Breath of a Salesman


The man (cisgender, white, weight and height unknown) sat at the edge of bed, his dense thickets blown within a thin rigid nose– its long middle ridge more equine than alpine– and, looking down, removed shoes, moderately brown, then the navy blue socks, first right, then left.

It had been a difficult yet satisfying day defending the liberty of every individual, moving against ideology, against politics, against hix in stix who nix tix to toxic talks.  Bullying Durham.  Promoting her/him.  Protecting the biological objectivity of sex over gender.  Of Love over Hate.  Of strong over weak.  Cow meat over carrot.  Wealthy over lazy (or, if you prefer, poor– since, well, the poor are only choosing to playing the victim, refusing to transcend victimhood, and make it out of tyranny all on their own).

Yes, very satisfying.


But, even at that, a faint aroma, an alarming stench, lingered somewhere in the middle distance of the soul, growing more intense.  A few things may still be amiss, chaos crouching in a dark wood, a fact remaining unexplained.  I am a man misunderstood.

A yellow nail, cracked, may have attempted to proclaim a truth– neither good nor bad, it seems– but was simply ignored.  Ankle’s knob, scratched.  Television turned on, then off.  Its cord, tangled, observed.  If only … I am a man, bored.

An entire universe came to a point, not at phallus, but at callous, outer edge of a big toe joined joylessly to this pensive peninsula of narrow foot, unloafered and unloafing– useful appendage, like a fist– then, Columbus-like, traveling onward and upward to the body proper, via a leg vaguely disgusting, untrustworthy, first the right and then the left; and now to the continental torso cleft by buttock next to buttock, tightly clenched– also like a fist– a mysteriously antagonistic relationship terminating in an eternity of man’s Being containing Truth and Awesome Authenticity.  No turgid void, me.  Man, digesting.  Man, resting.

Yet not for long.  Sail onward, Ulysses.  The voyage must go on, there are worlds on worlds of Self still unexplored and unexplained, spaces to be made Safe and Sane for Me.  Gee.  Ping.  But this must be a text from Penny, reminding me she packed my shave kit and an extra pair of brown socks.  Argos sends love, good night.  Fairer sex reflex.  Man, missing dog.

Thickets waving as the Mind’s bomb ticks– how, but how, buthow butthowbutthowbutthow to save the men and boys.  From feminism.  From becoming “stupid and fat.”  From something that destroys.  Messy rooms.   A mysterious Blackhole belonging to … some foreign power, some group of terrorists, some individual concern.  Heavier breath.  Heaving.  Heartburn.  Yearning.  Gasping.  Grasping.  Man, gets grip on Self.

You know, man, it’s all about the Individual.  Maaaaan.  Me versus Outside Threat, Chaos whirled, a thing curled in a corner, throbbing.  Coming to steal your job.

If you don’t just focus on these rules for: The Individual.

In. di.  vid. u. al.

Not: i/den/ti/ty.  Hell no.  Dammit.

So I do a video on YouTube for all the men and boys who are under constant attack by this postmodern madness, this authoritarian vegetarian movement, this Extreme Agenda that destroys.

[She Do The Police In Different Voices]




And what the hell is this language about the “mass movements” and “the masses of the people?”  “Class struggle?”  “Cisgender?!”  I’ll tell you what.  Man, telling you what.

More auditoriums must be rented.  More books be sold.  More Truth told.  But an odd taste remains on tongue.  I’ve got gas.  Man, no longer young.

Man, angry, eyes red, but wise enough– c’mon toughen up you!– to blame himself instead, and then forgive … him: stay humble.  Man, graying.

More heavy breathing via straits, his nasal passage.  Sirens singing.  Strange mermaids luring.  Yet Ulysses journeys on, continuing his tour.

Yes, tomorrow morning the book tour continues.  More venues.  To positive reviews.  But tonight, right now, a faint aroma of cow dung hangs in air, in hair, on beige slacks draped over a faded chair.  Lack of ventilation.  Energy draining.  Surge of perspiration.  Man, slumps.

Breathing, breathing, with a swish and a swish, and a wish; Mind invaded, no longer cold, clean, azure, pure; Siegfried, aka Man, seething.

Reaches for a Kleenex.  Gentle fragrance of flower, but brief.  What is wrong?  No, do not inquire.  Hold all calls.  Nothing.  Block the Greek chorus.  Notung!  Notung!  And Jesus Christ, omit that bastard, that Wagnerian Heldentenor too.  Hush now, just explain.  Man, preaching to choir.

But– suddenly–

What is that red blotch on my white shirt?  Ketchup or blood?

What is that black speck on the white bedspread?  A spider? 

What is that hostile stench of filth beneath bleach which fills narrow nostril?

What, again? 

What’s that loud noise beyond the curtained window, that screaming?  The sound of girls and boys laughing, or the sound of children crying?

There are 57 neo-Marxists in your HR Department.

And plenty more outraged activists now crawling across your college campus, on eight legs, venomous, uncivil, politically correct, coming direct from the Women’s and Gender Studies Programs, hatched– plot-wise– at Yale University in the 1970s, trying to teach you “white privilege” and “transmisogynoir.”  Hell no!

Man, slowly dying.






Breath of a Salesman

Revolution Will Not Be Tolerated: How Intolerance In a Global System of Repressive Power Goes Both Ways


If we judge our ideas detached from our behavior, then it seems we can be tolerant of any idea, or any set of ideas– no matter how dangerous these are to our lives.

But this isn’t the way power works.  Power comes from the political and economic organization of a society: the United States, Canada, government at all its levels, Wall Street, the military, local police departments, prisons, borders that are enforced.

If we were to remove all these institutions of power, permitting the free movement of individual persons, regardless of their citizenship, their wealth, or their relationship to legal structures, then it might be possible for us to tolerate every idea in existence.

Instead, we live in a society that already expresses intolerance toward certain ideas, and the people who hold them.  In fact, the institutions of power in society– whether a corporation or a court or a cop– won’t even wait to learn what a person’s ideas are.

