The Spirit of Revolution is the Spirit of Rock and Roll

There’s only one great occupation that can change the world: that’s real Rock’n’ Roll.  I believe to the bottom of my heart – the last cell – that Rock’n’Roll can change everything, and I am a graduate of Warhol University, and I believe in the power of Punk. To this day I want to blow it up. Thank you.”  – Lou Reed’s acceptance speech as GQ Inspiration of the Year 2013, his last public appearance before he died – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNBQkWxnpLE.

IS it in your nature to be aggressive, to lash out at people and inanimate objects when things go wrong, to complain in curse words and envision vengeance against the perpetrators of injustices meted out against you, your kin and your friends?

Is it the sound of drums beaten till they are about to collapse and screetching electric guitar noises, huge booming bass and pained voices joyfully unburdening their anger at the world that gets your attention, gets your ears pricked up and your eyes rolling back in your head in ecstasy?

Will you tolerate the death of rock-n-roll? Will you stand by as record company capitalists and teenage boys with plastic smiles seek to corrupt the minds of the youth leading them away from the true path of spiritual development through primal, raw, ROCK AND ROLL and instead lose their individuality in a sea of gormless conformist morons ready and willing to be used as cannon fodder for modern-day fascist regimes?

would Jimmi Hendrix have stood idly by while the bombs rained down on Baghdad in 2003? No, he would have done a guitar solo. A fucking awesome one.

Hammers on the windows of arms factories, hammers on the machinery inside, fire to the rest of the buildings, masses of people camped out on train lines in front of carriages full of soldiers and military equipment, armaments depots being set ablaze, fascist cops fought back against when they would have tried to move us.

This is what would have stopped the war in 2003, not a million people marching peacefully. 10,000 people taking DIRECT ACTION would have been enough to stop the war, according to an article I read, age 19, and that article set me on a course that would find me an enemy of the State, a revolutionary with no option to turn back to normal life, no way to renounce what I have done and proclaim a false belief in reactionary ideology, for who would possibly believe me?

10,000 people doing radical things, things that would put their own bodies and lives at risk in the sake of a great cause, in the sake of saving Iraqi lives, in the sake of saving the lives of western imperialist soldiers, in the sake of saving the lives of victims of terrorist attacks not yet perpetrated that would be carried out in revenge for the war.

10,000 people being reckless, raw, ROCK AND ROLL. Listening to awesome guitar solos. And shit like that.

To some people rock and roll is called Hip Hop. To some people it is called Reggae. To some, Drum’n’bass (as if the ‘n’ wasn’t a total giveaway) Techno, Breakcore, Gabba, all kinds of crazy words. To some, it is even called Jazz. But I know the truth about any music that makes a crowd go wild, gets people shouting at each other with smiles on their faces as they pull aggressive postures and listen to lyrics depicting violence spat out by hoarse throats.

They are all imbued with the same spirit. The Spirit of Rock’n’Roll.

The Spirit of Revolution.

Revolution is not something that will happen in the future in accordance with some dialectical theory of history. We do not have to wait until capitalism has made everything even worse than it already is before we can begin to fight against it in the name of fairness, of liberty, of solidarity.

We can fight NOW to change things NOW. We demand freedom NOW. Always NOW, NOW, NOW.

We fight and we will win or not win but we will fight and fight in the Spirit in which we desire to carrying living if ever the fight is finally won. Muslims call it “fighting in the way of Allah”. A Holy War is not just a war against people who think something else is Holy than what you think is, it is a war you fight in a Holy way.

So, for those of us who believe not in Allah and the teachings of his Prophet Mohammed, but instead in the Spirit of Rock’n’Roll, how do we apply this?

Going to battle against the State as we would in a mosh pit – moshing the fucking system right down around our feet, smashing it the fuck up, SMASHING IT THE FUCK UP.

In a mosh-pit you don’t lay down rules at one another like a PRICK. You just let each other be, man, and dig it. Dig the vibe. It’s all part of the total scene. Another page in the history book of Rock’n’Roll.

