Preliminary critique of the work has focused primarily on the erasure of transmisogyny, a particularly glaring omission given the author’s supposed inclusion of “marginalized genders”. This omission, coupled with an essentialist theoretical framework pulled from a radical feminist tradition, lead to the necessity of the piece’s retraction. The Red Clarion seeks to lead the communist movement towards the best path of sexual liberation, which necessitates a dialectical and scientific approach to understanding and combating sexual oppression. The conclusions reached in the article rely on a haphazard array of correlated data that are then assumed to be set phenomena across the breadth of patriarchal societies. The following criticism looks through these major flaws, and opposes the conclusions reached thereafter; as USU struggles towards unified clarity on these vital theoretical positions, we will move towards the publishing of a definitive piece regarding where the movement must take the issues of sexual liberation.

We will first begin with the author’s failure to conduct adequate research on the subject at hand, exemplified by the following passage:

Regardless of if you watch porn, you experience the effects of porn. You are punished by the existence of porn. A study of over four thousand young people in Melbourne found that 59% of men had reported strangling their partner during sex, with 61% of women reporting being strangled, and 78% of trans or gender-diverse individuals experiencing strangulation. Importantly, 61% reported that they had learned about strangulation via pornography.

This passage mistakes shadow for substance. Sex work is not the base economic relationship from which patriarchal violence emerges, but rather the result of patriarchal economic and social relations that reinforce and reproduce patriarchal relations. In other words, sex work does not create the social exploitation of women, nor lie at its foundation. Sex work is the result of divided labor regime. The scientific study cited by the author directs us to this very same conclusion: “Pornography was the most common avenue by which people reported first hearing about choking during sex (34.8%), followed by discussions with friends (11.5%).”¹ In other words, pornography does not create sexual violence, but rather reinforces it; it is not the cause of sexual violence, but rather its result. Failure to recognize this dialectical relationship that makes sex-divided labor the primary aspect puts us off immediately on the wrong track.

Here we must also make plain a glaring error in our comrade’s citation. The author warns that “61% [of young people in Melbourne participating in the study] reported that they had learned about strangulation via pornography.” This statement is false. A vast majority (65.2%) of the study’s subjects learned about choking during sex via means other than pornography. This suggests that even if pornography was banned, this ostensibly violent sexual practice would still exist and propagate through other means of social reproduction. With 61% of subjects exposed to but not learning about sexual strangulation via pornography, the study does demonstrate pornography’s role in reinforcing risky sexual practices amongst the general population through repeated exposure. However, with subjects also being exposed to the practice via “…movies (40.3%), friends (31.9%), social media (31.3%), and discussions with potential partners (29.2%),” we cannot give serious credence to the notion that pornography itself is the (or even one of many) progenitor of sexual violence.² At the very least, the failure of the article’s author to catch such a misrepresentation of the study at hand is demonstrative of a methodological sloppiness that cannot be considered Marxist for its lack of an adequately scientific approach to analyzing these social phenomena. The study actually shows that those who “first learned/heard” about strangulation through pornography constitute a mere 34.8% of respondents. The 61.3% number is representative of those who were “ever exposed to strangulation in pornography.” Failing to distinguish these incident rates is a critical error. Despite this sloppiness, our comrade further digs her heels in:

Studies vary on how much of pornography is degrading, verbally and physically, to women and marginalized genders, but as we see rates of strangulation rising, we can rest assured that it is a significant portion. Moreover, a meta-analysis of studies has found that porn consumption is linked with an increased likelihood to commit an act of sexual aggression, even if the pornography was considered non-aggressive.

This passage demonstrates another significant error in the author’s manner of conducting research. When analyzing any phenomenon, particularly social phenomenon where variables cannot be controlled and holistically observed, the correlation of data does not mean there is a relationship of causality. While the research in question does demonstrate that those who consume pornography more frequently “are more likely to hold attitudes conducive to sexual aggression and engage in actual acts of sexual aggression” than those who consume it less frequently, or not at all,³ it does not prove that pornography is the source of these behaviors. Given that not everyone who consumes pornography is sexually aggressive, we can just as easily assume that pornography lends itself to reinforcing pre-developed behaviors.⁴ Only one of these positions lends itself to a Marxist framework of socio-behavioral analysis.

Pornography, just as any tool of bourgeois social reproduction, functions by providing moral licensing for individuals’ self-interested and exploitative behaviors. To argue otherwise would be to deny personal autonomy, and thus, moral responsibility for one’s actions as an individual. People do not enact sexual violence as a result of consuming pornography, nor even because they are raised in a patriarchal society. Every action one takes in committing sexual violence is of their own volition, even if these social phenomenon may prime them to view such behaviors as permissible. Despite her previous claims in the piece, the author demonstrates a clear lack of satisfaction with treating pornography as a systematic tool that “…emboldens preexisting attitudes towards women, towards sexuality.” For our comrade is not interested in dissecting the material base of sex work.⁵ Even one unfamiliar with feminist analysis can pick up on this from the author’s incessant focus on sexual anatomy; she uses the word “cunt” 14 times throughout the work. The author does not define this term beyond its vernacular usage until its sixth appearance in the piece, and then the definition she provides is the following: “Anyone, not just the prostitute, can be penetrated, anyone can be turned into a cunt, anyone can be dehumanized and alienated from their sexuality and their body.”

Given such an apt definition, we can indeed state that nearly everyone within bourgeois society has been turned into a cunt. Proletarian and lumpenprole alike are alienated from their bodies as they expend their brain and muscles to labor for those with capital to spend. Settler-colonial and imperialist societies alienate the masses from their sexuality by using the violence of the state to coerce them into cis-heterosexual social-reproduction, as seen through the violent criminalization of access to birth control, abortions, hormone replacement therapy, mastectomies, gender reassignment surgery, etc.

Rather than developing a theoretical framework that naturally includes all those who are subjected to the violence and exploitation of patriarchal society, the author vulgarizes patriarchal power into a class struggle of the penetrated vs the penetrators. Everyone, no matter their class or social position, is flattened to the supposed power imbued within their sexual behaviors. Even gay men are not free to be men, for “The receiver, the gay man, is therefore reduced to a cunt as well, an object made for penetration and degradation.” In this absurd calculus, one is either an all powerful cis-heterosexual man (the phallus) or the weak and wretched cis-heterosexual woman (the cunt), a theoretical framework so fragile that even a pebble could shatter it into a million pieces.

If “power” is indeed based on one’s relationship to Penetration, then what are we to make of the men penetrated by women?⁶ When presented without reference to social reproduction theory, this argument simply cannot be reconciled with Marxism. Does this simple act truly turn the system of patriarchy on its head, turning men from exploiters to the exploited? This is no idle question. With the study on strangulation reporting approximately 50% of straight male subjects having been strangled during sex,⁷ and if we accept the notion that this supposed sexual “degradation” is an extension of real material power, we can indeed state that, “The war on women has expanded and mutated once more; it’s recruited our fellow women…” For now men must be on the defensive from this supposed wave of woman-led sexual violence! With 60% of lesbians ever being strangled and 54% ever strangling a partner, and bisexual women respectively reporting 80% and 51%,⁸ Cde. Reed’s struggle against sexual domination would have to extend its front to combat this degeneracy amongst sapphic women. In our comrade’s struggle against supposedly anti-social sexual behaviors we must not forget the worst offenders, transgender people, among whom we witness the highest rates of sexual strangulation, 78% and 74% respectively.

Using the framework presented, one could argue that women who strangle men or women who strangle women are adopting the mechanisms of patriarchy for their own benefit; however, the question then would become “why are men overwhelmingly the oppressors, if acting out sexual violence is in-itself sufficient enough to make one an oppressor?” The article’s theory fails to provide any answer to this question.

Had the author given any thought to the conclusions readers would draw from her prescriptive moral stance on such sexual behaviors, she would have read the publicly accessible scientific paper she cited and come to a vastly different conclusion. From this clear negligence we can conclude that our comrade’s goal was not to provide a proper investigation of these systems, but to find data useful in propping up her positions. The framework provided by this article can only function under the bold assumption that every sexual relationship is either patriarchal heterosexuality, or an imitation of it. The author appears to use the high rate of sexual strangulation amongst transgender people as a means to spark readers’ rage against an imagined wave of cis-men strangling poor defenseless transgender women. This assertion completely disregards transgender people’s actual dynamics and conditions as a population. This essentialist framework gets transgender people killed.

Amidst the ongoing war against transgender people, in which transgender people’s presumed sexual behaviors are used to justify mass waves of social violence and murder, a prescriptive framework adds fuel to the fire by proclaiming non-violent and non-coercive sexual acts as inherently oppressive. When transgender people engage in these sexual behaviors, who is being oppressed?⁹ Transgender people are most likely to be in relationships with other transgender people. With studies on sexual orientation demonstrating that only 19% of transgender women, 2% of non-binary people, and 23% of transgender men are reported to be heterosexual in the United States.¹⁰ If we made use of the framework presented, the movement would have no choice but to condemn a majority of transgender people as irredeemable oppressors. Are we to take such an absurd system, that would make an enemy of a hyperexploited population for acts we have no business meddling in, and take it to practice within our movement? Our comrade may take moral opposition to sexual strangulation, but that in-itself is not a basis upon which a Marxist theoretical framework can be built. Such a framework must be based on an analysis of the material conditions at play, not idealist and puritanical notions on proper sexual relations. 

Sexual behaviors are reflections of social and cultural phenomena, but in isolation they tell us very little about contemporary material conditions. We must constantly go deeper. For example, the social root of something such as a leather fetish is likely a result of the materials’ historical use in military and police uniforms, providing the objects a socially constructed aesthetic of power and authority. So what are we to make of its prevalence in gay and lesbian communities? Due to extreme levels of state repression and violence, the social authority imbued within leather provides an outlet for participants to be humanized through symbolic access to authority and/or resistance to it. The fetish provides an emotional outlet for the constant pressure of social restraint. As a reflection of material conditions, sexual behaviors can act as a tool to reinforce exploitative social relationships. With heterosexual relationships requiring a particularly high level of internal analysis of relationship dynamics, given men being socially conditioned to engage in more aggressive and high-risk sexual behaviors. However, power is not determined in the bedroom. Power is determined by one’s relation to property. 

Historically women have been denied the right to property, actively excluded from economic production so as to be coerced into the labor of social reproduction. With the development of class society, the role of women was largely relegated first as an economic and diplomatic asset in their youth, to later be sold into domestic servitude as a wife and mother. It is only recently that western women have gained the “right” to be workers and not the property of men, a concession made in part to constrain the spread of achievements that resulted from the dauntless and bloody struggles of communist women across the globe and in part as a result of capital’s drive to proletarianize everyone — to dissolve all social relations. Despite patriarchal systems losing ground in this age of collapse for the capitalist system,¹¹ women have not yet been liberated from traditional socially reproductive roles, particularly those of marriage and prostitution. These roles have changed in kind with the economic basis of society. The marriage and legalized prostitution of Ancient Greece are far different in their structure than marriage and prostitution within the capitalist age.  

The piece posits that, within bourgeois society, prostitutes make up “… a class that is designed to be difficult to get out of, as a ruined proletariat, and is slated to be accessible to all men. The state may punish different classes of men more commonly than others, but she is still available to all men.” Further, the author denies these workers their position as laborers, arguing that instead of being members of the proletarian or subproletarian classes they are instead ‘public property,’ — hyper-exploited subjects forced into ‘a form of slavery that is distinctly female.’ If these laborers are truly turned into property or commodities to be bought and consumed, then why haven’t sex dolls and sex toys replaced their existence entirely? It is the same reason humans can never fully be replaced by tools or machines in the production process. What is being valued here is not the mere production of a commodity or the provision of a service, but human labor power. This is why prostitutes sell their labor in the form of timeslots, and clarify the kinds of specialized sexual labor they are willing to perform within specified time-frames. When one buys this form of labor they engage in a form of petit-bourgosie labor exploitation, and like any member of this class the buyer seeks to take as much from the laborer as possible for as low as the wages can go. 

