Lifestylism: its merits and its failures.

No tactic amongst Anarchists is as simultaneously scorned and universally embraced as lifestylism. Some will be angered by the audacity to even call it a tactic! Even so, I could imagine the same Anarchist who would dissent upon this, would also upon close examination, probably lends some aspect of their lifestyle to their idea of a “social revolution”.

The idea that one should embody the world they want to live in, is certainly not one to be opposed. If everyone followed this, we would live in as much different world. The question is if it is enough to do this and only this in a world where new apartheids arise in multiplicity as we seem to topple one of the old ones.  Is this even a viable attack (or an attack at all) for the working class to employ? Is it a privileged First-World position?

I believe that lifestylism (with all its egoist and Stirnerite influence) arises, in part, from cultural attributes that are not at all bad for Anarchists. As with most other strains of Revolutionary Socialists, Anarchists hold their comrades to high standards. We emphasize the attack. Most of us cannot be arsed to waste the time I am wasting at this very moment, or that you are wasting at this moment. The Anarchist says “go, now, we must attack!”. That being well understood, we also hold each other to high-regards in their lifestyle. Any practice seen as oppression is scrutinized. Still, I believe this not be a bad thing in practice, yet how to do we balance the accountability for our comrades and the inherently privileged tactic (or anti-tactic) of lifestylism?

Bakunin, in Man, Society and Freedom:

“In addition to this practical reason, there is still another of a theoretical nature which also leads even the most sincere liberals back to the cult of the State. They consider themselves liberals because their theory on the origin of society is based on the principle of individual freedom, and it is precisely because of this that they must inevitably recognize the absolute right [sovereignty] of the State”

The liberal-bourgeois notions of individual freedom run deep in our society. However, the further we travel from our sphere of influence, we find individual freedom becoming more scarce, and our lifestyle and our freedom begins to look more and more like the product of subservience and dominion of others. Anarchists know this freedom to be a sham. As an American, I know the cult of the State has given me the most the twisted notions of “individual freedom.” These notions have found their way into the revolutionary praxis.

Murray Bookchin, from Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm:

The steady retreat from the historic commitment of classical anarchism to social struggle (without which self-realization and the fulfillment of desire in all its dimensions, not merely the instinctive, cannot be achieved) is inevitably accompanied by a disastrous mystification of experience and reality. The ego, identified almost fetishistically as the locus of emancipation, turns out to be identical to the ‘sovereign individual’ of laissez-faire individualism. Detached from its social moorings, it achieves not autonomy but the heteronomous ‘selfhood’ of petty-bourgeois enterprise.

We know, as Anarchists, that the individual is a product of the society that makes them. As many attempts that we make to be our own free-thinkers, we know that we cannot achieve freedom from capitalism and the state on our own. The only way to do such is to be a hermit, which looks more to me like a prison than freedom. Radical social change doesn’t come from an individual, expressing their freedom through actions that affect only them. One’s freedom is intrinsically tied to that of their neighbor, and revolution can never be won without the mobilization of the masses.

Consumer activism is a major consequence of this. It is the product of the Cult of the State as much as it is Cultural Capitalism. In America, they are almost infused. Slavoj Zizek gives a fantastic analysis of this in his RSA Animate “First as Tragedy, Then as Farce“. We embrace the very egoist act of consumption. We have commodified the very ideals of egalitarianism and justice. They come at a price, and we pay it without question. We know this kind of activism is not a solution.

The Anarchist forumlation of the attack, must remain free from these bourgeois individualist notions. Can this attack be a part of our lifestyle? Absolutely, but it must remain an attack to be a revolutionary act. It begs the question, which “lifestyle” scenario is engaging in agitation and attack, the Anarchist who occupies a squat, steals all their food (possibly growing some), and refuses to pay bus fare?; or the Anarchist who buys all their food (organic and vegan), pays “rent” in a housing cooperative, and has a bus card? Who is stealing their Anarchist lifestyle, and who is buying it from the enemy?

