Karmelo Anthony has been found guilty by the all edit: 3 Asians + all white jury in his court case.

i think it’s kinda funny that a lot of radical transfeminist analytic (as used by white transfeminists) is derived from black radicalism.

fantastic article one of my moots on twitter just wrote!

We can say, for now, that Marx recognizes trans-Atlantic slavery’s ostensive “capitalist nature” as a historical particular, important for the development of capital and the means by which it is reproduced, yet ultimately inessential to his critical presentation of capitalist totality. Sequestering his profound insights into the genesis of subjectivity from the constitutive problem of slavery and blackness, the slave can only analogically reappear as theoretical ammunition in a comparative explication of capitalist materiality. Marx’s grafting method is incongruous with his major methodological innovation: Slavery is theoretically abstracted out of the capitalist totality, even though the purveyors of personal domination—masters, purportedly—are recognized in their transformation into those capitalists who, in Marx’s articulation, are themselves sufferers of abstract domination. Indeed, in the second volume of Capital, Marx again affirms that the slave market “retains an element of natural economy” and “receives supplies of the commodity labour-power from war, piracy, etc., and this pillage is not mediated by a process of circulation, but is rather the appropriation in kind of other people’s labour-power by direct physical compulsion.” The difference that historiographers have identified in the slave market, where slaves were being produced for circulation in a complicated causal relationship to blackness, is explicitly disavowed, its qualitative difference repressed. Slavery’s modes of subjection, then, never become the Marxist premise from which to re-think the condition of production of knowledge and social life, of mind and matter, of freedom and necessity. A large determinant of this repression is that Marx never theorizes race as a productive force. In a key fragment found in Marx’s “Wage Labor and Capital,” Marx parrots Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to ask (and answer) “What is a Negro slave? A man of the black race. The one explanation is as good as the other.” His critique of Proudhon’s tautology does not fare much better, as Marx continues: “A Negro is a Negro. He becomes a slave only in certain relationships.” Blackness is naturalized apart from the economy, and slaveness is contingent on broader relations of production. By naturalizing, and thus neutralizing, the power of racial slavery, capitalism’s disavowal of its own conditions of reproduction is theoretically carried over into Marxism, insofar as, to be a little glib, Marx is himself a product of capitalism and immanent to its standpoint. Or, as Hortense Spillers suggests with respect to Freud, Marx “could not ‘see’ his own connection to the ‘race’/culture orbit, or could not theorize it, because the place of their elision marked the vantage point from which he spoke.” Because Marx’s method expresses the political ontology of the human (only), it is one-sided: Slavery, as a real abstraction, goes behind Marx and Marxists’ backs.

When violence is the law, and not the effect of its enforcement, it presents the rules of narrative with a crisis; because what we have is a situation that resists retelling, for the simple reason that the narrative's causal principle, the ghost in the machine we call causal logic (or "because principle") of the story, is missing. This is how a Black story is jinxed. There is no ghost in the machine; the reason for the violence is beyond the grasp of reason. There's nothing "universal" about it; therefore, the only way to make it intelligible is to leave out the parts that may only be accepted by another Black person, and even then discreetly.