Within the article this claim of prostitute as public property is justified by the argument that sex work cannot be comparable to other forms of labor, as “The prostitute is alienated not just from her profits or her work, but from her body and the most intimate parts of her mind” and that “She is often forced to remain in the prostituted class via coercive forces…” Is the woman working 16 hours sewing with docked wages for every mistake not also alienated from “the most intimate parts of her mind”? What of the railway conductors coerced by contract and federal law to be on call 24/7 while working at minimum 12 hours a day? Is not the denial of sleep and a home life alienating one from their own mental wellbeing? When it comes to coercion, what worker cannot claim the same? Many women in the workplace are sexually assaulted but are forced to either stay quiet or risk homelessness and starvation of both themselves and their families. Other workers are coerced into their labor through the seizure of passports or the pointed guns of the police and hired mercenaries. The bourgeoisie will always seek the maximal level of exploitation. When they buy your labor-power, they buy the contractual right to ruin your body, break your mind, and kill you if it’ll make them even a penny more in profit. The only limit to the bourgeois drive to create profit at the expense of the worker is the level of class struggle. The relative conditions of the working classes are a symptom of class struggle.¹² Whether you are a sex worker, manual laborer, service worker, etc. the capitalist system runs on the rule that you are disposable to the bourgeoisie.

But with its blind drive, its bottomless werewolf-hunger for surplus-labor, capital doesn’t merely push past the moral limits of the working day. It does the same with the physical limits, too. Capital usurps the time that the body needs to grow and develop, and also the time for maintaining the body in a healthy condition. It steals the time it takes to get fresh air and sun. It chips away at mealtimes, incorporating them into the production process wherever it can; as a result, food is added to workers as though they were merely so many means of production, or the same way a boiler is fed coal, machines are fed grease and oil, and so on. Sound sleep destroys and refreshes a person’s vital powers, enabling him to build up his strength, but capital reduces it to only as many hours as it takes to revive a totally exhausted organism […] Only one thing interests capital: the maximum amount of labor-power that can be activated in the workday. It achieves this goal by shortening the lives of labor-power’s bearers, just like a greedy farmer gets the most out of the land by rendering it barren.¹³

[…]

So from society’s standpoint, the members of the working class—including when they aren’t participating in the immediate labor process—belong to capital just as much as the dead instruments of labor do. Even their individual consumption is simply an aspect of capital. It is hard for the worker, that instrument of production endowed with consciousness, to simply run away, since it constantly sends his product from his pole to the opposite pole—i.e., capital’s. Individual consumption is the means through which workers maintain and reproduce themselves, but as it occurs, it constantly destroys their means of subsistence, ensuring that they will keep reappearing in the labor markets. The Roman slave was fettered with chains. Invisible ties bind the wage laborer to his owner: he merely seems to be independent. The constant turnover among the worker’s individual wage masters and the fictio juris of his contract keep this semblance in place. 

In the past, capital enacted compulsory laws whenever it felt that it had to assert its proprietary rights over free workers. Until 1815, for example, it was illegal for England’s machine workers to emigrate, and people committed this crime at their peril, since the penalties it carried were severe.¹⁴

If sex work does not constitute a special super-class, then how do we as communists position ourselves against this particular form of exploitation? To answer this we must first understand the socio-economic nature of prostitution. Alexandra Kollontai, a prominent feminist within the CPSU, provided a clear analysis on the subject: “Prostitution arose with the first states as the inevitable shadow of the official institution of marriage, which was designed to preserve the rights of private property and to guarantee property inheritance through a line of lawful heirs.” Further outlining its emergence within the capitalist age:

The sale of women’s labor, which is closely and inseparably connected with the sale of the female body, steadily increases, leading to a situation where the respected wife of a worker, and not just the abandoned and ‘dishonoured’ girl, joins the ranks of the prostitutes: a mother for the sake of her children, or a young girl like Sonya Marmeladova for the sake of her family. This is the horror and hopelessness that results from the exploitation of labor by capital. When a woman’s wages are insufficient to keep her alive, the sale of favors seems a possible subsidiary occupation. The hypocritical morality of bourgeois society encourages prostitution by the structure of its exploitative economy, while at the same time mercilessly covering with contempt any girl or woman who is forced to take this path.

Prostitution is a form of socially reproductive labor. Just as maids are hired to clean houses, nannies to raise children, and nurses to care for the old, prostitutes are hired to satisfy personal needs without the buyer being obligated to provide for the care of the worker until the grave. Prostitutes are domestic laborers. If they are in a waged relation which is exploited for profit, they are proletarian. If they are not, they are nevertheless subproletarian, as those excluded from social production.¹⁵ The nature of their work, that of socially reproductive labor, does not alter their basic relation of production.

It is here that class divisions make themselves the most evident. A white cis woman is far more likely to gain access to legal, or at least institutionally protected forms, of sexual labor than a Black and/or trans woman. With white supremacy and cis normativity further providing enough class mobility to allow her escape into the membership of the labor aristocratic and petit-bourgeois classes. This was the purpose of western nations’ struggle against so-called “white slavery” in the early 20th century. White slavery was a nationalistic tool used to secure white womanhood from the exploitation of lumpen and proletarian sexual labor. It was never about protecting women from sexual labor, it was rather a “common fixation on protecting the purity of white womanhood, constituting an image of white women’s precarity that was only tangentially connected to the realities of women’s lives.”¹⁶ Reed’s reintroduction of the term is yet another example of her gender reductionist framework, which excludes all other forms of class, national, and disabled oppression. By systematically denying nationally oppressed, transgender, and disabled people from the benefits and wages of the upper classes, the necessity of survival coerces them to flood the market of sexual labor. The resulting reduction of wages and working conditions, alongside a crackdown on legal sexual labor, pushed members of privileged social classes from the streets and into domestic servitude as wives and mothers.

The consumption of sexual labor, particularly in the form of pornography, is so widespread in society that even moral condemnation will do nothing but harm the most marginal of sexual laborers. Laws seeking to limit public access to “sexually explicit materials” have been used to actively suppress access to resources for sexual education, birth control, and transition related medical care.¹⁷

While we could dive further in this historical and materialist analysis of sex work, the breadth of the theory’s deviation from Marxist analysis should now be abundantly clear. Despite her condemnation of liberal feminists for flattening the experiences of sex workers, the author actively chose to disregard the autonomy and humanity of sex workers so that their idealized forms could serve as a prop for her radical feminist analysis. By using the theoretical framework of Andrea Dworkin, a zionist and arguably transmisogynistic theorist,¹⁸ to position men as a cabal seeking the sexual slavery of all women (i.e., people of penetration), the author — in one masterful stroke — both eschews class analysis and creates a false solidarity with sex workers by flattening their varied conditions into one of a universal metaphysical precarity.  Instead of seriously studying the scientific nature of these classes and the material conditions that bring them about so we might properly dedicate ourselves to uprooting these systems of oppression, we are instead given a world that has been wholly abstracted into a totalizing struggle between “men” and women. 

In its conclusion, the piece proclaims that “Our war is not against sex workers but against johns, sex buyers, and consumers of pornography.” This statement serves no theoretical purpose. We can make whatever proclamations we like, but what matters is the rhetoric behind them. The rhetoric of the piece gives ample justifications to the reader for hunting down these progenitors of patriarchal violence while at the same time excusing class collaboration between women (penetrated, the subjects of violence) of all classes:

These commodified individuals are surviving under patriarchy, under capitalism, and under oppressive forces. Until they engage in traitorous behaviors such as, but not limited to; promoting an OnlyFans referral code to 18 year olds to make money off of their content, dressing in children’s clothing, dressing in ways that contribute to the sexual violence minority women and those in the global south face, and/or glamorizing the industry, they are our comrades in the struggle.

This supposed “marxist feminism” tails the utopian organizational strategy of anarchists and radical feminists, wherein the supposed abolition of the state, or relationships with men, will instantly bring about heaven on earth where power and patriarchy are no more. We have only to unite all sex-workers (except those that promote OnlyFans referral codes to 18 year olds, dress in children’s clothing, dress in ways that contribute to sexual violence, and/or glamorize the industry of course) with all women! This super-class of sex-workers-and-women will then… well, what? Rather than building a serious strategy to bring about socialism, these adventurous radicals seek moral salvation by cleansing the world in a purifying flood. As Anuradha Ghandy writes: 

To assert that gender based division of labor is the basis of women’s oppression rather than class still begs the question. If we do not find some social, material reasons for the inequality we are forced into accepting the argument that men have an innate drive for power and domination. Such an argument is self-defeating because it means there is no point in struggling for equality. It can never be realized.

The liberation of prostitutes – and of all those from whom domestic labor is forcibly extracted – comes from the organization of their numbers into a body capable of battling their oppression and all work toward that organization, not from the repeated imprecations to divide the world into sexual abusers and the sexually abused. As Marxists it is our duty to organize, to bring together those who have an interest in fighting for total liberation. The patriarchal state is surely our enemy, as is the concept of masculinity itself insofar as it stands for the theft of labor, but we must be ever wary of the liberalizing drive to universalize victimhood and create a universal victimizer. No matter how strenuously the piece demands the reader to understand that “cunt” is shorthand for being raped, that does not make it so, nor does it make the central division along which society is divided into the raped and the rapists.

1. Sharman, Leah S., Robin Fitzgerald, and Heather Douglas. 2025. “Prevalence of Sexual Strangulation/Choking Among Australian 18–35 Year-Olds.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 54 (2): 465–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-024-02937-y.  Pg. 470. ︎
2. Ibidem. ︎
3. Wright, Paul J., Robert S. Tokunaga, and Ashley Kraus. 2016. “A Meta-Analysis of Pornography Consumption and Actual Acts of Sexual Aggression in General Population Studies: Pornography and Sexual Aggression.” Journal of Communication 66 (1): 183–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12201.
   Pg. 201. ︎
4. The correlation between the consumption of pornography and sexual violence lies in the dehumanizing of the sexual laborers. Even if the viewer were to construct subjectivity for the participants, one that they must construct themselves, as pornography commodifies the alienated images of these workers as they perform sexual labor. The consumer of pornography is a beneficiary of the patriarchal violence that produces this commodity as it only exists for consumption as a byproduct of systematic patriarchal violence. ︎
5. “For the cultural feminists, heterosexuality is about male domination and female subordination and so it sets the stage for pornography, prostitution, sexual harassment, and woman-battering…. In their understanding of material conditions, they have taken the physical fact of reproduction and women’s biological role as the central point for their analysis and concluded that this is the main reason for women’s oppression…. Reproduction means both the reproduction of the person on a day to day basis and the reproduction of the human species. But in fact, reproduction of the species is something humans share with the animal kingdom. That could not be the basis for women’s oppression. For in all the thousands of years that people lived in the first stages of human existence, women were not subordinated to men.” Ghandy, Anarhuda, Philosophical Trends in the Feminist Movement, 54-5. ︎
6. Obviously, the Marxist analysis is that all real power is founded somewhere in property relations, and that other forms of power are all ultimately mediated property relations. ︎
7. Sharman, et al. Pg. 472 ︎
8. Ibid., Pgs. 472-473. ︎
9. On a case by case basis, it is, of course, possible for transgender people to reproduce patriarchal oppression. Domestic abuse is one form this takes. However, this is far from as simple a proposition as the mechanical oppressor/oppressed relation presented by the article at hand. Indeed, is it not possible that the penetrator in a relationship can be abused? Is it not possible that the penetrating partner can change from one to the other? ︎
10. James, Sandy E., Jody L. Herman, Susan Rankin, Mara Keisling, Lisa Mottet, and Ma’ayan Anafi. 2016. “The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey.” National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf. Pg. 59 ︎
11. Marx makes note of this phenomenon in Capital, that the family loses its material foundation in the capitalist age as children become the collective property of bourgeois society and women are a constant reserve army of labor ever ready to replace men in the workplace. It is through latter socialist social revolutions that women’s liberation has since unfolded. ︎
12. This struggle can itself be enervating to class consciousness, as is the case in the imperialist centers where class struggle has produced not revolution, but an entrenched labor aristocracy. ︎
13. Marx, Karl. (1872) 2024. Capital. Edited by Paul North. Translated by Paul Reitter. Princeton University Press, pgs. 235-236. ︎
14. Id. at 528. ︎
15. In a waged relation, a prostitute is paid a wage by an employer, who keeps the amount that is paid for the sex work. In a slave or semi-slave relation, the prostitute is essentially kept in bondage to a pimp or madam, and receives instead whatever goods they need directly from their keeper, rather than a wage. Those thrust into illegal positions are excluded from legal production. We here incorporate slave and semi-slave relations as subproletarian, for in the age of “free” labor, these are all classes that must sell their labor-power. ︎
16. Harris, Leslie J. “Conclusion.” In The Rhetoric of White Slavery and the Making of National Identity, 149–60. Michigan State University Press, 2023. https://doi.org/10.14321/jj.2990357.11. ︎
17. These and related “internet safety” politics have a long history of particularly targeting transgender and queer people, making both digital and physical spaces more dangerous for these communities. This is a result of queerness and transness being ideologically labeled as sexually explicit, or otherwise as a harmful social disease (Brooke and Turner, 2025; Kayyali & Mithani, 2025). Lawmakers in the UK have sought to expand such existing laws to further require websites to keep track of users sex assigned at birth, a tool that will be used to heavily monitor and further suppress the transgender population in the country if it comes to pass (Santi, 2025). 
    Kayyali, Dia, and Jasmine Mithani. 2025. “Age Verification Is Locking Trans People out of the Internet.” Tech Policy Press. December 8, 2025. https://www.techpolicy.press/age-verification-is-locking-trans-people-out-of-the-internet/.
    Santi, Mariano. 2025. “Data Bill: First They Came for Trans People.” Open Rights Group. 2025. https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/data-bill-first-they-came-for-trans-people/.
    Tanner, Brooke, and Nicol Turner Lee. 2025. “Children’s Online Safety Laws Are Failing LGBTQ+ Youth.” Brookings. July 9, 2025. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/childrens-online-safety-laws-are-failing-lgbtq-youth/.
    https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/data-bill-first-they-came-for-trans-people/  ︎
18. Dworkin actively proclaimed women’s struggle for liberation as resembling the struggle of the Zionists for a state in which they could finally find safety from the hoards seeking their death and sexual violation. (Lewis, 2025). Her early theoretical positions on the subjects of transsexuality and criticism of bioessentialism — despite holding a contradictory stance that “One might argue for a liberalization of sex-based roles, but one cannot justifiably argue for their total redefinition.” (Dworkin, 1974, pg. 175) — has left a wide range of room for an ongoing ideological struggle on whether Dworkin would be supportive of trans liberation today. In Woman Hating Dworkin stated “it would be premature and not very intelligent to accept the psychiatric judgment that transsexuality is caused by faulty socialization. More probably transsexuality is caused by a faulty society.” and “…transsexuality is a disaster for the individual transsexual. Every transsexual, white, black, man, woman, rich, poor, is in a state of primary emergency (see p. 185) as a transsexual.” (Ibid., 186). With her short term solution to this so-called emergency being that “…every transsexual is entitled to a sex-change operation, and it should be provided by the community as one of its functions.” (Ibid., 187), with the end goal being the construction of an androgynous human community that would bring transsexuality to an end by subsuming it into “…new modes of sexual identity and behavior.” (Ibid., 188). Dworkin later gave considerable praise to and actively promoted Transsexual Empire, a violently transphobic work which targeted transition related medical care, and specific transgender women who were subsequently harassed by Janice Raymond’s followers out of public life. While later expressing her distaste of the work’s treatment of transgender people in a personal letter to Raymond (Duberman, 2020, Pg. 161), her lack of public retraction has allowed figures such as Raymond to continually lay claim to Dworkin as an essential figure in the theoretical framework of modern Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism (Janice, 2021, pp. 41-47). 
    Duberman, Martin B. 2020. Andrea Dworkin : The Feminist as Revolutionary. New York: The New Press.
    Lewis, Sophia. “Are Women Weak Jews? On Andrea Dworkin’s Zionism.” Spectre Journal.  May 27th 2025. https://spectrejournal.com/are-women-weak-jews/
    Raymond, Janice. 2021. Doublethink: A Feminist Challenge to Transgenderism. ︎