I am inclined to say it is the former Anarchist whose lifestyle is indicative of agitation and attack. Even in the bourgeois state, we know this to not be enough at the same time. If our “lifestyle choices” were enough to subvert the system, it would’ve already been overthrown. Even under the most illegalist ethics, the individual does little on their own. The lifestyle ethic of Anarchism is not a complete or sufficient revolutionary mechanism, and I fail to fall to the notion that our enemies would ever make it so easy for us, that they would sell to us their own downfall.

Under the Anarchist Praxis, to me, there are three kinds of attack: Insurrection (violence or destruction of property done by affinity groups), Expropriation (the act of seizing private property and putting it to public use) and Organized Sabotage (worker’s strikes and other tactics in worker’s organization). The insurrectionist praxis and the organizationalist/workerist practice are well-developed and most Anarchists identify as one of two them. I am not a CrimethInc fan, but I will credit them for re-awakening at the very least elements expropriationist praxis and infusing it with lifestylism (as well as the overlap of insurrectionism that often comes with the Anarchist style of expropriation).

The lifestyle however, is not and never will be, praxis. If it cannot be funneled into an attack, if it doesn’t agitate, then it cannot be a praxis under the banner of Anarchism. The building of public and proletarian resources, the positive things our community does, certainly may embody an attack which furthers our cause, but these things are no substitute for the attack to come. They are based on the bourgeois notion, that if we can just live our lives in a manner which at least appears Anarchist, we can subvert the system. It is almost like role-playing in a fantasy world where we can forget our society must be radically changed, as soon as possible.

I am absolutely not suggesting we do not do the things which may be categorized into the above. The infoshops, bookfairs, social centers, anarchist gardens, potlucks, educational skill-shares, workshops, dance parties, and all the things we love and cherish as Anarchists, are under constant attack and threat. If we do not practice the act of revolutionary self-defense, the attack, then is it not all for naught? Will the infoshop not close eventually? Will the bookfair not end up crippling someone’s ability to live? Will the Anarchist garden ever be able to feed all the Anarchists? Does the food at Anarchist potlucks come from exploitation? We can build these things all day, yet unless we attack, we will exist under the same conditions. There can be no Anarchist lifestyle until there is a revolution.

So perhaps it is not the idea that Anarchists shouldn’t give their life to our movement. I feel Anarchists should be (and often are already) devoted to our cause, almost religiously. Whether they believe it or not, I believe the Anarchist is ultimately tied to a revolutionary “spirit”, in the Hegelian or Idealist sense. We are passionately moved by action. Murray Bookchin believes such metaphysical/phenomenological notions are the root of the Stirnerite and therefore lifestylist notions. I would say they are unavoidable by any Anarchist, and at the moment of attack, the Anarchist’s eyes glow in utter ecstasy and their heart rages with passion.

The formulation of the Anarchist lifestyle is not the problem. It’s that is it must be given an agenda of attack. Anarchism means direct-action, it means no compromise. The consumerist or individualist lifestyle currently practiced by many Anarchists, is devoid of both attack and substantial building, and is rooted by compromise, a trade-off with the rich. It is a deviation that must be attacked alongside the system.


My Disillusionment with Marxist-Leninism

I will start by clarifying I have never been a Leninist. I am happy to say I am one of those Anarchists who has given the ideas and theories a chance. I would say gratitude is even fair, as I feel I’ve picked up useful tactical and theoretical insights all the way down the ideological line from Lenin. So first, let me flatter my Leninist comrades, by pointing out the concepts troublesome yet useful to Anarchist theory:

From Lenin, primarily State and Revolution:

  • Lenin’s theories of Imperialism, and its effects on the Imperialist yet Bourgeois-State, should be accepted irrefutably by Anarchists. Lenin gives a perfect outline of why American and First World global policy is the way they it is today.
  • The Leninist definition for state, “the mechanism in which one social class oppresses the other” is actually very useful for Anarchists, who lack good and widely-accepted definitions for “state”.
  • His hypothesis that the state is proof of “irreconcilably antagonistic classes” is demonstrative and complimentary of Anarchist theory which told us that the state is the result of the downfall of feudalism, and the property theory which allowed us to see the institutions in constant symbiotic relationships with the state. Anarchists have long known that the only way to overthrow the state is through class struggle.

