Douglas Murray warned the West about this a long time ago. So did Bruce Bauer. So did Christopher Hitchens. Their warnings went unheeded. Branded “Islamophobes,” a propaganda term devised by Islamists to advance the project to Islamize the West by recoding the defense of civilization as bigotry, their observations of the fascistic character of Islamism were dismissed. And so here we are, the Islamization of Europe well underway, and the North American allies of the project letting their presence be known in cities across the continent, especially the youth.
What is the occasion that brings Islam’s useful idiots out of the woodwork? On October 7, Hamas militants launched thousands of rockets into Israel and invaded and infiltrated the country via air, land, and sea. A large number of armed Hamas fighters breached a border security fence, targeting Israeli civilians and soldiers who were caught off guard by the flash attack. Militants used motorboats to storm Israeli beaches, while others descended from the sky using paragliders. Israeli officials have reported over 1,400 casualties, including children, and more than 4,500 people injured as a result of these attacks. Babies were beheaded. Families were burned alive. Girls and women were raped. People of all ages were kidnapped.
Even before the bodies were cold the anti-Israel crowd was in the streets celebrating, a reaction that’s the analytical subject of the present essay. For their part, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) moved rapidly to neutralize Hamas in Gaza, operating forcefully on all fronts to destroy the terrorist organization’s capacity to perpetrate more atrocities against Jews. As Israel entered Gaza, the crowd gathered about its reactionary impulse growing numbers, the size of the protests a barometer for the historical stage of the West’s managed decline.
Many in the international community, including the Biden regime and the lunatics in Congress, wasted little time in calling for a humanitarian ceasefire. Former President Obama appeared and mumbled through an exercise in victim blaming. The sentiment of much of the world was obvious in the reaction to the United Nations’ General Assembly’s failure to secure an amendment to condemn Hamas’ terroristic actions. Many member states were not merely reluctant to condemn Hamas but applauded with the outcome of the vote was announced. By a recorded vote of 120 in favor to 14 against (with 45 abstentions), the Assembly adopted the resolution titled “Protection of civilians and upholding legal and humanitarian obligations” (A/ES-10/L.25). However, prior to adopting the resolution, the Assembly failed, by a recorded vote of 88 in favor to 55 against (with 23 abstentions), to adopt A/ES-10/L.26, an amendment unequivocally rejecting and condemning the terrorist attacks by Hamas that took place in Israel starting on October 7. The rejected amendment also condemned the taking of hostages and demanded the safety, well-being and humane treatment of those hostages in compliance with international law and call for their immediate and unconditional release.
A ceasefire would only give Hamas time to regroup. Israel has its right to collective self-defense against aggressors (The Ethics of Collective Self-Defense). Israel now stands as a bulwark against the civilized world and the barbarian. Really, it always has. Many are eager to talk about the occupation and the settlements. But that’s not relevant right now. The West must first face down the enemies of the Enlightenment—both external and internal. No peace, no justice.
As noted, what I want to focus on in this essay is the phenomenon of (faux)leftwing groups celebrating the terrorist action and the meaning behind the decades-long critique of Israel as an “apartheid state,” as an instantiation of “white settler colonialism,” despite Jews having a continual presence in what the Romans renamed in the second century AD “Syria Palestine,” previously known as Judaea, the homeland of the Jews for more than three thousand years. (See Cornering Jews and the Falsification of History.)
Who are these leftwing groups? On the ground, it’s the usual collection of misfits: Antifa, Black Lives Matter (BLM), communists, democratic socialists, and trans rights activists (TRAs). They’re joined by Muslim immigrants who subscribe to Islamism, the politicized form of Islam, i.e., clerical fascism—although, in light of the fact that Islam is intrinsically political, desiring a world were everybody lives under the thumb of sharia, the term is really more as denotation of extreme extremism. It’s a hateful and dangerous mix of very bad ideas, disordered personalities, and religious zealotry.
They’re joined by the usual suspects—the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), Democratic Socialist of America (DSA), the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), and the World Workers Party (WWP), as well as by student groups on campuses across the United States. Seeing each other as part of a common struggle against a common oppressor, an oppressor corrupted by humanism, individualism, and reason, ideas they associate with capitalism, colonialism, and imperialism—in a word, the West—, a small but noisy proportion of America is sympathetic to the array of illiberal and reactionary forces that mark today’s political terrain. At the core of this movement lies hatred, loathing, and resentment of white people and European civilization—and the Jewish people.
False consciousness of this depth and extent isn’t accidental. Beyond the alienating and anomic conditions of late capitalism, the illiberal reaction is the result of decades of cultivation by powerful ideational and institutional forces working to corrupt and undermine western civilization. Woke progressivism is the gravitational force that lies at the heart of postmodernist reactionary action, pulling allegiances into a comprehensive quasi-religious system around which today’s youth in particular revolve.
The socialist organizations identified above are not influential enough to have created this situation. Major mainstream institutions are responsible for the malignant system of untoward thought and behavior, including the corporate media, private and pubic education systems, and the culture industry. Sometimes the fruit of their labors go sideways, but whichever way they go, they’re useful for the disordering of the West and its reconstitution as a territory of the New World Order. Let’s see how long the transnational elite can ride the chaos they have sown.