If a person is identified as a criminal, they probably don’t get the job, right?  Or even the job interview.  Numerous studies (which you can look up on Google if you want) show that companies, during the interviewing process for an open position, tend to call back names that appear to belong to white applicants, while rejecting names that appear to be Black: Brad is called back, Jamal isn’t.  We don’t know what Brad thinks, or what sort of ideas he holds in his head– we don’t even know that he is white.  The same with Jamal: we can’t read his mind, and he may not be Black.  But we still show intolerance toward a political identity which has been imposed on him, not because he’s Jamal, the individual human being with certain ideas, but because he is perceived to be Black.  Furthermore, we tolerate a system of power in the United States (and most of the world) that continues to operate according to this type of intolerance, and many other types.  The statistical evidence is irrefutable, unless you’re Brad and simply refuse to be educated.

So, intolerance is everywhere.   It’s even (or especially) present in our tolerance of things which are– according to our principles of justice, freedom, equality and peace– dangerous to some groups and beneficial to others.

If a person– who has original or unique ideas?– is fleeing the violence in a country, one whose destabilized conditions are the consequence of very impersonal systemic forces in a world economy, and they cross an imposed border between Mexico and the United States, and then one of the institutions of “American” power locks them up, not because of their ideas, but their identity as an “illegal,” then here we have another example of intolerance.  However, this particular intolerance has been legitimatized, it’s legal, in much the same manner that slavery was (or is) a legal system of intolerance (see: Thirteenth Amendment), or similar to the way it was once the law in England to brand a “vagrant” with a “V” whenever they were caught roaming about the land, jobless, unattached to a city.

Therefore, it should not be too difficult for us to recognize– unless we are willfully and proudly ignorant– that tolerance and intolerance toward ideas (and toward the individual persons who hold them) always exist in the context of a system of power, a class structure, whose ideology is total.

What do we mean by “total”?  A “total ideology”?  We mean: even if you believe a law is wrong, is unjust, and you protest it or defy it, but the Supreme Court of the United States allows this law to stay on the books, then there will be legal consequences to your actions: in short, the State, and its institutions– the nation’s judicial system at all its levels– will be intolerant toward your behavior.

And, of course, there are positive and negative aspects to these consequences of systematized intolerance (as well as its dialectical twin, tolerance).  If the law tolerated all behavior, it would no longer be law.  It would be an opinion, lacking any legal force.  A wealthy man, simply because he has more power, and is able to get away with this, could murder you and take your land– and such behavior would be tolerated, because it is not punished, or was not prevented in the first place.

So society makes a choice.  Certain privileges of individuals– the right to rob and kill anyone you want just because you are royalty or the rich– are taken away, and, in order to take these “rights” away, thereby uplifting the rights of the masses where each person is equal before the law, a system of power must engage in coercive behavior, in behavior that (in legal terms) is intolerant of lawlessness.

Does this mean the system of power’s opinion– because that’s what it really is, backed by the force of legalized violence– is always right, or that “law and order” always mean “justice and equality”?  Of course not.  It was legal for Europeans to kill Indigenous peoples and take their land and resources– was and still is.  It’s legal for your employer to exploit you, then fire you.  It’s legal for the United States and the so-called Western world to impose its will– its own system of power– on the rest of the world.  So the question of legalized intolerance is only a question of power: who benefits from this power, who supports it (usually because they benefit from it), and who is hurt the most by it.

This is the negative aspect of legalized or systematized intolerance (plus tolerance, because the two go together): it keeps a society intact, but it also threatens to tear it apart.  This contradiction between the people who benefit from legalized intolerance (because it is tolerated by them and others) and the people who are harmed by it leads to tensions in society.

But it’s dishonest and unprincipled for us to argue that the groups who are intolerant toward conditions remaining the way they are– those individual persons within political identities that have largely been imposed on them by a system of power– must tolerate their own oppression (“it’s the law!” or “it’s free speech!”), particularly when our support for the status quo reflects our own intolerance for any qualitative change to this system of power.  In other words, we don’t tolerate revolution.

So any discussion about free speech, and the freedom of the individual person to express themselves, needs to be placed in the context of a system whose ideological control is total.  It’s not just a matter of one person with one idea here, and another person with an opposing idea there, an individual difference of opinion: “You say what you want, I say what I want.”

If the total ideology of a society were totally free from class contradiction, we might be able to behave in a manner that is consistent with such principles of absolute freedom.  But, at present, it is both dishonest and hypocritical for us to argue– in a class-based society, where class structures and national identities are enforced by the military, courts, police, ICE and every other institution of power– that we must tolerate any and every idea as somehow being equally valid, when many of these ideas are dangerous to our own ability to survive, and when they may go against our principles of what is right and wrong, good and evil.

If we believe something is wrong, or evil, then we are required to fight against it– to be intolerant toward evil.  Such a view isn’t some new and radical thing: societies, particularly class-based societies, perpetuate this sort of intolerance all the time, in every part of the globe.

It’s outrageously inhumane to tell a person that they ought to tolerate a system, or any of the ideas tolerated by this system and by its main benefactors, when this systemic force is moving against their own ability to live … all in the name of some abstract and detached ideal of “free thought.”

If we want free thought, and the ability to move freely, for everyone, not just the privileged few who benefit from a system of legalized intolerance, then we must become revolutionary in our thinking, and (more so) in our action, and totally reorganize society around this idea of freedom.  Otherwise, we’re just hypocrites.  And probably white cisgender colonizers who benefit the most from a system of legalized intolerance which tolerates transphobia, misogyny, Islamophobia, and racism: the system of global capitalism.

Revolution Will Not Be Tolerated: How Intolerance In a Global System of Repressive Power Goes Both Ways

(Further) Criminalizing Poverty, and the Impoverished, in Order to Repress Revolution: Connecting Cause and Effect


George Jackson wrote: “It isn’t revolutionary or materialist to disconnect things.”  So we can gather from his argument that it must be counterrevolutionary to disconnect things.  In other words, by keeping things disconnected, you can prevent people from moving in a revolutionary direction.

There are many ways to disconnect things and thereby repress revolutionary consciousness.  One way is to disconnect causes from effects.  If we are failing to make this connection, as a materialist or a revolutionary, we may start to say that a cause is an effect, or that an effect is a cause.  And this incorrect analysis may keep us confused and unable to organize against the counterrevolutionary forces of society.

For example, there is the argument that, if you take jobs away from a community (and proceed to “ship jobs overseas”), crime will be the result.  Why?  Because people won’t be able to find work.  The key word here is “because.”  That’s the cause of an effect: a situation of no jobs leads to crime.

And that makes sense if you have been thinking in the idealist terms taught by the powers that are on top– the class in this society which has the power to take away jobs or, by the same token, create jobs.