Much of the Marxist-Leninist critique of Anarchism rests firmly within Lenin’s theories of Imperialism, the nature in which parliamentary capitalist states carry out a policy to exert the totality of capitalism. This leaves young socialist societies open to attack by Imperialist Bourgeois states, both from within and outside. Anarchists need to accept the need for an extended strategic social war if we are to win, and we need to have our own answers to these very legitimate questions posed by Marxist-Leninists. I could elaborate much, but I feel the concepts are actually expressed in a manner more appealing to Anarchists by Mao Zedong than that of Vladimir Lenin.

From Mao, primarily Quotations from Chairman Mao (known in the West commonly as the “Little Red Book”) and also On Contradictions and On the Correct handling of Contradictions Amongst the People:

  • The idea of the “Mass Line” is similar to that espoused by Anarchists of the platformist (organizationalist) praxis and those of the insurrectionists (anti-organizationist) praxis. Ideological unity and class-consciousness should precede any need for consensus. Consensus should be pre-conceived amongst Anarchists, yet all too often we are not. This level of organization will come under greatest demand during our inevitable militarization (if you can even say that’s possibly for Anarchists, historically it certainly is)
  • Mao’s concept that we should organize along this Mass Line into “revolutionary cadres”, once the political line is determined, is crucial to Anarchist organization at a certain stage. However, this concept can still be compatible with the decentralized insurrections espoused by some Anarchists. It’s also is fairly compatible with Anarchist platformist organizations, who seek and desire ideological unity above all else. It is along these lines that I believe we can win.
  • Protracted People’s War also demonstrates a useful exchange of ideas. Some speculate Mao may have been influenced by the techniques developed by Chinese Anarchists. It would be more than prudent to employ this very well developed form of attack complimented to both our insurrectionist and syndicalist/platformist strategies.
  • Mao’s interesting philosophical contributions of the dialectical materialist method is not just universally applicable to revolutionary socialists, but to the entire field of philosophy, especially those that claim any sort of Hegelian influence.

The parallels of Marxist-Leninism as developed by Mao, and that of classical Anarchist Communism are honestly endless, and more cross-studies are out there. Mao-spontex (or “spontaneous Maoism”)  took note of this, and developed a movement combining Anarchist and Maoist traditions, in Western Europe in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, while the Cultural Revolution was still underway in China. Mao’s unique social warfare, regarding attack and agitation are, very similar to the Anarchist praxis. Some of those who reject Mao, believe his ideological deviations begin with his idealism. I would be lying if I didn’t believe that idealism is one of the things that appeals to Anarchists. From Mao’s policy in Revolutionary China, despite his persecution of ultra-leftists (which includes Anarchists) during his time as Chairman of the CPC. It can be almost assumed his idea of the state “withering away” differed from Lenin and Engels, that the state (and all oppression) must be agitated away, that was my understanding behind the Cultural Revolution and Hundred Flowers Campaign, which demonstrated Mao’s commitment to open agitation, criticism and forward development of revolutionary culture.

It is of utmost importance, even given the occasional calls for revolutionary left unity (which I will always answer), to acknowledge and remember that the schism between Marxists and Anarchists runs deep. I would dare to say that it doesn’t simply begin with the Anarchist rejection of democratic centralism (as proposed by Lenin) or even the analysis of the state. The schism lies in the development of dialectical materialism in and of itself. I would say Anarchists (likely unconsciously) have analysis similar to the more mystical sides of Hegel. I don’t think there is anything wrong with this, obviously. I believe Marx spent entirely too much effort to abandon things about Marxism that in practice, were unavoidable. I think these issues were actually realized by no one better than Mao, and his attempts to reconcile them dialectically through the correct handling of contradictions, paint quite an idealist and humanizing image to some Anarchists.