A recent essay on the conflict came from a place of white heat (We are the Rebels Now). In the present essay, I detail these elements of the system and explain the overarching social logic that weaves each element into a comprehensive whole. I want to expand on Murray’s excellent analysis, in particular the part about post-colonial ideology. Taken together, this social logic, steeped in neo-Hegelian, post-colonialist, and poststructuralist / postmodernist ideologies, represents an existential threat to free and open societies predicated on the norms and values of the Enlightenment. I have written in-depth about these elements before on Freedom and Reason, so be sure to scroll through the blog’s table of contents and read more.
Antifa is a street-level fascistic and an ostensibly anti-policing organization. Appealing to the anarchist tactic of “propaganda of the deed,” members target for violent action free speech events by aggressively disrupting assemblies and harassing individuals based on their associations. The administrative state denies the organized character of Antifa, downplaying the magnitude of the threat the organization represents to public safety, easy to obscure given the large number of misfits and cluster B personality types (antisocial, borderline, narcissist) the organization counts among its ranks. (See The Problem with Antifascism).
“It’s not a group or an organization,” FBI Director Chris Wray told lawmakers in September 2020. “It’s a movement or an ideology.” In his debate with President Donald Trump a few week later, signaling the existence of talking points, then-nominee Joe Biden defended Antifa as “an idea, not an organization.” (“When a bat hits you over the head, that’s not an idea,” Trump countered.) In his testimony, Wray stressed that his agency does not police on ideological grounds, but is rather concerned with the violent threat groups pose to domestic security. Yet, Antifa is allowed operate without the level of attention and concern that peaceful patriotic groups receive (see Antifa, the Proud Boys, and the Relative Scale of Violent Extremism; MDM is the New WMD: DHS Issues a New NTAS Bulletin).
Black Lives Matter is a corporate-backed racist and anti-policing organization that enjoys the support of the Democratic Party and tens of millions of progressives and social democrats across the West—and millions more who are ignorant of what BLM actually represents (see What’s Really Going On with #BlackLivesMatter; Corporations Own the Left. Black Lives Matter Proves it). Founded by three self-described neo-marxists, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi, ostensibly in response to the 2013 acquittal of George Zimmerman, who shot a black man, Trayvon Martin, in self-defense in Sanford, Florida, in 2012, BLM moves from the fallacious standpoint of critical race theory (CRT), which reduces persons (living and dead) to personifications of abstract demographic categories. The movement sees all whites who do not ally with their cause as enemies of the people.
BLM activism ostensibly focuses on raising awareness about police violence and advocating for an end to the disproportionate use of force against black individuals, however there is very little evidence of racially disproportionate use of force in policing. BLM highlights the existence of “systemic racism” in various institutions, such as education, and employment. There’s very little evidence that blacks suffer discrimination in these institutions, either. Indeed, this is why the construct of systemic racism was manufactured by activist-academics. Systemic racism is the notion that white supremacy has been pushed so far down into the warp and woof of Western society that it requires critical social theory to find it. Depending on the force of circular reasoning, where demographic inequalities become self-explanatory, the movement calls for “structural changes” to rectify injustice. BLM contends that issues of race intersect with other forms of oppression, such as gender and sexuality, for example in emphasizing the unique challenges faced by “Black [sic] queer people.”
Trans rights activism is the street-level expression of the queer movement advocating for the rights of transgender and gender-diverse individuals. The movement promotes attitudes and policies that mainstream and normalize gender ideology; advocates work to secure legal protections against discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression in areas such as education, employment, housing, and public accommodations. This often involves advocating for the inclusion of gender identity in non-discrimination laws and policies, including the inclusion of non-binary and genderqueer identities in legal documents and institutions and compelled speech, e.g, forced misgendering. TRAs emphasize access of transgender individuals to trans healthcare, including hormonal treatments and irreversible surgeries, what is euphemized as “gender-affirming care” (GAC). They’re especially focused on “youth rights” over against the rights of parents to safeguard their children. TRAs are obsessed with gaining unfettered access to children. One of its expression is manifest in anti-family communism, which I covered in my previous blog entry.
Another obsession of TRAs is with TERFs, or “trans-exclusionary radical feminists,” a pejorative used to denote women, especially lesbians, who advocate for the preservation of sex-based rights and genital preferences, rights and preferences TRAs reframe as exclusionary of transgender women, i.e., males. TERFs are otherwise known as gender critical feminists (GCFs), meaning that they reject the obviously false premise that men and women can swap genders, be both genders, or have no gender at all. GCFs argue that only girls and women should be considered as such and allowed to enter and participate in female spaces and activities. TRAs complain that this lead to the exclusion of transgender women from these spaces and the denial of their gender identity. To be sure, gender critical feminism is not in line with the principles of inclusivity, equality, and intersectionality that is central to the woke progressive ideology that animates trans rights activism. That’s a good and necessary thing.
In addition to their association with BLM, TRAs routinely join with Antifa to disrupt women’s events. As I have shown on Freedom and Reason, many Antifa wear trans patches with images of AR15s embroidered on them on their uniforms to publicly signal their allegiances and their intent. In short, TRAs are anti-gay misogynists who demand others suspend their disbelief in obviously delusional claims. (See Self-Castration and TERF-Punching: Trans Rights are What Sort of Rights? Antifa is Trans Activism; From Delusion to Illusion: Transitioning Disordered Personalities into Valid Identities; Simulated Sexual Identities: Trans as Bad Copy.)
