A Critical Analysis of Occupy Wall Street

Negative: 99% WTF?

Occupy Wall Street was most successful in creating the new language of the left-liberal scene: “We are the 99%“. This was their message to the Wall Street bankers: “You are the 1%” and, therefore, the opposition. Of course, not the enemy, because that’s too strong a term.

The only drawback to this language is that it’s incorrect in two ways.

First of all, 99% of the people involved in Occupy Wall Street were not/are not really part of the 99%, because they’re all comparatively well-off compared to most of the world. Let’s be serious, a white 23 year-old with $10,000 of debt from their Ivy League University is not in the same position as anyone in the Third World.

Second of all, the enemy (I’m not afraid of the term) is a lot more than the 1%. The bourgeoisie, petite-bourgeoisie, and other reactionary classes make up significantly more than the 1% on Wall Street. Those who own the means of production make up a more sizeable group than that and those who benefit from the super-exploitation of the Third World make up the entire First World.

We’re talking about imperialism.

Occupy’s sloppy analysis isn’t helpful.

The big problem here is that analysis and language here have a feedback loop – the language is flawed and the more this language is used, the less the analysis reflects reality.

Positive: Reinvigorated some aspects of protest culture

One nice thing that OWS was that it put protests back into the mainstream in a way. Whereas before 2011, there certainly wasn’t a prevalence of protests coming from the Left in the dominant culture, today there seems to be far more of a willingness to protest. I’d be willing to concede that this probably had to do with the prevalence of OWS in the news/popular culture.

Negative: White-washed

Occupy Wall Street

Need I say more?

Positive: Set the stage for Black Lives Matter

I hesitate to draw this line, because it gives Occupy too much credit in my opinion, and it makes it seem (once again) that black people need white people for inspiration and support (which is obviously not the case), but a lot of people have connected these two protest movements. Objectively, OWS did take place before BLM (in other words, before a white pig murdered an unarmed black teenager in Missouri), so OWS was in the news before BLM was.

Negative: Non-ideological

Occupy is not some pan-leftist movement, but rather a washed-up intellectually-vacuous garbage. Case and point: this bullshit.

Positive: Opened up the ideological space

Of course, anything posted on Occupy.com in 2017 isn’t getting very wide readership, so we can rest assured that this “Letter to the American Left” won’t be poisoning much dialogue.

Negative: Undisciplined

OWS had no specific goals, demands, tactics, strategies, analysis, worldview, standards, or ideas about pretty much anything. This led to the conclusion that putting up tents and using unclear language would be a successful (whatever that means) strategy to realizing their goals (whatever those were).

Actually, the major mistake that OWS made was that they said everything, rather than nothing. Different factions articulated different aims and different paths. By saying everything, they effectively said nothing. And, all the while, in this menagerie of ideas, the Occupiers were so frustrated that their “pure” message was being ignored.

Positive: The Left can learn

This broad populist left-liberal space is a minefield.

Left-liberalism is a dead-end.

Capitalism is a losing game.

The lesson here is clear: analyze and radicalize.

English Teachers Are 21st Century Missionaries

English teachers (usually native speakers from one of the Anglo-West countries: the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and New Zealand) travel across the world today functioning essentially as non-military tools of Western domination.

Similar to missionaries of previous centuries, English teachers often see themselves as ultimately benign actors: “We’re helping people learn English! We’re giving them opportunities!”

We can put aside the white savior complex and strictly analyze the role that they play. English teachers are able to virtually travel anywhere in the world and receive compensation for doing minimal labor.

Replace “Christianity” with “English”, “Church” with “School”, “The Bible” with “Grammar Textbook”, and “saving souls” with “providing business opportunities in a global economy”.

What does this formula give you?

white savior

saving all the brown people

English teachers are missionaries – just of the English language. Let’s not forget the historical fact that part of missionary work in the past was also the invaluable tool of language education.

You need to read our Bible in our language!

Today, as there is no longer a territorial Christendom to speak of, these missionaries act on behalf of the American Empire.

Just (Don’t) Do It, Hijabi Style

Nike just unveiled (pun unintended) their new line of sports hijabs. The impetus behind such a move came from the growth of female Muslim athletes seeking to participate in popular sports and having hijabs that are conducive to such activities.

