Unhooking The Stars

There is no victory in skipping dinner, or lunch, or breakfast, or morning coffee, or dessert.

There is no victory in refusing heaters and air conditioners and fans and heated blankets.

There is no victory in denying yourself sleep, or showers, or movement, or water, or a comfortable bed, or taking the elevator vs. the stairs.

There is no victory in refusing pain meds and heating pads and ice packs and medical help.

There is no victory in punishing yourself needlessly, in telling yourself that this pain you feel is because you are bad to the core and deserve it.

There is no victory in choking back your laughter and your tears, to keep an imagined equilibrium of safety that is really just a dry, cracked, empty, endless emotional desert.

You are here. You are in this body, and this body is yours. You deserve good things. You are alive, and that is messy and loud, and messy and loud are okay.

With the recent movement to further classify antifa, anarchists, and trans people as domestic terrorists I think it's a good time to bring back information about what the domestic terrorist watchlist (DTW) actually looks like. A lot of people spend a lot of time afraid that their random internet comments or posts have put them on "the list"- this is almost certainly not true.

There are 3 main groups of people who get put on the DTW: People from Southwest Asia/people who have Southwest Asian heritage (especially if they are Muslim), Black people, and Indigenous people.

White people are not put on the DTW at anywhere close to the rate that the above groups are.

Generally, to get on the DTW you have to attract the attention of the state somehow. This comes with affiliating with people who are already on the DTW and associating yourself with direct action and direct actionists who may not be on the DTW. Groups like land and water defenders are some of the primary targets of the DTW. Low level direct action does not usually get you put on the DTW.

Being on the DTW is not a secret. While you don't get a handy letter in the mail telling you that you have been put on the DTW it does show up on a background check. If you have had a background check recently and the DTW did not show up on it then you know you are not on the DTW.

Once you are on the DTW there is no way off and no way to appeal. It is not a judicial or legal category despite showing up on a background check. They do not need to prove to a judge that you are a domestic terrorist in order to add you to the list therefore there is no way to prove you are not a domestic terrorist.

Being on the DTW adds high levels of surveillance to your life. Because the DTW shows up on every background check you are likely to be pulled over frequently for little to no reason at all when your car registration shows your vehicle is registered to someone on the DTW. It can be hard to find jobs while on the DTW because you will get flagged as being on the DTW on every background check. It can be hard to find housing as many rental companies don't want to rent to someone on the DTW. The full DTW is not public.

Because the DTW involves such high levels of surveillance they only add people to it if they consider them worth the effort of surveilling. This is why comments like "I hate trump" or "I love trans people" said on the internet are not going to get you added to the DTW (in the current political climate)- these statements do not make you worth the efforts of high levels of surveillance. They cannot possibly enact the level of surveillance that people on the DTW get on every person who talks about disliking trump or supporting trans people on the internet.

This does not mean that these kinds of comments aren't monitored by police, the FBI, and secret service. Making certain kinds of threats towards government officials on the internet can get the secret service and FBI to show up at your door to warn you and ask you to take the comment down. Be aware of this risk when you make threats online, but you aren't going to be on the DTW for them unless they think they are particularly credible. Generally expressing a dislike for the government does not get the FBI and secret service to show up at your door- it's specifically threats that can do this.

This post is not meant to scare you out of taking action. It is entirely possible to live while on the DTW- though there are increased barriers to accessing typical life. What's most important is that we support our comrades who are on the DTW and are experiencing these barriers. The DTW is designed to isolate and create fear. People on the DTW report that once they disclose they are on it people no longer want to associate with them or get dinner with them etc. because those people are afraid of being put on the list themselves. It's important that we ensure our comrades are still supported.

This post mainly exists to add some realism to the conversation online surrounding the DTW. I see a lot of people genuinely very afraid that they are on the DTW for running a trans positivity blog. If the FBI doesn't consider you worth the effort to surveil then you are not on the DTW and you don't have to be afraid. Remain cautious in what you post so the secret service doesn't show up on your doorstep asking you about you threats to the white house (but remember you don't have to, and should not, talk to them about it) but don't be afraid to continue posting about being trans, an anarchist, or antifa. Do not let the fear tactic work on you. The US government wants to scare you into silence. They cannot surveil everyone who posts "I love trans people" to the extent that people on the DTW are surveilled. You're fine.