A wise man said once “Be excellent to one another. And party on, dudes”. His name was Ed Solomon, the main writer of the Bill and Ted movies, and a man who fully understood the significance the Rock’n’Roll has on the world stage.

He prophesied that one day a band would be formed that would rock SO HARD that they would solve all the worlds problems and usher in a new age of reason and global unity and happiness for all, based upon that simple maxim.

This is not just a movie starring Keanu Reeves, like The Matrix. This is a movie foretelling the coming revolution, like THE MATRIX REVOLUTION.

I believe in the prophesy of Ed Solomon. I believe in the dying words of Lou Reed. I believe in the Revolution, and in Rock’n’roll. And I will not be silenced.








A Military Coup is not a Revolution

Watching this shit about Egypt blows my mind:

“The black colour represents the people of the nile, the white represents the purity of the youth and the red represents the peoples sacrifice, and the eagle represents the military, safeguard of the nation” the Coptic Pope of Egypt says, explaining the flag to the people. He speaks just minutes after one of the leading Sunni Muslim clerics also gave his thumbs up to the military coup that has taken place today

Religion justifying undemocratic government? Yep.

People on the streets are going nuts. Popular hysteria stirred up by nationalistic politicians? Yep.

There are people on the streets who are anti-military as well as being anti-Morsi. But do they have any guns? Al Jazeera is not telling me that.

So they probably don’t. This is a military coup, not a revolution. The army were the ones who got rid of Mubarak. They are the ones with the real power. “Power comes from the barrell of a gun” as a very powerful man with a whole lot of guns once said.

The military say they have a roadmap towards democracy. I have heard this before somewhere…. Iraq? Afghanistan? EVERYWHERE

The Israeli’s used to say they had a roadmap to peace. Even they gave up pretending after a while.

The revolution is not over in Egypt. People are gonna keep being pissed off until the authoritarian political system comes to an end, which will only be if a system of government based on military power comes to an end.

“Revolutionaries” setting off fireworks and cheering on the military as they suspend a constitution makes me sick, even if it was a stupid, Islamist constitution. “We have no rights! Hooray!”.

So now the Islamists are gonna be all like “fuck you! we like our stupid constitution! how dare you!” and you would have to feel sorry for them if they wern’t such a bunch of sexist nutters.

Solidarity with anti-authoritarian, anti-militarist Egyptians. There are loads of them and they deserve a real revolution, not to get thrown in jail by a military police claiming to represent them.

That’s all i can say right now. Lots of people are probably gonna die tonight. Think about them, not the fireworks

Staterape and Statehate

The police spy on radical activist groups in the UK and their undercover agents actively try to pursue sexual relationships with activists in order to make their cover more believable.

Undercover agents have done things like this for decades, if not centuries. Yet we still find it shocking when the truth comes out about a particular incident.

This is because people have been deceived into having sex, so they can not be said to have given their full consent. I call it Staterape.

Would any radical activist consent to having a policeman’s cock inside them? Perhaps. People have all kinds of weird fetishes. But the vast majority of us would not.

This is because we hate the police. Hate is a strong word, which is why I am using it. Hate is an emotional response. It is not something you have a choice about. You can not reason yourself out of something you never reasoned yourself into.

We have no choice but to hate the police because they systematically target us, intimidate us, spy on us, try to have sex with us through deception, use violence against us, lie about us, try and get us locked up for years, inflict psychological and physical trauma on us in thousands of ways. If we did not hate them, we would not be human. Statehate

Even if someone went into radical activism not feeling any hatred towards police, they will pretty soon develop this hatred as they see first hand just what it is like. Inevitably activists become friends with one another, and seeing your friends hurt makes you hate the people that hurt them, just as being hurt yourself makes you hate the person that hurt you.