This class of rich owners, and corporations, controlled mainly by Europeans or whites, has power.  And as long as the wealthy and powerful are using their power to do “good,” to do the morally correct thing– which is to create jobs, naturally– then the people without power will probably just go along and continue to work for their bosses, who exploit them for greater and greater profit.  “Business as usual.”

At this point, revolutionary consciousness among the workers is very low.  They go to work every day– except maybe on the weekends and on national holidays created by the ruling class– and they struggle from month to month to make ends meet.  Right now, at this stage of the process, there is very little if any challenge to the status quo.

However, if the class with power makes the choice to take these jobs away, and ship them overseas, or replace workers with machines– well then, that’s their choice, right, they have the power to do what they want.  Who can stop them?

But, while the ruling class, by definition, has power– the power to create jobs, the power to exploit the people who go to these jobs, and the power to take away the jobs– even they, the rulers, are not free from the consequences of their choices.  Because– and again, the key word is because— if you take jobs away from people, they grow desperate.  You have cut off their access to resources.  And so the process of revolutionary change accelerates.  Suddenly, the people are becoming increasingly revolutionary.

Therefore, the ruling class of capitalists (who control the resources, or what are called  “the means of production”) must move to repress this growing revolutionary consciousness.

And this is where the disconnect occurs, particularly in the thinking of the white population in these two former European settler colonies, the capitalist-imperialist nation-states that are the U.S. and Canada: we are told that, since jobs were taken away, crime has been on the rise.  And, according to this logic, we ought to support those policies (and political campaigns) which promote the ability of the wealthy few and the corporations to create jobs: they are, after all, “the job creators.”

And this view of the situation, which relies on a disconnect of cause from effect, is beneficial to the counterrevolutionary forces of the current system of power.  The typical conservative approach, within this disconnect, is to say: we need more tax cuts for the wealthy, more deregulation, more privatization, and we need a stronger military in order to encourage the expansion of “free markets” around the globe.  And the typical liberal approach is to argue: no, we need to “invest in the inner city,” create more programs to help stimulate job growth, and perhaps raise taxes on the wealthy (something which liberal politicians don’t say with nearly as much enthusiasm today, especially since many of their campaign contributions come from the rich).

So, now we have an apparent contradiction between the conservative and liberal approaches to solving this problem of joblessness.  However, at no point is the argument made, by either wing belonging to the counterrevolutionary forces of society, that the workers, the oppressed communities, without political power ought to gain power for themselves.

And what both of these wings– both sides of the same imperialist, bourgeois, white supremacist coin– fear is that the masses who no longer have jobs will start to organize for power on their own terms.  In fact, one of the reasons to create jobs in the first place was to keep the people who lack control of the resources of a society in check.  But that became unprofitable.  Now the jobs are gone.  As a result (or as an effect), based on the root cause of unequal wealth and power in a society (or class hierarchy, class antagonisms), the poor and the powerless who have been backed into a corner are quite likely to rebel.  That’s an expected reaction to such a crisis: no access to resources, not even in the form of wages for labor which will make the rich even richer, leading to rebellion (not crime).

Consequently, the rich must react.  And their reaction is to criminalize poverty and the means for escaping these conditions of poverty.  In essence, the powerful move to criminalize rebellion, to make a crime of movement out of conditions of powerlessness.

The ruling class, which created jobs, pocketed the surplus value of the wealth created by these jobs, and then took these jobs away, now has the power to criminalize the poor person for surviving.

And the reason to criminalize the poor and the desperate is, if the capitalists fail to do this, the former may organize and move against them, the capitalists.  Because that’s the next stage of the revolutionary process: the workers, having gained revolutionary consciousness (usually through increasing repression), now move to overthrow the class which has grabbed the resources, then created the jobs, and then taken these jobs away.  As long as the workers had jobs, maybe power wasn’t so important to them.  There was a certain level of comfort, even a taste of security.  But take those jobs away, and the workers are forced to recognize: without the organized power of the masses, the individual worker in a society is nothing.  They can’t even survive.

At this stage of the revolutionary process drugs and guns may already be present in working class communities.  The drugs are there as a coping mechanism for capitalist oppression; and they are also profitable to the larger capitalists (who are able to use drugs free from the danger of police surveillance), as well as the “mini-capitalists” who prey on their people by selling harmful drugs (supplied by outside forces) in these neighborhoods.  Guns are also present, because a permanent underclass of “undesirables” is compelled to remain in a community as a warning for what might happen to the workers if they get out of line: show up late, fail a mandatory drug test, talk back to their boss, have too much of “an attitude.”  You’re out on the street, with all the drug dealers, robbing liquor stores for a living.  You don’t want to end up like them, right?  So the drugs and guns are already present, along with low-paying jobs.

However, as soon as revolutionary consciousness begins to rise (or as soon as the low-paying jobs go), all the sudden drugs and guns are everywhere.  Can you find healthy food?  No.  Clean water?  No.  Decent housing?  No.  Good schools?  Hell, no.  But if you want a gun, well, you’re in luck.  And also if you want some drugs.

And this is by design: because, not only will people who are down on their luck turn to other means for acquiring the necessities of life (and then some, since this is “America,” the land of dreams), allowing you– the opportunist, the “entrepreneur”– to sell them some guns, or some drugs (for them to turn around sell), but now you can further criminalize and control the increasingly revolutionary masses of oppressed people, who are unemployed, living in so-called food deserts, drinking poisoned water, and lack access to decent schools, and were evicted last week because they couldn’t pay the rent.

Now we reach, at last, the main point of this argument: a lack of jobs doesn’t lead to a rise in crime.  That is the confused, idealist thinking of the bourgeoisie.  That is the thinking used to demonize people, to dehumanize them (or us), so that, if a police officer bashes in their head, or shoots them (because the cop was scared for his life, right?), we will believe such violence was justified.

If we wish to think in clear, materialist revolutionary terms, then we can recognize that, whenever revolutionary consciousness among oppressed people is on the rise (often due to a lack of jobs and access to necessary resources), the people must be criminalized.  Now the police and ICE and the courts and media and white vigilantes and bourgeois politicians can move right on in, and exert greater control over the impoverished and exploited.  The institutions of the ruling class are permitted, according to this elitist philosophical idealism of bourgeois democracy, to put down any rebellion, and destroy any revolutionary elements among the working masses.  And that’s the point.