Iraq was bombed into desolation — its electricity grid, water systems, hospitals, roads, bridges, and even sewage systems were reduced to rubble. Their bloodlust still unquenched, the U.S. used depleted uranium rounds, poisoning the land and condemning generations to birth defects and cancer. Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when asked whether she regretted the slaughter of over half a million Iraqi children, calmly declared on 60 Minutes that it was “worth it”  (Twaij, 2022). A personal memory, I recall once watching a lecture by Arundhati Roy who remarked on the U.S. justification of the bombing of Iraq, “We are expected to believe that the U.S. Marines were sent on a feminist mission.” One truly has to applaud the audacity of the lie. However, this kind of propaganda is hardly uncommon in the history of U.S. imperialism; it is very much par for the course that they hide behind the language of human rights and progressive Western feminism to justify their carte blanche bombing campaigns that eviscerate women, men, and children alike. The hypocrisy cannot be ignored — a woman in a position of senior leadership in the U.S. actively contributed to a campaign that resulted in the catastrophic rollback of women’s rights, safety, and security.

In Syria, America waged a relentless crusade to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, once again cloaking itself in the rhetoric of “democracy and human rights” — not unlike Iraq (and countless other cases throughout the 20th century). As a result, the nation that was once called the cradle of civilization is today a blood-soaked nightmare of unimaginable human tragedy, all because the U.S. demanded a regime change in favor of someone more amenable to their investor and business class interests (Naiman, 2015).

To add to the ensuing horror even further, America continues its crusade of calamity in Yemen, where its bombs continue to shred civilian infrastructure, while American money and weapons fuel Saudi aggression. Meanwhile, Israel, armed to the teeth with U.S. military aid, carries out daily atrocities with impunity, trampling human rights as the world watches in silence (Saleh, 2025). And I have only scratched the surface of American imperialism — and only over the last few decades, in just one part of the world — all while it claims to act under the moral mission of civilization and humanitarianism.

Is it reasonable, then, to expect nations broken and shattered by such wars and foreign intervention to function in any democratic manner? We do not — and cannot — know what these nations might look like today had they been allowed to develop on their own terms, guided by the specific and unique cultural, material, and economic practices democratically determined by their own citizens. The argument is often made that West Asian nations remain undeveloped because Islam is a backward religion that breeds terrorism and oppression — as if religious belief alone determines the course of a nation’s progress. But progress is not born of ideology; it comes from the democratic participation of the masses and the historical and material conditions in which they live and struggle. The idea that faith in a particular god sets the limits of development is not only wrong — it is ahistorical and frankly, absurd. The Western Liberal Democracies, dripping with a colonial arrogance so vast and insatiable it eclipses all of history, lecture such nations on “Progressive Politics.” Yet was it not these same nations that razed to the ground even the tiniest sliver of hope and institutional framework required to achieve such a thing?

Furthermore, if the Western model of development is so superior — if the ideals of the Enlightenment were truly as revolutionary as they are claimed to be – then why did it take centuries for women, Black people, people of color, Indigenous peoples, minorities, Queer communities, and immigrants to even begin to be treated with dignity and granted equal rights? And that struggle, I should add, is still far from over. As a glaring example, just four years of Donald Trump was enough to destabilize the American “Democratic” system so thoroughly that the federal right to abortion — Roe v. Wade — was overturned. Just four years of one reactionary leader. Now imagine decades of that, layered with war, foreign occupation, sabotage, and poverty, with not a single institution left standing to hold back the worst instincts of violence and repression. That is — and has been — the reality for much of West Asia, and far beyond.

Not only has Western liberalism failed to deliver on these rights and promises throughout its historical development, but it continues to fail — with equal, if not greater, force — even today. On this, I offer both historical and contemporary evidence. Consider first what the famed liberal hero Alexis de Tocqueville had to say about the workers’ revolt of the June Days Uprising in 1848: “After the outbreak of the workers’ revolt, de Tocqueville was not only in favor of conferring emergency powers on Cavaignac but recommended shooting on sight anyone caught ‘in a posture of defense’” (Losurdo, 2011, ch. 10).

Now consider Joe Biden, the self-proclaimed champion of the working class, who calls himself the “most pro-union president” and has been hailed by historians as the greatest advocate for workers since Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Loomis, 2024). Yet this same president blocked a bill that would have granted sick leave to railroad workers, denying the demands of more than 115,000 workers who had gone on strike in 2022. And this was not some anomaly or failing of character — it is the function of liberalism itself, which gives with one hand and takes with the other, only retreating when popular movements threaten its order. Even on the rare occasions when liberals do offer concessions, they are steadily eroded into nothing by one reformist negation after another. As Losurdo (2011) writes, “At issue was canceling, or more or less drastically reducing, the democratic concessions won from liberal society by the popular movement.” And as de Tocqueville made clear, when that fails, the gun will do. As the old saying goes: scratch a liberal, and a fascist bleeds.

If we are indeed asked to believe that liberalism is an ideology adorned with glitter and gold, then we must confront an unavoidable question: how can such ideas give rise to some of the most depraved acts of horror ever known to humanity? The contradiction between liberalism’s glittering promises and its reality is precisely the primordial force that necessitates its overwhelming need to oppress.

To further emphasize: as we have already demonstrated, these liberal ideas were never inherently superior; they were not even exclusively European. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment — pillars of so-called “Western thought” — emerged only through a deep engagement with earlier Greek and Roman texts, which in turn drew heavily on the scholarly achievements of Egyptians, Persians, Indians, and Mesopotamians (modern-day Iraq) (Davidson, 2006). Yet today, many of these regions are dismissed by the West as “uncivilized” or “underdeveloped.” The irony would almost be laughable, were it not so tragically real. As Michael Parenti observed, “The third world is not underdeveloped, they are overexploited.”

Moreover, even in their European form, these ideas were never truly progressive; they were always fundamentally Hobbesian and Machiavellian in their outlook on human nature. It was only the emergence of genuinely revolutionary ideas that forced liberals to concede to democratic ideals. The liberal framework, as we have discussed, can only muster reforms that preserve the existing state machinery, whereas revolutionary thought dares to transcend it. Consider the institution of slavery: a liberal might express shock at the slave’s plight and propose marginal improvements — better clothing or food — while the revolutionary would cry out, “Come, comrade, let us shatter the chains of slavery!” That is precisely the kind of transformative progress that followed the Bolshevik Revolution when peasants gained literacy and women secured equal pay, voting rights, and the opportunity to hold office (Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, 1983). Throughout history, liberals have consistently resisted the sweeping democratic changes championed by revolutionary movements.

Is it any wonder, then, that nations devastated by Western colonial and imperial ambitions remain broken beyond comprehension? Those of us in the West who are not members of racially or economically privileged groups did not receive our rights out of benevolence; rather, we were forced, for the first time in history, to compete with a rival political system that was materially superior and genuinely progressive. It was this competitive drive — fueled by the extraordinary social and human progress of the Soviet Union, combined with decades of development untainted by colonial or imperial interference — that enabled Western societies to evolve into what they are today.

If these same conditions were systematically denied to nations in the Global South through neocolonial exploitation, debt entrapment, illegal coups, and invasions, then it is not only unfair but intellectually dishonest to blame them solely for their own lack of progress.

If we were to allow these nations to develop according to their own histories — if we were to let their people prosper on their own terms, and if the forces of production, labor, and industry were free to drive genuine democratic participation — then, just as in every other society, the rights of minorities, women, and other oppressed groups would naturally flourish over time. Not out of moral charity, but because the conditions of their growth would make progress inevitable. We are told to measure progress by the standards of those who denied it to others. But given the chance — given peace, sovereignty, and the right to chart their own course — these nations would not need lectures from the West. They would show us what real progress looks like.

Citations:

1. Al-Shammari, M. (2023), “Women’s Education: Cultural and Religious Solutions from the Heart of Afghanistan”, Middle East Council on Global Affairs, https://mecouncil.org/publication/womens-education-cultural-and-religious-solutions-from-the-heart-of-afghanistan/
2. Twaij, A (2022), “Let’s remember Madeleine Albright for who she really was”, Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/3/25/lets-remember-madeleine-albright-as-who-she-really-was
3. Naiman, R (2015), “WikiLeaks Reveals How the US Aggressively Pursued Regime Change in Syria, Igniting a Bloodbath”, Truthout, https://truthout.org/articles/wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath/
4. Davidson, N (2006), “Islam and the Enlightenment”, Socialist Worker, https://socialistworker.co.uk/socialist-review-archive/islam-and-enlightenment/
5. Saleh, A. (2025), “Yemen dismantles UK-Saudi espionage network and continues to attack strategic US and Israeli targets”, Peoples Dispatch, https://peoplesdispatch.org/2025/01/08/yemen-dismantles-uk-saudi-espionage-network-and-continues-to-attack-strategic-us-and-israeli-targets/
6. Loomis, E. (2024), “Biden’s labor report card: Historian gives ‘Union Joe’ a higher grade than any president since FDR” Government Executive, https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/05/bidens-labor-report-card-historian-gives-union-joe-higher-grade-any-president-fdr/397002/
7. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (1983), United Nations, https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw25years/content/english/CONCLUDING_COMMENTS/Russian_Federation/Union_of_Soviet_Socialist_Republic-CO-1.pdf

May 19th, 1918 in Brooks County Georgia.