The Islamists these groups ally with seek to impose clerical fascism on the West. Clerical fascism is a political ideology and social movement that combines elements of both fascism and religious fundamentalism, especially evident in religious authorities or institutions playing a significant role in supporting or legitimizing authoritarian regimes. We need to socialize this term so the public understands what it is up against. Clerical fascism is the goal of the project to Islamize the West, to prepare the ground for totalitarianism by exploiting the western value of tolerance and religious pluralism.
Clerical fascism can manifest in various ways, such as the use of religion to justify authoritarian rule and the suppression of dissent or opposition by religious authorities. It can also manifest as politicized religious extremism. We saw the first type historically in the case of Fascist Italy. During the rule of Benito Mussolini, the Catholic Church aligned with the Italian fascist government, leading to the Lateran Treaty in 1929, which recognized the Vatican City as an independent state and established the Roman Catholic Church as the state religion of Italy. The regime of General Francisco Franco in Spain, which began in the late 1930s, was characterized by its close relationship with the Catholic Church. The Ustashi regime in Croatia, allied with Nazi Germany, had ties to the Catholic Church and promoted a form of fascism with a strong religious component.
The second type is what prevails today. The current state of Iran is the paradigm (see Since it is Not Possible to Change the Soul, the Body Must be Changed—Manifestations of Clerical Fascism). The Iranian Revolution led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979 resulted in the establishment of an Islamic theocracy with authoritarian features (see Who’s Responsible for Iran’s Theocratic State?). Although an autocratic leader is not longer necessary in the inverted totalitarianism of the West (to use Sheldon Wolin’s concept), Iran still operates on the dictatorial model, its ultimate authority resting with the Supreme Leader, who holds significant power over all branches of government, the military, and the media. The Supreme Leader is not elected by the people but chosen by the Assembly of Experts. While Iran holds elections for various government positions, the Guardian Council, an unelected body, has the authority to vet and disqualify candidates. This restricts the range of political choices available to Iranian citizens.
The Iranian government has a history of cracking down on human rights activists, political dissidents, and others who criticize the government. This includes censorship of the internet, media, and social platforms, as well as arrests and imprisonment of activists and journalists. There are significant restrictions on freedom of expression, particularly regarding criticism of the government, the Supreme Leader, and religious authorities. Bloggers and journalists have been prosecuted for “insulting Islam” or “spreading propaganda.” This control is used to limit the flow of information and suppress dissent. The government enforces strict dress codes for women and restricts the rights of religious minorities.
Iran has been accused of supporting various armed groups and militias in the Middle East, which has raised concerns about regional stability and security. Iran has been a known and significant supporter of Hezbollah, a Shiite militant and political organization based in Lebanon. Hezbollah receives financial, ideological, logistical, and military support from Iran. Financial and military support for Hezbollah is channeled through various means, including diplomatic and non-governmental channels. Iran’s support for Hezbollah is driven by both ideological and geopolitical considerations, and it’s seen as a key element of Iran’s regional influence in the Middle East. This support has allowed Hezbollah to maintain its military capabilities and exert considerable influence in Lebanon and the broader region.
Hezbollah was formed in the early 1980s during the Lebanese civil war. The group is inspired by the Iranian Revolution and its founding ideology includes the promotion of Shiite Islamic values, resistance to Israeli occupation, and opposition to Western influence in the region. Hezbollah is both a political party with representation in the Lebanese parliament and a powerful armed militia. It has its own military wing, often referred to as the “Islamic Resistance.” Hezbollah has been involved in various conflicts and proxy wars in the Middle East, often in alignment with Iranian interests. It played a significant role in the Lebanese civil war, the conflict with Israel, and has been involved in the Syrian civil war in support of the Bashar al-Assad regime. Its political arm is known as the “Loyalty to the Resistance Bloc.”
A Palestinian political and military organization operating in the Palestinian territories, Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by multiple countries and organizations, including the United States, the European Union, Israel, Canada, and others. Hamas is an Arabic acronym that stands for “Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya,” which translates to the “Islamic Resistance Movement” in English. Founded in 1987 during the First Intifada, an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood (a transnationalist Islamic organization), Hamas operates primarily in the Gaza Strip. Hamas has been involved in armed conflict, rocket attacks, and suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. It also has a significant presence in Palestinian politics and governs the Gaza Strip, which has been under its control since 2007.
The relationship between Hamas and Iran is complex and has evolved over time, but it is established that Iran has been a key supporter of the group. Iran provides funding, weapons, and other forms of assistance to Hamas, viewing the group as an ally in the broader geopolitical context of the Middle East. This support is part of Iran’s broader regional strategy to exert influence in the Palestinian territories and the wider Middle East. The assistance from Iran has allowed Hamas to maintain its military capabilities and continue its activities, including rocket attacks and other forms of resistance against Israel.
