Breaking up with Anarchism

The following letter was inspired by a discussion with a close friend who suggested that my dislike of anarchism was excessively hostile, because of my personal history with anarchism. I felt that it was time that I gave anarchism its due.

Dear Anarchism,

It’s not you; it’s me.

In some ways I’ll always love you. But it’s time that we both moved on.

I remember when we first met. It was while I was reading Daniel Guérin’s book about you, with its preface by Noam Chomsky. It was like love at first sight. All of my instincts led me to you and I saw you through perfectly tinted rose-colored glasses. Eventually, through our friend Noam, we came to a much deeper understanding.

I’ll always cherish our first few years together the most.

After our relationship developed, rather than stagnating, you led me to more exciting places than I had ever been. All of a sudden, I met other people who loved you in the same way that I did. I had unimaginable fun meeting your friends and spending hours with them just talking about how wonderful you are.

And it was those friends who showed me how I could see you differently.

They gave me different books about you and even called you by different names. I was exposed to your other pet-names, like “Council Communism” and “Insurrectionary Anarchism“. Your multi-dimensionality drew me in even more. You were all things for all people, but you were unique for me.

You gave me the tools I needed in order to see the world properly.

You introduced me to theory. Like really, over-complicated theory. For that I am eternally grateful, because you taught me to think. It was because of you that I began reading French post-structuralists and German critical theorists. It was because of you that I first interacted with radical feminists, queer activists, and people of color fighting against white supremacist, capitalist patriarchy.

Those were undoubtedly some of the best days of my life. I’ll always owe that time to you.

In the end, however, those days had to come to an end. And that ability to think eventually made us incompatible. I took off my rose-colored glasses and saw our relationship for what it was.

You see, I realized that despite my love for you and your friends love for you, it was impossible for everyone to love you. And that meant that your promises of perfect equality and anti-authoritarianism couldn’t be kept.

And, unfortunately, those promises meant everything to me.

My idealism faded and that left me ultimately dissatisfied in our relationship.

I’m sorry, Anarchism, but things just weren’t meant to be.

You’ll be fine, though, I’m sure. Others will meet you and fall in love in the same way that I did. You’ll draw more and more people in as time go on – I can guarantee that.

I end this relationship without bitterness, but with honest disappointment that things didn’t work out. I would have loved to stay forever. I ought to add that I’m sorry for all the times I misrepresented you or did a poor job of dealing with your friends. I tried my best and learned a lot from you.

And I’ll never forget the great times that we shared together.


In Defense of the Upcoming Multipolar World Order

Amerikkka is often presented as the global peacemaker in sympathetic circles. If we take a cursory look around the globe today, however, we can see that every single conflict has the fingerprint of the United $tates in some capacity. This imperial strategy has not brought about the solution to conflict, but rather intended to proceed with conflict until achieving absolute control.

Even minor states – North Korea, Cuba, Syria, and Iran are continuously punished for merely existing outside of the unipolar order. Amerikkka demands total subservience to its geopolitical institutions.

The strategic parity between different states could decrease the occurrence of U.S. imperial wars, if the U.S. understands that it faces the threat of potentially losing such a conflict (Amerikkkans have not yet forgotten Vietnam and Iraq).

Russia and China (along with the other BRICS states) present a counterbalance to U.S. hegemonic goals around the world.

In fact, considering the recent decision by Mr. Orange-White-Supremacist-Clown to pull out of the JCPOA with Iran, we may also begin to see the E.U. establishing a more independent geopolitical pole as well.

New contours of global power present us with new options. Instead of repeating the Cold War, we shall soon find ourselves in totally new circumstances. The new global powers – the E.U., Russia, China are catching up to the U.$.

This power is no longer substantially ideological, as all of these countries (in one form or another) subscribe to neoliberal capitalism.

As others have written, “And Russia and China are part of this imperialist camp as well; the problem is that, because they are still developing as imperialist powers, they are beginning to represent a pole that might determine the global contradiction between imperialisms in the next decade.”

Where I disagree with MLM Mayhem is on how we should delineate our support for these competing powers. By encouraging competition, we encourage ruptures in hegemony and open the space for counter-movements. We should not say Russian and Chinese imperialisms are “better” than U$ imperialism, but rather, in order to bring down Amerikkkan global domination, we must critically support its nascent challengers.