The death of plantation owner Hampton Smith unleashed a wave of violence on the Black residents in the small Georgia town.  Smith, known for being excessively violent towards his workers, also severely battered Mrs. Turner. 

Upon hearing the news of the plantation owner being killed, death-hungry and vampiric mobs of white terrorists removed Black residents from their homes, schools, places of employment and worship; then proceeded to torture and lynch them to death. Thirteen Black people were slaughtered in the name of white terrorism.

Hayes Turner would not return to the home he shared with his wife Mary and their future child on that sullen Georgia day. A few days after the May 16th murder of the plantation owner, Hayes Turner was arbitrarily charged with his murder and jailed. While awaiting “trial,” Hayes Turner was taken from his cell by scores of white terrorists, strung up by a tree, and lynched, the deep Georgia air falling to its knees, writhing and sick from the smell of Black death.

Mary was eight months pregnant when she was taken by white vigilantes for daring to raise her voice in defense of her husband. The death-mob proceeded to tie her ankles, string her body upside-down, douse her with gasoline, mutilate, torture, and shoot the young Black woman, and crush the head of her unborn child. In defending her husband against the frame-up by the white supremacist mob, Mrs. Turner also defended herself against the state that would do nothing to protect. It was the state that reaped, and still reaps, a benefit from lynched Black bodies. It is the state and its owners that creates and enforces laws to protect those who mutilate and destroy Black life. Of course it didn’t protect her; it was designed to kill her.

It was more than murder that Mary and her unborn child endured. This was a frenzied bloodletting of an already gutted people. And, yet, the mad cutting and slicing wasn’t enough; white terrorists proceeded to shoot her drained and lynched body multiple times, beating her into a sunken puddle of blood, dislodging her unborn child from her womb.

Already subjected to the savagery of white violence, the unborn child wasn’t even a second old when they stomped, beat, kicked, and smashed it to death. The fetus lay there, butchered and lifeless on the dirt road; never given the chance to breathe one last tiny cleaved and severed breath.

Mary, her husband, and her unborn child are the exemplars, the stand-ins, the proxies, and archetypes of all the victims of a brutal hegemonic violence that casts its net of murder and profit over every corner of the earth. 

A few months into Israel’s genocidal campaign last year, The New York Times ran an article, the now thoroughly debunked “Screams Without Words: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on October 7th” by Jeffery Gettleman, Anat Schwartz, and Adam Sella, in which it claimed to expose the vile rape of Isreali women by Hamas supposedly ignored by the U.N. It should be noted that both Gettleman and Schwartz have expressed deep anti-Palestinian views. The article goes on to describe in detail the alleged violent assault and mutilation of these women. Reports of sliced breasts, cut genitals, stabbings during rape, a slaughtered family at a dining table, and mounds of other horrors are “documented” in the New York Times article. In another report by ZAKA, a self-proclaimed nonreligious organization specializing in collecting dead bodies and body parts from scenes purported to be “unnatural” deaths, a testimony from Yossi Llandau,who is head of ZAKA in the southern region of Israel, aired. In the video, Landau recounts seeing the dead body of a pregnant woman who was raped, her stomach sliced open by Hamas militants, an unborn fetus with the umbilical cord still attached falling out of her stomach, and then repeatedly shot.

It’s important to note, the testimonials of the “witnesses” were all either from IOF (Israeli Occupation Forces) personnel or subject to rigid approval by IOF soliders (themselves involved in endless sexual harassment cases that went unsolved, including allegations of rape, torture, indiscriminate killings, and cover ups). Despite all this, no evidence of these “crimes” was collected, allegedly because Israeli investigators were just too “overwhelmed” and “concerned with religious customs regarding the dead” to worry about the very minor detail of making sure any of the claims were true. The entire report was wrought with evasions and excuses as to why evidence of even the smallest kind could not be provided. Many of the eye witness accounts, primarily from ZAKA “first responders,” concerning the state of the dead bodies — for which they have no forensic expertise  (they’re only trained in preparing the bodies for funerals “in a dignified way” according to strict orthodox Jewish rituals) — underwent numerous changes with each version becoming more and more macabre.

The parallels between the depraved racist terror Mary Turner was subjected to and the story constructed by Yossi Landau about the pregnant woman whose stomach was sliced open with an unborn fetus, for whom there’s no evidence, is striking. Too striking, in fact.

In order to justify the arch genocidal bloodthirst of the zionist entity, in order to make frail excuses for their ruthless slaughter and forced removal of Palestinians, the zionist government is outright hijacking the painful history Black people have endured at the hands of white terroristic violence. What’s more, its not enough that the zionist entity has turned Gaza into a maze of perpetual death, where the Isreali state marches about violently colonizing and displacing the people of historic Palestine; they are now using our history of being subject to savage Jim Crow violence and instrumentalizing it against us in order to justify the continued genocide of Palestinian people, and, to that end, the broader colonized world. 

Further, those invested in the zionist project want to sustain the narrative of the “crazed and violent brown men” with an unhinged animalistic need to rape the “virtuous white woman”. Palestinian men are held in the confines of an animality conjured by the hallucinations of the racist white psyche. Thus, upholding the racist narrative of the savage brown man with a ravenous appetite for rape is a double genocide serving to delegitimize the resistance movement, and further cannibalize a people.

Even more disturbing, is the liberal Western feminist narrative that hurls itself into unhinged hysterics at the mere sight of the mythological threat against the “unsoiled virtue of white womanhood,” yet remains historically silent when colonized women are brutally raped and murdered. All Black people have been forced to endure a necrophilic, blood-lust at the hands of the racist white woman and man. This strain of Western feminism does not contest, and in fact aids in, the reckless hunting and extermination of what theorists defined as outgroup males: racialized men not considered a part of the dominant, normative group. Western feminism revels in the mutilation and slaughter of Black women like Mary Tuner and her unborn child while savagely vilifying Black and racialized men.

It is this strain of feminism that looked on wide-eyed and compliant as Hayes Turner was noosed and ripped from the earth. It is this strain of feminism that stifles the screams of Israeli women abused by cowards like ZAKA founder Meshi Zahav,  turning them into cold susurrations of complicity and protection of a known rapist. It is this strain of feminism that propagates proven fabrications of “rape by Hamas fighters” as a strategy to validate their massacre-driven imperialist aims. It is this strain of feminism that hinges its framework on the butchering of Mary Turner and the desecration of Dalal Mughrabi. 

It is imperial feminism, with its many arid, post-Intersectional vicissitudes, which grounds itself in recognition by the state and the oppression and murder of Black and brown women, yet never dares speak of revolution and freedom from state repression. It is a feminism tilled on inherently racist axioms that breeds and justifies Black death. Thus, as history has shown, imperial feminists stand undivided with the patriarchal brutality of its white male counterparts. 

Where were the Western feminists when Mary Turner was being butchered and lynched? Where were Western feminists when Mary’s unborn child was being kicked and stomped to death? Where is Black feminism for Mary Turner and her unborn child now? Western feminism is where it’s always been, right alongside white men aiding and glorifying the gruesome murder, rape, and plunder of Black life. And Black feminism — bled of its radicality, confusing revolutionary movement for one’s identity, a priori presumptions, a multiplicity of gender categories, and a gutted and deradicalized queerness — now stands alongside Western feminism seeking refuge, celebritydom and financial kickbacks from the state instead of freedom from it. 

Black feminists, who laud Kamala Harris as the paragon of success and woman leadership, will uplift her intersecting identities and hardships of navigating the campaign trail as top cop, but not only completely discard women like Erica Garner — a fighter, and, as Dr. Joy James theorizes, a Captive Maternal — but offer them up for the slaughter. James, who theorizes the Captive Maternal as one (beyond gender binaries) who moves inside the tense contours of conflicted care-taker, protester, movement-maker, maroonage, and war resister, affirms, “most black feminist, conventional abolitionists, seek to reject, obscure, or attack the militant Captive Maternal.” It does not present a moral entanglement for Black feminists to praise Kamala, the top cop, who peddles representation as liberation while poor Black women, who are actually at the forefront of the struggle for freedom from state repression, are left to die destitute and broken.

Further, because Black feminism has aligned, has always been aligned, with state forces, it is not only unproblematic for them not to discard the vicious rape and summary execution of Palestinian women and children, but to embrace their perpetual murder as normative; to see their continuous deletion as a necessary corrective on revolutionary Black thought that dares to move beyond the confines of the mercenary logics of imperial feminisms. Because Kamala has presented herself as the “aunty” and “homegirl” of the racist capitalist state, it’s okay for Black feminists to raise millions of dollars for her to continue funding the rape, torture, and mass murder of Palestinian women while feigning support for a ceasefire. 

Black feminism exists inside homicidal ruptures that destroy true sisterhood, that cleave through any kind of genuine care and love amongst communities of Black women. Instead of lifting our sisters in an honest communion that seeks to heave against the destructive imperial feminisms that tear away at Black people as a whole, Black feminism embraces and centers racist constructs of Black people and aims to cut down poor Black women who may disagree with their theoretic — the very women they claim to love and protect. In essence, the Black feminist can write about poor Black women — viewing us as some sort of exhibitionist project — but when it comes to poor Black women defining our own genres of being and narrating our own lives, we’re met with cold, paternalizing disregard from the Black feminist. The Black bourgeois feminist academic class seek to legitimize themselves and feed off of the labor and knowledge-production of poor Black people on the ground, while remaining consciously disconnected and disinterested in the lives of the poor Black women they sternly avow to advocate for. They, like all members of the bourgeois class, are cultural vampires. Even as it seeks to offer a critique of Black feminist thought, Black feminism’s analysis remains banal and deflated. There is an entrenched refusal to engage in an honest root-to-stem interrogation of the way Black feminism has been used to delegitimize militant Black power movements, and dislocate a sense of sisterhood and firm togetherness within the Black community. Black feminism, therefore, proffers a synthetic and vain “sisterhood” that only offers uplift and blurred adulation if you commit to propagating racist tropes of both Black men and Black women. 

It is a feminism, as in the case of Audre Lorde and June Jordan, that leads  Black women to abandon the unflinching truth of her sister in favor of settler feminist lies and distortions. It is a feminism of deep incisions sometimes too scared and riven to repair, where the sutures of love and community become frayed and forgotten. We must begin to build and anchor ourselves in frames that do not opportunistically center one group of Black people while justifying and excusing the slow genocide of another by the state under the veils of “protecting women” from the historic Black male brute. We need a guiding theoretic that understands: yes, these are our mothers, these are our sisters, but our mothers and sisters also have failed in protecting us; and oftentimes barter the depredation of their daughters for their own self-interests.

Imperial feminism — as history has documented — stood idly by as white men ripped Black babies from their mothers and fed them to alligators. It is a feminism where you will never be able to move from Margin to Center as bell hooks asserts because coloring the racist Suffragette movement Black and taking the white supremacist patriarchal dictums of Elizabeth Cady Staton and bearing it as our own, has not helped us as colonized women. It cannot. We must come to grips with the fact that the white supremacist genealogy of Western feminism uses Black men to produce racist tropes about Black people as a whole: i.e, the hypersexual Black male rapist and the hypersexual jezebel Black woman. By employing myths of both the Black male rapist and Arab male rapist, imperial feminism, an arm of the state, is able to justify the lynching and mass genocide of Palestinian men and Black men, and keep colonized people held in the fetters of a cannibalizing demonization. Western feminism, moreover, descends from a racist genealogy. The violently racist logics of white criminologists lie at the taproot of Western feminism, which views colonized people as reified objects they can mutilate and exoticize. Hence, the colonial epistemologies of Western feminism lays the ground and provides the legal framework for the imperial axis of murder that justifies the slaughter of colonized people a world over. 

Anat Schwartz, who helped write the  evidence-deficient New York Times article, “Screams Without Words”, has committed a double genocide against the Palestinian people with groundless claims of rampant sexual torture by “Arab militants.” What’s more, not only has Schwartz blotted out the vicious torture and actual evidence of sexual assault of Palestinian women and girls by the IOF which spans decades, she has made it such that the pain and endless suffering of Palestinian women and girls is actually a threat to precious white zionist life; and that the very truth of their live-streamed murder and dispossession must, in turn, be absorbed back as that of the suffering and death of only Isreali women. Moreover, this violence through consumption not only discards Palestinian women, it makes it so that they are completely disappeared with the only vestiges of their existence being the bombed homes, hospitals and schools that Israel has consumed and is claiming as its own. Israel is, therefore, a cannibal-state sustaining itself through their own necrophilic fantasies; through the twisted rapturous joy of maiming and exterminating the men, women, and children of Palestine.