From the outset, I want to state that I 100% support female Muslim athletes participating in sports and wearing whatever they want. And I think it’s wonderful that sports-oriented hijabs are available to allow them to do that. My skepticism arises from the fact that Nike is involved.

My problem is not with the athletes, but with the demonic corporate behemoth trying to ingratiate itself even further into Muslim society.

The Arab News article points out that “Muslim consumer spending on clothing is estimated at $243 billion in 2015, according to the State of Global Islamic Economy’s report. The revenues from modest fashion clothing purchased by Muslim women have been estimated at $44 billion in 2015. Muslim spending on clothing is expected to reach $368 billion by 2021.”

Go to any city (or even village) in the Middle East today and you’ll be sure to see the Nike swoosh (along with other corporate logos) splayed across any assortment of clothing. Western multitnational corporations have fully penetrated the markets of the Middle East.

Here’s an anecdote from a non-Muslim artist and blogger named Tommy Kane:

“The other day I was riding on the subway. I noticed a muslim girl wearing a Hijab or headscarf. It was black. When we exited the train together, I noticed that in dark grey were Calvin Klein logos all over here Hijab. I was a bit stunned by that. Is that allowed? Who knows.”

We’re living in a blurred space. Is the purpose of the hijab to sell clothing?

It seems fairly self-evident that we have a problem when Western corporations are co-opting these symbols and transforming them into manipulative ploys of consumerism.

Adidas, Puma, Nike, and all the others are looking for their piece of the pie of the multi-billion dollar Muslim market.

Nike is by no means some enlightened, benevolent company simply set on trying to help Muslim women participate in sports. Nike is seeking a profit, an in, a market-share, and (naturally) a recuperation of Muslim culture into the superstructure.

If Nike seems feminist or inclusive here, then we must take a step back.

Nike is one of the largest apparel companies in the world and is notorious for its use of sweatshops. Nike, of course, denies this fact on the basis that it sub-contracts out its labor to small factories dotted around the Third World. But anyone with a brain knows that workers in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Honduras, or China aren’t working in humane conditions.

Regardless of how many glowing articles Business Insider writes, Nike’s name and logo equal one thing: human rights violations.

So while the (almost exclusively white) American executives lay out their sleek business reports and cash in on their exaggerated profits, those (mostly women of color) languishing in sweatshops around the world are left suffering.

Poor Muslim women in Bangladesh making Nike hijabs for rich Muslim women in Gulf States.

There are no limits to the irony here when one female athlete talks about how “the Nike Pro Hijab empowers her.” And, of course, in a way, she’s right.

The deeply patriarchal power structures in the Gulf are suffocating on everyone. The atrocious instruments of control that exist need to be uprooted.

However, is Nike really a trustworthy ally in the struggle against patriarchy?

We are the Enemy

The new President of the United $nakes of Amerika, Donald Trump, the literal definition of a capitalist pig, has taken to referring to his critics as “enemies“.

This is a label that ought to be carried with pride.

If we are the enemies of imperial hegemony, globalization, and total war, then we are counted among the honorable.

“Enemy” is a bad word for many liberals. Mainstream niceties incline us to use softer language, because sharp language can reflect negative tendencies. Similar to how bourgeois American grandparents often say, “Don’t ever say that you ‘hate’ someone. Say that you ‘dislike’ them.”

As though the intention changes.


Dear Grandparents, I really fucking dislike Donald Trump.

Maybe, in embracing the label of “Enemy of Donald Trump”, we can build some bridges between liberals and leftists after all. An opportunity!

Or maybe liberals will continue to accept the rules of the game and distance themselves from those who are fighting. Whether it’s property damage during the inauguration or punching Nazis in the head, the liberals are quick to say that they “don’t condone violence”.

Of course, they weren’t saying that when Obama was assassinating children in Yemen or Pakistan.

The reality is that pretty much everyone (even your classic pacifists like Gandhi and MLK) are more than willing to turn a blind eye to violence – it simply depends on the subject and object of that violence.

This fact is often ignored, because it’s a position that is difficult to openly defend.

If someone defends the French Revolution or the Bolshevik Party, the discussion immediately turns to the periods of Terror. It’s often impossible to draw the conversation to the other aspects of those revolutions.