Thus the youth of America identifying as leftwing are or ally with the reactionary and murderous forces of clerical fascism—and one gets the sense that, if they felt that they could themselves be a murderous force, they would. They are certainly prepared to use violence and property destruction to convey their politics. You should ask yourself why the media is not reporting this and providing the necessary analysis to raise consciousness about the domestic security threat these groups pose. Jonathan Turley is reporting that that media organizations are telling their reporters not to characterize Hamas as a terrorist organization. Yet the corporate media has no problem defining American patriots as “domestic terrorists.” (Just the other day I heard a reporter refer to House Republicans as “legislative terrorists.”)
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization I’m not wont to cite, has generated a useful list of some of the leftwing organizations that provide the ideological substance consumed by the misfits and often join them in public action (“Fringe-Left Groups Express Support for Hamas’s Invasion and Brutal Attacks in Israel”). There are several political groups identified by the ADL, including the DSA, the PLP, and the WWP. What is particularly useful here are direct quotes from these organizations. I have independently verified the ADL’s work on this page and provide sources for these quotes. For the sake of time, I will summarize the ADL document here and add some more evidence to the case file. At times this is close paraphrase.
From the ADL: “Some fringe-left groups are aligning with anti-Zionist organizations in the wake of Hamas’ attack on Israel, by expressing support for Hamas’s atrocities in the name of ‘resistance’ and ‘liberation.’ The Party for Socialism and Liberation, the World Workers Party, chapters of the Democratic Socialists for America, independent chapters of Black Lives Matter and more have shared these views in official statements and on social media. These groups are also helping to organize in-person, anti-Israel events, where participants are sharing further support for terrorism and violence, as well as expressing antisemitic rhetoric.”
DSA Salt Lake City published a “Statement on Palestinian Liberation” on October 7, expressing “unwavering solidarity with the people of Palestine in their decades long fight for national liberation” and urging Americans “to stand up against settler-colonial, Zionist apartheid.” The statement rationalize its support for the attack on Israeli civilians writing that “it is not terrorism or anti-semitism to fight against this injustice.” Pay attention to the denials here. The statement is voicing support for actions against Israeli civilians, arguing that such actions should not be labeled as terrorism or anti-semitism. The chapter repeated the genocidal slogan of Hamas: “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free!”
Two days later, DSA San Francisco put out a statement condemning “Israel’s ongoing occupation and the apartheid regime” and “the US’s continued funding and support of Israel’s decades-long colonization of Palestine.” Notably, the statement does not denounce the violence committed by Hamas. It emphasizes the concept that violent oppression can lead to resistance and expresses support for the right of all people, including Palestinians, to fight for their liberation and self-determination. “Violent oppression inevitably produces resistance,” the statement reads. “Socialists support the Palestinian people’s, and all people’s, right to resist and fight for their own liberation. This weekend’s events are no different. Decolonization is the only path towards peace. A better world is possible. We call on all those who share our vision of global working-class emancipation to join the fight to end the occupation and decolonize Palestine—from the river to the sea.” Again, we see the genocidal slogan.
DSA Long Beach wrote the next day that their chapter “fully supports and stands in solidarity with the people of Palestine in their struggle for liberation from military occupation, colonialist oppression, and the brutal apartheid system imposed by the state of Israel.” The group alleged that, “for far too long, Israel, a settler colonial regime, has dispossessed, incarcerated, tortured, and murdered Palestinians by the thousands” and made a distinction between the Palestinian people’s struggle and what they termed as the actions of the Israeli state, adding that, “there is no symmetry between the Palestinian people’s struggle and the genocide being carried out by the Zionist terror state.”
That same day, DSA Pittsburgh released a statement of unwavering comradeship with Hamas, expressing “continued full and unequivocal support for the Palestinian struggle for freedom.” The statement linked Israel and the U.S. to the acts of violence committed by Hamas, framing them as responses to the conditions imposed by Israeli occupation. The statement argued that the conflict can only end if the apartheid regime is dismantled throughout the region, stating, “Violent opposition is the inevitable response to the conditions imposed by Israeli occupation. The conflict can only end if the apartheid regime is lifted from the river to the sea.” DSA Pittsburgh might object to conflating Hamas with the Palestinian people, but these words used here is Hamas propaganda. Just as a great deal of anti-semitism is laundered using the rhetoric of anti-Zionism, so is support for Hamas concealed by pro-Palestinian rhetoric.
The Twin Cities chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America said in their statement: “We are resolved in our fight to support the efforts of Palestinians, in Palestine and in the diaspora, in their efforts to free their people. Just as Palestinians took to the streets after George Floyd was murdered, we are resolved to show the same solidarity in defense of Palestinian liberation. We are resolved to build our capacity as a chapter to take our fight to city halls, to the state capitol, and to the halls of national power in the USA—to end all US financial support for the Israeli settler apartheid regime. We are resolved to strengthen ties between Indigenous movements, locally and across Turtle Island, and the anti-racist and anti-colonial international movement for Palestinian liberation. We are resolved to work toward rematriation of land in good relationship in the movements against the violent state and state-sponsored settler dispossession and mass killing of the Santee Dakhóta, the Anishinaabe, and other Native communities of present-day Minnesota. Justice for our Palestinian relatives can also unequivocally be named ‘Land Back’. We are resolved to enshrine the right to freedom of movement in Palestine, in the USA, and around the globe, and to fight border fascism wherever it rears its hideous head.” Yet when clerical fascism calls, the Twin Cities chapter of the DSA is all too eager to answer.