Further, as Anat Schwartz employs the feminist label and narrative to propagate the idea that the U.N. and international community ignored the mass rape of Israeli women– claims that have been found to be outright fabrications in many instances, so much so that the New York Times itself pulled their podcast episode on the article — we see how these very white supremacist dictums serve to monsterfy an entire group of people, turning them into phantoms who exist between intervals of deletion and Delectability by the “Child-Killing state.”

Even when the IOF commits the most sadistic and heinous crimes against Palestinian women, to the white supremacist zionist, it is impossible to view their vile acts of sexual terror against Palestinian women as sexual assault because, to the death-state (to use a term from Dr. Tommy Curry), they are the masculinized extension of Hamas. Thus, Palestinian women are held in the interstices of a gendered and de-degendered coffin-state forced to claw at the dregs of a butchered life where horrific abuse against them is not only normalized, but is the very essence of Israel society itself.

As it stands, over 186,000 Palestinians and counting have been killed in Gaza, including over 14,500 children, with 19,000 now orphans, over 150 intellectuals and artists bombed or hacked to death, and over 150 known journalists slaughtered. Israel has bombed Rafah, a densely overpopulated city of 1.4 million people in Gaza’s Southern region, even after the IOF ordered Palestinians to go there. There are no schools or universities — teachers have been slaughtered by the occupation forces with the aid of the West, and hospitals have become a distant and erstwhile memory. Over 10,000 children are missing, while masses of people are forced into living amputated lives. Already scarce water has been poisoned with sewage, soil destroyed, women raped, men raped; medics, academics, and UNRWA, the only battered lifeline, now mercilessly cut while Palestinians are massacred within minutes for daring to ask for flour. All while we listen to the tiny grave and sullen pleas for help from 6 year old Hind and thousands like her whose cries have been suffocated by IOF and the Biden administration’s unending lies and liberal pyrotechnics to justify the total evisceration of the Palestinian people.

Like Mary and her unborn child, the people of Gaza have been stricken down and rendered silent. They are condemned by Western liberal democracy and some on the Western left for taking up arms in an unmatched show of strength, resilience, and revolutionary power. From Denmark Vessey, Nat Turner, Vladimir Lenin, to Ghassan Fayiz Kanafani, Chris Hani, George Habash, PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine)  and Hamas – all grasped the elementary fact that national liberation could not be won without an equal showing of brute force on the part of the colonized. Colonial regimes have always marched upon oppressed people with genocidal violence. In peddling utopias of peaceful roads to decolonization, Western leftists end up sending colonized people to their death under the pretense of nonviolence and liberal humanism. What’s more, as a result of the paternalism that plagues the West, many, in truth, do not want revolution as it would expose their own complicity in cutting down and half-pretending to care about the mass slaughter of — children in Gaza. 

For the West in general and America in particular, killing children has always been a favorite pastime. This is a country, on the frayed basis of white supremacist reasoning, that gave the electric chair to 14-year-old George Junius Stinney Jr (Curry, 2017); a country that tortured and lynched 14-year-old Emmet Till; a country where, in the horrific case of Kendrick Johnson, Black children are slaughtered with their organs missing; a country, unmatched in its brutality, that bought, sold, traffics, and kills Black children. A country where Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown, and innumerable Black children undergo an un-childing; and are transformed, at fatal gun and knife-point and post-mortem, into adults, because their Black maleness indicates an imminent sexual danger. 

Recently, video footage has surfaced of settlers storming the Sde Teiman, an Israeli military base in the Negev Desert now serving as a prison camp to torture Palestinians, in support of the soldiers. The settlers, seething with rage, began demanding the release of nine soldiers held in custody by Israeli military police on the morning of July 29th. The soldiers were being held for the sexual torture of a Palestinian man being held prisoner. IOF forces gang raped the Palestinian man, forcing a cell phone into his rectum. The rape was so brutally horrific that the man was sent to a nearby hospital with “severe anal bleeding”  where the doctor confirmed the man also suffered damage to other internal organs. This is not only a sustained moral cleavage of the sadist IOF, this is an eternal homicidal rupture of which liberal democracies, from the Israeli death-state to America, is tilled on.

Capitalism/imperialism suffers an historic, homoerotic consumptive appetite for the flesh and blood of colonized peoples. Critical race theorist Vincent Woodard in his seminal work, The Delectable Negro: Human consumption and Homoeroticism within U.S. Slave Culture, embarked on a deep interrogation of the psycho-sexual fetishistic terror of capital-white supremacy. Racialized people are simultaneously vilified and sexually desired to sate the rapacious hunger of the state for colonized flesh. Dr. Tommy Curry also builds on this analysis with his theory of phallicism. In Curry’s analysis, Black men are branded rapists, hunted, and fetishized by state forces. Furthermore, Black male ontology is butchered and in its place a feminized nonentity that is also a brute rapist. 

This rapist/rapee dialectic bleeds through Curry’s work in the conceptualization of phallicism. In the same way that Palestinian men are designated by the zionist-ethnostate as violent rapists yet are psycho-sexually devoured, so too areBlack men in America  consumed; their flesh feasted on by the American gendarme and targeted for murder. Thus, the necrophilic thirst for colonized men drives the homoerotic slaughter carried out by Israeli death-state and the terroristic public lynchings done by American-garrison state.

Black boys remain solidified in the liberal Western imaginary as violent hyper-masculine Black male terrorists when, in fact, they are Black children who have been brutally severed from their families; who have been disintegrated by the state and their white vigilantes, pushed into the enclaves of oblivion and intentionally forgotten — except, of course, when it’s time to excavate the bodies of dead Black men for hashtags and algorithmic hypervisibility; playing intersectional recognition politics and discursive games with Black genocide. 

This is a country that endlessly prates about the violence of the PLO, PFLP, Hamas, and The Muslim Brotherhood, but aids in the reckless murdering of Palestinian people and colonized people around the world. Further, this country also continues to assist the occupation regime in killing their own people, as is proven in the Kibbutz massacre, and continually counts all men whom they’ve butchered and hacked to death in Palestine as “hamas terrorists”. It is evident Western humanist moralisms are the logics of murder and hollowed justifications for transferring colonized people from one death world to another, locking them in Sepulchrally: a death that does not end but is sustained under a colonial force (Mbembe, 2019); an endless butchering of one’s sense of self and putting in its place an apparition that moves inside the contours of coloniality; cleaved yet drifting between the narrow ledges of bloody death worlds. The state of Sepulcherality is consumptive and the colonizer (false construction) has a necrophilic thirst for the flesh of the colonized (dual false-true construction).

Inside capital/white supremacy, there is a long tradition to disassociate humanity from the darker peoples of the earth and put in their place imagined creatures driven only by primordial and animalistic cravings for violence and death. Missing from this mythological construction, however, is the liberal West’s own bloody depravity, without which this country and its corollary Israel, would not exist. Moreover, without the relegation of Palestinian men as terroristic sexual brutes — the same taxonomies reserved for Black men as in the case of Willie McGee — they, the Hitlerite ethnostate of Netanyahu, would not be able to carry out its fanatic bloodletting of Palestinian men. Hence, when it comes to poor Black and brown people, particularly poor Black and brown men, from the viewpoint of the death-state, there are no humans involved.

The same misandric assumptions that operate to consume and slaughter Black men, also are at work to categorize all Palestinians, particularly Palestinian men, as Hamas, marking them as targets for final deletion. It is therefore necessary for Imperial feminist thought to brand all Palestinian men as terroristic rapists who, by merely existing, threaten the historically unsoiled virtue of Israeli womanhood. Imperial feminism — which takes as its undercarriage the violent white supremacist ethos of racist ethnologist Samuel A. Carthwright, who theorized the sadistic anti-Black male framework of Drapetomania, attempting to rationalize in the white psyche the power of Black men who rose up in unbroken militancy against slavery — and much of its intersectional adjuncts are tilled on the violently racist ideology of late 19th century ethnology. 

Inside the psychic holds of liberal feminism is the belief that Palestinian men are violent patriarchs that must be slaughtered. This destructive misunderstanding of patriarchy as a biological and cultural phenomenon, holding that all men are privileged, regardless of their historically racialized and hunted position by imperialism, because they’re men, and therefore reflexively oppress women; despite being divested from the very notion, let alone category, of manhood (Homo-economicus) however, must be uprooted. We must cut through this imperial feminist reasoning of patriarchy peddled to us by despotic feminisms which takes white supremacy as its base, in order to form a material, cogent analysis that takes into the folds the racialization, degendering, rape, plunder, slavery, dispossession, and genocidal terror against Black and Palestinian men.

In examining the savage raid on Al-Shifa hospital, we see witness accounts of Palestinian men being rounded up and summarily executed. Palestinian men, accused of being Hamas militants, were hunted down by IOF soldiers who disguised themselves as civilians and proceeded to murder three defenseless Palestinian men in their hospital beds awaiting treatment. Instead of going head to head with Hamas (because they’re losing the war and can not) the IOF has — much like Hitler himself, whom they have undeniably modeled their genocidal project after — resorted to the wholesale slaughter of all Palestinian men considered of fighting age. Genocide scholars have also noted the systemic targeting of raciacilzed/ outgroup fighting age males in the hopes of lifting Palestine from the earth altogether.

There are further accounts of Palestinian men and boys being stripped naked and tortured, with hundreds of children held in Israeli prisons. There is proven evidence of Palestinian men and boys being raped and used as human shields by the IOF. In one of the many disturbing accounts, a child who, while simply trying to light fireworks in celebration of Ramadan, was subsequently executed by an IOF sniper. Later, an Israeli official praised the murderer of the child saying that he was a terrorist. The universal dictum of the liberal West and its necro-state Israel, moreover, is there are no children amongst the colonized, therefore all must be executed. 

Sepulcherality means traversing one death world to another: jagged and dead inside seams that lead to homicidal ruptures — managed, calculated, and indexed by the state for perpetual execution; a hollowed-out state where racialized groups are spiritually severed, existing only in absence. The psycho-spatial nature of their dislocation not only from their communities, but from themselves, places them into the construct of the oppressor class; thus, existing inside the projection of the imperial force. The imperialist gendarme, through its economic policies, education system, healthcare industry, carceral structure, cultural structures, colonial geographies, and ecological system, bludgeons colonized people into sepulchral non-existence: a ghostly coffin-state where the slaughtered awaits their turn to die another death. In this state, a people exist only as the construct of the Western imaginary and not as themselves.

The apartheid-state continues to carry out Kaliyugan raids on the Rafah tent compound near the UNRWA warehouses. Video evidence and reports of the siege show a beheaded child whose tiny headless body looked to be between the ages of 4 and 6. Despite Netanyahu and the corruption-riddled organization ZAKA’s folktales of 40 beheaded babies, there is ACTUAL evidence of a beheaded Palestinian child. Palestinian children are forced into a cleaved phantom existence, 

The media-gendarme of the West has an orchestrated blackout against the material reality of unimaginable violence unfolding on the ground of Palestine because it wants to continue to inculcate the American public with racist propaganda against Palestinians so it can continue its fascist onslaught. Further, while Biden instrumentalizes the Holocaust with bled claims of Antisemitism and gives lobotomized speeches about Israel never being compared to Hamas (a claim that is true — the murder-state could never be as valiant and unbreakable as Hamas fighters, who, even when injured, continue fighting for their people with unmatched revolutionary strength), a Palestinian child’s sodden decomposed body lies on the dirt road with their head blown off by 2,000Ib bombs. 

The liberal fits about democracy, wailing from each sunken corner of the earth about the loss of innocent (white) life, are throwing tirades not because they actually care about democracy, but because they do not want their everyday capitalist phantasmagorias interrupted by slaughtered Palestinian people. There is something to be said when Americans view the macabre scenes of headless children as a mere drag on their day. They are appalled not by the suffering and endless murder of Palestinian men, women and children, but by the fact that they can no longer drape themselves in the dead morality of liberal humanist reasoning; screeching about Hamas violence when the entire world is seeing the asymmetries of the genocidal zionist warfare. Liberals and those of the compatible Western left alike — the same left that praises the intellectual breadth of  Western analytical Marxism, but looks on disapprovingly, and, I’d argue, with contempt, at Eastern Marxism and the practical application of Marxism as “Totalitarian”–sinks into barren humanist convulsions and does not necessarily want an end to the genocide in Palestine — they want an end to being confronted with the sharp realities of their own proto-fascist ideations.

