Dysfunctional White Family– Or Dysfunctional White Supremacist State Under Colonial Capitalism?


In capitalist society, the family structure is tied to the entire power structure controlling this society.  This may be true of any social arrangement at any stage of its historical evolution, because (as Kwame Ture taught) societies evolve from smaller social aggregates to larger social aggregates: from the family, to the clan, to the village, to the nation, to the continent.  However, here we will not attempt to trace the development of the bourgeois family structure back to its patriarchal roots, but focus instead on present conditions (while of course noting that the present is always connected to the past).

Capitalism inevitably leads to the creation of a dysfunctional society.  Any society in which the few enjoy the fruits of the labor performed by the majority, gaining more riches and more power for themselves by imposing greater amounts of exploitation and violence on the many, is going to be dysfunctional.  Obviously, in one sense, capitalist society is highly functional, if we think of its function as creating more profits through more oppression.  A smoothly functioning capitalist society is a society which achieves its objectives of increasing profits by increasing its damage to the people whose labor and lives create these profits.  At the same time, people who are repressed will always resist, and this resistance may have the effect of throwing a wrench into the capitalist machine, threatening its ability to grow richer off their repression– and so the machine malfunctions.

The contradictory nature of capitalist society which– like any society– is part of the natural world, and evolves according to the same universal laws, leads us to recognize that whenever this society becomes more dysfunctional, the family structure, as a basic unit of society, also becomes dysfunctional.  The same logic can be applied to the destructive capacity of a nation and its ruling class: as the institutions under the control of the rulers (for example, the U.S. military, the police, the immigration agents) show greater levels of violence, their violence in the larger power structure of society will be reflected in more frequent and deadlier outbursts of violence in the smaller units (such as the violence of white cisgender men who are part of the colonizing classes).  Consequently, you will recognize or directly experience more amounts of gun violence, mass shootings at schools and malls, violence against mosques, and the rise of white supremacist organizations and men’s rights activists (sometimes masquerading as scholars and experts on psychology and culture at the University of Toronto).

Capitalism is required to grow more and more violent because this type of system requires the masses to create greater and greater profits for the few at the top.  And one of the effects of this increasing violence in the total structure of capitalist society is increasing dysfunction in the family structure: capitalism literally tears families apart.  However, families are torn apart by capitalism in relation to their specific historical and cultural situation within its overall power structure.  For example, African families– Black families– may be torn apart by globalization, “white flight” to the suburbs (destroying the tax revenue for urban centers), then re-gentrification (destroying their ability to pay higher property taxes), mass incarceration (punishment for being impoverished by neoliberal policies), “The War on Drugs,” and greater amounts of police violence.  Latinx families may experience many of these same effects of increasing violence by the capitalist system, whose main objective is to increase profits for the white-controlled ruling class.  Indigenous peoples trapped on reservations, in food deserts with poisoned water, have their own experiences of increasing dysfunction to their national or tribal structures, as these are destroyed by the volatility in the larger power structure’s ability to function.

European colonizers in North America and Hawaii (or whites) experience our own increasing dysfunction as units (class, family, individual) within the white colonial nation or identity.  Even as we enjoy many of the benefits of colonial violence by the capitalist state, such as more access to education, jobs, housing and healthcare, while colonized Africans and Indigenous peoples are being wiped out by this white supremacist hierarchy of power, it’s also true that European colonizers face greater amounts of exploitation and marginalization, particularly if we are not wealthy, or cisgender, or men.

Part of the reason for the increasing volatility in the larger institutions and structures of capitalist society, whose effects are experienced right down to the level of the individual within their class, is that the people who face the greatest amount of imperialist violence– in a global system of power– are resisting more and more on a daily basis, just to survive, and to avert their own extinction.  This increasing resistance from the powerless puts a massive strain on the entire international system of capitalist power.  And this extra pressure on the overall system, which historically has benefited white colonizers, also negatively affects our family structure, because the white family is so closely connected to the colonial power structure, and it is through this connection that we gain access to resources.  This access to resources– which means access to power, to status, to privilege– shapes our identity (as a nation, a class, a family) and our sense of stability that we enjoy as individual members of the traditional European family: the “nuclear family” of the white colonizer, once stable when colonized peoples were more thoroughly subjugated by the global capitalist system, is now threatened, its elements becoming anarchic, disjointed and out of alignment, disintegrating as capitalism faces disintegration through the very forces it unleashed for its own imposed order.

What happens next?  Whites react, violently.  It is through violence that we gained “law and order” for ourselves– greater wealth, greater power– and so we turn to the gun (figuratively or literally) yet again.  An organized effort is made by reactionaries to “strengthen families” and to re-establish the “nuclear family” (Dad, Mom, boy, girl, dog, two car garage, evenly cut grass, morning paper).  However, capitalist society has already evolved– through its internal contradictions– beyond the point where the old family structure can be renewed just by placing a politically organized and ideological “focus on the family”: there is no going back.

So now what happens?  White people react again, except now we turn against each other: sibling versus sibling, parent versus child, as the white family structure (which is connected to the larger power structure of capitalist society experiencing greater volatility and reacting to this upheaval through its own violence) is ripped apart.  Human connections are shredded.  Trust dissolves.  Soon, cisgender family members inflict damage on transgender family members, reflecting the expanding transphobic violence of the larger capitalist power structure (not that capitalism and the white family structure have ever been anything but transphobic and misogynistic).  But the contradictions of capitalist society are exposed more and more on a daily basis, and these dividing lines go straight through families, workplaces, schools, churches (and mosques).  The threads of a patriarchal, bourgeois and colonial society, held together by the oppressive and violent forces of reaction to resistance, are ripped out, one by one, torn to pieces, by these very same forces as the resistance gains strength.