By making this connection, as materialists and revolutionaries, between the cause and effect of crime and poverty, we can begin to recognize that increasing crime is the result of a similar growth in revolutionary consciousness

So if you happen to be watching the local news, and you are being told that some neighborhood is “infested with gangs,” and all the buildings are old and falling down, and what’s really needed is more police, and for some investor to come in and develop the area– then you can be reasonably certain that the bourgeoisie is attempting to justify more violence against oppressed Black and Brown people, not less.  The capitalists are trying to create more crime, in place of jobs, so that they can eliminate any threat to their own power, coming from the powerless.

First capitalism creates the conditions for crime.  Then it criminalizes the people who are forced to survive in these conditions.  And then it creates a profitable solution for rounding up the criminals, which also becomes a popular show on television.

From the beginning, it was a war: class war.  An invasion of colonized people– Africans removed from Africa and placed in deplorable conditions on the Native lands of North America occupied by European settlers.  However, at this latest stage of the historical process, the war becomes more intense.  The masses of African and Indigenous people, pushed to the brink of extinction, are about to explode.  They must rebel, or perish.  Therefore, capitalism (further) criminalizes them, in order to move in for the final kill.

If we don’t make this connection between cause and effect, in regard to increasingly wretched living conditions and greater crime, we– in the white colonizing population of the United States and Canada– may be on the verge of allowing genocide on an even larger scale than we have allowed so far, not only in Germany, but here in North America.

(Further) Criminalizing Poverty, and the Impoverished, in Order to Repress Revolution: Connecting Cause and Effect

“Politics Is War Without Bloodshed While War Is Politics With Bloodshed.”


As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.  So, if it’s your preference to skip the words in an article, and look instead at the pretty pictures– or perhaps one very ugly, disgusting photograph– then that’s OK.

But some fellow named Dylan recently wrote an article titled “Outrage Is Currently America’s Deepest Core Value.  It Shouldn’t Be.”  I didn’t read the article, so it would be disingenuous on my part to share the link to it.  I don’t care what Dylan wrote, to be imperfectly honest.  How closed-minded, how anti-free speech, how … Maoist.  I’m a busy woman.

Well, there was one sentence that did jump off the page, or rather the screen, nearly gagging me: “The point here isn’t a political one; this is an essay about American culture.”  I’ll just have to respond to that knee-slapper with your usual “LOL” or “ROFL,” perhaps a “WTF” or two.  I do enjoy a good joke.

Imagine holding the belief that “American culture”– or any culture for that matter– isn’t inherently political.  Sides burst.  Still [glances again] … quickly skimming down his paragraphs stacked on paragraphs, each word oh so sincere and articulate, thoughtfully contributing to the “national discussion,” sprinkled with a gentle seasoning of the usual jabs at “outrage” over cultural appropriation (opposing the existence of the terminology, not the phenomenon), and … well, a lot of other deeply concerned words, it appears his article is chock-full of good jokes.

But let’s get to the photograph in question, shall we, because that’s what we’re talking about here: the photo that sits above Dylan’s article showing a cisgender man in a black T-shirt giving the old Nazi “Heil Hitler” salute.

Nothing to see here, folks– move along.  Ri-ight.

Of course, that man– that Nazi– is white.  Not that his race matters, for taking note of that fact would be “identity politics” (authoritarian stuff).  But note how this man (who is purple, green, fuchsia, ocher, or whatever) is getting flipped off.  The Nazi is being given the old one finger salute by a person whose back is to the camera, but who is– we can assume– another outraged, virtue-signaling “SJW” (a “social justice warrior”), a “leftist,” a “Marxist” … one of the woist, pardon me, worst kind.

OK, so we could go into some long-winded analysis (in my typical style: stale and dry), using a lot of fancy schmancy voibiage– pardon me, verbiage– about “false equivalence.”  Or we could throw our hands in the air and simply quit caring about expressing any sort of resistance to the ignorance that comes out of the mouths of reactionaries, feeling too exasperated to continue with our … outrage?  Our offense?  Our postmodernism?

But, no, perhaps there is a better way.  One way might be for us to sketch a picture of a revolutionary– not some “SJW,” whatever they are– blasting [with trigger warnings in advance, the same as here] said Nazi with a sawed-off shotgun.

And that, in fact, is the problem.  This pale, sad, misguided soul of a Nazi isn’t the problem.  Because he has no power.  And the person giving him the middle finger certainly isn’t the problem either, for the same reason– they have no power.  The objective substance of their own reaction to the Nazi is, we might say, symbolized by that uplifted middle digit: it’s moderate, it’s nonviolent, it’s relatively safe (safe, that is, in terms of European colonizers’ own security and comfort).

In other words (rather than in other images), a middle finger strategically pointed up actually poses no danger to a violent system of power, which has its police, its ICE, its prisons, its media, its Wall Street, and all its institutions of oppressive control as part of this “America,” a racist imperialist nation-state which is supported by the many millions of Annabelles, Lillians and Dylans– as well as the occasional Dylann who murders Black people in a church.  That’s “America,” and that’s power.

When you have a system of power more or less on your side (for your skin shade has made the grade), and you are loyal to its organized forces of genocidal control over the world’s resources, lands, peoples, cultures, then who the heck needs “outrage”?  The police departments are full of Nazis.  They protect the Nazis.  But, if you know your history, you’ll know that Nazi Germany studied this “apolitical” thing called “America,” prior to carrying out its own genocide, and not only against Jews, Roma, Communists, homosexuals, and people of color in Europe.  Because the Germans had already practiced this mass violence– learned from your favorite U.S. Presidents and Congresspersons– on the African people of Namibia.

Anyway, no need to detain you.  I think you get the picture.  White supremacy– as well as misogyny, transphobia, Islamophobia, Jeff Bezos, Google– has the nation-state, has colonialism, has capitalism: has “America,” “Canada, “Americanada.”

And, on the other side of the ledger, to your left (no, not so far), the forces of resistance have … a middle finger?

Maybe not.  Maybe (hopefully) the revolution– as opposed to the Resistance™– is organizing for power, using the weapon of theory: scientific socialism.  Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.  “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”  “In order to get rid of the gun, it is necessary to take up the gun.”  Not the middle finger, but dialectical materialism, guerilla warfare, class struggle.