Western Marxism bears the stain of the chauvinist 2nd international and suffers from an over/under intellectualism: high-minded theoretical analysis that, when you begin to deeply inquire and go from stem to root, there’s actually nothing there (Losurdo, 2024). Steeped in paternalism and chauvinism, the practical application of Marxism continues to elude Western Marxists as they scold global south liberation movements such as Hamas, Ansar Allah, Hezbollah, etc. The basic understanding of revolutionary national liberation movements as being the necessary soil for socialist potentiality to take root is decidedly lost. The Leninist praxis of Marxism has been altogether gutted. 

American Marxism in particular suffers a xenophobic psychosis, centering itself and playing up the particularities of the American context while willfully negating the universal tenets of Marxism-Leninism. The absence of rigorous self-critique is reflected in decayed phrase-mongering and entertainment based so-called practical work that views the masses of working class people more as an exhibition rather than leaders in class struggle. Both Lenin and Stalin stressed the deep significance of self-criticism within a party and movement, underlying the powerful role it plays in strengthening the strategic goal of the party in tearing away the capitalist state. Hence, as a result of Western Marxism not being anchored in and mastering the art of self-critique — or, as I’ve termed it, revolutionary self-inquiry — we’ve sunken into a dismal paternalism; a lacuna of sterile and desperate chauvinism, that aids in the derailment of revolutionary class struggle.

Introspection and reflection of oneself are inseparable from the methodology of criticism/self-criticism in a party and movement. Self-introspection, or, revolutionary self-inquiry, strengthens and serves the criticism/self-criticism method. It requires deep self-interrogation into the capitalist-constructed-self, made to reflexively function in this society, and the true self. It is a dialectical movement to thread through the contours of tension, of struggle of one’s self; uprooting the old and working to understand the universal flux that shapes and guides what is to be born anew, and, thus, building political awareness. Therefore, without working to develop the skill of revolutionary self-inquiry, one can not effectively self-critique, and liberal tendencies and prevarications will always prevail, devouring the marrow of what Marxist-Leninist core there is. A movement or party that does not build the necessary muscle of revolutionary self-inquiry is destined to sink into dred economism; peddling reformist policies that serve to strengthen the state under the banner of Marxism-Leninism.

Turning Lenin into a liberal and pulling the innards out of class struggle, Western Marxism — and in particular American Marxism — has altogether distanced itself from militant resistance movements. It exchanges revolutionary struggle for mythologies of peaceful roads often pointing to Chile’s Allende as an example, conveniently discarding the fact that Salvador Allende’s social democratic government — which was left unarmed and vulnerable as a result of the ideology of peaceful-road-socialism — was couped, with Allende himself driven to suicide by the murderous appetite of the CIA-backed Pinochet regime. Moreover, bartering with capitalist henchmen, Western Marxism advances reform over revolution. It navel-gazes in barren disarray about the horrors of Stalinism (which is not an actual thing, but a linguistic bias and an anti-revolutionary mythological construction) emptily quoting Lenin while butchering his core principles and eviscerating the need to engage in militant class struggle (Losurdo, 2023).

Historically, “Stalinism” has been used as an anti-communist trope to deter people from forging resistance against the capitalist offensive. The mythology of Stalinism, however, is not only propagated to upend liberation movements deemed inherently dictatorial by the bloody, enslaving, and genocidal West, it is also used as an indictment against Black men who form revolutionary parties to counter the ruthlessness of the state — as in the case of Huey P Newton, Malcolm X, Kwame Ture, Robert Williams, etc. — and who theorize frames of resistance. In other words, just as there is a wholesale dismissal of the Black power movement as overly “authoritarian” and laved in “toxic masculine ideals” that forgrounds their onto-epistemological position, there is a wholesale (liberal-anarchistic) generalizing disregard for, and false comparison of, any move to form a militant organization to directly challenge the state as “Stalinist” and “authoritarian.” Further, Black male militancy, and, by extension the professed revolutionary nationalism of the Black community, is written off as an historic authoritarian failure that must be cut down by imperial feminism before it can have the chance to develop new roots. Endless derogatory statements of Huey Newton as a drug-induced terrorist with a bloodlust for authoritarianism abound as the counterinsurgent efforts of the U.S. sally forth these narratives in order to reorient the collective consciousness of the Black community away from mass revolt.

In the aim of Killing Boogeymen, of  exterminating the perennial militant negro communist threat, imperial feminism is thus employed as disciplinary warfare against the Black community under the aegis of saving poor, backward, non-feminist Black women from the historic insurgent Black male brute. Thus, the anti-communist construction of the “Stalinist” Boogeymen; of the arrested and undone people of the East who dared to challenge the axis of finance-capital of the West with the Leninist practical application of Marxism. The people of the east, under the leadership of Joseph V. Stalin, who dared to defeat the bloody death-march of Hiterite Nazism that Western powers colluded with and defended (Soviet Information Bureau, 1948); the same Nazism that the West has no problem protecting and colluding with today in the form of zionism (as opposed to the vain theorizing spearheaded by the West that views Marxism, with a complete negation of Leninist praxis, as an abstract, idealist liberal-conservative free-for-all with an eternal grimace of revolutionary party organizing and the capture of state power as primordially dictatorial) live as an apparitional psychic threat that parallels the visceral despotism of the Black male militant and the revolutionary Black nationalism/Black power politics of the Black community. 

Equating the militancy and revolutionary nationalism of the Black community with despotism also serves a second counterinsurgent function: if you can propagandize the Black community away from mass revolt against the murderous repression it has been subject to, you pacify otherwise potentially insurgent elements. Africana philosopher Miron Gilmore aptly interrogates counterinsurgency in his framework of Killology, which analyzes the U.S. global “war on terror” as a modern form of earlier colonialist counterinsurgent formations. Their transformation builds on Silvia Wynter’s frame of the omnipresent reason of homo-economous Man1 to the capitalist, techno-militarized imperialism of Man2, to now, Miron’s theoretic of Man3 “MAN3/homo homini lupus (man as wolf to another man AKA MAN as Praetorian).”

In analyzing the thick latticework between colonialism, “modernization”, racialization, and the counterinsurgent scholar-soldier trained to kill under the veils of humanitarianism and lifting poor Black/colonized people out of the desperate “backwardness” of the masculinized Black power era Gilmore affirms, “[……]modernization theory must be explicated to properly understand the role of Black feminism’s theoretical agenda as a stratagem of U.S. counterinsurgency, its embracing of the iconography of the counterinsurgent girl, its basic tendencies towards pathological (criminological) cultural representations of Black Power masculinity (and Black males writ large) and the U.S.’s doctrinal mastery of counterinsurgency theory to subvert anti-colonial threats to its hegemony around the globe.”

In the era of the techno-slaughter, the pillaging colonialist ethos of the “civilizing mission” is replaced by alleged humanitarian concerns (which never calls into question the West or its corollary, Israel) that focus on ideology and culture as “humane” methods of counterinsurgency aimed at subduing/eliminating the target population: Killology. Further, Gilmore avers, “a new population-centric approach to Black militancy and thought (along with a strident resistance to the criminalization of self-defense, and a new Black consciousness or set of ‘inner eyes’ based on revolutionary suicide) with the masses as its center of gravity will be the basis for a cultural-logical contribution toward accomplishment of a new truly human theory of victory — the accomplishment of a new Human.”

This cultural-logic, or what is referred to as the 20th century counterinsurgent doctrinal strategy of “winning the hearts and minds” is the seedbed anchoring this epoch’s liberal democratic genocidal advance that creates and utilizes their theory industry, here namely imperial feminism, to sedate potentially revolutionary elements within the Black community, truncating their developing consciousness, and drugging them with the pervasive and septic logic that pathologizes Black revolutionary nationalism as hyper-masculine, deviant, heavy with the burden of an unmatched patriarchy worse than that of the historically racist colonialist white man, and radically insurgent in their antediluvian desire for violence.

It follows then that presumptive presidential nominee Kamala Harris would be the archetypal image of the liberated, educated, Western feminist (who holds no qualms about materially supporting the vicious rape and murder of Palestinian women and children), who built a career on the mass imprisonment of Black men and is now aiding to spearhead a genocide that leaves children charred and headless and blows up civilians in Lebanon through pagers via the cutting edge cybernetic killing machines of the imperial West. Climbing in and out of Blackness, Harris serves the dual function of arch counterinsurgent and “Homegirl.”

What’s more, Harris is able to appeal to Black women and the broader Black community on the basis of posturing her identity as the Chuck-wearing sister/aunty from Oakland, all the while maintaining her positionality at the highest level of empire as the top cop who champions the cowardly assassination of Yahya Sinwar, and creates the policies that drive the mass asphyxiation of poor Black people. Harris’s peculiar ontic as homegirl/mercenary occupies a specific dialectical spatio-temporal zone: the pacification and subsequent bloody deletion of potentially insurgent Black men and other radical elements within the Black community. 

Further, even Harris’s strained relationship with her father Donald Harris, Black Jamaican Marxian economist, serves to reinforce the U.S. doctrinal counterinsurgent strategy of marking Black men who theorize alternatives to the capitalist order of blood and profit as communist threats to the racist social hierarchy that must be delegitimized and blotted out. While there is endless footage of Harris exclaiming the strength and grace of her mother — the biomedical scientist who raised the would-be vice president and her sister, the former senior policy advisor to Hillary Clinton, all on her own — her father is seen as the phantasmal derelict with crazed left politics. Furthermore, in the U.S., Donald Harris is viewed as the unfit parent unworthy to be in the presence of his daughter’s success within the great emporium of murder and depredation. He is the seen/unseen vaurien negro communist buck incapable of caring for his exceptional daughters. Harris’s function as arch counterinsurgent genocidal homegirl, moreover, strengthens and bolsters the strategic aim of the U.S., and its corollary imperial feminism, in branding Black and racialized men in the revolutionary tradition as visceral threats to the capitalist social order and maiming advanced revolutionary segments of the Black community.

If we’re to meet this current revolutionary moment we must recognize that facism has changed its shape. It is, therefore, not enough to get lost in worn cultural characterizations of fascism as a distant and isolated jackboot phenomenon. Fascism is structural and woven into every facet of the spectacle that is capitalist society. A serious analysis does away with vain debates about the unhinged fascism of only Trump and The Right Danger; barren debates that often seek to downplay the outright genocidal policies that have killed over 186,000 Palestians and beheads children. An examination of the facts exposes that Kamala Harris and the Democrat cabal move in lock step with Trump and fascism. Historically, from Germany, Italy, to Hungary, fascism could not have thrived without deep liberal collusion.

Without sinking into the frenzied petit-bourgeois sophistry of ultra-leftism, declaring the wholesale uselessness of elections, or uncritically declaring there’s nothing we can do except engage in some ill-conceived suicide mission that dislocates the left (this is in fact not an adequate criterion; it is not enough to be “left” in some general, amorphous sense: one is either in favor of capitalism or wholesale against it) from the broader body politic, we must understand a sober analysis is needed. The needed analysis is one that clearly understands, to paraphrase Gabriel Rockhill, that facism is a mode of governance within the greater structure of capitalism. 

Yet, one must, if one considers themselves a serious Marxist, ask how can fascism be completely defeated with a fascist-enabling party? Though conditions are different, and one can also point to certain ultra-left mistakes, we must not forget that it was the social democrats that had a bloody hand in knifing away at the revolutionary movement in Germany of which Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were at the helm . Conversely, whether it is the Biden administration or Harris/Waltz administration, both have vowed to continue, uninterrupted, the death-march in Palestine. The Democrats, moreover, use market liberalism as a narcotic for public consumption in order to conceal mode-one of their fascist onslaught.

Therefore, it is not a matter of whether supporting Harris is a “strategy against Trump” when both capitalist parties, which in actuality is only one capitalist party, breathe sustenance into one another. Liberalism, moreover, has a symbiotic relationship to fascism. This idea that we can choose one fascistic party to fight the supposedly more virile form of fascism of another is, therefore, flawed from the very outset. It is a choice not of a reduced form of fascism even. Rather, it is a choice between a slow lethal injection or a summary execution. However, the paradox is: what is perceived as a slow death is actually a more accelerated mass butchering.