The white family in the United States and Canada– two settler colonies of Europe whose wealth and power and ability to exist at all are based on genocide and capitalist exploitation– enjoys its sense of identity and structure only through its connection to the larger national and cultural identity and structure of these states.  Whenever the power of these nation-states, and the power of the ruling class which created these states in their own interests for the purpose of repressing all classes below them, is under strain, and threatened by the resisting forces below, the fabric of the white family (as a political, economic and social unit of European colonial rule) is torn to shreds, disfigured, and mangled.

Soon it becomes “every man for himself”– or “every woman” or “every nonbinary person.”  Individualism reigns.  Unable to gain sustenance from the greater units of identity, status and power– as a people, a community, a family– the white colonizer goes deeper within, as far as their wealth can take them, initiating a journey of self-discovery, in a frantic attempt to experience some sort of spiritual or sensual rejuvenation of their excommunicated identity.  However, what the individual white colonizer finds, at the end of the tunnel into the self, is that they cannot escape the chaotic conditions of bourgeois society which have given shape to their identity, even as they continue to dig and search, scratching at the ground occupied by colonial genocide.

What is the way out?  Revolution.  Socialism.  Decolonization.  And abolition of the white supremacist European nation-state, whose destructive power– in order to remain in power– has created chaos in every structure under its abusive control, from the class, to the family, to the one person: you.

Dysfunctional White Family– Or Dysfunctional White Supremacist State Under Colonial Capitalism?

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


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

Plato had lost confidence in Athenian democracy, which had killed his teacher Socrates.  Of course, this democracy in Athens had always applied only to a certain elevated class within its slave-based, patriarchal society, and 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.  There is this whole world– 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 would train the select few how to lead, so that they may guide the people out of darkness, or keep us in it.  And, of course, this meant power.

A number of centuries passed after Plato’s death and then 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 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, ignorant or evil– then you must enforce this argument, which not only requires power, but also the people to believe in the legitimacy of this systemic power.  People have a natural hunger and thirst for justice and for truth, or 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 to be just, and to promote humane principles, under a system where a few select 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, elitist version of “Christianity” was an adequate means to divide human consciousness from the environment which produced and shaped this consciousness, in order to divide humans from our money or the products of our own labor.  Europeans named slave ships, laden with “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 our ability to observe and measure and quantify (as well as qualify), was separated and isolated from the “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” in bourgeois society– in the United States and Canada and in the other white supremacist settler colonies of Europe– lies beyond the shadowy object, the thing itself, the image of which only symbolizes this eternal, unchanging essence.

And what is the essence of “the Truth”?  The brand.  In the free exchange of ideas– free thought, free speech– under 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 grow richer off the brand, it’s the Good, the Truth; if you fail, then– for heaven’s sake (or Wall Street’s), don’t blame the capitalist system of power, which requires that poverty and hardship be imposed on the masses, but take Personal Responsibility for your own failure to make it out of the cave, and to be one of the select few, 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 humility) that the entrepreneur or “business leader”– the man with a plan– will go forth, growing wealthier, happier, and more 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’re not enlightened, you’re not worthy.

The message of the capitalist ruling class is messy but 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 behavior is entirely justified, so don’t worry about that (no “white liberal guilt” necessary, or classes teaching “white privilege”).  Don’t 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, your root, your river, go forth and conquer the world, and grow wealthier and 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, until it has gained significance in the “marketplace of ideas,” as a commodity, its reality and value measured against its profitability to the few.

Under capitalism, the symbol of the thing (or the 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, Truth … and 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 consciousness of the suffering of 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 a vacation on some colonized beach … and you earned it, Jack, because you developed your bright shiny Brand.

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

“Free Thought” As The Enemy Of The “Free Thinking” (White, Cisgender) Colonizer-Subject’s Ability to Evolve


Why are we arguing in 2018 about the existence of women’s and gender studies departments on the campuses of universities and colleges in the U.S. and Canada?

It seems it’s because certain people– primarily cisgender white guys– do not want these programs to exist, and they also don’t want students in grade schools to be taught about “white privilege” or anything else related to “identity politics.”  And where they are arguing from is a position which they call “free thought.”

But we might ask the question: if it’s just a matter of “free thought,” and an individual’s own private liberation from every sort of label (white, cisgender, heterosexual, middle-class or wealthy, Christian or agnostic, Western, and so forth), then why do they require an organized effort to promote all this “free thought,” with websites, publications and think tanks as part of this project?

The objective of an organized project for “free thought” is negated by its own premises.  To say that there is “free thought” necessarily implies there is “non-free thought.”  The label “free thought” is attached to an imaginary container: everything that is considered “free thought” is contained under the category of “free thought”; and if it is thinking that is not free, then it’s a logical necessity to conclude that all these other “non-free” things are outside the boundaries of free thinking.

“Free thought” is in itself a definition of thought: a finite concept which unavoidably places limits on our thinking by the meaning of its language.  Any viewpoint or idea outside the limits of this definition of “free thought” is considered something other than “free thought.”  But we may wonder: who draws this line?  Who has the power to define what is, and what is not, free thought?  Of course, this power belongs to a category of people, with subjective experiences and interests (as all experiences and interests are); so their project to champion “free thought” doesn’t exist in a vacuum, isolated from their specific identities, but is an outgrowth of their own political, economic and social situation in the world.