The Young Democratic Socialists of America chapter at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, characterized the actions against Israeli civilians as “decolonial action in real-time.” They expressed solidarity with the Palestinian people’s pursuit of liberation from colonization and apartheid in their social media statements, stating that the organization “stands in solidarity with the palestinian [sic] people in the pursuit of their liberation from colonization and apartheid.” Put a pin in the rhetoric of “decolonial action.” In a now restricted X (Twitter) post, Najma Sharif, a writer for Soho House magazine and Teen Vogue, posted “What did y’all think decolonization meant? vibes? papers? essays? losers.”
On October 8, a representative from BLM Philadelphia made a statement: “We need to ensure that even those who identify as progressive and advocate for justice must address the Palestinian issue…. The same law enforcement that takes lives in our streets here in Philadelphia are being trained in tactics deployed in Palestine. Those responsible for gentrifying our neighborhoods and taking land from its rightful owners in Palestine sit comfortably with their actions.” A day later, BLM Grassroots released a statement in solidarity with the Palestinian people. The statement justifies the actions of Hamas as a form of legitimate resistance, stating, “When a population has endured decades of apartheid and extreme violence, their resistance shouldn’t be condemned but should be understood as a desperate act of self-defense.”
BLM Chicago shared several social media posts supporting for Hamas. In a post on X (Twitter) on October 10, they posted an image of a paraglider, making reference to Hamas’ use of paragliders to infiltrate Israel and attack civilians, with the message “I stand with Palestine.” The next day in another post the group emphasized, “It’s important to remember that Israel’s actions have played a role in the creation of Hamas, and Zionism is seen as a betrayal of peace within Judaism, not a representation of those who oppose its harmful effects on Palestine.”
BLM Phoenix endorsed and shared a statement initially published by Arizona State University’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). The SJP statement declared that “Palestinian freedom fighters are not terrorists.” In response to a social media comment questioning their use of the term “freedom fighters” for Hamas, BLM Phoenix responded by saying, “We, too, are freedom fighters who have faced unjust labeling and violent retaliation for our stance against injustice. So, you can call them what you want, but we will refer to them as freedom fighters and stand in full support of the resistance efforts in Palestine.” They added, “The Palestinian action represented a revolution and an attempt to reclaim their freedom.”
BLM Detroit shared various social media posts that criticized Israel, including a biased infographic created by the Instagram account @Key48Return. This infographic contained support for Hamas and disputed claims regarding violence against Israeli civilians. For instance, it alleged that the few Israeli “hostages” were actually Israeli soldiers and generals who played a role in maintaining Palestinians as hostages in what is described as the world’s largest open-air prison. This contradicts the reality that many civilians, including children, were among those held captive by Hamas. The infographic also defended Hamas, asserting that criticism of the organization is rooted in disinformation.
The World Workers Party (WWP) issued an official statement on October 8 expressing “solidarity with Palestine,” praising the attack as “a heroic example for people yearning for liberation from imperialism worldwide.” The statement refrained from denouncing Hamas or the significant violence perpetrated against civilians, instead attributing the Hamas attack to the “white supremacist Zionist state.” The WWP statement argued that the actions of the Israeli regime, including illegal settlements, killings, land seizures, and occupation, made a response from the Palestinian people and their liberation organizations both inevitable and justifiable. The statement maintained that the Palestinian movement and people possessed the right to choose their methods of resistance, emphasizing their determination to confront the enemy with direct action. The WWP has actively participated in on-the-ground protests, co-sponsoring events, and providing posters for demonstrators. WWP-branded posters displayed at major rallies, such as those in New York City, carried messages like “Zionism is genocide!” and “Long live the intifada!” The WWP and its local chapters throughout the country shared similar messages on social media. One post conveyed the need for unwavering, unconditional support for Palestinian liberation, declaring, “By any means necessary, PALESTINE WILL BE FREE.” They also used hashtags like “#”#itisrighttorebel,” and “#SmashTheZionistState.”
On October 7, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) issued a statement strongly endorsing the actions of Hamas, emphasizing that “resistance against apartheid and oppressive regimes is a fundamental right, not a criminal act.” They argued that such resistance is an inevitable response for people striving for self-determination rather than living under oppression. The PSL’s statement commended the efforts of “Palestinian resistance forces” and rejected the characterization of their actions as terrorism. PSL chapters across the country echoed the official PSL statement on social media, sharing multiple posts criticizing Israel and expressing support for Hamas’s violent actions.
PSL Seattle posted, “Tacoma proudly stands in unwavering solidarity with the Palestinian resistance and their just counter-offensive. Contrary to media and political narratives, Israel’s actions are not merely self-defense against ‘terrorism.’ Instead, the resistance’s actions are seen as a morally and legally legitimate response to occupation.” Beheading babies, burning people alive, raping girls and women, and throwing grenades into cramped structures where Jews were hiding was moral and legally legitimate. PSL has played a prominent role in organizing numerous anti-Israel protests nationwide since the recent events, collaborating with Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the ANSWER Coalition, the Palestinian Youth Movement, Al-Awda NY, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and others. Some of these co-sponsored protests have featured rhetoric, occasionally from PSL-affiliated speakers, that included explicit utterances of Jew hatred and endorsements of the Hamas attacks.