But, hey, if you’re not outraged by Nazis Heil Hitlering all over the damn place, with a buddy of theirs in the stinking White House, and a few more in the local PD, down at HQ, and if you want to equate the Nazis’ behavior with outrageous, irrational behavior by some radical left that, back in the ’70s, was able to sneak into Americanada through Yale University, and then create Women’s and Gender Studies Programs (veritable gulags), and then infiltrate the HR departments in your workplace, requiring you to watch a video about not harassing Susie in Accounting (what, again?!)– well, apparently that’s your right.  Yet the bloodshed, the divisions, the politics are already there.

“Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.”

Picture that.


“Politics Is War Without Bloodshed While War Is Politics With Bloodshed.”

Identity and the Boundaries of Body, Class, Nation Around Our Essential “Being”


Of course, it would be ridiculously inaccurate for us to argue that the boundary dividing Mexico from the United States expresses the totality of the lands, people, resources and culture existing (or “Being,” to use the jargon of the day) inside each territory: to the south, inside the national identity which defines Mexico, and to the north, inside the national identity of this illegitimate settler colony of Europe sometimes called “America.”

At the same time, it would be just as inaccurate (as well as ridiculous) to argue that this boundary between Mexico and the United States, or between any two nations, doesn’t exist, or that we ought to ignore its reality simply because to say it exists (and matters) is too “divisive.”  The function of any boundary is to divide.  That’s why it’s there.

So, seeing how we already live in conditions that are very “divisive,” the struggle to educate people about these divisions in our lives– lives which are obviously part of these conditions– isn’t “divisive,” or “hateful,” or “violent.”

Conflicts in our shared conditions will not go away if we simply disregard their reality, and look inward instead, not just into the nation (“America,” which is an identity), but into the individual, as it pursues some highly spiritual or stoic objective in order to achieve inner peace (and to hell with “systems” and “politics” and all “labels”).

Identity becomes vitally important (“vital” deriving from the Latin word for “life”) at the point where boundaries meet, collide, or overlap: one above the other.  Again, this existence of identity– or, rather, our recognition of its existence– does not mean such identity (political, economic or social) is the totality of who we are.

The exploiter is so much more than the identity of exploiter, the exploited is so much more than the identity of exploited, and the same is true of the dialectical relationship between the colonizer and the colonized, man and woman, cisgender and transgender, non-disabled and disabled, zionist Israeli settler and Palestinian.

Understanding identity is key– is vital— when we are experiencing the reality of these boundaries as they create friction in society, which is the inevitable consequence of a society whose political economy is based on unequal power.

Under such a system– capitalism— the boundaries at which nations, classes and bodies, or identities, collide, with two objects struggling to occupy the same space at the same time (an objective impossibility), the external identifiers of our collective experience are the primary factors in the determination of the level of power which we have gained in order to exist at all, and to behave in any manner.

Identity is the boundary around this vaguely defined thing called “Being”– the essence of who we are.  If we are going to have the ability to “Be” at all, or the power to move, to exist, and to do and experience anything, the first struggle occurs when the boundaries of our individual bodies– within classes within nations within a global system of power– are able to move in relation to the identities around these “Beings.”

So, how do we deal with inevitable friction– these antagonistic relations between identities– while under the control of a world economic system which requires unequal wealth and power?

As soon as we define ourselves as anyone or anything, we automatically define who or what we are not.  Most of the time, this contradiction inherent to the subject’s definitions of their experience, whether at the level of the individual, the class, or the nation– or these subjective expressions of who we are and what we believe and what we want– do not lead to antagonistic relations and violent disruptions to the larger society.  Or maybe they do.

But the problem isn’t who you are and what you want or believe; the problem is your ability (or power) to be that, to do that.  Then the question is: where do you get your power to exist and to develop and grow?  If your power source comes from a political system based on unequal wealth and power (which is what capitalism is), then divisions inevitably will begin to arise, as one political identity collides with another.

By recognizing that such divisions exist in capitalist society, and that capitalism, in fact, requires this friction in order to carry out its objective (more profits, as the owners weigh down on the workers, or the colonizers oppress the colonized), certainly we are not denying the beautifully complex essence inside the so-called Being– we are only arguing that capitalism has made nonessential markers of identity essential to its goal of greater profits, and that, in order to live (to “Be”) and to explore the mysterious depths of our selves, it has become necessary to weaponize identity so that we are able to eliminate the source of power repressing the essential “Self.”

Or– as is the case with cisgender white men who are wealthy or middle-class– the objective source of power and privilege for some (providing their ability to do or “Be” anything at all) has elevated them at the expense of all other repressed and marginalized identities.  In more general terms, this is the dialectical– and colonial– relationship of Europeans (cisgender and transgender) to Africans in the United States.

White men aren’t merely “white men”; yet white men have created race and racism, and patriarchy, and a system of political repression, in order to become who they are, whatever that “who” may be (awesomely unique or otherwise).  And that’s identity— the same as “American” is an identity, the same as “Western” is an identity, or any external marker of your complex inner life, and the essence of who you are.

Europeans have rarely if ever recognized and respected the complexity and essential “Being” of Africans, or Native/Indigenous peoples, or the majority of human beings on the planet.  We have devised this capitalist system of power in order to divide and conquer, and have created these categories of political, economic and social identity for our own uses (such creativity!).

By weaponizing identities in order to move against the power source that represses the essence of humanity contained within these identities (the human beings inside the “labels,” the “boxes”), revolutionaries are not arguing that this identity is everything.  On the contrary, it seems to me that one of the main arguments of socialist revolution is: the power to move (in any direction you choose) is everything, otherwise you lack the ability to exist, develop and grow at all.

As Kwame Nkrumah, the African socialist revolutionary, philosopher and first President of independent Ghana, so memorably said: Seek ye first the political kingdom and all else shall be added unto you.”

Identity and the Boundaries of Body, Class, Nation Around Our Essential “Being”

From a Materialist Belief in the Fundamental Equality of People to the Elitist Conquest of “The Brand,” Via Plato and Constantine


If you believe that people are basically evil, regardless of the system of power that we live under, then your argument really falls into line with a long history of violent and elitist behavior by Europeans, going back to Plato’s cave.  It probably goes back much farther than that, to an even earlier cave, but let’s start with Plato’s allegory, shall we?

Plato had lost confidence in Athenian democracy which had killed his teacher Socrates.  Of course, this democracy (of sorts) in Athens had always applied only to a certain elevated class in its slave-based, patriarchal society.  So the practice of egalitarianism by Athenians didn’t live up to their stated principle of democratic government, which is that all humans are fundamentally equal.  Consequently, the Athenians had put Socrates on trial, and following his death, his most famous disciple Plato couldn’t forgive the people for their betrayal of the principles which had been championed by his beloved teacher.