Liberal democracy needs zionism. To have an ethnostate that can instrumentalize the oppression of Eastern European Ashkenazi Jews — the so called “undesirables” the early zionists wanted absolutely nothing do with that Israel treats like detritus while pretending to honor victims of the Holocaust — is a convenient justification for the imperial machine to unleash its techno-slaughter on Palestinians and elide criticism. 

Zionism has always maintained shared points of interest with Hitlerism. Imperialism, furthermore, needs zionism to strengthen and fulfill its fascist aims as it is easier to weaponize the history of the Nazi occupation in order to stifle anyone who questions the occupation force’s heinous crimes. If, in fact, facism is the genocidal march of the total evisceration of a people, and we are, as it stands, in the deep of a genocidal march funded, upheld, and defended by the U.S. government, then I argue we are at the very least in a full thrust forward of fascism. 

It is liberal democracy that funded, aided, and drafted policies protecting those who hacked and lynched Black people. The settler feminist narratives of Anat Schwartz, therefore — narratives that justify the pained dismembering of a people — are the same narratives that not only ignored the brutal killing of Mary Turner, her husband and unborn child, but deleted her story from the collective psyche, and continue an institutional butchering of Black and brown people. Settler feminist narratives acted as a barricade against indictment of the violent white vigilantes that lynched and mutilated Mary Turner and her unborn child; and continue to act as a barricade for the IOF against any form of possible indictment for their murderous rape of Palestinian women. 

From that day in Brooks County Georgia May 1918 to present day Palestine, we see the imperial machinations at work. Ethnic cleansing, as Domenico Losurdo has aptly reminded us, is a “twin birth” of liberalism (Losurdo, 2011) — a twin birth that gives life to mass graves, amputated, and headless children. Those paralyzed and defenseless, lying in a barely functioning hospital awaiting aid that will never come (because the U.S. blocked it), are gunned down in their hospital beds. Almost 400 Palestinians and counting have been buried, with accounts of some being buried alive in mass graves in Nasser Hospital (and Al-Shifa Hospital) in the city of Khan Yunis covered in feces; their hospital clothing still somewhat attached to their charred and desecrated bodies. Palestinian women are raped and tortured, their babies minutes old are left to die of starvation or slaughtered by the IOF just like Mary’s unborn child who was torn from her stomach and stomped to death by “virtuous” white American Christians. 

While settler feminism spirals into outrage about the the savage brown Hamas rapists, even a recent U.N. investigation, though desperate to give credence to Israel’s claims of mass rapes, admitted there is no evidence. Settler feminists make bold assertions vowing to defend Israeli women against sexual assault, but are completely mute when it comes to the 260 cases of rape reported everday in Israel. What’s more, while Israel advances its Hasbara about imaginary beheaded babies, actual evidence of Palestinian people found beheaded in mass graves are surfacing as Palestinians desperately try to identify loved ones lost amid the bombs.  

These same voices that affirm the protection of women against the Hamas terrorists, interestingly enough, are rigidly silent about the violent rape of their own IDF women soliders by the IDF themselves. It is an imperial feminism that violently imprisons actual feminist intellectuals, as in the case of professor Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian who was thrown into jail by Israelis for “incitement.” It is the same imperial feminism that finds itself in a sudden catatonic state when asked about the Haredi Jeffrey Epstein.

 A Hitlerite feminism, or, as Joy James affirms in her analysis, state feminism, that protects the white supremacist terrorists — as in a particularly tragic case — that kidnapped, gang raped, tortured, murdered, and buried a Bedouin teenage girl because, to quote, they wanted to “fu%ck.” It is a Hitlerite feminism that continues to aid and abet rapists in Israel, ensuring that serial rapists continue to victimize Palestinian and Israeli women with impunity; and that Israel remains a comfortable abode for murderous serial rapists. These settler feminist axioms that claim to protect and honor Israeli women actually offer them up for a lifetime of the imprisoning patriarchal abuse they claim to be defiantly against. Settler feminism serves as an accomplice in shielding predators and covering up their sadistic violence, ensuring the abuse of women is Israel remains structurally intact.

Anat Schwartz, in her imperial feminist logic, can not see the suffering of Palestinian women because, inside the settler feminist inverse, Palestinian women exist only as an orchestrated march of terror against the zionist body. Put another way, to borrow from Louis Althusser, the Palestinian people in general, and Palestinian women in particular, have already been interpolated in the zionist imaginary. They’re, thus, an apparition only appearing as transient projections between clefts of murderous zionist aggression and feigned Western sympathies contingent upon their consent to be killed and never defend themselves.

The Palestinian people have been positioned outside of themselves, dislocated, and reassembled to fit the zionist frame. This seemingly unending horror takes on the quality of being an accelerated yet slowed dismembering of a people. What is needed now is not more discursive notions of revolution. As the genocidal onslaught of the state kills mothers in front of their children; as it rips unborn children from their mother’s stomach and crushes the fetus to death as in the horrifying case of Mary Turner that Israel tried to hijack as their own, a revolutionary movement not built on frayed and compromised solidarities is needed. What is needed in this juncture is not more Rancièrean ideations of liberation that aim to deny and sublate a sharp hedging forth of working class power that seeks to uproot the imperialist state. What is needed is a revolutionary inquiry and understanding in order to advance our “guide to action.” To heave against state capture, therefore, we must cut through the choking haze of fascist verisimilitudes.

Furthermore, we can not take Western disrealities and its imperial constructions of a self and its world to be truth. We must fight this war; this war that thrust forward and maintains its structural grasp on the spiritual, ideological, economic, and cultural fronts seeking to tighten its psychic grips of oppression. We must develop revolutionary understanding that will in turn serve as a powerful anchorage for our practical work. What Mary Turner suffered and what Palestinian women and all the people of Palestine are suffering are the cleaved and deadened veins of imperialism that spreads its rot all over the world. 

Capitalist/White supremacy cannibalizes those it pushes into a peripheried existence, causing a mass rupture of spiritual atrophy. The colonized are consumed; violated even in death; devoured by the necrophilic fantasies of the imperialist entente. Colonized people, viewed as reflexively and primordially antisemitic, are marked for the slaughter; walking from one death world to another. 

In effect, it is no surprise that Palestinian men are being marked for outright deletion. As history has evidenced with the brutal torture and rape of Black men in the liberal democracy of America, the despotic white, patriarchal machine targets the men of a racialized group first, either wholesale murdering them, or, as Jasbir K. Puar asserts, maims them (Puar, 2017). Thus, in permanently debilitating any fighting-age Palestinian man who may be looked upon as a militant symbol of resistance and hope, the Necro-state of Israel seeks to ensure that  Palestinians are too psychically gutted to even imagine a world free of zionist aggression . However, as the world bears witness, their aims are being powerfully destroyed by the resistance.

In the same way, to paraphrase Dr. Curry, as the capitalist white supremacist state thrust forward tropes of Black men, which by extension means the Black community writ large — cataloging them as violent and hypersexual — it is in the same way it catalogs Palestinian men qua Palestinian community as primordially violent, antisemitic, and hypersexual. Thus, just as the genocidal American logic pathologized Black men who resisted slavery as suffering from Drapetomania, and thus, killable, the zionist ethnostate pathologizes Palestinian men as viscerally terroristic for resisting zionist brutality and brands them as rapists targeted for mass extermination.

“Screams Without Words: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on October 7th” by Jeffery Getlemen and Anat Schwartz and Adam Sella exemplifies the fascistic nature of Western liberal feminism. The fundaments of racism that bleed through Western feminist narratives are the very same responsible for the rape, dispossession, torture, and murder of Black women and Palestinian women. Western feminism has always had a vested interest in the rape and slaughter of Black and brown women. Throughout its fascist genealogy, imperial feminism has excluded racialized women and has reproduced the same genocidal logics responsible for slaughtering Mary Turner, her husband, and unborn baby. It exploited, and continues to exploit, Sojourner Truth for its own white supremacist campaign to demonize Black men, and as a result, Black people. While Black women’s babies were fed to alligators, imperial feminism stood by, willing and compliant in the atrocity.

While Black women like Joanne Little are raped and imprisoned, imperial feminism offers anemic solidarities and continues to aid in the structural hardwares at work that enabled the hypersexualizing, de-gendering, cyclical rape, mass lynchings, and mutilation of Black and brown women. It is, furthermore, the same imperial feminism that unceasingly slaughters Palestinian women and girls, leaves babies in incubators to die, and adultifies Palestinian children marking them as terrorists to be killed. It is a feminism that can steal our history of lynching, and mutilation against Black women like Mary Turner and present it to the world as their own and have no one question them about this outright hijacking of Black life, Black truth, and Black resistance. These are the imperial taxonomies of extermination.

The physical and socioeconomic strangulation of the Palestinian people must end. As we reflect upon the insights of Georgi Dimitrov who defined fascism as the open “terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital,” we must inquire what this means as the Biden administration — a genocide that Kamala vows to uphold under the neoliberal, settler feminist axiom of represention — engages in, if not outright fascism, then a type of proto-fascism (which, I’d argue is even worse as it courses through, desperate and heavy, in insidious movements butchering people under the veils of progression and reform).

As the Palestinian people face a genocidal onslaught by the zionist ethnostate funded, protected, and celebrated by the American genocidaire, it is worth it for us to take into account the salient point George Jackson makes and modern day philosopher Gabriel Rockhill builds upon when analyzing the current political tenor within the neoliberal frame and the two imperialist parties, it is “a difference in mode not in kind” within the greater capitalist schema. These are the very same fascist modalities that lynched Mary Turner, her husband Hayes Turner, and stomped to death her unborn child; the very same modalities that massacred and ripped 6-year-old Hind Rajab from the earth; the same modalities that drove Erica Garner to an early death, and sinisterly tried to hijack our history as their own in order to proselytize the public towards zionism and justify the savage rape, torture, and bloody elimination of a people;  the very same fascist modalities — with their global reach of terror — that continue, undeterred, the genocidal killing of Palestinian people.

Endnotes

• Curry, Tommy J.. The Man-Not: Race, Class, Genre, and the Dilemmas of Black Manhood. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2017.
• Woodard, Vincent. The Delectable Negro: Human Consumption and Homoeroticism Within U.S. Slave Culture. New York: New York University Press, 2014. 
• Mbembe, Achille. Necropolitics (Theory in Forms). Durham: Duke University Press, 2019. 
• Losurdo, Domenico. Western Marxism: How it was Born, How it Died, How it can be Reborn. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2024.
• Losurdo, Domenico. Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend. Iskra Books, 2023.
• Soviet Information Bureau. Falsificators of History (An Historical Note). Washington D.C.: Information Bulletin of the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1948.
• Clay-Gilmore, Miron J. (2023). Thinking for the Bound and Dead: Beyond Man(3) Towards a New (Truly) Universal Theory of Human Victory. [Doctoral Thesis, University of Edinburgh]. Era. https://era.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/40895/Clay-GilmoreMJ_2023.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 
• Losurdo, Domenico. Liberalism: A Counter-History. London: Verso, 2011.
• Puar, Jasbir K.. The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability. Durham: Duke University Press, 2017. 

While Title IX, which built upon and extended protections in the famous Civil Rights Act of 1964, represented a progressive step toward the legal equality and political freedom of women, its sex-based language has allowed for legal ambiguity with regard to its amendment’s application to the rights of transgender people in education.

Namely, some elected officials and judges interpret “on the basis of sex” to refer to some concept of “biological sex” — and more narrowly to the “female” or “male” marker on an individual’s birth certificate. In other words, this interpretation holds that only “sex assigned at birth” is protected under Title IX. The problem with this interpretation is that how “biological sex” is defined in law is at odds with advancements in science: It has long been accepted by experts that a “biological sex” concept of humans’ bodies that reduces to a simple male–female dichotomy oversimplifies the matter and fails to encapsulate a diversity of experiences.

Put another way, human gametes (eggs and sperm) are indeed binary, but human bodies, and human experiences, are much more complex. Sexual development is now understood as an extremely complex “dance” of genetic, environmental, social, and psychological factors that does not fall into a strict binary. Outdated legal definitions of sex (and thus also gender) in the U.S., and in most countries, fail to reflect this.

On the other hand, some elected officials and judges interpret “sex” in Title IX and other laws to be interchangeable with the related concept “gender,” and therefore also “gender identity,” a legal category that depends not on one’s “sex assigned at birth,” but the way an individual self-identifies, and the way an individual really lives their life.