Some people might say “forgive and forget”, “an eye for an eye and we shall all be blind” and various other spiritual sounding phrases. This is all very well, but as I said before, hatred is emotional, not rational. When you tell yourself over and over again to calm down you simply drown out one emotion and try to smother it with another. You are not actually being rational, you are just trying to manipulate your own emotions.

This is not healthy. What you are doing is repressing your emotions rather than working through them. If you hate someone you should try and talk to them about it. Hopefully they will feel sorry for hurting you and try to make amends. If this does not happen, maybe you will hate them even more.

In that case you might try and taking some more extreme action such as blocking them out of your life, or something slightly more malicious like saying a cutting remark, stealing or breaking something they love, or even being physically violent towards them.

When it comes to the police, or the State more generally, these options are not usually open to us. We can not talk to the State and get it to say sorry, because it takes years of sitting in inquiries, talking to journalists and organising campaigns just to even get them to admit they did something wrong, usually in cold diplomatic language, and they usually don’t give anything to their victims to make up for it.

We can not ignore the State, because it governs the entire territory we live in. It puts up posters all over town telling us not to break all of its laws, and CCTV cameras to make us feel like it is watching us all the time. It’s police officers drive around in cars with flashing lights and sirens that hurt our ears. How are we supposed to ignore that?

Saying a cutting remark to the State just feels like a waste of breath. Smashing its windows or stealing small souvenirs from it rarely seems worth the risk of getting caught.

It doesn’t really care about windows or small bits of office furniture anyway. It doesn’t care about anything except making money for its creditors.

Using violence against agents of the State is also far easier said than done. The main reason they spy on us after all is because they know we hate them so much that lots of us would like to see them dead. The politicians protect themselves with armed police, who themselves are protected by body armour.

You could probably kill some low-level bureaucrat, but what would be the point really? If in the moment you felt such a maddening hateful bloodrush that it actually felt good to do so, then that moment would quickly fade as within minutes you found yourself either shot in the head or knocked down onto the floor and dragged away to be tortured.

So the hatred grows and grows with no way of realising it. Some of us go insane under the pressure and are locked up in prisons they pretend are medical centres, stuffing us with drugs that State bureaucrats have been bribed to prescribe us by the multinational corporations that produce these drugs.

Others among the ranks of the radical movements decide to cut out the middle men and just fill our own bloodstreams with drugs we at least get to choose, but choice is limited to whatever the black market connections we have as individuals can offer. Horse tranquilisers are a popular one amongst political radicals, as they disassociate us from the seemingly intolerable reality we are faced with.

The rest of us try to get by day to day, channelling our hatred into small, useful, constructive acts. Making flyers, sending emails, organising little demonstrations, talking to people on the streets, putting on benefit gigs or film showings. Just keeping our movements going, holding the few active people still left together. But it’s always hard not to lapse into complete despair, have hateful and angry moments, or sometimes get completely wrecked on alcohol or other drugs.

Oh what a threat to the State we are. No wonder Staterape is so widespread. If it wasn’t the western imperialist superstructure would surely fall tomorrow. Good old boys in blue.

What happened in Woolwich is not Terrorism and anyone who says it is in an imperialist propagandist

In my last post “The West supports Islamic Terrorism When It Suits It’s Geopolitical Interests” i argued for abandonment of the term “terrorism” and use of the term “War Criminal” instead.

Last week in Woolwich a self-declared Muslim anti-Imperialist soldier killed an imperialist British soldier. That’s what happens when two armies are at war. Their soldiers try to kill each other.

No civilians were killed or even injured. No prisoners of war were taken and tortured. In short, no War Crimes were committed.

The men who killed the soldier were shot by British police. They were not armed with guns, only machetes. So they were shot by police for no reason. If the police are now considered soldiers, then it could be considered part of the war. But as far as i know they still do not officially consider themselves soldiers.

The mainstream press, including the so-called “liberal” newspapers like the Guardian, have all used the word “Terrorist” to describe what happened, as have the British Government. The attacks have been used by White Supremacist groups like the English Defense League and the British National Party as an excuse to attack Muslim immigrants in the UK even more. Islamophobic attacks have reportedly increased ten-fold in the wake of the Woolwich incident.