For example, a PSL speaker at an October 14 protest in Tampa, FL, defended Hamas’s actions, arguing that “armed resistance is the only recourse left for Palestinians, and this is well within their rights under international law.” Several days earlier, at a PSL co-sponsored protest in New York (on October 8), speakers declared that “resistance should not be equated with terrorism” and encouraged resistance against “the Zionist entity by any means necessary,” presumably including what we any reasonable person would conceptualize as terrorism. In Anaheim, CA, same day, in a protest also co-sponsored by PSL, a speaker celebrated the “moment where Hamas is taking control and resisting.” At a rally in San Francisco, a speaker stated, “The spirit of intifada lives, and Palestine persists!” A day later, at a PSL co-sponsored protest in Cambridge, MA (on October 9), carrying the tagline “victory is ours,” a protester waved a flag bearing the symbol of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a recognized terrorist organization, while a speaker declared, “Settlers are not civilians, and they have no right to security.”
In an October 7 statement, the New York-based progressive legal non-profit, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), expressed support for the attack against Israel by reframing Hamas’s actions against civilians as a lawful attack on what they consider military targets. The statement referenced international law, stating that under these laws, armed groups like Palestinian resistance fighters are legally permitted to carry out attacks on military objectives. The statement placed the blame on Israel for what they termed as the erosion of international norms and the protections required for occupied populations and civilians.
On October 11, the Black Alliance for Peace, a human rights-focused group led by former Green Party vice presidential candidate Ajamu Baraka, issued a statement condemning the “murderous assault on occupied Palestine” by what they referred to as “the illegal Zionist settler-colonial, apartheid state,” then asserted the right of colonized people to resist occupation and fight for self-determination using any necessary means. Red Nation, a left-leaning Native American advocacy group, shared several posts expressing support for Hamas. A post on October 11, stated “Zionists are nazis without god or mercy.” The group also hosted Electronic Intifada founder Ali Abunimah on an “emergency episode” of The Red Nation Podcast on October 9, during which he blamed the massacres perpetrated by Hamas on Israel.
Finally, the CPUSA has coverage of their minions here. I want to personal note about the US Communist Party. In the early 1990s, in Nashville, Tennessee, a friend of mine was contacted by the party. New York party members were doing a tour through the South and they wanted to visit. They found his name on a mailing list. This was in the wake of the split (in 1991) between the party and the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS), a democratic socialist group in the CPUSA. My friend and I invited several other friends and we had a meeting on his back porch. The pitch was to form the communist club of Nashville. My friend and I were given an autographed copy of Gus Hall’s Working Class USA: The Power and the Movement. He was still alive then. It was criticism of Hall by the CCDS in light of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the desire to reject Leninism and embrace democratic socialism that caused the split. Angela Davis was a major figure leading the split. We never formed a CPUSA club, but I worked with the party to support the failed Bridgestone-Firestone strike. I also never considered joining the CCDS. I stayed in touch with the party and in the aughts wrote some essays for the newspaper, which was by then the People’s World (the Daily Worker during its heyday). It is noteworthy that the CCDS permits dual membership in the DSA, the Socialist Party USA (SPUSA), and the CPUSA. I have long since denounced the CPUSA and these other organizations for their progressivism. My reading of Karl Marx was that he never intended communist politics to seek illiberal ends but rather to emancipate the man from the traditional structures that limited him—caste, class, property, and religion.
* * *
Since this list was compiled, the protests have only grown. The anti-western reaction is the result of an ideology that sees the world in stark terms of oppressor-oppressed, with the oppressor identified as non-allied white and white adjacent (principally Asians), cis gender (heterosexuals and homosexuals alike), and those who still believe in the humanist values of a secular West, which includes adherents to the Jewish and Christian traditions. It is rather obvious, then, who are the oppressed: black and brown people, including non-Jewish Middle Easterners, the mentally ill, and trans identified individuals—groups often referred to as the “marginalized” and “dispossessed.” The political right is fond of arguing that this scheme is an expansion of the basic logic of Marx and Engels’ materialist conception of history.
This is a mischaracterization of the logic of their method and politics. To be sure, Marx and Engels would not have walked back these famous words from The Communist Manifesto (1848): “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.” As noted, the passage does contain the dichotomy oppressor-oppressed.
However, Marx and Engels accept natural history as the source of wealth (not value) and reproduction of the species, facts that preclude most obviously the alienation of gender from sex, and moreover theorize that the oppression they sought to overthrow was the socioeconomic domination of the bourgeoisie, with racism one of the ideological means of class control, not to be centered in analysis, and certainly never elevated above the class dynamic.
Again, the end goal of communism in Marx’s eyes was to realize for everyone the liberals values of the Enlightenment and to further a secular society based on scientific rationalism. The ends of woke progressivism is totalitarian. It has an obvious quasi-religious character. This is why today’s left aligns with Islam, a backwards ideology Marx would have rejected, rejection obvious in his critique of religion and the problem of ideological superstructures. Where is the irreligion criticism on today’s left? A movement with a religious character can hardly be expected to articulate a cogent irreligious criticism. These are people who believe men can be women simply by think they are (since they cannot any other way).