In 2010, the Obama administration’s Department of Education, in response to growing popular support for the rising transgender rights movement, became the first to adopt the latter interpretation of Title IX’s “on the basis of sex” clause. The department’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued non-binding guidelines to Federally-funded institutions, including colleges and universities, with regard to single-sex classes, and who is eligible to participate in single-sex spaces. The Obama administration’s OCR held that “All students, including transgender students and students who do not conform to sex stereotypes, are protected from sex-based discrimination under Title IX,” and that schools “generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity in all aspects of the planning, implementation, enrollment, operation, and evaluation of single-sex classes.”

For a few years, between 2010 and 2017, transgender students, particularly in public colleges and universities, enjoyed a modicum — but only a modicum — of non-binding legal protection in education. Transgender students would at last be institutionally recognized as their self-identified gender, and thus afforded protection against sex-based discrimination — a long-awaited and long-fought-for reprieve. 

But the reprieve was never consolidated or expanded, and was not to last. Democrats in Congress never passed an amendment to Title IX, clarifying its protected categories in line with the Obama administration’s interpretation, during Obama’s presidency. Thus, when Obama’s second term as president ended and Trump entered office, the new extreme-right Department of Education eliminated the modicum of protection afforded by the previous administration’s guidelines. In 2020, the Trump administration’s Department of Education began to withhold Federal funding from colleges and universities that upheld the Obama administration’s guidelines, or which otherwise protected the rights of transgender students.

Internal documents leaked to The New York Times in 2018 showed that the Trump administration was preparing to “define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with,” and planned to institute rules whereby “Any dispute about one’s sex would have to be clarified using genetic testing.”

Again, it should be noted that genetic testing alone is wholly inaccurate in determining sex. As with previous and existing pseudoscientific policies, such as phrenology and blood quantum, the point is not to make “scientific sense” of social phenomena and their legal aspects, but to systematize bigotry and codify it in law.

Parallel battles over Title IX have been fought through the U.S. judiciary.

In the notable recent case Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida, the plaintiff, a mother of a transgender boy, sued the county school board, which had prohibited her son from using the boys’ bathroom; he was instead forced to use either the girls’ or gender-neutral bathrooms. The plaintiff argued that this constituted sex-based discrimination as prohibited under Title IX. A district court judge ruled in favor of Adams, finding that his right to be protected from discrimination, under Title IX and under the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, had been violated by the school board. The ruling represented a small, fleeting win for transgender rights. But the St. Johns County school board appealed, and in 2022, the 11th Circuit Court overruled the district court. The court’s 7–4 majority held that transgender students are protected neither by Title IX nor by the Fourteenth Amendment, and may be legally discriminated against by schools and other institutions.

The U.S. judicial system has become increasingly reactionary in recent years, stacked both with Trump-appointed extreme-right fascists and with Obama- and Biden-appointed “law and order” “moderate” fascists. A diminishing number of liberal judges, and vanishingly few “progressives,” are issuing a proportionately smaller number of legal “wins” for LGBT and women’s rights. In the meantime, the extreme-right conservative crusade, waged by the Trumpite faction of the Republican Party against LGBT people and women, especially in the domains of marriage equality, reproductive healthcare, transgender legal recognition, and care for transgender youth, is gaining traction in state legislatures and Federal courts.

What are the purportedly pro-LGBT, “progressive” Democrats doing to counteract and fight back against this extreme-right fascist Republican crusade? Unfortunately for us, next to nothing. At most, the Democrats are using their one-seat majority in the Senate and their hold on the presidency to block the Republicans from instituting a regime of wholesale elimination against LGBT people, and a regime of absolute repression against women. But the Democratic Party is far beneath the task of fighting for our civil rights and liberties, and that is proven by the fact that, during the two years it maintained majorities in both houses of Congress, and the presidency, from 2021–23, it did next to nothing to convert popular will into law.

The Democratic Party, by and large, represents not progress, not advancements to civil rights and liberties, but merely the “left-wing” of U.S. fascism. It functions as a weight on one “side of the aisle,” that “balances out” the “right-wing” of U.S. fascism, represented by the Republican Party. In the aftermath of every Republican expansion of fascism — take the many extreme-right laws and policies introduced under the Trump administration, for instance — the Democrats assume control of the sinking ship, stabilize the wreckage, and, most importantly, consolidate the expansion. The Democrats do not fight the fascism of the Republican Party; they enable it.

Now, in line with this purpose, the Biden administration’s Department of Education has proposed a new interpretation of Title IX with regard to transgender students. One might expect the outwardly pro-LGBT administration to propose an expansion of Title IX to unequivocally and fully protect transgender students at every level of the U.S. education system.

Unfortunately not. The Biden administration instead proposes a compromise with the fascist Republicans on the “question” of transgender rights.

A document published by the Department of Education on April 6, 2023, titled “FACT SHEET: U.S. Department of Education’s Proposed Change to its Title IX Regulations on Students’ Eligibility for Athletic Teams,” states the following:

The [Biden administration’s] proposed rule would establish that policies violate Title IX when they categorically ban transgender students from participating on sports teams consistent with their gender identity just because of who they are.

So far, so good. Except,

The proposed rule also recognizes that in some instances, particularly in competitive high school and college athletic environments, some schools may adopt policies that limit transgender students’ participation. The proposed rule would … [give] schools the flexibility to develop their own participation policies.

This is a highly euphemistic, weasley way to say that, under the Biden administration’s proposed Title IX rules, “in some instances,” schools will be allowed to discriminate against transgender students. The proposed regulation reads:

If a [Federal Government-funded school] adopts or applies sex-related criteria that would limit or deny a student’s eligibility to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity [i.e., more correctly, “that would discriminate against transgender students”], such criteria must, for each sport, level of competition, and grade or education level: (i) be substantially related to the achievement of an important educational objective, and (ii) minimize harms to students whose opportunity to participate on a male or female team consistent with their gender identity would be limited or denied.

What this complicated jumble of words means, what the Biden administration is really proposing, practically and bluntly speaking, is this: Discrimination against transgender students in schools is permitted, so long as the school officials are nice about it.

So much for the “most pro-LGBT presidential administration in U.S. history” — as some gullible liberals have lauded Biden. So much for the “party of LGBT rights.”

What we really have is the party of “compromise” — compromise with fascism. What we really have, in the Democratic Party, is the left-wing of U.S. fascism — a left-wing that continually makes overtures to the extreme-right, that routinely sells out the most oppressed for momentary bumps in opinion polls, and that, in the long-run, serves only to consolidate the rise of U.S. fascism in its most brutal, militaristic, terroristic form.

Our only response to the Biden administration’s half-measured, two-faced, compromised “protections” of transgender rights must be an emphatic “Not good enough!”

We must always demand more. We must demand full equality before the law, full and unequivocal legal protections for transgender people, absolute guarantees for our civil liberties. We must demand no compromises with fascism.

And we must not ask nicely. We must rid ourselves of the illusion that we can “vote in” the change we need; we must dispense with the idea that “our” representatives will listen to us, if only we call their offices and write them “firm, but polite” letters.

Comrade Assata Shakur rightly said, “Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them.”

No, we must win our demands from our oppressors. We must force them to concede to popular will. Pleading will accomplish nothing. We must speak with the force of the only language our oppressors understand — the language of the unheard oppressed, of mass demonstrations, boycotts, occupations, and more. We must speak the language of organized mass political struggle, and we must not relent until our popular demands are met in full.

Only then will the civil rights and liberties of transgender people be converted from a political ideal to a political reality. Only then will we win the justice we seek.

The Republican bill, should it become law, would bar transgender girls from participating in gender-divided sports in public schools, and bar transgender women from participating in gender-divided sports in public colleges and universities.

The Republicans passed their bill in the House with a narrow 219–203 majority; the vote split exactly on party lines, with all House Republicans voting for it, and all Democrats voting against. It will now be sent to the Democratic-majority Senate, where it will almost certainly be defeated, again along party lines. If the bill does pass in both houses of Congress, President Biden has promised in a recent “Statement of Administration Policy” document that he would veto it, which would kill it.

However, in the same document, and in other statements, the Biden administration has conceded that it considers some discrimination against transgender students in sports “fair.” Biden’s only problem with the Republican approach is that “one-size-fits-all” discrimination would be a step too far, and that a more “nuanced” regime of discrimination against transgender children would be preferable — such is the “left-wing” of U.S. fascism.

But discrimination is only the tip of the iceberg; what lies beneath the waves is the means by which the Republicans intend to enforce their discriminatory regime.

The Republican bill uses a scientifically outdated, oversimplified, and incoherent definition of “biological sex” as the basis of its anti-trans measures: It defines “females” and “males” according to “reproductive anatomy” as noted by a doctor at the moment of an individual’s birth, and recorded on that individual’s birth certificate. The bill stipulates that “inspection” of “reproductive anatomy” would be legally required to determine whether some children and some college students have the right to participate in sports in their respective public schools and universities.

In a statement, House Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, a Democrat who aligns with her party’s “progressive” wing, and whose daughter is transgender, protested against the bill, and focused on this aspect in particular. “How do you verify a girl’s ‘reproductive anatomy’?” asked Jayapal, rhetorically, referring to language in the Republican bill, “If a young girl, if your daughter, doesn’t look ‘feminine’ enough, is she subject to examination? This is absolutely absurd.”

The answer to Rep. Jayapal’s second question is a horrifying affirmative.

The Republican bill would not only discriminate against transgender youth; it would accomplish this by instituting a regime of child sexual abuse in public schools. Transgender girls, as well as cisgender girls who do not appear sufficiently “female,” would be subject to inspections of their genitalia by school officials. In no uncertain terms, and with zero exaggeration, if this bill became law, children in public schools would be required by law to expose their private parts to adult public school staff, merely to participate in school sports and other phys. ed. activities.

At first glance, it may seem self-contradictory of the Republican Party, which presents itself as the party of “common sense” and “family values,” to have also made itself the party of institutional child sexual abuse — the party of pedophilia. But that’s the thing about fascism — it doesn’t have to make sense. Fascism outwardly embraces irrationality, for the sake of justifying its inward-facing logic: cruelty, and cruelty for its own sake. Critical scholars of (and against) fascism have long recognized that there is no coherent, integral “theory of fascism,” nor can there be. For instance, the British Communist leader Rajani Palme Dutt wrote:

The reality of Fascism is the violent attempt of decaying capitalism to defeat the proletarian revolution and forcibly arrest the growing contradictions of its whole development. All the rest is decoration and stage-play, whether conscious or unconscious, to cover and make presentable or attractive this basic reactionary aim, which cannot be openly stated without defeating its purpose. 

In other words, fascists will always hide their programs of reactionary violence — their state repression of the oppressed masses and our struggles for freedom — their real, fascist aims, behind palatable marketing: behind “family values” and similar slogans. Fascists will always lie, and have long-since proven themselves very skillful liars, from Mussolini and Hitler to “our” American Trumpites. That’s why what a fascist tells you he wants is irrelevant; what matters is what he really intends to do. 

It is therefore no surprise that the Republican Party fascists present themselves as defending the rights of “biologically female” girls and women, even when, with the very next breath, they pass a bill to institute a regime of child sexual abuse against girls — cisgender and transgender alike — in public schools, and a regime of invasive “medical” inspections of women athletes’ bodies — again, cisgender and transgender alike — at public colleges and universities. The goal of this horrific legislation is not to “save women’s sports,” as some of the sex-criminal fascist Republicans claim, but to invade women’s bodies, and for that reason it presents a danger not only to transgender women, but also to our cisgender sisters.

Rajani Palme Dutt wrote that “Fascism has produced nothing, and can produce nothing. For Fascism is the expression only of disease and death.”

The fascism of the Republican Party is nothing but the agonized howling of the declining and decaying U.S. Empire, and the Republican pedophile fascists are nothing but the representatives of the extreme-right faction of this empire’s ailing monopoly-capitalist dictatorship. For as long as this settler-colonial, white supremacist, capitalist empire lingers and staggers on through the march of history, as long as it continues to prolong its inevitable demise, the fascist Republican Party will produce nothing but misery for and terror against the dispossessed, the poor and exploited, the marginalized and vulnerable, the wretched of the Earth.

American fascism will produce this misery because the Republicans and Democrats alike already know what growing numbers of the oppressed masses are every day coming to realize: Only the wretched of the Earth, conscious of the need to organize ourselves as a political force, willing to stand and fight, and no longer paralyzed reactionary terror, have the power to overthrow our oppressors. Only the wretched of the Earth can bring her, and ourselves, salvation.