If, as some believe, these Fascist-inspired groups are really controlled by covert agents of the State for use as paramilitary forces, they are certainly doing their job well. If, as even more people believe, the mainstream media are effectively mouthpieces for the Imperialist ruling class, then they are also doing this job extremely well right now.

The ruling class know that if white, “British” working class people ever realised they had a common cause with colonial subjects of other ethnicity in uniting to fight for a better standard of living for all, the entire political order in the UK would be gravely threatened. With no underclass of migrant labourers to exploit, profits would surely go down. That’s what this is all about.

Many ruling class people themselves are not even particularly racist, as can be evidenced from the fact that there are so many non-White people on the UK Rich List, which came out last month. They do, however, have a direct economic interest in keeping wages down for the general population.

Keeping the provision of free public services by the state low helps drive down average wages, as desperate people are likely to work for less. Using immigration controls to create a criminalised underclass of migrant workers also keeps average wages down, because if legal citizens can use the pressure of trades unions and other campaign groups to force the state to set a minimum wage, this minimum wage will not apply to workers in the “illegal” economy.

If people of all national identities living in the UK could unite to form a working class movement fighting for an increased standard of living for all, it would also have repercussions all over the world. The majority of migrant workers send back part of their wages to their families in other countries, so if their wages were higher, their families, communities and even whole societies would also benefit.

But the imperialist ruling class don’t want that. They want the people of poor countries to remain poor, and the people of richer countries to remain as poor as possible as well. They want to keep us divided and consumed with ethnic, national, racial and religious hatred against one another.

Their propagandists will stoop to any level of double-standards and hyperbole to carry out this task. Do they ever describe the soldier who was killed in Woolwich as a terrorist? Why not? He was part of an organisation, the British Army, guilty of War Crimes all over the world. He himself served in Afghanistan in an operation in which civilians are routinely killed and prisoners of war routinely tortured by the Western Imperialist forces. How is he less of a terrorist than the man who killed him?

The West Supports Islamic Terrorism When It Suits It’s Geopolitical Interests

Some people may take me as a “conspiracy theorist” for what i’m about to say, so let me make this clear:

It doesn’t matter to me whether or not 9/11 was an “inside job”. Nor does it matter to me whether or not the moon landing was fake, or whether Stanley Kubric was the one who filmed it. I don’t care whether or not Jay Z, Rhianna or even Obama are members of Satanic cults. I don’t even really care whether or not reptilian aliens from the other side of the galaxy have been secretly running all human civilisations for the past 130,000 years.

But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t matter if powerful people are secretly doing things which lead to the deaths of civilians that they then lie about. Killing civilians is not acceptable by most people’s standards of morality, and what’s more it goes against the Geneva convention, as does torture and the mistreatment or prisoners of war. If a government which has signed the Geneva convention does these things, the officials responsible are War Criminals.

Not lizards, or satanists or members of whatever New World Order you think is going on, but War Criminals. War Criminals who don’t want to be brought to justice, and would rather hide their tracks. If possible, they would rather be remembered as heroes, not criminals, or failing that not remembered at all.

If the West is at war against Islamist Terrorism, that’s one thing. Of course, “terrorist” is a slightly meaningless label given that most of the West’s enemies would call it’s leaders terrorists as well.  Whenever someone uses violence to achieve their political goals, then their opponents will probably call them a terrorist. It’s a subjective definition.

So let’s just stick with the term “War Criminal”, because that’s a lot more clear-cut. If a rebel group attacks a nation state, even killing military personnel in the process, they are not necessarily war criminals. In fact they may be completely dedicated to achieving a lasting peace and a democratic system of government, only resorting to violence because their enemies are so despotic and brutal that they are ensuring perpetual conflict.

However, anyone, whether they are a Nation-State, a rebel group or a mercenary squad, who kills civilians, tortures people or mistreats/kills prisoners of war, is a War Criminal, whatever their ideology, nationality or size.