So from where does this Manichean scheme originate? The superficial reading of Marx and Engels dynamic aside, it comes from conditioning and indoctrination, either directly in or through propaganda and curriculum influenced by, among other things, postcolonial studies, an interdisciplinary field rooted in literary studies and philosophy that emerged in the mid-20th century to critique the cultural, economic, political, and social implications of colonialism and the lasting impact of colonial legacies on formerly colonized nations and peoples.
Drawing from a wide range of methodological approaches and philosophical and theoretical frameworks, especially postmodernist critical theory, postcolonial studies intersects with other academic disciplines, such as anthropology, cultural studies, history, literary criticism, political science, psychology, and sociology. This means that these ideas are conveyed to students across many university programs. Typically these ideas are organized around radical conceptions of identity, power, representation, and resistance. The rhetoric is attractive to disaffected young people in search of meaning and purpose.
Postcolonial studies instruct young people to “deconstruct colonial narratives,” which, according to this view, organize the global system, dominated by rich white male abstractions, and portray colonized peoples as backwards, exotic, or inferior. Scholars/propagandists in this field ostensibly aim to provide a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the colonial experience, with an emphasis on “decolonizing knowledge” by questioning euro/western-centric perspectives while recognizing the validity and value of indigenous knowledge systems and local worldviews.
In light of the incorporation of external areas into the ever-expanding world capitalist system, postcolonial scholars explore the concept of hybridity, which involves the blending of multiple cultural influences in colonized societies. This can be seen in art, language, music, religion, and other aspects of culture. The creation of new cultural cultural forms through cultural mixing is often referred to as “creolization.” Postcolonial studies examines how colonialism has influenced the construction of identities, both collective and individual, and how these identities are represented in art, literature, music, etcetera.
Much of this is obvious albeit superficial—really a cloak hiding a dark desire. Much of my thinking is informed by world-systems theory, the dynamic of development-underdevelopment, and it is inevitable that such a dynamic would produce these results. However, many postcolonial texts and works of art are cast as “resistance literature,” that is, propaganda challenging allegedly oppressive colonial systems and the validity and legitimacy of several of their elements, asserting cultural and national identities, and exploring themes of empowerment, liberation, and self-determination, which are carried over into the core countries themselves using the concept of “internal colonialism.” The goal is not to understand today’s world but to unwind it, with an eyes towards overthrowing the colonial oppressors and redistributing their holdings, in part through mass immigration, what might be called the New Colonialism.
Although postcolonial studies scholars will tell you that this approach is not limited to the examination of European colonialism, but also encompasses the study of colonial and neocolonial dynamics worldwide, including the experiences of indigenous peoples, settler colonialism, and neocolonial practices, in practice it focuses mostly on the history of successive hegemonic states in the modern world system and the capitalist mode of production, a system and modality rooted in European civilization. The focus on the West is to produce an indictment which the woke progressive activist prosecutes—according to rules of evidence and adjudication based on a theory of justice that necessarily stands antithetical to the ethics and morals of the West, since these are by definition unjust and designed to perpetuate injustice.
Atavism and backwardness are not side-effects but features of the ideology. The fields of postcolonial studies, associated with the older field of third world studies, raise epistemological and ontological challenges to the West by elevating and advocating indigenous ways of knowing, particularly in contrast to the rational pursuits of science and truth. One of the historical legacies of colonialism, it is argued, is the imposition of foreign worldviews and knowledge systems on colonized peoples that continue to influence global power dynamics and intellectual paradigms. Postcolonial and third world studies critique western dominance in knowledge production, emphasizing how Eurocentric epistemologies marginalize “other ways of knowing,” which, in the postmodernist way of thinking about such things, are at the very least equally valid and useful, mainly because there is really no such thing as truth, truth being a product of the meta-narrative devised and promulgated by those in power. Indeed, everything is reduced to power, even morality, which in practice results in a dangerous nihilism.
In contrast, indigenous epistemologies, advocates contend, rely on experiential knowledge, oral traditions, and holistic worldviews, which they contend are marginalized and undervalued in western academic paradigms. Indigenous ways of knowing are embedded in worldviews and cosmologies that diverge significantly from Western, often materialistic, perspectives. Indigenous epistemologies incorporate spiritual dimensions and connections to ancestors, aspects challenging Western secularism and positivism, which have dominated (and should dominate) scientific inquiry.
These differences don’t so much challenge the foundations of how we understand reality as they adulterate knowledge with irrational and supernatural beliefs. This is how modern nation states like Canada can incorporate into their human rights language such notions as “two spirit,” a term used by some indigenous cultures in North America to describe a person who embodies both masculine and feminine spiritual qualities. Two-spirit people a unique gender identity that does not fit within the traditional binary understanding of gender as strictly male or female. This concept, we are told, is not be confused with non-binary or genderqueer identities in Western societies, two other irrational ideas associated with gender ideology. But it is all of a piece.
Ontological challenges in postcolonial and third world studies also relate to the process of decolonization and the reclamation of indigenous knowledge systems in the advocacy of recognizing the right of indigenous communities to define and preserve their ontologies. We see this in the land acknowledgements university administrators have professors include in their email signatures and syllabi, acknowledgements that incorporate primitive notions of ancestor worship in the course of study. There is no rational reason why any of these things should be recognized—except of course as part of a broad strategy of induction into the cult of woke progressivism.