In reaction, Plato wrote The Republic, a highly reactionary work.  And now, in Plato’s view, the people were placed in the darkness of the cave, in total ignorance, and the truth was on the outside, the knowledge of which was able to be acquired by only a select few.  These few were the only individuals fit to govern, because they alone had access to the knowledge of what is real and good, as merely symbolized by the image of the object.

Plato’s view in The Republic goes something like this: there is the whole perceptible world (or the material universe) around us, but the majority of humanity can only recognize the object (matter) and not the true meaning of the object (idea).  Thus, we are born into ignorance about not only what is real, but what is good.  And thus the Academy was born: an elite class of intellectuals who would train the select few how to lead, so that they may then guide the people (some of us) out of darkness, or keep us in it.  And, of course, this meant power.

A number of centuries passed after Plato’s death before Constantine, the Roman emperor, had a vision of a shining, fiery cross, and heard a voice saying: “In this sign you will conquer.”  The version of Christianity which came to Constantine in this symbol and in its accompanying voice had been heavily influenced by the teachings of Plato and the Academy.  And it was this political and ideological synthesis of Roman imperialism with seemingly contradictory ideas of Christian religion (via Plato) which has given the necessary unity and dynamic thrust to European thought, and its governing and economic systems, up to the point we’re at today under global capitalism.

Through Plato’s conception of the universe, synthesized with a European or white version of Jesus (Isa) and the Gospel (Injeel), the philosopher-kings and “Western” oligarchies have been able to go into Africa, and the so-called Americas, and the rest of the globe (including Europe) and say to the people: “You are basically evil, you are in the dark, you lack knowledge of the Truth, and you are doomed to an eternity in Hell– but we can save you, and bring order to your chaos, providing an antidote to your inherent (self-)destructiveness … and all you have to do in return is give us your land and your wealth, and buy our book or watch our video on YouTube.”

However, before the anti-egalitarian (or oligarchical) systems of slavery, feudalism and capitalism– based on philosophical idealism– could reach this point of history, with YouTube videos, and Patreon, and bestselling books on Amazon, and book tours, it was necessary for the European conquerors to consolidate the mass (un)consciousness of the people under their (or our) control.

If you argue that the majority of humanity is in the darkness of the cave– which is to say, you think people are inherently ignorant or evil– then you must enforce this argument, which not only requires power, but also requires the people to believe in the legitimacy of this systemic power.

People have a natural hunger and thirst for justice and truth, and for knowledge: we want everything to be free, fair and equal.  It’s in our nature.  And in order exploit this natural wish on our part– our wish to be just and to promote humane principles– under a system where only a select few wealthy individuals are judged (by themselves) to be exclusively worthy to enjoy most of the benefits of society’s ongoing struggle within and against our environment, it has become necessary for these rulers of society to bring about a certain disassociation, not of sensibility, but of senses.

For many centuries, an imperialist and elitist version of “Christianity” was an adequate means to divide human consciousness from the environment and its inhabitants who produced and shaped this consciousness, in order to divide humans from our money or the products of our labor.  Europeans named slave ships, weighed down by the “cargo” of enslaved African lives, after Jesus.  Europeans used the labor of enslaved Indigenous people and Africans in the so-called Americas to build churches, and to build an empire which became “the United States of America,” and to build the White House, which is meant to symbolize justice, freedom and equality.  What humans know to be true through our senses, or through our ability to observe and measure and quantify (as well as qualify), has been separated and isolated from the “Truth” and from “Goodness” (and “God”) by the oligarchical rulers of a rapidly growing global system of power: capitalism.

In the same tradition of Plato’s Academy (the leaders in the bright white light outside the cave, the forces of chaos deep inside it, waiting to be saved, or bombed), as well as in the tradition of Constantine’s vision of the burning cross, the capitalist rulers of “American” society today are able to convince the people that objective reality is, in fact, not real, and also not good.  Why?  Because the essence of the “Truth” (with a capital[ist] “T”) in bourgeois society lies beyond the shadowy object, the thing itself, the image of which only symbolizes this eternal, unchanging essence.

And what is the essence of “Truth”?  The brand.  In the free exchange of ideas– free thought, free speech– as these are controlled under a capitalist democracy, the marketplace for “the Truth” requires a trademark, a symbol for your unique ownership of a piece of this reality, which is now something either in demand, or not.

If you can grow richer off the brand, it’s the Good, the Truth; but if you should fail, then for heaven’s sake (or Wall Street’s), don’t you dare blame the capitalist system of power, a system which requires that poverty and hardship be imposed on the masses.  Instead, take Personal Responsibility for your own failure to make it out of the cave, and to become one of the select few, counted among the Blessed or Lucky (copyright pending).  Just sit up straight, pet a cat, get off the mat, dust yourself off and start all over again (with apologies to Jerome Kern and Dorothy Fields).

In the land of the politically unconscious (“America” or “the West”), where poverty, disease, genocide, and suffering aren’t real, and are just bad luck or spiritual deficiency or laziness on the part of the victims (who must learn to transcend their “victimhood”), the Brand is King.  Your authentic Brand.  Your unique Brand.

Like the burning cross that appeared before Constantine, proclaiming “In this sign you will conquer,” it is in the goodness, the truth, of the brand’s authenticity (and forced humility) that the entrepreneur and the “business leader”– the man with a plan– will go forth, growing wealthier, happier, and more successful.

Or not.  But if you cannot unlock the secrets of the brand’s success, then you just lack imagination, or drive, or intelligence– you must not be enlightened enough, you’re not worthy, you lack Self-Worth.

The message of the capitalist ruling class is messy but nonetheless unrelenting in its main dominant theme: you are not enough.

The system isn’t the problem, the rulers aren’t the problem, and, in fact, the whole universe of dialectical matter shouldn’t be the focus of your “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  The problem is you.  You the individual, in isolation.  However, you can be saved.  All you have to do is put yourself (and your family, your “loved ones,” your house, your car) ahead of everyone else, and behave in a manner which brings greater wealth and greater power to the existing ruling class, through greater exploitation of the working masses– except you do get to enjoy some of the riches of this bargain.