This isn’t some moralistic argument about imperialism. Rather, this is a strategic argument about how we can move to socialism: through revolutions in the Third World.

Revolutions can only occur when political and economic systems reach the limits of their contradictions. As long as capital is able to flow freely, then Amerikkka (or another country) is able to prop up puppet regimes indefinitely.

By pushing for global ruptures, we inevitably force these contradictions to reveal themselves bare. This, of course, is no guarantee of Third World revolutions, but the chances increase dramatically.


Additionally, it is inherently advantageous for smaller countries that there is competition among the superpowers. Smaller countries throughout the Cold War skillfully embraced one or another side in order to gain favor and receive beneficial (or not-so-beneficial) aid packages, military assistance, or increased sovereignty and independence.

The very establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement solidified the strength of the Third World against the First World.

Following the dismantling of the Soviet Union by three men in a forest, the global order fragmented, ruptured, and tore itself asunder. The U.$. crowned itself the sole Empire and ensured that the Third World bent to its will.

Financial institutions like the WTO and IMF grabbed the Third World by the throat and smashed their skulls against the ground. Mimicking the old colonial days, white people continue to strip the wealth from black and brown people around the globe.

Why should Amerikkkans have hegemony?

Why does everyone in the world need to think about the fascists in Washington?

Why should the racist naked mole rat in the white house have so much power?

Disarm White Men!


The Naxalites in India know what’s up.

Following one of the hundreds of mass shootings that happen in the United $nakes all the time, Amerikkkans finally had the thought, “Hey, what if we talk about this?”

These debates have reverberated among leftists and pseudo-leftists caught in the uncomfortable position of having to reconcile their seemingly contradictory beliefs that the proletariat needs to be organized and armed, but mass shootings are bad.

These narratives, however, are missing the key point – straight, white men are killing all of us.

Whether they’re cops or white supremacists, the criminals and murderers are almost always straight, white men.

And, of course, we could point to exceptions here and there in the first world – gang violence, the recent shooting at the Youtube headquarters by a woman of color, etc.

Here, however, the exception proves the rule.

It was straight, white men who criminally invaded Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It is straight, white men who control the institutions of power that criminally enforce hegemonic liberal capitalism across the world. And, in the first world, it is straight, white men who commit the vast majority of violent crimes.

After all, who owns most of the guns in the first world? White men.

The clear solution is that straight, white men need to be disarmed!

Leftists and Pseudo-Leftists alike are missing the point when they talk about the proletariat.

There is no white proletariat.

There will never be an armed socialist insurrection consisting predominantly of white people. In fact, even to identify as white is to identify as the oppressor. Oppressor culture/White culture (and Crusade Culture) will never lead to socialism or communism. It will only lead to fascism.

J. Sakai wrote about this most powerfully in “The Mythology of the White Proletariat” (that links to a pdf of the entire book).

Could we possibly imagine white rednecks in Amerikkka ditching their racism and picking up arms to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat?

The answer is no.

White people in the first world aren’t in the business of establishing communism. White people in the first world are in the business of establishing business.

Pseudo-Leftists anticipate the Euro-Amerikkkan “proletariat” in the first world is going to rise up with arms. Instead, these white men are using their guns to shoot up schools, churches, mosques, synagogues, shopping malls, and homes.

They target women, oppressed nations, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, and Jews. And even other white men.

We have learned one thing from history.

Straight, white men are killing all of us.

If these were potential comrades, then they would be joining us already. They wouldn’t be shooting immigrants and people of color. Socialist and communist parties in the first world would be enormous forces to be reckoned with. Obviously, this is not the case.

Therefore, we must bring about a world where white people are disarmed en masse.

If Leftists want to support an armed proletariat for future revolution, then they need to support the complete disarming of the enemy: straight, white men.

The proletariat lives on – in places like India (where the Naxalites are fighting a guerilla war), in places like the Philippines (where Jose Maria Sison and the New People’s Army are fighting for freedom), and in places like Turkey (where the Maoist Communist Party maintains two armed wings fighting against the government).

Of course the proletariat must be armed. There is no question about that.

The question that these Pseudo-Leftists need to ask themselves is: where is the proletariat? Is it white people in Klanada or the United $tates?

Obviously not.