The moment you determine that “free thought” needs to be promoted at all, then you have already made a choice, and this choice is based on who you are (your identity) in relation to the identities of the people who don’t share your viewpoints.  If your only concern had been that everybody just ought to think whatever they want to think– no bother, no fuss– then you wouldn’t need a project for “free thought” in the first place.  Obviously, the need for the label or definition of “free thought” is predicated on a shared set of values, principles, and experiences– the subject (identity) must exist in advance of the needing: who needs, and what do they need?

Transgender women, socialist revolutionaries, Muslims and feminists (or all the above) want freedom to think as well.  But before you can think, first you must be able to live.  A transmisogynistic, capitalist, Islamophobic society– such as the one in the United States, Canada, and any other settler colony of Europe– makes it difficult to live if you are subjected to the interlocking systems of oppression or marginalization which prevent you from not only thinking freely but living freely.

Therefore, transgender people organize to challenge the power of the capitalist system, and to bring about a qualitative change– or complete transformation– to the society under the control of cisgender people.  But there’s never any question about the objectives of revolutionaries: it’s a movement to revolutionize society.  If, in your reaction to this movement, your choice is to move against their revolutionary struggle, and organize your own movement based on your identities, and your values and viewpoints, then that is your choice.  But it’s not just “free thought.”  It’s an ideological war.  And, ultimately, it’s a struggle for control of resources, or power.

If we are not honest upfront about who we are, and what we want and what we believe, then we may end up trying to carve out some sort of position existing separate from the battle– above and beyond the fray as it were– and this attitude of ours becomes a kind of god-complex.

In the Homeric epic of political or ideological struggle, either we’re the Greeks or we’re the Trojans: no human being is the god from the machine, sweeping down to resolve the conflict through their supernatural prowess (disembodied “Free Thought,” born full-grown out of Zeus’s brain).

It should be obvious that you can only be who you are, nobody else, and certainly not everybody else.  And who you are determines, in large part, the expression of the knowledge that you have acquired in the struggle both within and against the natural environment, as a social being situated in the conditions of a particular society during a specific time and place.

It’s not really a question of “free thought” because a person is going to think what they want to think, even if it’s toxic to themselves and to the people around them in a society: it’s a question of power, or control over resources, so that the people who share your way of thinking, and your social status, can both shape the conditions of society and be shaped by these conditions.  The experience of “freedom”– for an individual, a class, or a society– depends on the parameters for that experience, or exactly where the lines are drawn around the individual, the class, the society.  And of course the drawing of those lines is a political choice.

Departments for women’s and gender studies exist on college campuses on account of political choices, as the people in society who share a particular identity or set of values, and who previously didn’t have power, now have it, and so they are able to express their power by shaping our environment in a certain way.  The problem for white cisgender men is that– as an identity– they don’t have the same level of power as they once had.  It’s not that they lack the ability to hold “free thought”; it’s that they don’t enjoy the same level of power to impose this thought– whatever it is– on the shared conditions of society.  People who have struggled over many decades to gain more power are now able to impose their viewpoints on the institutions of capitalist society, even if only as reforms (new laws, new policies in the workplace, and greater “diversity” or “visibility”).  However, the government and the system of power in this society haven’t changed.  The presence of women’s and gender studies programs in the institutions of capitalism doesn’t mean the basic power structure of society has been transformed into some new object: wealthy and middle-class cisgender white men are still free to think what they want … except now they are forced to adjust to a few systemic changes and (like everybody else in history), they will either adapt or die.

It’s not about thinking “free thought,” it’s about learning to experience this freedom in the context of modified conditions.  And if a few reforms to the basic power structure of society– such as the existence of women’s and gender studies departments in universities, or discussions about “white privilege” in grade schools– are too much for you right now, then you are definitely not ready to face what’s coming next, especially if you continue to react negatively to what a revolutionized society calls “human progress.”

The real enemies of cisgender white men in the United States and Canada are not transgender activists, feminists, Muslims, socialists and “SJWs”– their enemies are the forces of society who are trying to convince them that they won’t be free if they are required to adjust to changing conditions, like everyone else has.  The question isn’t about “free thought”– it’s about learning how to live and how to develop as an individual person who is part of a larger society whenever your environment has changed, and continues to change.

We know that societies have been progressing and changing for hundreds and thousands of years.  You can’t go back to the 1950s.  If you hate the presence of gender studies programs and “ethnic studies” programs on college campuses, then you only have one of two choices: either adapt to this new reality or move and organize to destroy them.  But if you choose the second path, then you can expect people to fight back, and resist, and in the process, you may be destroyed.

In the meantime, you can think all the free thoughts you want about almost anything– owning Africans as slaves again, or committing more genocide against Indigenous and First Nations peoples, and keeping transgender women out of your bathrooms and not allowing us to change the legal documents for our gender markers.  But as soon as these ideas of yours are turned into action, then you can expect an equal and opposite reaction.  Violence: bricks, broken glass, disruption at the school where you spew your venom, a smashed skull.  If you don’t want a violent reaction, stop acting violently– this is the first and most important lesson of history.  Furthermore, as soon as historically marginalized political categories of identity have gained more power– or even the appearance of greater power through quantitative changes to society (reforms, new legislation and so forth), it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make them give up these advances without a fight.