And your individualistic, predatory behavior is entirely justified, so no need to worry about that (no “white liberal guilt” is necessary, nor any “postmodernist” classes teaching us the meaning of “white privilege”).

The secondary theme to the message of bourgeois thought is : do not get caught up in divisive “identity politics,” for only the individual matters, the individual as a Brand among Brands.  Build your Brand.  Wield your Brand.  With your swoosh of Victory, your apple, your peacock, your red-white-and-blue “American flag,” your golden arches, the sword or cross of you “unique Brand,” go forth young man and conquer the world, and thereby grow wealthier, happier … and to hell with everyone else.

Under capitalist rule, things are not things and people are not people: humans are embodied in brands (individuals isolated from the objective conditions which give us life), while “free thought” (as well as “freedom”) is disembodied from the perceptible object at hand … that is, until it has gained Significance in the “marketplace of ideas,” as a commodity, and its reality and value have been measured against its profitability to the few.

Under capitalism, the symbol of the thing (or person) has gained precedence over the substance, and thus the hierarchy of class power can be enforced by those elites who alone hold the key to Goodness, to Truth … to Profit.

Your own unique brand is your ticket out of the cave, as a kind of (trade)mark of superiority: bacon or oatmeal, “real woman” or transgender woman, citizen or illegal alien [sic], individual with intelligence and imagination, or an individual who is brown, “fat,” shops at Walmart, drinks bad coffee and eats greasy fries from Burger King.

Believe in yourself– “I think I’m a success, therefore I am”– and achieve freedom, not only from the darkness of the cave, but from the political consciousness of suffering by the inherently lazy, evil or mediocre homogeneous masses, each shadowy inferior soul damned to a harsh and brief lifetime of toil and hardship, while you enjoy your vacation on some colonized beach …

And you earned it, Jack, because you developed your bright shiny Brand.

From a Materialist Belief in the Fundamental Equality of People to the Elitist Conquest of “The Brand,” Via Plato and Constantine

Not Judging, Just Noting? — No, Jordan Peterson, Apologist for White Power, Is an “SJW” Too


Maybe the most popular social justice warrior (“SJW”) in the “Western [that is, white] world” today is Dr. Jordan B. Peterson of the University of Toronto.  Of course, he doesn’t call himself a “social justice warrior”– that would be “identity politics.”  He’s merely an individual man (that’s not an identity?) and a Canadian citizen (which is to say a colonizer, another identity) and a petty bourgeois academic apologist for the capitalist arrangement of power, which is a global economic system primarily benefiting rich cisgender white men (again, check, check, check, and check the boxes of political identity).

This popular “SJW,” Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, bestselling author, YouTube star, psychologist, college professor, and pseudo-intellectual is probably going to say that he is only pointing out the facts: science, objectivity and [insert intimidating jargon here].  However, the moment you go from just observing reality (“the way things are”) to judging it, and as soon as you start to talk about changing reality (“the way things ought to be,” which in this case is “the way things used to be and should be again”), then you are now bringing to the argument your own will to power, and your own values, your conditioning as a member of a particular class.  In fact, it’s impossible for any person not to inject some of who they are (subjective reality) even into their impersonal observations of the natural world (objective reality).  That’s only natural.  How we view the world depends in large part on how– or where– we’re situated in its objective conditions.

Consequently, Jordan Peterson is a culture warrior, an activist for the “Western values” of the “Judeo-Christian tradition”– in other words, he’s an apologist for the unequal power held by cisgender white men like himself.  And that is a political agenda.

So if you are talking about the facts of biological sex (only two genders!), and you’re arguing that “males” are just more biologically aggressive than “females,” because that’s the dudes’ natural function in the world, then what you are really saying (using all that “free thought” in your noggin) is that the status quo, or the current arrangement of unequal wealth and power, is not based on systemic factors but is scientifically predetermined.  Well then, who has “determined” it (“pre-” or otherwise)?  Men.  Historically, cisgender men have held more power and have controlled the means of production in society, at least in the “Western world” that Jordan Peterson seems to love so much (if you’re the right kind of Westernperson).  And for the past five hundred years, give or take (mostly take), white cisgender men have controlled the means of production in a global economy (capitalism) by imposing their system of power on Africa and the so-called Americas and on the majority of humans on the planet.  If you believe world domination by Europeans has been based on some inherent and predetermined biological trait, then that makes you … oh yeah, a white supremacist.

In fairness to Jordan Peterson, it’s quite apparent that he believes in values such as freedom, equality, justice and peace– and he believes that the Christian Bible, and capitalism, and the “nuclear family,” and the individualistic ideals of the Enlightenment are the legitimate foundation for “our” values in “Western civilization.”  And, again, that viewpoint is based on white supremacy– as well as patriarchy, Islamophobia and the belief in colonialism and class exploitation.

Even so, Jordan Peterson is a very committed and sincere social justice warrior.  He is entirely loyal to his class, his nation, and his identity.  Where Jordan Peterson reveals himself to be a hypocrite, and a slick-talking salesman of stale and worn-out ideas, is the way he obviously believes that you– the transgender woman, the nonbinary person, the feminist, the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary, the college student who wants to change the world too, just according to their beliefs– you are a threat to his freedom, because (in the latter case) you and those other noisy kids won’t just shut up, and get off his lawn, and passively go along with the current arrangement of power so that he, the white cisgender individual, can enjoy all his freedom– or power– in peace.  And a lot of cisgender whites seem to agree with him, imagine that … that must be a real challenge to the usual thought processes held by European colonizers.

So Jordan Peterson is a very popular colonizer, and social justice warrior (of sorts); but it’s not very difficult to gain popularity– and greater wealth– by appealing to the members of your own class or identity who don’t want change (unless it’s to go back to the way things used to be) and who basically want to preserve the status quo as well.  Where’s the risk?  Where’s the courage?  It’s risky for a Black transgender woman just to get up in the morning and go out into this racist, misogynistic, transphobic world– and if she survives the capitalist system of power for yet another day, her struggle (as part of her community) will be largely ignored, or she will only be told that she is “courageous”– such “a brave person!”  In other words, cisgender white people get to be called “brave” or “courageous” for going into a law school on a college campus and standing up to all those “stupid, pampered, brainwashed kids” by spewing transphobia, misogyny, misogynoir and other reactionary ideas– and these whites also get to grow richer off the bargain.  But transgender women of color, Black trans women– if they are noticed by the larger society at all– merely get a pat on the back … and maybe a mention or two at an “LGBTQ” event organized by white colonizers.  One gets wealthier, the other– or Other-ed– gets nothing.