Perhaps Marx was wrong in that Hegel’s Dialectics must be “turned on the their head”, or perhaps the Anarchist position is better suited for a dialectical materialist methodology closer to the that of Hegel’s original (which I would be more prepared to defend). I am not a dialectician and make no attempt to be such at this point, but I’ve developed a deep appreciation for them at this point. Anarchists have never had an affinity for the academy as Marxists have, but I definitely will be behind any promotion that Anarchism should become more scientific in our revolutionary praxis, without sacrificing the ideals and principles at the core of Anarchist theory.

I am not calling for a dialectical “synthesis” of Anarchism and Marxism. I believe that Anarchists should employ our own understanding of  Hegel’s very useful dialectics, and develop that. We shouldn’t make an attempt to discard Marx’s materialism, we should realize our own. Despite our hostility to the academy, Anarchism is not anti-scientific. We have refined our praxis (of which I believe most people follow one of two, or both), our ideals and our “culture” (Marxists will reject this as irrelevant to the proletariat of the third world, and I will agree with that, but it is not irrelevant to Anarchism in general). We must now begin to develop the Anarchist science that will give us a mechanism to apply to various revolutionary contexts.

David Graeber, himself an Anarchist academic, gives a very fair and insightful reasoning behind why the academy and Anarchists don’t tend to get along in The Twilight of Vanguardism:

“It’s not just that anarchism does not lend itself to high theory. It’s that it is primarily an ethics of practice; and it insists, before anything else, that one’s means most be consonant with one’s ends; one cannot create freedom through authoritarian means; that as much as possible, one must embody the society one wishes to create.”

I am tempted to agree with any Marxists who believe this to be the core of Anarchist “lifestylism” and our inherent idealism. The idea that if you are not directly attacking the system or building communism, what you are doing is not under the banner of Anarchism. We carry a direct-action “do something now” approach to things, and I too believe in that. I do not however believe that we cannot further develop our theory to make those actions more meaningful.

The Anarchist position against democratic centralism is not that we reject the idea of a “revolutionary minority”, insurrectionist Anarchist Communists have understood this for a long time. Along with the responsibility to agitate and attack the ruling classes, the insurrectionist knows they are in the minority. Despite this, the Insurrectionist doesn’t believe that worker’s should be mobilized by organizations during this attack. Platformists believe in the horizontal power built by the vanguard parties, and believe in the ideological unity proposed by vanguardists, yet inevitably find difficulty mobilizing the masses to attack. and make the cross over to the praxis of insurrectionists. This is a serious problem, Anarchists struggle to both build power horizontally and mobilize for attack.

Knowing full well the issues with the common Anarchist mode of organizing, under formal or informal consensus, bears many issues. Most Anarchist organizations lack the ideological unity proposed by Platformists like Mahkno (post-Russian Revolution). To handle contradictions, we are inevitably in need of some sort of empirical method to resolve problems according to Anarchist ideals. Back to the academy we go, I say, but we will not have an academic anarchism developed by a single person. No school of Anarchism has thus far been developed in this manner, and I say that as one of the few people describing themselves today as explicitly Kropotkinist. My revolutionary ideals are unequivocally attributable to Kropotkin’s theories of mutual-aid and evolution, and that is the science unique to Anarchism which makes the difference to me.

So, given both my praises for the analysis and strategy of Marxist-Leninists, and the weakness of the Anarchist movement, it is come due-time to address why I still stand for Anarchism. That means I must obviously defend my assertion that stateless mechanisms are ideal for both overthrowing the capitalist state and building full-communism, as well as my rejection of “democratic centralism”.