White cisgender men created a global economy– capitalism– in order to advance their own interests, as a political identity; but as they struggled to impose this international system of power on the people of the world, they created the very forces which would bring about changes requiring that white cisgender men, in turn, adjust to this new global reality.

The toxic mythology of white supremacy (based on pseudo-science of “biological facts”) accompanied the concepts of individual “free thought” (or “liberty”) under the ideological thrust of the Enlightenment and bourgeois democracy in “the West,” and the same is true of sexism, transphobia, and other contributions of white cisgender men to global capitalist society.  But just as these systematized viewpoints, and these imposed interests and values, have allowed white cisgender men to enjoy more power and more wealth, the necessary resistance to these downward forces has threatened to undermine the very basis of their political, economic and social status in a world economy.

The entire white colonizing population of the United States and Canada either will have to adjust to the very changes which our racist, patriarchal system of colonial capitalism engendered, or be thrown to the wayside of history, powerless to think at all (much less promote “free thought”), because we could not adapt our experiences of freedom to the conditions of a globe that we changed, but– due to our backward, reactionary thinking– we could no longer exist in.

“Free Thought” As The Enemy Of The “Free Thinking” (White, Cisgender) Colonizer-Subject’s Ability to Evolve

“The Tin Man” and “The Ten Commandments” of the Hollow Men’s Narrow Narratives™


All art is agitation and propaganda, at least when it is effective art– which is to say, whenever it is able to refresh our cultural expressions by containing a resonating rhythm and message.

The morality of a story is embedded in its structure.  Literary prose, for example, is an ongoing argument between the author and their readers, and each sentence is a building block of that artistic statement.

In any work of art there can always be the assumption that if the artist didn’t have something to say then they wouldn’t have created the art in the first place.  This is true even in the case of artistic works which appear to be apolitical, which don’t agitate, and don’t challenge the dominant narrative of a culture or society.  Consequently, the very absence of such a politically charged statement by the artist is evidence that they are not particularly concerned with challenging the status quo, whether they approve of it or not.

Silence does not always mean “yes,” any more than “zero” equals “one”; yet the artist adds something to the national narrative just by the act of creating one work of art, and if they do not challenge that narrative, and agitate it, then the fact of their creation’s absorption into its general shape and flow is a kind of affirmation, a quiet nod of approval.

It’s ridiculous to say that we can’t make up new stories for political reasons.  If we don’t, then the old stories will continue to shape our lives, unobstructed by any sign of struggle or resistance coming from the new.

And, even then, our stories don’t exist in a vacuum, apart in a room of their own far from the madding crowd or the general flow of society’s arrangement.  After the storytellers are long gone, the text must still be engaged, and– in a sense– its meaning is renewed in every new engagement.  Because society is always changing, the people who come into contact with a work of art are not the same either, and so the meaning of the work reflects changes in the collective consciousness of each generation of people.  Art must struggle, because people must struggle– it’s just a question of whether art should express who we are as changing and evolving people, or resist and avoid struggle in order to promote the old, the status quo.  And this answer for our art– friends, Romans, country-men, -women, -nonbinary persons (they/them)– is an inherently political choice on our part.

The critics of the classical tradition, beginning with Aristotle, were very much concerned with a work of art’s proper balance, or its unity of action, and unity of time and place and so forth.  In terms of the work’s unity of character, a character could be all good, all bad, or some combination.  But the artist’s depiction of the proper balance of positive and negative characteristics in their characters (particularly in the main character) requires an assumption on both the part of the artist and their audience about what it means to have good qualities and bad qualities.  And that’s a political question.

The political reason for going to a play, or watching a film, or picking up a novel, exists prior to the act of doing any of these things: there’s a beginning, a middle, and an end to the social conditions which shape a people’s artistic sensibility, just as the art itself follows a certain path from the first page, or the first scene, to the climax, and then the resolution, or the character hanging onto the slippery edge of a high cliff.  The End.  In any case, to argue otherwise– that a character’s character must not be politically conceived– would be to say that you believe people are automatons, and that we go to a play merely because we exist and the play exists, or we see a movie merely because it’s there, and so are we, or we read a novel because it was within our reach, and our eyes can scan the sentences like a machine.

In one sense, this observation of the automatic non-nature of our lives is true, at least in a society that conditions us to have the behavior of a machine, and to consume (or be consumed) by objects on a stage, a screen, a page, the same as at a mall, a church, a college campus, a field, a factory, a mine, a cubicle in an Office Space, a prison cell.

However, as societies advance the people experiencing the art (as social beings), like the people creating the art (as social beings), also advance– and it would be difficult to argue that societies can progress without a political dynamism to the national or cultural experience.  Art exists because people exist and people exist because we are capable of change and adaptation, and this process of transformation comes about through engagement in political struggle, through organization for power.

At the same time, it’s dangerous– politically and morally dangerous– to require characters on the stage, on the screen, on the page to develop only according to some predetermined politic or morality, and typically that which belongs to the “silent majority.”  The reason it is dangerous to superimpose the character of a certain dominant class onto the characters of an artistic creation is that the thought process of an artist must be free to challenge the status quo, or the privileged position of the class who holds unequal wealth and power.

Art is an imitation of nature; it is not an intimidation by nature– by the way things are, as a biological, objective necessity.  Otherwise, why imagine?  Why create?  Struggle against that thing; challenge it– agitate against what is, and revolutionize it or leave it alone.