The leaders of the West (broadly speaking, the NATO powers) are War Criminals. The mistreatment of prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay is well known, and this is only one site at which prisoners of the “war against Terror” are tortured. The deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq due to Western bombs and bullets are also well known. Again Iraq is only the most famous recent example: Western bombs killed plenty of civilians in Libya, Mali, Afghanistan and Pakistan too, to name just a few examples.

Also War Criminals are the leaders of Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Boko Haram, Al Nusra and any other Islamist militant group that targets civilians, torture’s people or kills or mistreats prisoners of war. So in this “War of Terror” both “sides” are War Criminals. Both can be called terrorists too, if you like that term. But it is of course more complicated than that, because there are not just two sides. There are too many “Islamist groups” in the world for anyone to be able to count them all, and they are not all united in common cause, with common leadership or even with a common ideology.

The West gets around this complexity by simply referring to them all as if they were the same, much as they used to refer all leftists and serious labour organisers around the world “Communists”, and for much the same reason. So that they can kill them, and their citizens will not object to it because the majority of those citizens have been convinced that “Communists”, or “Islamists” are a deadly threat.

But this lumping of all Islamic militants in the same category plays another function as well, which is to disguise the fact that the West is only really at war with some of these groups, and is in fact funding or operationally supporting others. This is the point at which some people will say i’m a conspiracy theorist, so i guess i’d better name drop some respected journalists and academics who have collected a wealth of empirical evidence for these claims: Michel Chossudovsky and Jeremy Scahill are good places to start.

I am going to focus on the bigger picture of the basic theory. Lets start with three basic assumptions: 1. Imperialism is a lot easier if the imperialist nations don’t have to fight all their own wars but can instead get the people who have already been conquered to fight them instead. 2. Imperialism is also a lot easier is the people who are being conquered are too busy fighting ethnic wars against one another instead of uniting against their colonisers. 3. Imperialism is even easier if the colonised people don’t even see themselves as such but instead are deluded into thinking they are citizens of independent sovereign nations.

Today we have a world divided between three major imperialist powers (Russia, China and the West) with a few countries led by governments who at least try to maintain a degree of independence (e.g. Iran, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela). Most of the world’s supposedly independent sovereign nations are actually Western proxy governments, since the West is the most militarily superior imperialist power.

Instead of ruling these countries’ peoples directly as colonial subjects, the West installs pseudo-democratic governments. These governments hold elections, but if the population elects a candidate the West doesn’t like, they will either be assassinated by agents working for the west, or their entire government will be overthrown by rebels armed by the West.

Two important books documenting this overall pattern are “War is a Racket” by Major General Smedley Butler and “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” by John Perkins, both of whom were actually heavily involved in this process and who later choose to expose it through their writings.

If the colonised people happen to vote for pro-Western candidates in their fake elections then they stand a chance of being able to live in peace. If not, and if they organised armed rebellion against whatever government the West imposes on them by force, they will most likely be drawn into a civil war that takes on ethnic dimensions.

Their revolutionary army will be infiltrated by Western agents who will do all they can do split the organisation into rival warring factions on ethnic lines, or the West will simply form a new “rebel” group to fight against them from the outside. Western propaganda, and the propaganda of the Western proxies on the ground, will constantly emphasise the ethnic dimensions of the conflict.

This could be done for example by forming a rival rebel group comprised of members of only one ethnic group to attack the genuine revolutionaries. This would be likely to inflame passions all across the country and perhaps lead to the spontaneous formation of other rebel armies representing only one ethnic group. Then the war will appear to outsiders and even to the citizens of the country to be an ethnic war rather than one between an imperialist country and it’s subjects.

Sometimes Russia, China, Iran or some other anti-western power will also be funding one of the other rebel armies, or perhaps the government the rebels are fighting itself. This is what’s going on in Syria: Russia is supporting the Assad regime, Iran are supporting Hezbollah, and Saudi Arabia and Qatar are supporting various other rebel groups. It must be pretty annoying (to say the least!) to be a genuine Syrian revolutionary and having to work with all these imperialists!