Where there’s a warrior (for social justice, for power, for access to resources or anything else) then there must be a war.  And, yes, there is a war going on today, not only in the United States and Canada and the “Western world” (whatever that is) but all over the globe.  There’s a struggle for power.

And here’s the scary part– it’s frightening to me at any rate, but you’re under no obligation to be scared as well or to give it any attention.  The terrifying thing– to me– is that, in this global struggle, there is all this wealth and power and colonial privilege on one side of the ledger, and then the cisgender white guys like Jordan Peterson defending this side of things, and making the struggle only about the individual, about you, in isolation (take personal responsibility for your own behavior, “bucko!”).  And on the other side of the ledger there are historically oppressed or marginalized people– particularly marginalized identities within colonized nations and communities, Black and Brown– and they are the people who have lacked power for centuries.

So on the one side of the ledger there are the U.S. armed forces and the shared military might of Europeans (white power), and the FBI and CIA (white power) and the local police (white power), and ICE (white power), and multinational “security” corporations like G4S (white power), and the prisons and detention centers (white power), and the racist– and soon to be armed– teachers who shove students into the school-to-prison pipeline, particularly Black girls, and some of these teachers literally promote white power; and– also on this side of the ledger– are giant media conglomerates (white power), and conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Gatestone Institute and the Cato Institute (white power), and the “free thinkers” and “scholars” like Jordan Peterson and Christina Hoff Sommers and Robert Jensen who promote transphobic ideology in these dominant institutions (more white power).

And it’s a war.  They are on one side of the war, and then the people they are attacking are on the other side.  If you fight back, coming from the other side, they call you a bully, a thug, an angry mob– especially if you’re African or Black and a woman and working class and queer and transgender (all at the same time).  They spray you with teargas, they spread lies about you, they charge you with a crime– if they are the authorities, that is– but if they are white citizens (cisgender or otherwise) they run to the racist, sexist, transphobic state and allow it to unleash its authoritarian power on you.  And then the cameras of the bourgeois media show up and they begin to shape the narrative that people just need to quit shouting at each other, and instead have a quiet “conversation” and “listen to what the other side has to say” (including the Nazi side).  The New York Times carves out space for reactionary, fascist thinking– mainly because The New York Times is an institution belonging to the reactionary, fascist class.

But the institutions of capitalism, and their apologists, try to convince you not to view the enemy in this war as your enemy, and mine, but as legitimate citizens– individuals, “Americans” or “Canadians”– who merely hold different opinions, so why don’t we just relax, and talk, and proceed to allow G4S, and the prison-industrial complex and that current day Nazi terrorist organization called ICE round up Black and Brown people– Africans, Indigenous peoples, Latinxs– while the nice polite whites sit down, sip coffee from a hipster coffee shop, and “agree to disagree.”

No– it’s an explosive situation, and one side will have to win and the other side will have to lose.  Reactionaries are awfully worried about a broken window– a few pieces of broken glass.  They call that “authoritarianism” and the second-coming of Stalin.  Well, who did the European colonizers break– bodies and lives, not glass– when we violently occupied this continent, and Hawaii, and Puerto Rico?  And whose lives do we continue to destroy so that we can experience the benefits of colonial capitalism, and enjoy the fruits of exploited labor, the stolen resources and land and culture coming from all over the world, from Africa, to Latin America to Asia, and from the neighborhoods of Black people trapped in this empire, flowing to the white population of the United States?  Colonized peoples, and particularly women, transgender women in these oppressed communities, are the victims– the actual victims– of racist, sexist, transmisogynistic violence created by the white-controlled capitalist state.

But the social justice warriors for white supremacy, capitalism, transmisogyny and colonialism– cisgender men such as Jordan Peterson– will try to convince you that the real problem with all these divisions in society is the very people who are struggling to transform this violent, class-based hierarchy of power, by organizing against the forces of reaction.  And if Jordan Peterson & Co. win this war, even by convincing you that they are the “good guys,” then in a few years what we will begin to recognize happening (it’s actually going on right now and has been for a number of decades) is white people, on the left, the right, and in-between, sitting around enjoying all these various viewpoints (hooray for “democracy”!), eating our vegan and organic food, drinking our microbrew beer, watching baseball at Wrigley Field or at spring training in Arizona, and there will be just a sea of white faces— some with long bushy beards, and piercings, and tattoos, and others in suits and ties, or beige khakis (white culture), young, old, gay, straight, very “diverse” … and, meanwhile, Black and Brown people will be packed away, hidden behind barbed wire and concrete, choking on poisoned water and food, being killed off every day more and more quickly.

Capitalism requires somebody to pay the price, that’s how this unequal system of control works, and– due to our white supremacy– colonizers say that it might as well be so-called people of color, so that we can escape a little bit more of the violence and exploitation of this backward system.  Europeans we will be able to live like Indigenous peoples (or some whitewashed, disrespectful version of who they are), enjoying African culture, and all this “diversity” (perhaps a few light-skinned “minorities” included in the festivities to show we’re good “Americans” who don’t discriminate) and actual Indigenous and African people will be forced to live in an even bigger hellhole than ameriKKKa already is today– the kind of harsh and brutal shitty lifestyle (pardon my French or English, or whatever colonizer’s language it is) that white people invented for ourselves and then imposed on the globe.  Colonized people may even get the chance to be gunned down in the damn street by someone who looks like them– a cop who is a woman, a Latina, a transgender Latina no less– just to demonstrate how this democratic capitalist system of power believes in “progress” and to show that things are gradually changing for the better.  Tonight on the six o’clock news …

Transgender women, Muslims, so-called people of color just want to live— it’s the libertarian or the “classical liberal” social justice warriors of the right-wing who apparently want a war.  But reactionary white colonizers are digging their own graves in history by preparing a grave for marginalized and oppressed peoples.  Reactionaries can claim to be reciting facts from some neutral objective ground, but as soon as your shovel goes into the dirt, and you begin to indicate just which political identities you wish to bury there, then it is your own funeral you are planning, as a class, an identity, and an oppressor nation whose old and warped ideas of “social justice” have become so lethal in their hypocrisy, they may come back to strike down the warrior holding the weapon, or this instrument of class oppression.

Not Judging, Just Noting? — No, Jordan Peterson, Apologist for White Power, Is an “SJW” Too