What tends to happen when middle-class (white, cisgender) morality dominates the narrative of an artistic creation– the way it dominates the narrative in the larger world outside this creation– is that characters are killed off even before they get a chance to live: frozen in one or two dimensions.  They aren’t even effective as propaganda for the dominant class of the society beyond the boundaries of this artist’s work: it’s the difference between a talking doll and a talking human being, between artificial turf and natural grass.  It may look the same as the real thing but there’s no life in it.  Why is this so?  Because people– even white people, or European colonizers in the U.S. and Canada– are shaped by class struggle, by the dynamic elements of resistance and reaction, which is the case whether we recognize them in our lives (and art) or we ignore them.

If there’s such a thing as “bad art”– garbage, junk food, guilty pleasure, Taylor Swift– it’s art that silently screams a tacit approval of the way things are by not agitating, not propagandizing to move things one way or the other: it’s just an automatic motion, and so is the movement of the thing consuming it.

However, the problem (in my viewpoint at any rate) with elitists, and the crowd that pledges its loyalty to “free thought” and “individual liberty”– individuals who are usually wealthy or middle-class, cisgender, and white– when it comes to art is that they attach themselves to some mythological tradition of “Western classics,” the great books of European men like themselves, and claim that tradition as their own, and then they go out and enjoy consuming an entirely different type of art, which really doesn’t have much to say.  Maybe it talks about having a broken heart, or about falling in love again, especially if it’s in the form of a popular song’s catchy lyrics, complete with strumming guitars … and there’s nothing wrong with any of that.

The problem is that white people in the U.S. and Canada (and in the other settler colonies of Europe) want Western civilization (whatever that is) to represent “white culture” whenever it’s time for us to argue that we do, in fact, create great art; but this art of the past is neither a product of our current political struggle, nor does it shape it.

In fact, the Christian Bible itself has about as little to do with the daily lives of white colonizers in “America” as Gilgamesh does– otherwise, we might feed the poor, and get the police to stop killing Black people.  The Ten Commandments is a bad movie directed by a racist (Cecil B. DeMille) starring another reactionary, and a lousy actor (Charlton Heston, a real stretch of our unoriginal imagination considering Moses, or Musa, was Black), and including a smaller part for the wonderfully talented Edward G. Robinson, who had been semi-blacklisted for associating with the spectre of communism haunting Hollywood.  But that’s another story.

My point?  The Ten Commandments is not a very enjoyable movie.  No, my point is that “white culture”– like “white thought”– is often a slight of hand, a card trick by which the middle-class or rich cisgender colonizer argues that we have all this civilization and “Western tradition” (The Bible, Mozart, Shakespeare, Orson Welles), and then he goes and watches a sniper in the U.S. military, filmed against a green screen, shooting up brown people like a video game, a cartoon, a white kid at a high school.

One moment we want the bragging rights that come with a bookshelf weighed down by The Great Books of the Western World; the next moment whites are sending texts about how Black people are [insert here your favorite Greatest Hit of Racist White Culture].  This shit– pardon me– needs to be challenged.  That’s my point.  Dammit.  Do you enjoy Beethoven’s Ninth where Schiller writes about the universal brotherhood of men (updated to a less patriarchal and cisnormative understanding of the world)?  Or do you like to shoot stuff with an AR-15?  Even when that “stuff” is people?

These jokers in the deck (a slight mix of metaphor) like to say white boys don’t have a purpose today, so they murder kids in schools.  Yet there’s plenty of purpose– join the U.S. military, which is continually running ads in movie theaters and during football games on TV.  And by the way, you can join the football team and become a hero giving the opposing quarterback a concussion.  Or you can just watch the game after school– and try to avoid the recruiter for the U.S. Army while you’re at school.

But under capitalism there’s a massive quantity (if not quality) of purpose to fill that yawning void for young men and boys in the “West,” whether we want to call it “toxic masculinity” or merely say that it’s the same master narrative that European imperialism has been repeating over hundreds of years … and it simply doesn’t resonate, they can’t identify with it, because, in its lack of political agitation, it no longer reflects their (or our) struggle to survive and develop.

It seems to me that we need more stories about transgender people of color– Black trans women– created by transgender people of color … by Black trans women.  And we need to pay them for their work, because that’s what it is: labor.  We need more stories coming from working class Africans, and Indigenous peoples, and disabled people– and, yes, intersectionality is the key– because the master narrative, when it goes unchallenged, even loses its meaning as a master narrative.

The only thing in “mainstream” (or “white”) art today that resonates is the void left by the absence of the lives, the labor, the struggle of the people and their voices, which made this art– good, bad or mediocre– possible in the first place.

The lack of any meaningful message in the artistic creations of this bourgeois, colonial and white supremacist (or anti-Black) society has become its own negative message: what cannot be created by the machine and enjoyed by the machine, can only agitate and propagandize a negative wish to destroy then be destroyed, and to go out in a blaze of glory and gunfire at a school, just like the hero on the screen.

You can call it “identity politics” or propaganda all you want– but don’t we want to challenge that hollow hero’s narrow narrative, even if only just to reflect that his world– the world of Charlton Heston and Cecil B. DeMille– no longer exists?  Don’t we want to experience living, as full and complete human beings fully actualized by our art, as flesh and feeling, not metal to be pierced by bullets of metal?