Using Lenin’s understanding of the state as “the mechanism in which one class oppresses another”, Anarchists do not desire to use the tools of the bourgeois state in overthrowing capitalism. We feel systems based of exploitation can only further the cause of exploitation. We seem them as unfit and ineffective. The idea that we should mobilize revolutionaries into “one true revolution” is certainly a nice ideal I can get behind, but I believe when intellectuals harness the tools of the ruling class, we replicate their bourgeois notions no matter how hard we try not to.  When we harness the tools of bourgeois exploitation, we fall upon paternalism in practice, which is a trait of the bourgeois state. Even in understanding Lenin’s theoretical “stages of Communism”, I find little hope in using the mechanism built by an “irreconcilably and perpetually antagonistic” class as that of our own.

I think the state is as much a means of production, as it is the mechanism in which one class oppresses another. When your relationship to the state changes (I am not saying we should abandon solidarity those working in certain exceptional segments of the state apparatus) to that of the “oppressor of the working class”, you have committed a petit-bourgeois form of class traitorship. With all the bourgeois characteristics and privilege adopted by the revolutionary leaders of last century, the Anarchist position can be summed up quite simply: the state corrupts, and the state will always be bourgeois.

We also believe the state to not be unique in it’s cultural subversion, the same way capitalism is. Yes, the state is intrinsically tied to capital, this is known from its emergence from the feudalist system. We’ve come under a social hegemony in the bourgeois state, where the state is viewed much like capitalism, life without it seems rather impossible, perhaps more impossible. It’s also seen by many as the only path to social change. Capitalism has created a statist phenomenon where property and capital can also be the sources of violence, resulting in a redefining of violence in and of itself. Those who commit violence in defense of property are seen as heroic. Much like capitalist exploitation is covered up with legislative band-aids, the exploitation of the state (such as imperialist wars, military hegemony in foreign affairs, police brutality and austerity measures) is treated with more legislation (if at all).  This is not simply capitalism we are talking about, we are living under a cultural statism in addition to that of a cultural capitalism.

Even under the historical-materialist analysis of class struggle, I fear using the tools of the bourgeois state to be a barrier to building final Communism. I do believe in socialism as a transitory stage, but Anarchists have our own transitory socialist systems. I am fundamentally Communist, but the systems of Kevin Carson and Proudhonian Mutualism are viable mechanisms to build communism when organized under syndicalism. All in all, we wish for both our attack and building to be organic, something unable to be attributed to a ruler, but that of the people. We are not opposed to organic leadership, we distrust some leaders, but we unequivocally opposed to rulers in our revolution. No one needs to tell us to overthrow capitalism, we know we must, and solidarity means attack, and that revolution means building. The common Marxist derailment of “it’s naïve to call for the immediate abolition of the state!” usually confuses me and I find this to be a huge failure in understanding Anarchism. We believe in stateless mechanisms of the abolition of capitalism, and there lies a distinction from their understanding. Many of us are incrementalists in theory. We feel the state “withers away” while we abolish capitalism using stateless revolutions, not simply after we switch the mode of production to that of a socialist system.

So in my critique I make an appeal to the Anarchist idealism and ethics, which may bore Marxists. Not only because this is the same critique given by most Anarchists, but the core of our differences. I believe the loose-ends of Anarchism are parallel to the dead-ends of Marxist-Leninism. Our commitment to remain decentralized, egalitarian, and direct-action oriented needs to be harnessed as our strength, instead of being used as our weakness.

Further reading:

Vladimir Lenin:

State and Revolution

Mao Zedong:

Quotations from Chairman Mao

On Contradictions

On the Correct handling of Contradictions Amongst the People

David Graeber:

The Twilight of Vanguardism

Rosa Luxemburg

Organizational Questions of a Russian Social Democracy (Leninism or Marxism)

More at stake in Texas

(originally published July 18th, 2013)

I feel some might not quite understand what is entirely at stake here in Texas with the recent HB-2 abortion bill. It’s not just reproductive justice and freedom that went to the guillotine, and I mean that in the most Feminist-minded way. This is an act of extreme nepotism on behalf of the Rick Perry dynasty, and a violent attack of some of the most marginalized women in need of a variety of healthcare services.