Kony 20Never

Today, I’d like to take a look back at one of the principal liberal faux-humanitarian campaigns of yesteryear with a hint of nostalgia.


In 2012, the great folks over at Invisible Children brought us this absurd ‘documentary’ about the Lord’s Resistance Army and its leader, Joseph Kony. Kony 2012 was mostly a Facebook and Twitter phenomenon, which gained traction after being re-tweeted by Rhianna and Jay-Z. It was, of course, a silly campaign from the very beginning, which should have been clear from the presentation of the information and how it spread.

I’m posting the video here for reference, but I recommend not wasting your time with it.

The Lord’s Resistance Army is a religious guerilla movement that was organized by Kony in the late 1980s to wage an armed insurrection against the government in Uganda. The LRA’s tactics revolved around small-scale terrorism of the population to capitalize on religious and ethnic conflicts within the country. However, almost none of this history is rehashed in the ‘documentary’.

For those of you who don’t remember, aside from some interviews with children in Uganda, the video totally focuses on white people telling the story of black people. Meanwhile, these white people are shown as the same people who can save those black people from other black people. The blatant racism of these supposed white saviors (and the fact that so few people noticed it) ought to be unnerving.

Generally, the film focuses on the fact that the LRA is notorious for kidnapping children and forcing them to fight as soldiers. This, however, is only one of the many disgusting characteristics of the terroristic cult that has stalked throughout central Africa for the past 30 years. The criticism of the LRA, however, was never applied to the organizations that Invisible Children supports, such as the Sudanese People’s Liberation Army (SPLA).

Let’s not forget this picture of the leaders of Invisible Children posing with soldiers from the SPLA.


You can find an interview with the photographer of this photo here.

We only care about child soldiers when they aren’t used by U.$. proxies!

The idea of the video was “to make Kony a household name”, so that Amerikkkans (read: White Amerikkkans) would pressure the government to send soldiers and military advisors to help the Ugandan government capture/kill him. Of course, this ignores the fact that even Human Rights Watch can tell you that the Ugandan military has itself committed war crimes.

Ultimately, “Kony 2012” and the accompanying promise to “arrest” Joseph Kony in 2012 was a sham. Invisible Children is a sham.

Once the video entered the public consciousness, Obama used it as a screen to expand the US military’s Africa Command (AFRICOM), which today flies thousands of planes and drones equipped with all sorts of fun little weapons to attack targets. If the name “AFRICOM” wasn’t clear enough, the military formation is strictly an imperialist venture centered on controlling Africa.

It is important to remember that AFRICOM’s expansion was the direct result of the Kony 2012 Campaign, which was the stated goal of the video.

It would have been much more difficult for Obama to expand the imperial infrastructure without such well-meaning liberal sentiment.

This well-meaning liberal sentiment, of course, drives most “humanitarian” campaigns, where individuals are encouraged to feel rather than to think. These “humanitarian” campaigns often involve people in the West speaking for people in other places. Let George Clooney tell you about malaria in Africa or Angelina Jolie tell you about the crisis in Myanmar.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and very, very little thought.

And I know any liberals reading this could say, “Expanding AFRICOM is good and necessary, because the LRA is evil and AFRICOM will kill Kony.” Unfortunately for them, reality is much less manipulative than the U.$. government and today Joseph Kony is still alive and free. Although today, he’s mostly hanging out in the northwestern areas of the DRC and terrorizing the population there.

Let’s face it – the Amerikkkan government is both evil and incompetent.

Our gut-reaction to these campaigns always ought to be skepticism.

Usually there is some sort of organization (e.g. Invisible Children) pushing some sort of agenda that is often not as “humanitarian” as it may seem. Does anyone remember when the creator of the documentary was roaming around naked, intoxicated, and publicly masturbating? Pictures of these lying hipsters carrying guns show the real message.

We should remember Kony 2012 very carefully. It, undoubtedly, won’t be the last time that propaganda leads to U.$. action (as we have since seen in places like Syria and the DPRK).



I’ve written before that There’s No Such Thing As A ‘Humanitarian Military Intervention’.

It is important to remember that the Amerikkkan government is never a source for stability and peace.

Today, when confronted with new “humanitarian” calls to action, it is the responsibility of all of us to take pause and analyze the facts. For things are not always as they seem.