My nine-year-old neighbor: *crashes mom’s car into my yard*

At the start of my employment, my boss showed me videos of people stealing, and we both had a chuckle about it. How silly they were! There was a camera overhead, and it’s not to watch the shoppers. See, we can’t actually stop shoplifters. They get away with it maybe nine out of ten times. But we, who are watched and tallied and witnessed? We are always caught.

At first it was hard to hold one hundred dollars bills. An amount I had never seen before. An amount that didn’t exist in my household. It’s normal now. Here is something that is not for me.

“What the hell, I’ll take another,” says the man, pondering our 200 dollar watches. What the hell. Total comes to 580 and not even a flinch in his face. I have been working for 11 hours today and made only 110 dollars. It will go to my rent. Today I work for free, it feels. When I get my check, I will have 35 dollars left for food and saving.

The six hundreds he hands me go into the cash register. For a moment, I imagine having money. Then I put it away, counting out his change.

I know for a fact we sell our products for double what they are worth. That I could be making commission. That they could hand me those 580 dollars and change my life and not even mark the difference in their checkbooks. He’s not the only sale they make today, but I am the reason they made it. He’s not the only one spending 600 dollars, but if I hadn’t spent two hours with him telling me about his life, he wouldn’t have spent any. I go home. I don’t own a watch.

I have watched and rewatched a video on how to make salmon four ways. My shopping list is always the same. Pasta. Rice. Tuna. If I can afford butter it was a good week. I dream of the world I will never walk in, where I can throw the best fish fillet in the cart with a shrug. I hold hundreds in my hand and look up at the camera. I put them under the cash drawer.

I go to work. I scrap together my savings. I eat my bowl of rice slowly. My manager takes a paid week off from work just for his birthday. He owns a yacht. 

i was part of their college program. i moved to the state for it. they legally owned the building i was living in and still charged me rent. i ostensibly was being charged to work for them. it was a 2 bedroom apartment and they placed 6 adult women in it in forced triples.

as many as one in ten disney employees have experienced homelessness while working for the company. despite huge efforts to unionize, strike, or otherwise demand fair treatment; disney has refused to increase employee quality of life.

disney admits publicly that a good portion of their success is because the employees (“cast members”) are dedicated, passionate, and selfless. this is never reflected in pay. even “face” characters (ie those that are princesses etc) make barely above a minimum wage.

at the time that i worked there, i made $8.50 an hour. at one point i was asked to create a human shield around a bag because a bomb dog had alerted to it. for eight fucking dollars an hour.

i now work a very cushy office job. i have bought the salmon and cooked it all four ways.

i go to the store. i am nice to the person behind the counter. she looks up at the camera while she counts out my change. there is nothing fundamentally different about her and i.

Justice For Jordan Shaw

@justiceforjordanshaw's comprehensive post on this issue is here: Justice For Jordan Shaw

I often compare disability/class/age-based eugenics to sex-selective abortion. Banning sex-selective abortion does not solve the problem; it just violates people's bodily autonomy, builds parental resentment of their children, and compounds the misogyny that leads to the demand for sex-selective abortion in the first place.

People practice sex-selective abortion because having a child AMAB is more beneficial to the parents' social and economic standing than having a child AFAB. The solution to that problem has to be changing those social and economic conditions so that a child's gender or AGAB has no bearing on their parents' social and economic standing -- so that sex-selective abortion is no longer a rational choice in response to the parents' circumstances.

And the only way to prevent disability-selective abortion is to make disabled people so socially and economically equal to abled people that disability-selective abortion no longer looks like a rational choice.

The only way to prevent economic/class eugenics is economic equality. The only way to prevent age/status-based eugenics is social equality.