This bill reaches far beyond that of other bills which ban abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy. It shuts down nearly all the women’s healthcare clinics in Texas, half of which don’t even offer abortion. These are places providing education, cancer screenings, STD tests, prevention, rape counseling, and services completely unrelated to the issue entirely. To end any of these services is a draconian act of injustice and serves as a punishment for anyone who dares provide specialized healthcare for women.

There is yet another shadowy and corrupt side to this. This bill doesn’t criminalize abortions. It shuts down most of the clinics currently providing them for an indefinite amount of time, which is horrific act of injustice indeed, but also demands that abortions be provided only at new state-approved “surgical centers and outpatient hospitals” which are to be built. Rick Perry is directly tied to the doctors building these surgical centers through his sister, Milla Perry Jones. So new clinics will be built (without all the the other services), and every abortion will now be going into the their pockets.

I’m ashamed that we are the 12th state to put restrictions on women’s reproductive freedom, but this reeks of something not only rooted in patriarchy, but also political nepotism. Being under the rule of Rick Perry since Bush took office in 2000, and Bush before that, we live in a Texas increasingly shaped by his bizarre and antiquated era-length governance, and this idea that Rick Perry and the Texas Republicans just sort of do shit and it’s out of our control. We need to remember people the political climate that comes from Texas and travels to the federal level, bringing us federal politicians from Texas like the Bushes and Tom Delay.

All that I really ask is that my comrades not look to the people of our state as standing by, condoning and supporting this. This feels like an attack on us all and reinforcing our hopelessness brought on is not what we need. I cannot count how many time’s I’ve heard “well fuck, I guess that’s Texas” as if we’re not fighting. We need your strength! We have to see an Anarchist and Feminist future for Texas everyday, we hope you can too.

In Solidarity with Texas Women!


Trayvon didn’t stand a chance

(Originally published Saturday July 18th, 2013)

The verdict is not surprising in the least, because Trayvon never had a chance at fair chance at justice to begin with. The verdict is simply demonstrative of the institutionally and culturally racist hegemony we live under.

What’s also to note is what lengths both legal teams went to AVOID social justice dialogue, which could’ve made a huge difference. This is what deserves outrage, because despite how I feel about the futility of fixing our system into something “fair”, we need to make known what is broken!

This case has been disingenuously presented in a manner as if race doesn’t come with material conditions, and it’s almost as if there was an elephant in the room. The idea that a locked-and-loaded “neighborhood watch” volunteer with dreams of being a “hero” wearing blue, couldn’t possibly be the kind of person who would profile a kid like Trayvon. He reeks of what thugs in blue do every day.

Let’s examine the material conditions under which we live which allows for an innocent person of color cannot safely walk home after picking up a bag of Skittles. Let’s examine the people the media loves to make out as “good ole boys”, the trigger happy pigs (or aspiring to be) who kill innocent black kids.

Dismantling racism won’t be done with a few days of riots alone, we’ve already done that before. Those verdicts didn’t and couldn’t even change. We need to organize and mobilize against racism and attack the socio-economic conditions that facilitate it.

Want justice? I suggest class-war, because we’re not going to find it in the courts and we won’t find in the streets either. These tragedies will continue to occur until we change the whole fucking system into a world where Trayvon would be able to have made it home in the first place.

To see George Zimmerman put away isn’t what we need. We need society to quit breeding George Zimmerman’s altogether. We need radical social change at every level of society, without it we lose all chances at ever dismantling any systems of oppression.

Solidarity and justice for Trayvon.

From an Anarchist to Dr. Ron Paul

(originally published July 16th, 2013)

Dear Mr. Ron Paul,

I think the biggest assumption that you make is that we live in a post-racial society, and that we’ve deconstructed race at every level. You don’t explicitly say this, but your position is dependent on this. The entire American “Libertarian” ideology is dependent on this idea that we are all equal. The truth is in our society, people are not equal. We should be, and that’s an ideal most working people in the U.S. have, but if you think we’ve “arrived” somewhere, I would call that naïve, and this naïve notion is ubiquitous in white culture.