Interestingly enough, those same people never want to talk about the Terror that the American Revolution unleashed on black people and indigenous people on the continent.

No one wants to talk about the Jacobin legacy in greater Europe that brought the downfall of absolutist monarchies and feudalism. The benefits and drawbacks of Lenin’s New Economic Policy are never on the table for discussion.

What about the fact that Robespierre killed the King? And Lenin killed the Tsar!


We shouldn’t be afraid to take political positions with regards to historical events. The opposite is the case, we should be taking political positions.

And we should be willing to take positions that aren’t necessarily the easy ones.

Presently (and historically), we have had and continue to have a vast array of enemies. We have had white supremacists, male chauvinists, fascists, capitalists, counter-revolutionaries, reactionaries, saboteurs, and (very often) liberals have sided with them against us.

We shouldn’t be afraid to acknowledge that they are our enemies and we are theirs.


Dismantling the Alt-Right Mythology

There seems to be a new trend in the media: attempts to explain alt-right fascism. It seems like the logic goes like this: if you present the generalized arguments of the alt-right, the leaders of the alt-right fascists, and a scattering of random facts about this “movement”, then consumers of that media will be able to reach their own conclusions.

I violently disagree.

The constant explication of the alt-right fascist ideology does nothing but normalize (and therefore promote) its presence in dominant political conversation. The mythology of the alt-right doesn’t need to be explained, it needs to be destroyed.

Here, the intention must be to expose this incipit, racist poison at its roots and extirpate this cancer infecting the body politic. One way or another, the alt-right movement must be dismantled.


Society must be defended.

One point about alt-right fascists – they claim a diverse set of ideological principles (despite apparently loathing diversity) – from white separatism, white nationalism, identitarianism, traditionalism, men’s rights activism, paleo-conservatism, and neo-monarchism (or all of these). They’ll claim different philosophical prophets from Alexandr Dugin to Oswald Spengler (or both).

This pathetic attempt to emphasize the differences within the alt-right hides the truth: they’re all touting classical racism, misogyny, and fascism.

If we can be sincere, most of them are really looking to start a White Christian ISIS in North Carolina.

While they pretend to have some new ideological shift, they’re repackaging the same old garbage from the Neo-Nazis and Right-wing Skinheads. They simply puff themselves up to be the harbingers of our future society (usually resembling Apartheid South Africa or, if they’re more honest, Nazi Germany).

Let’s analyze/deconstruct this idiotic repackaging:

  1. “White people are under attack.”

Nothing is more infuriating than this victim-complex among the alt-right fascists.

At the same time that they attempt to portray themselves as strong, they endlessly whine about how endangered white people are. White people are the majority of the population of a continent that only 500 years ago had a population of 0 white people.

The complexion of yogurt-soup is universally loved by the alt-right.

These horribly stupid racists occasionally go as far as to proclaim the existence of a “white genocide”.

That means a genocide against white people. In the United States. Right now. 

They’re really good at throwing that word around actually – genocide – simultaneously fabricating some sort of conspiracy against white people and, at the same time, trivializing true genocides.

There is no white genocide. Most cops are white. Pretty much everyone in the government is white (and about to be even whiter). In fact, aside from population sizes, it isn’t much different than Apartheid South Africa as it is.

The white ethno-state already exists. It’s called the US government.never-forget

For these fascists who like the “g” word, one thing is notable. It seems that there’s no time for the discussion of the genocide of indigenous peoples of the Americas or the genocide of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Or the Holocaust for that matter.

What does genocide mean to these people? Apparently not much.

2. “Americans are under attack.”

First of all, immigration is not out of control. The government knows how many people are coming in, where they’re coming in, who’s coming in, etc…

Second of all, when fascists think imagine “Americans”, they’re not thinking about the 350 million citizens of the US. And they’re certainly not thinking about the millions of people who live across the American continents.

They’re thinking about white people. And when they talk about immigration, the alt-right fascists don’t mean that immigration from Europe is out of control – they are talking about Spanish-speakers from Latin America, naturally.

Who are they thinking of?

Probably people whose skin tone isn’t comparable to milk-vomit.