“The Tin Man” and “The Ten Commandments” of the Hollow Men’s Narrow Narratives™

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

Unsafe Space for Colonizers: Whites Will Not Enjoy “Our Freedoms” Until We Destroy a System Which Deprives the World’s Oppressed Majority of Their Power


Freedom, like justice, is absolute: either you are free or you are not free.  But once we place the absolute concept of freedom into the human experience, which is part of our daily struggle both within and against nature, then freedom is limited by the extent of our access to the natural resources necessary for life itself.  Now freedom– or justice or equality– is not only a question of how we feel about it as individuals (“Do I feel free?”), but how our own experience of freedom (subjective reality) relates to our conditions (objective reality) and to the people who share these conditions.  The totality of the situation in which people wish to feel free is no longer defined by the ideal of liberty but by our level of power inside this organic whole.  The situation encompassing all individuals is not only whole, it is organic, because it grows out of the historical struggle for our survival and development within nature: the accumulated wealth of a society, including all its productions of labor, its ideas, its culture (religion, language, art), its technological advances and its ability to promote freedom by promoting life.

In this context of history, and the evolutionary processes of the material world– which both shapes and is shaped by the people who inhabit it– a contradiction arises among those segments of society who have enjoyed a greater feeling of freedom, precisely because other segments of society have been deprived of their freedom, not in the idealist sense, but in their measurable access to land and resources, and their experience of violence and exploitation.  And the historical and material context referred to here is that of colonialism: it is the colonial situation which exists in the United States and Canada, as well as South Africa, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, and other territories of the world outside Europe occupied by whites.  The contradiction which emerges in the colonial context is that the European colonizer– the white– often may have the feeling of experiencing less freedom (from an attack on “our” “liberal” or “Western” values, on “free thought”) as the historically oppressed communities in this shared situation gain greater power through their greater resistance (even, or especially, when revolutionary violence is required).

If we judge our level of freedom– and equality and justice– against measurable quantities of land and resources (access to good food, clean water, and decent education, healthcare and housing) white colonizers in the U.S. and Canada, no matter how we feel about it, experience far more “freedom” than colonized Africans/Black people and Indigenous/First Nations peoples.  And why do whites or Europeans in these occupied territories experience a greater amount of this material basis for liberty, which is land and resources?  It’s because there is a greater capacity for organized violence– state power– backing up and allowing our very existence in these territories.

As a result, resistance to the violent institutional and structural power of the colonizer, which is necessary for the creation of any sense of freedom experienced by whites, may feel like an attack on our freedoms– an attack on absolute ideals such as “freedom of speech” and intellectual freedom or academic freedom.  A few windows may be broken, and a few white cis feelings hurt, on violently occupied land.  Historically, the white colonizing power of the United States or Canada has recognized no such right– to anything– for Indigenous/First Nations peoples or African/Black people, as it has moved against them, occupying their land, using their labor and lives to build an empire, and continually depriving them of resources.  The foundation for the liberty enjoyed by the white colonizer is not only a system of exploitation, but the institutional and structural forces of genocide, slavery and oppression: white power.  Some “freedom.”

As oppressed peoples– and marginalized individuals within the white oppressor nation– struggle against the power belonging to the imperialist and capitalist state, and the institutions under the control of its wealthy ruling class, such as corporations, universities, and government at all its levels, this resistance to the power enjoyed mainly by the white cisgender man may appear to be a threat to his freedoms.  Yet freedom, in the context of colonialism, is not absolute.  The limit of “free thought” in colonial society is whiteness.  Beyond the boundaries of whiteness, the ability of individuals to think or to do anything else– drive, walk, breathe– is based on whatever level of power which has been granted to them by a government controlled by racist whites.  Likewise, a transgender woman– including a trans woman who is a colonizer in the white oppressor nation– only experiences the liberty, the “free speech” and “free thought,” imposed on her by a transmisogynistic system of power: either she goes along with a permanently negated status predetermined by cisgender whites (usually wealthy or middle-class), or she moves against this negation of her ability to live as a free person in a free society.  Until we’re all free, forget your freedoms!

However, even if white trans women were to gain complete freedom in colonial society, this feeling of liberty which we began to experience would also be limited by the extent of our whiteness.  There is no such thing as free speech– or free anything else– in the context of colonialism, regardless of the feelings experienced by those who hold greater power in its tiered political, economic and social structure.

To the white oppressor, freedom (as well as equality, justice and peace) is always a question of preserving the existing power structure, even if this means reforming and modifying its idealized edifice (through new legislation, such as laws for gun control, or through new policies in the workplace).  To oppressed peoples, the freedom of whites is a bargain that the wealthy ruling class of colonial society makes with some members of their community: you may be able to escape a certain amount of your oppression, and gain access to a certain measure of the white oppressor’s wealth, yet you will only be able to attend our schools, or live in our neighborhoods, or find employment in our workplaces, and enjoy our freedoms, if you give up your right to resist and your historical obligation to move against the entire system of power oppressing your people.