Your solution is also naïve and vague, and conveniently identifiable with large number of people. “Liberty”. This is toxic and Orwellian in my opinion. We will never have “Liberty” without dismantling racism. I believe when politicians use terms like “Liberty”, “Equality”, and “Peace”, you use them in a disingenuous manner. I can’t say it surprises me, but it’s also a major factor in Americans quickly losing faith in the system altogether.

If you feel racism is “collectivist”, then subject it to a class analysis, because I think “collectivist”, despite the McCarthyist appeal you’re making, it alludes to something rather true. Racism is found at many levels of society. You’re a politician, you should know the statistics on race and the police state, the justice system, the prison system, and economic disparity. Racism is intersectional with classism. Institutionalized racism reflects that of a white (now colorblind) ruling class. It’s become subversive and advanced as the mode of production you believe is our solution to everything, dependent on naïve notions of equality.

Oh yeah, aren’t you a Nazi?


(in response to:)

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called ‘diversity’ actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.” – Ron Paul

Out of fucks to give

(originally published March 26th, 2013; I have since lightened up, but all the more angry)

I’m out of fucks to give about marriage. I’m sick of our movement being reduced to a single-issue that doesn’t represent our broader struggle. I’m sick of acting as if we’ve arrived somewhere because we’ve been told where to live, what to wear, what to like, as if that’s a vast improvement beyond being told who to fuck. I’m sick of acting as if a legislature of hets can possibly bring reform to a deeper more ubiquitous cultural oppression that they never can under stand. I’m tired of an assimilationist agenda.

I’m not sorry if this russles the jimmies and liberal sensibilities of the queers in my news feed, but it’s crucial we now shift the focus from a gay male-oriented single issue movement that desires an assimilation into a society which never wanted us anyways.

Fuck the liberal praxis. Embrace the queer within. Marraige is a burning building. Instead of asking in, let’s fan the flames.

Concerning Christopher Dorner

(originally published February 12th, 2013)

Let me make this loud and clear, Fuck LAPD, fuck the blue code of silence, and fuck drones. Decades later and we still have the pigs responsible for Rodney King wearing badges and perpetuating a ridiculously racist institution. I don’t sympathize with these shitlords and neither should you. There is literally no end to the police state when we have police drones flying over our heads. They justify any crime against civilians in the name of an individual who dares to question their corruption and nepotism.

A question is begged that we somehow need thugs in blue to “protect” us. In isolated incidents of helplessness, the police are known to exacerbate the situations with more brutality. I cannot begin to speak of the well-documented nepotism and brutality of the Houston Police Department. This is not unique to anywhere.

I’m bound to be rebutted with irrelevant rhetoric of “But the GOOD cops!”. You cannot judge an institution as individuals. These are aren’t isolated or individual problems. This is highly organized gang and mob mentality that cops will lie to protect eachother, and that they should never hold eachother accountable for racist and sexist brutality, or else suffer grave consequences. This is not a critique of individuals, critiquing the police requires that we critique the institution as a whole. It is a waste of time to talk about the individuals. The “good cops” quickly find out there’s no such thing as state justice.

The final question that’s begged is that of the beginning. How do we oppose our nepotic and racist police state, and what could possibly be in it’s place? That’s not as simple, but it begins with dismantling and opposing the socio-economic undertones that make them possible. The repression we see that creates the world which justifies the police state. At the very least, we should recognize how the police operate, their role in our current society, and why they remain a statist force which reinforces systems of oppression and societal institutions. Only then can we organize against them. I would say education as to the very nature of police is the beginning. You can’t start by not talking to cops today and knowing your rights.

Make no mistake, I’m behind a stateless and classless society. The police represent the biggest opposition to that. Nevertheless, their an institution society largely cannot envision themselves without. I can only say this saddens me, but it’s only true in a society dependant on the social constructions which justify police. Contrary to popular belief, the main function of the police (and the state in general) is NOT to serve and protect the people. It never has been. It is to enforce private property. We can only begin to envision a society without police when we’re willing to dismantle that institution.