn, to Mr. Lydecker, the visionary capitalist.

These two patriarchs, in turn, represent two conflicting, and historically coexistent, visions of sovereignty.  The distract attorney is a stand-in for the Hobbesian sovereign, to whom everybody must submit in return for protection from violent death.  Thus Alison Dubios anticipates the violent death of the individual. (the psychic criminologist must be sublimely insensitive to mass death, as well as death brought in the name of the law. They can only register the death of the one who is able to die as an individual in the fulness of their rights, who fears violence against their individuality and their rights).  She is receptive to the thought of the every-body, but the everybody only in so far as it refuses to think itself as multitude but only as individuals stitched together into people. The knife of the serial killer, tearing into the flesh of the individual body, sutures it to the body politic.

Mr. Lydecker, on the other hand, represents the sovereignty of the multitude.  His only vision is to cede his vision to the psychic, who does nothing more than register the desires of the multitude for new things.  But needless to say: this representation, imposing a sovereign form on the multitude, and a commodity form on desire, imposes a topological transformation on the multitude.  The multitude does not become a people. It remains a multitude, defined by an anarchic operation of imaginary desire.  But it is able to represent its desire to itself as a convention, as public opinion: as a fundamental consensus about the operation of the economy.  (Up to a point I agree here with Marazzi’s astute analysis of “capital as language” . But I believe that the sovereign form of the financial markets cannot do without the mediation of the purely passive, yet charismatically individualizing intelligence of the visionary.)

The detective show presents an endless symbolic battle between these two sovereigns.  The serial killer is the visionary. The visionary is infinitely responsive to the desire of the multitude. Thus it is the serial killer — no longer fearing death, he is able to realize desire in its most extreme, obscene forms — who presents the extreme form of the visionary.

These three episodes of the Medium, however, suggest a powerful attempt to bring this conflict to a certain resolution.  The son of Mr. Lydecker is a serial killer. And the psychic who is in the father’s pay uses her knowledge of the son’s crimes (not insignificantly: he cuts out the eyes of his victims) to usurp the father, and take the place of the son.  This crime, a crime of inaction rather than action, represents a revolutionary event. The multitude allows the visionary-capitalist to destroy himself through his son, through his works.  And at the same time, it desires a work that would consist only in sleeping and dreaming. And yet the medium itself — of television, of celebrity — imposes another contortion: one layer of representation has been peeled away, but the  psychic is still only a representative of the multitude, not the multitude itself. And yet, at the same time, the victory of the law, of justice, seems feeble and small.  It saves the life of a substitute teacher, to be sure. But what has it really saved, if not simply the medial logic of substitution itself.

Over the weekend an old friend wrote me to make sure that I don’t like Andrew Sullivan now. I don’t; his opinions are by and large awful, even if on many important issues he’s slowly switched to “our side” since 2001. But on isolated issues his coverage can be very strong, as it is this morning on the now-illegal protest march in Tehran. Just look at the size of that crowd. (UPDATE: Video from BBC Persia. Wow.) (UPDATE 2: Mousavi is at the rally.)