In the context of colonialism, freedom– free thought, free speech, free ownership of a gun– is bogus.  The white experience of individual liberty is based on mass oppression.  That’s not freedom, that’s a bribe.  You may feel free, but of course it’s enjoyable to be up there, and to breathe in all that free air from the vantage point of the colonizer.  Just don’t move against the colonial system of power.  Don’t focus on the identities of colonized peoples, the politics of identity (except for the “American” or “Western” or “Judeo-Christian” identity, that’s just fine).  Don’t be extreme.  Don’t be politically correct.  Don’t, don’t, don’t … considering the absolute value of freedom under the subjective idealism of bourgeois rule, there sure are a lot of “don’ts” attached to its promotion in U.S. capitalist society.  Perhaps this is on account of the fact that absolute freedom, once it has been placed in the context of political struggle, takes on the shape of that struggle: those with greater wealth and more power experience greater freedom, and therefore feel threatened by any loss, not of their “free thought” or “free speech,” but their oppressive power.  Too bad– it still has to go.

But the key is to revolutionize this colonial situation, and to overthrow the entire structure which is keeping these tiered levels of so-called freedom in their properly ordered slots.  Let the “free thinkers” scream about the approaching “chaos,” and “fascism” (“neo-” or otherwise), as they react, and defend the rights– which is to say, the political, economic and social power— of cisgender rich whites.  Let them scoff at the young people who rebel in universities, and colleges and schools, and who demand that the reactionaries of bourgeois society recognize the equal rights of the marginalized and oppressed, by relinquishing their oppressive and unequal power.  Burn it down, if necessary.

While the structure of colonial power remains intact, European colonizers (particularly rich and middle-class cisgender whites) have no “rights” or “freedoms” which the oppressed and marginalized peoples of the world are bound to respect.  Because either everyone gets to enjoy this freedom, or no one does.  And it’s the duty of marginalized and oppressed people to destroy any system which deprives freedom for the global majority while it empowers a few privileged whites to experience what we erroneously call “liberty” … or just the power to oppress.

Unsafe Space for Colonizers: Whites Will Not Enjoy “Our Freedoms” Until We Destroy a System Which Deprives the World’s Oppressed Majority of Their Power

Antithesis to the Chaos of Capitalism: Fascist Rule versus the Revolutionary Masses’ Correct Ideas for Life


Since “political correctness” apparently can mean almost anything these days (including “neo-fascism” lol) perhaps it’s useful for us to shift and refocus its meaning: to be “politically correct” is to have “the correct politics.”  And what are the correct politics?  According to this viewpoint, our politics are correct when we are able to move or change matter in the direction of our choice; and our politics are incorrect when they don’t move or change matter in the way we desire.  Incorrect politics can be said to mean ideas that don’t work– they are ineffective.  When they are politically correct, our ideas effectively transform the objective world.

How we wish to change our environment depends largely on how our environment has changed us, or where we’re located as a people, a class, an identity, within these material conditions.  Whenever there is a disagreement about our location (and its meaning) inside the conditions shared by a society, this social fissure takes on a particular shape and color according to the culture or the historical personality of a people, and the resulting tension from this internal contradiction can express itself in antagonistic or non-antagonistic terms.  Historically, when the contradictions of society are the result of unequal levels of power– such as the dialectical relationship between the colonizer and the colonized, or the exploiting class and the exploited class– the consequences of these volatile elements is a total transformation of the all-encompassing conditions containing these interlocking but warring elements, and of the political and economic structure which locks these in place: in other words, the result of repression’s violence is violent revolution.

Yet these quantitative changes to society are going on all the time as part of a series of reactions expressed by the term class struggle.  A society that experiences violent revolution– because it was unable to resolve its contradictions without war– is a society that was already violent, and was moving toward chaos by its movement away from chaos.  This need to maintain “law and order,” through violence, gives birth to the movement which eventually will bring a new order to the growth of chaotic conditions.  But, before this upheaval, the violence tended to be moving in one direction: from the colonizer against the colonized, from the class with greater wealth and power down on top of the classes with less wealth and power.

For this is how the oppressor keeps the source of their power intact, or their greater ability to oppress and to gain wealth.  From their vantage point, individuals in the class above– enjoying the greater privileges of their class– view their politics as correct, because they have effectively subjugated the source of their power: the classes struggling below.  Threats against their status (in opposition to the status of the colonizer, the cisgender man or cisgender woman with one of two “biological sexes,” the white or “Western” identity, the capitalist exploiter) are viewed more and more aggressively as “bad” or “dumb” or “evil” politics, as “chaos,” as “fascism” (“neo-” or otherwise).

The positivity and negativity attached to the elements in this dialectical struggle for power depend on the viewpoint of one’s class, and how their class has been shaped by the totality of the shared environment.  Any time there is a hierarchy of power– based on nonessential factors of race, gender, sexuality, religion and so forth– there will be a series of reactions created by the friction between these classes (these categories of power); yet such quantitative changes to society will not overthrow the entire political arrangement of power until a greater mass force of violence is organized by the people below.

Before, during and after this massive upheaval in society which leads to a qualitative change to its power structure, we might ask this question: who do you go to when there is a crisis, to the two people (or two sides) who are arguing, or the people (the organization) actually getting things done?  Usually, in a crisis you turn to the person or group with experience at handling a crisis.  While it’s important that they have the correct ideology or theory, their amount of formal schooling in this critical situation is insignificant to its resolution: what you count on is their ability to recognize, express and (if necessary) redirect the wishes and interests of your people so that the majority of you can decide to move in a certain direction, as one.

The “self-made man” or the “know-it-all” or the folksy (and sometimes hot-headed) academic/philosopher/brand strategist (the “ideas man”) is mostly unhelpful to the masses when it comes to their actual struggle for resources, because this argumentative curmudgeonly individual has isolated himself from the people through his own elitist and anarchic subjective idealism.