The irony is that the practice of western elites privileging those voices who parrot their academic ideas, i.e., those serving as postcolonial collaborators, means that those individual from these (sub)cultures who disagree with the ideas of postcolonial and third world studies are marginalized by both western elites and formerly colonized populations, which often functions to keep them backwards and inferior to their western counterparts. Put another way, the “indigenous ways of knowing” scheme is often more useful to the western academic elite—the work progressive intellectual—in pushing his own anti-western agenda than these ways of knowing are to the people trying to advance their societies and elevating the conditions of their existence, often by seeking to adopt western ways of knowing and living (because they are demonstrably superior).
All this begs the question of how we choose which views are better than others; for whatever somebody says about the equality of worldviews across cultures, they don’t really believe that. Would somebody say that fascism is a valid way of knowing—presuming they don’t know that their own views are fascist? Probably not. What about Catholicism? The progressive church that is facilitating the invasion of America? Perhaps. What about Islam? Had I started there, they would likely have defended Islam, even though it is the major source of clerical fascism in the world today—indeed, because it is the major source of clerical fascism today. Indeed, we’re now seeing TikTok videos of women reading from the Koran and declaring it to be a feminist text and converting.
So, once more, what is the criteria one uses to weigh and measure the validity and usefulness of worldviews? If its default is that western ways of knowing, the Judeo-Christian tradition, humanism, rationalism, secularism, that all that is bad, then their criteria is not reasonable but issues from anti western bigotry. And since the western tradition is a white European tradition, then rejection on these grounds is anti-white racism. They will say that “racism = discrimination + power” and therefore the oppressed cannot be racist, and, moreover, all whites are either oppressors worthy of being and robbing or allies who recognize they’re oppressors and wash the feet of black and brown people. But this commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, seeing individuals as personification of abstract categories. This is primitive thinking. Collective punishment, blood guilt, and all the rest of it.
Scholars and activists advocate for decolonizing knowledge production and engaging in respectful dialogue between western and indigenous knowledge systems. But who speaks for who? Without an objective way of knowing which viewpoints are better, then those who speak for others will speak in a self-serving way. They contend that this entails acknowledging the value of multiple ways of knowing, “centering” indigenous voices and perspectives (I will keep saying it: which voices and perspectives?), and reconsidering the hierarchies that have historically placed Western science above other forms of knowledge.
Are western ways of knowing—scientific materialism—wrongly placed above other forms of knowledge? Of course not.
The oppressor-oppressed model of analysis is often associated with various theoretical perspectives that examine power dynamics, social inequalities, and systems of domination. Critical theory, which originated in the Frankfurt School, is a broader and interdisciplinary perspective that includes bastardized Marxist ideas but extends to other forms of oppression, including those related to race, gender, and culture. Critical theorists examine how various forms of oppression intersect and reinforce one another. Critical race theory focuses on racial oppression, systemic racism, and white supremacy. Critical theory seeks to understand how power operates and how social norms and institutions perpetuate inequality. Herbert Marcuse, Michel Foucault, and Judith Butler are associated with latter critical theory. I have written about all this many times on Freedom and Reason.
To sum up, postcolonial theory examines the legacies of colonialism and imperialism, highlighting the oppression of colonized peoples by colonial powers. It employs the oppressor-oppressed model to analyze the power dynamics between colonizers and the colonized. Queer theory explores issues related to sexuality and gender identity, using the oppressor-oppressed model to examine how heteronormative and cisnormative systems oppress non-heterosexual and non-cisgender individuals. Intersectionality, while not a standalone theoretical perspective, is a framework that recognizes the interconnectedness of various forms of oppression. It emphasizes how individuals can experience multiple intersecting oppressions, such as race, gender, class, and sexuality, simultaneously. This is how we can see sentiments as bizarre as “Queers for Palestine.” All the elements of the constellation we have concerned ourselves with in this essay are organized by this Manichean formula and a vulgar dialectic that pretends to deny binaries.
The ethic in operation is this: Western colonialism is so oppressive, so evil, that the self-selected members of the “oppressed” are justified in any action and coding it “resistance.” Western rules of managing conflict—deliberative democracy, rational politics; processes, respect for civil and human rights—are dismissed as weapons of the oppressor, as are liberalism and associated values of free conscience, speech, and thought, assembly and association, humanism and secularism.
With the imaged heft of crackpot intellectualism, the left takes up authoritarian attitudes and raises nihilism to a virtue. The left is now home base for an anti/trans/post humanism, illiberalism, irrationalism, and violence. That the constellation of Antifa, BLM, TRA, socialist, and Islamist groups represents the left’s presence on the streets should be a clear signal that the woke contagion has rendered the left not merely useless for the emancipatory pursuits of democracy, human rights, individualism, liberty, and justice, but made it a serious threat to all those things.
But is this really the left? No, not really. It’s racist, sexist, and homophobic. How could it be? The emancipation these misfits seek is liberation from freedom and reason. They are product of late capitalism under corporatist logic. There’s no building up with them, just tearing down. But since the world thinks this is the left, Old Leftists (like me) will have to, at least for the time being, denounce the label. So, for my part, to be crystal clear, I disassociate myself from this madness.
freedom and reason 