If they start talking about undocumented immigration, they’ll be ready to throw out all sorts of bullshit numbers, rather than facts. Spend any time on the alt-right fascist sites and you’ll quickly discover that the concept of “truth” or “fact” becomes murky.

Just like their fascist god-emperor, who swerves between fiction and more racist fiction, the alt-right fascists can’t seem to keep track of basic human traits like logic and consistency.

These weak, racial chauvinists attack black people, Chican@s, and Arabs all around the country, while those in power often stand by silently. People of African descent were brought to America against their will and Chican@s are the descendants of indigenous people and white European imperialists.

The racists ignore every chapter of history in order to construct their mythology.

This is the fascist imagination. The fasci-nation.

Needless to say, every single one of these stupid white supremacists in the US is the direct product of immigration. Less than five generations ago, none of their ancestors were American. Not one.

So let me put this in another way:

Americans once were under attack – by white people.

(and they still are).


3. “Men are under attack.”

Sad, fragile masculinity is no longer celebrated in all corners of society and, therefore, these men feel threatened, despite the fact that “men” make up about half the population.

What’s next? Male Genocide?

This is probably the most imbecilic component of modern fascism. The defense of “men” is a screen behind which Men’s Rights Activists aim for the reinstitution of the patriarchal family of the 1950s along with the ability to harass and assault women with impunity.

Men’s Rights Activists long for the days when women’s rights weren’t recognized, when men could rape without even facing any fall-out (which often still happens), and when a “man” was the “head of the household”.

Unsurprisingly, these are typically the same men who glamorize the fedora and idolize Humphrey Bogart or Marlon Brando.


“Our heteronormative masculinity is incredibly fragile!”

There’s a reason they love actors, in particular. Men’s rights fascists live in a delusional reality, where everyone is playing a role. (Note the fedora in the picture above.)

Devoid of information, basic history, and a functioning frontal cortex, these Men’s Rights Activists like to attack women in any situation that arises.

They especially hate feminists, because feminists expose how 10,000 years of patriarchy has functioned and placed men in an undeserved position in society.

Feminists fight against the constructed and fake power of those who have disgusting, external genitalia.

4. “Language is under attack.”

One of the most articulated characteristics of alt-right fascism is the communal hatred of “Political Correctness”. In fact, PC culture seems to be hated by everyone from Jerry Seinfeld to Dumbass Trump.

So what the hell is political correctness anyway?

The push for PC-language is nothing more than a negotiation of finding words that encourage inclusivity of different people or, alternatively, discourage exclusionary language. So it’s an effort by people to not use wording that is racist, sexist, etc…

Why do people hate it so much?

Probably because they are racist, sexist, queer/transphobic, islamophobic, anti-semitic, etc…

I’ve heard a lot of people complain about PC culture. Not one of them seemed to be free of these poisonous ideologies.

Political Correctness might be the bane of white liberals and conservatives alike, but no one hates it as much as the alt-right fascists. To them, it is the great tragedy of “Western culture” that anyone would attempt to use English in any way that isn’t obnoxiously sexist and racist.

All the alt-right fascists turn into hysterical blobs of goo whenever someone says “people of color” or spells woman with a “y”.

The great irony of the fight against political correctness is that those who try to fight it end up engaging in the negotiations. They either follow PC culture to some extent (I’ve yet to see a video of Trump calling a black man what he really wants to) or establishing their own counter-attacks (Alt-Right Fascists attacking people for using PC language).

In the end, it’s pretty obvious who’s on the losing side of the PC culture wars.

(Hint: it’s them.)



“Fascism is the Enemy of Women.”

Our struggle today needs to be united, strong, and clear. Neither white people nor Americans are under attack. Neither men nor language are under attack.

We’re under attack. And it’s alt-right fascism that is attacking us.

This is an ideology that exists and is spreading. In some ways, it’s obvious that the alt-right fascists will lose significant ground in the long run. However, in the short-term, they pose a huge existential threat to people of color, women, Muslims, and all of us on the Left.

We must fight them on the internet, on the streets, and in the government. We must allow nothing of their reactionary, right-wing drivel to be normalized or acceptable.

They are fascists, nothing less.

And it is our job to teach them that fascism is a losing ideology. Just as the fascists lost in World War II, these alt-right fascists shall also be defeated!