At this stage of the struggle, the people don’t need catchy phrases regarding the “12 rules for life”– which are merely the commodified and repackaged bland ideas of the wealthy bourgeois ruling class whose power is now under attack: people need correct politics, and politically correct leadership that comes from their ability to organize a class, an identity, a community with a shared culture and history, so that they can move together as one.

But what exactly is fascism, at least in this context?  Fascism is what happens whenever a revolution fails to bring about the total transformation of a society’s power structure.  Often a charismatic leader– a persuasive cisgender “Everyman”– has expressed the aspirations and interests of a people, in their collective act of rebellion against “the way things are heading”; yet at the point of crisis (when the things actually get there), this leader turns to populism, demagoguery and a selfish grab for individual power (or power for his family, his clan, his tribe, his regiment of the people’s army).

This fascist leader still enjoys the support of the majority of the people because his main gift is the ability to recognize and isolate spokesmen for the people within certain segments of society who can be bought off– and if he cannot bribe them, he kills them.  However, under fascist rule, the popular leader is only able to gain and hold onto his position of power because he has made a deal with members of the ruling class: the wealthy families, corporations, “old money.”  The ruling elite allow the charismatic leader– FDR for example– to take power because his reforms and maneuvers (the “New Deal” and the coerced entrance into the Second Imperialist War, resulting in full employment for the “American” masses) are more attractive than the alternative choice: death by proletarian revolution.

Having preserved and consolidated their power, the ruling elite are now able to take advantage of contradictions within working class movements, and split these divisions even farther apart, as labor unions sell out workers, and particularly the workers belonging to the African colony in the United States.  Thus, in the 1930s, lynchings and other white terrorism directed at Africans in “America” were on the rise, while Franklin Roosevelt remained silent, out of necessity: whenever capitalism and imperialism are on the verge of collapse, this global system of power must use greater violence (official or unofficial) against the most marginalized people in society.  Vigilante and police (and FBI) move as one: an effective reaction by the racist ruling class to restore control over the spectre of chaos (communism) haunting the land.

Fascism is the result of an imperialist and capitalist system in crisis, and the rulers’ attempt to resolve this crisis through greater downward force against the masses.  The fascists tend to aim their violence at the least popular segments of a society (Jews, Muslims, undocumented immigrants, transgender people, and particularly Black transgender women) because, if they don’t, the increasingly chaotic and antagonistic elements of society might begin to move against the ruling class.

Redirection of a people’s rage, which is threatening to overthrow the power of the rich few at the top, is a requirement of capitalist rule in the United States and throughout the domain of “Western civilization”: fascism is always popular among whites, even as we experience exploitation and marginalization from it.  That is, whites love fascism whenever the main thrust of its violence is redirected away from us, and is pointed instead at Africans, Indigenous peoples and the queer and trans identities who have the least power (and therefore excite the greatest disgust and fear among upwardly-mobile cisgender colonizers).

But here’s the question: is Trump a fascist?  Yes, of course he is.  But the white colonizing population of the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Israel has been conditioned to support fascist rule by our history of self-entitled, racist occupation of territories outside Europe.  This is what Dhoruba Bin-Wahad calls “democratic fascism.”  Whites don’t need to elect a Donald Trump in order to impose our fascist rule on historically oppressed communities.  And you don’t have to agree with everything Trump says– or with all the nonsense churned out at “CPAC”– in order to promote the fascist ideology of the European colonizer: you just have to agree that the United States (or Canada or Israel, etc.) ought to exist, even if its continuing existence means greater and greater violence against marginalized identities.

Reaction to resistance by marginalized and oppressed identities inside the all-encompassing situation of colonial rule in the U.S. tends to run toward fascism, because white cisgender men with power and wealth created this nation-state in their own image, according to their own interests (as “the Founding Fathers”), and so that original(ist) foundation is usually the natural starting point (or, rather, the point of return) for the reactionary.  Adherence to a textual tradition and to the literal “scientific facts” (instead of their subversion) is always popular in the fascist impulse.

Fascists love to quote the U.S. Constitution (and not just its Second Amendment), almost as much as they love waving the “American” flag, or showing their loyalty to some mythological past of heroic “patriots” with muskets, forever requesting– that is, demanding— “liberty or death.”  And until the colonizer is given death– or the alternate choice to relinquish their unequal power– they will keep reacting according to their conditioning by the genocidal, imperialist nation-state.  We are shaped by a static yet unstable situation which requires, as its ideological basis, the ongoing coercion of racist, transmisogynistic whites in order to promote the authoritarian rule of capital.  And any time the resistance increases– particularly from Black and Brown people– the white colonizer runs back to the mythological basis of “America,” which they now can use as a launching pad for increasingly antagonistic and fascist reactions toward this threat against white power.

As a white cisgender man in the United States, or in any other settler colony of Europe, you don’t need to turn to Donald Trump for your ideological defenses to the correct ideas of socialist revolution: a bestselling author, and psychologist and faux-folksy YouTube star can provide you the rage and rationale (the “facts”) for defending democratic fascism, redirecting your antagonistic behavior away from the power of the state itself, and against transgender people, Muslims, feminists, “SJWs,” and (no doubt) many other phantom enemies of elevated whiteness.

Antithesis to the Chaos of Capitalism: Fascist Rule versus the Revolutionary Masses’ Correct Ideas for Life