The Betrayal by Technology


Russia = Bad

Screen Shot 2018-08-16 at 1.14.29 PM

Russia is a bad, bad place. Russia is bad. Russia does bad things. Russia, a bad country, is full of bad stuff.

The government of Russia is bad. The president of Russia is bad. Vladimir Putin is a bad man. Russia is bad. Everything there is bad.

Because of Russia, which is bad, Donald Trump is the president, which is bad.

Donald Trump is bad, bad, bad.

The American president is supposed to be good, because the American people vote for the president, which is good.

The American people are good. Democracy is good. But the American president is bad. That’s because of Russia, which is bad. After all, Russia is bad. If Russia wasn’t bad, America wouldn’t have a bad president.

But Russia is bad.

Vladimir Putin, who is bad, is a dictator, which is bad. He is a dictator, because he is bad. He is a dictator, which is bad, even though Russians voted for him, which is bad. Russians are bad. Russia is a bad, bad place.

The American government is still good, but the president is bad. It’s bad.

Russia hacked, which is bad, the elections, which are good.

Hacking is bad. Computers are bad. Elections are good, but Facebook is bad. Vladimir Putin, who is bad, ordered Russian hackers, who are bad, to hack the American elections, which are good. There is a lot of evidence, which is good, but we can’t share it with you yet, which is bad.

Robert Mueller is good. Paul Manafort is bad.

Hillary Clinton is good. Julian Assange is bad.

George W. Bush is good. Donald J. Trump is bad.

America = good.

Russia = bad.

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.

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.

Modernity & Ignorance

Living in the modern world requires ignorance.

I mean by this the active, intentional ignoring of things happening around you as well as to you. We’re required to ignore commercials and billboards and advertisements and a constant assault against our senses and better judgement in the First World as well as in the Third World (not to mention the Second World).

How else are we expected to function?

We have to ignore the chemicals in our food, the brutality of factory farming for our meat, the sweatshops that produce clothing, and the suffering that is fundamental to sustain our existence.

How else are we expected to function?

Those of us who make the choice not to ignore these things are treated with contempt. When we speak or write about these topics, we’re interrupting the bubble in which others choose to live comfortably. Besides, we are made to feel that we are powerless against an all-pervasive system.

Imagine a Euro-Amerikkkan family sitting down to eat their microwaved chemical-laden factory-farmed dinner in front of a television, channel-switching between a football game, a news program with Amerikkkan bombs falling on children in the Third World, and a sitcom with canned laughter.

How else are we expected to function?

This image should disgust all of us.

Instead, we’ve been conditioned to think that this is a perfectly acceptable tradition in the First World.

Ignorance means nothing and everything these days.

Those of us in the We$t live in a world that is structured around horrors. Corpses, suffering, misery, tragedy, war, genocide. These are the words that ought to provide us with a full vocabulary to describe global capitalism and the Amerikkkan Empire. Instead, these words are only said in fantasy films and news programs describing the crimes of others – those people out there.

How else are we expected to function?

In Arabic, the word kufr means “disbelief” or “arrogant rejection of the truth”. The root of kufr is kafara,which means “to cover over”, indicating that the act of kufr is the act of covering over the truth. Traditionally, many Muslims use the term kaafir to describe non-Muslims. However, I’d alternatively propose that all of us living through modernity (including myself) without engaging in a struggle against it are kuffaar.

We’re merely zombies among the living.

After all, what are we supposed to do – think!?

God forbid.