This is the main impetus that drove me to socialism. I used to be more of a center-left social democrat; I figured "Complete economic equality would be nice, but it's a pipe dream; the important thing is that everyone. It doesn't really matter if the CEO is richer than everyone else, as long as no one is hungry or homeless. Besides, it's kind of 'fair' in a way for people with more specialized/demanding jobs to be compensated more."

But the thing is, as long as inequality exists, parents will want their children to rise to the top of the hierarchy. As long as inequality exists, parents will want to prevent their children from falling lower in the hierarchy. As long as inequality exists, parents will do anything to coerce and pressure and abuse and modify their children to give them a "competitive edge."

And as long as inequality exists, and certain physical/cognitive traits correlate with "success," choosing children with those "successful" traits will be a rational choice.

Americans in disability liberation discussions tend to blame our country's ableism on our lack of social safety nets and universal healthcare... but countries with robust social safety nets are just as ableist as we are, sometimes more so. The abortion rate for fetuses with Down Syndrome is higher in Iceland than in the U.S., even though an Icelandic child with Down Syndrome would have access to healthcare. Iceland, while deeply flawed, has a decent enough social safety net that someone born with Down Syndrome would probably not starve or be homeless. But they would be at the bottom of the social hierarchy. There is still a social hierarchy. Eugenics is still a rational choice. Changing that behavior requires changing the social hierarchy that values so-called "general intelligence" and devalues disabled people.

The same is true of other kinds of eugenics -- as long as raising children is a net financial loss for families, avoiding having children "you can't afford" will remain a rational choice. As long as having children means a decrease in the birthing parent's educational or professional opportunities, people will avoid giving birth to children they "can't afford."

I often compare disability/class/age-based eugenics to sex-selective abortion. Banning sex-selective abortion does not solve the problem; it just violates people's bodily autonomy, builds parental resentment of their children, and compounds the misogyny that leads to the demand for sex-selective abortion in the first place.

People practice sex-selective abortion because having a child AMAB is more beneficial to the parents' social and economic standing than having a child AFAB. The solution to that problem has to be changing those social and economic conditions so that a child's gender or AGAB has no bearing on their parents' social and economic standing -- so that sex-selective abortion is no longer a rational choice in response to the parents' circumstances.

And the only way to prevent disability-selective abortion is to make disabled people so socially and economically equal to abled people that disability-selective abortion no longer looks like a rational choice.

The only way to prevent economic/class eugenics is economic equality. The only way to prevent age/status-based eugenics is social equality.

This is the main impetus that drove me to socialism. I used to be more of a center-left social democrat; I figured "Complete economic equality would be nice, but it's a pipe dream; the important thing is that everyone. It doesn't really matter if the CEO is richer than everyone else, as long as no one is hungry or homeless. Besides, it's kind of 'fair' in a way for people with more specialized/demanding jobs to be compensated more."

But the thing is, as long as inequality exists, parents will want their children to rise to the top of the hierarchy. As long as inequality exists, parents will want to prevent their children from falling lower in the hierarchy. As long as inequality exists, parents will do anything to coerce and pressure and abuse and modify their children to give them a "competitive edge."

And as long as inequality exists, and certain physical/cognitive traits correlate with "success," choosing children with those "successful" traits will be a rational choice.

Americans in disability liberation discussions tend to blame our country's ableism on our lack of social safety nets and universal healthcare... but countries with robust social safety nets are just as ableist as we are, sometimes more so. The abortion rate for fetuses with Down Syndrome is higher in Iceland than in the U.S., even though an Icelandic child with Down Syndrome would have access to healthcare. Iceland, while deeply flawed, has a decent enough social safety net that someone born with Down Syndrome would probably not starve or be homeless. But they would be at the bottom of the social hierarchy. There is still a social hierarchy. Eugenics is still a rational choice. Changing that behavior requires changing the social hierarchy that values so-called "general intelligence" and devalues disabled people.

The same is true of other kinds of eugenics -- as long as raising children is a net financial loss for families, avoiding having children "you can't afford" will remain a rational choice. As long as having children means a decrease in the birthing parent's educational or professional opportunities, people will avoid giving birth to children they "can't afford."