[EDIT: i've read through about a third of this now, and i'd say it's the most concrete and useful thing i've read so far, as regards the real-life problems that brought about the crisis in Nepal. it may turn sour later, but so far i recommend this piece highly.]

so as a follow-up to Thomas' initial dot of the Libcom editorial piece, this is the official statement surrounding the planned economic development of Nepal's "New Democratic System"...including its declaration (see the final paragraph i've quoted below) of a 'transitional capitalism'....

Quoted: "New Democratic system is basically a capitalist system. However, in the present era of imperialism and in a situation of intensely backward state of productive forces as in Nepal, it is impossible to develop the capitalist system in the old form and to make it stable. Specially, it is not possible for the owners of small parcels of land and small capital to increase productivity by labouring individually and to protect themselves from the monopolistic assaults of the big capital. Hence it is only through gradual co-operativisation of agriculture and through state protection for industry, or by systematically moving ahead in the path of socialisation that the large number of small producers can preserve their existence and increase their productivity. In that sense the New Democratic system is only a transitional capitalist system and its contradictions would have to be solved through the higher form of a socialist system. Thus it is only through the process of a continuous revolution that it would be possible to solve the newly emerging problems and contradictions in the society at a higher plane. The process of People’s War in Nepal is a link in a chain of such a continuous revolution to solve the problems of the society. The principle objective and rationale of the People’s War in Nepal is, thus, to develop the social productive forces and create a higher form of society through a continuous revolution in the base and the superstructure or by putting “politics in command”."

[re-dot because i added stuff.]

here's a TON of other really cool looking articles on here too.

EDIT:
one of the many interesting things that can be gleaned from reading this piece, is one gets to see how Latour reads Deleuze in many respects. and when he wants to explain the virtual as a strictly 'retrospective' operation in thought, guess whom and what he cites as an authority? none other than one of the books i'm translating, mainly Zourabichvili's "Vocabulaire de Gilles Deleuze", entry on the Virtual.
i find this very interesting that Latour essentially accepts Zourabichvili's reading of Deleuze, if in fact I am warranted in drawing such a conclusion. (see the footnotes to this article)

Quoted: What is Given in Experience? A Review of Isabelle Stengers Penser avec Whitehead : Une libre et sauvage création de concepts. Paris, Gallimard, (2002) ...

Shaviro has a great review of G Romero's new Zombie flick, "Diary of the Dead"....

one awesome passage from his review:

"Such is the antinomy on which the film ends, and I think that it is a profound one. We have moved from being a “society of the spectacle” to being a society of participatory and interactive media. And Diary of the Dead is thinking about this change — not to say that the new media regime is either better or worse than what came before, but to try to delineate just how it is different. The great unitary spectacle of which Guy Debord wrote has been shattered, and replaced by new forms of distraction and activity in what Deleuze called the “society of control.” We are no longer passive, voyeuristic spectators; instead, we actively both give ourselves over to surveillance, and eagerly surveil (is that a word?) both others and ourselves. We fragment, multiply, and network both ourselves and whatever we encounter. This no longer falls under the dipolar schema of subject and object; but rather has the form of a network in which everyone and everything is a node. This also means that we have moved on from representation to simulation: instead of trying to capture the Real via mimesis, we actively produce bits and pieces of a reality that is directly composed of images, rather than merely being captured or reflected in images. The regime of simulacra is not an “extermination of the real” as Baudrillard claimed; it is rather a state in which the real is effectively being micro-produced and virally disseminated. In consequence, the real and the imaginary have become, as Deleuze puts it, “indiscernible”: reality pushes toward a “point of indiscernibility,” as a result of “the coalescence of the actual image and the virtual image, the image with two sides, actual and virtual at the same time” (Deleuze, Cinema 2, p. 69). Every imaginary simulation becomes altogether real, even as every reality is dissolved in simulacral multiplication."

read on....

haha

point...counterpoint.

this site has some other funny articles on it.
totally nonserious.

Quoted: Dickipedia.org is a parody website produced by comedy news provider 23/6. It is an unaffiliated spoof of the Wikipedia online encyclopedia, leveraging the format to focus on the pejorative moniker �dick.� Dickipedia features entries about select public figures who, through recent or past actions, have been identified by 23/6 writers as embodying the qualities of a dick.

at first i thought the story simply read "hippy slain", but then it just got even more darkly satirical as i read on.

Quoted: An Italian woman artist who was hitch-hiking to the Middle East dressed as a bride to promote world peace has been found murdered in Turkey. The naked body of Giuseppina Pasqualino di Marineo, 33, known as Pippa Bacca, was found in bushes near the northern city of Gebze on Friday.
She had said she wanted to show that she could put her trust in the kindness of local people.

Critchley's review of the new Zizek book.

just dotting to keep track of this.
props to Dubya (Will) for the reference.

it just occurred to me that some of my salvia trips are almost isomorphic with the descriptions of visual migranes, or 'auras'...except it's not limited to one side of the visual field.

Quoted:
"Seeing multitudes of tiny, identical structures, sometimes “unrolling” steadily, sometimes flickering, forming and reforming, all over the visual field, is common in migraine auras, though it is only occasionally that these are elaborated into tiny skulls, or arrays of faces or animals or other objects."

EDIT: whoops, should've kept reading, the association with self-induced drug hallucinations is already brought up here.

..."Klüver spoke here of hallucinatory “form constants” and the tendency to “geometrization,” to the “geometrical-ornamental,” seemingly built into the brain-mind. The visions produced by mescal and other hallucinogens would usually progress from these elementary forms of hallucination to elaborate visions of a much more personal and sometimes mystical sort (including scenes of people, animals, and landscapes). But Klüver remarked that the lower-level, geometric hallucinations that preceded these were identical to those found in a variety of conditions: migraine, sensory deprivation, low blood sugar, fever, delirium, or the hypnopompic and hypnagogic states that come immediately before and after sleep. Indeed, even in the absence of any special medical conditions, they could be evoked in anyone by flickering lights, or sometimes even by simply applying pressure to the eyes."

Some pretty awesome shit on this blog.
thanks to Freezerhead for Pointing it OUT.