The interesting this is that the NATO powers do not directly fund the rebels, instead they fund Saudi Arabia and Qatar and let them fund rebels, though CIA, M16 and other western secret service agencies are almost certainly playing more direct roles than the Western governments are publicly letting on. Nonetheless, it is an example of the kind of long twisted hierarchies of power in modern Imperialism.

The interesting by-product of this complexity is that the West finds itself actually funding groups who share the kind of Islamist ideology that the West declared war against after 9/11. Some of the Syrian rebels, like Al Nusra are openly in allegiance with “Al Qaeda”, as the West itself admits and complains about. But they don’t tell Saudi Arabia or Qatar to stop funding them.

“Al Qaeda” itself is not the most coherent of organisations, but rather many different organisations pursuing different objectives in different parts of the world with different leadership structures. This is how it is possible for some Al Qaeda groups to be working with the West, as in Syria, and some working against the West, as in most places.

The point is, all of this should be enough to show that the West do not really care about fighting Al Qaeda or Islamist militancy per se. They will support or fight against these groups depending on other factors, as to whether or not it seems to suit their short term geopolitical interests.

So what are these interests? Well, the financial system or the western world (by which we mean all it’s quasi colonies in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Australasia as well as simply the imperial heartlands of Europe and North America) is still dominated by the US dollar. The value of the US dollar, and thus the integrity of the whole system, is based on it’s link to energy supplies, especially Oil and Gas. If Oil and Gas are sold in dollars at a good price, then the West is happy. If not, it’s not.

This is why we always hear about war or tense diplomatic relations concerning the West in countries where there are Oil and Gas reserves under the ground: (e.g. Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Mali, DRC, Venezuela), or where Oil or Gas pipelines would have to be built (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Colombia).

For the rest of the Western colonies in the world the explanation is slightly simpler. There’s no point going to all that trouble ensuring the ratio of value between US Dollars to Oil is OK if no workers are being exploited to turn natural resources into commodities for those dollars to be spent on. So the West makes sure that the countries with the raw materials are run by regimes who’ll sell them to the West cheaply, and the countries with the workers will be run by regimes who’ll keep wages down by violently repressing trades-unions and other social movements of the poor.

The companies making money off of the cheap labour power and raw materials, are of course all based in the West and their owners go to the same parties as Western military and political leaders, since they are members of the same social class- the ruling class.

So there you go. It’s not all an Evil conspiracy. It’s just plain, good old-fashioned Imperialist War crimes being covered up behind a smokescreen of democracy for the benefit of capitalists.

Clarification of what i think about the Anarchist Federation in the UK

From reading some of the articles on this blog, especially “critique of the anarchist federation” and “anarchism which is not anti-colonialist is just racism in disguise” people in the anarchist federation have probably gotten the impression that i am harboring big grudges against them and just want to shit all over them or give them a bad reputation.

I want to apologise to anyone who has gotten this impression, and i recognise that by only writing about my criticisms of the organisation, in quite a sarcastic way too, i have in fact been contributing to giving it a bad reputation, which i dont actually want to do.

A lot of the negative tone of what i wrote did indeed just come out of a sense of resentment at the particular way that my disassociation from the organisation actually came about, but i now understand that this was largely just the result of a long series of  misunderstandings, partly involving simple administrative issues about people not having my current email address etc.

So i have calmed down a lot, and if possible i’d like to repair some of the damage by making it clear here that i do still have a lot of respect for the organisation and i’d like to be able to at least occasionally work on some of the same issues as people in it.

As long as people in the organisation do not refuse to work with me simply out of spite, and can just focus on the issues themselves, i am sure this is possible and that i can get on with practical work with them without making a big deal out of things that happened in the past. “Practical work” does not even necessarily have to involve spending any time with me anyway.

Being part of the Anarchist Federation for two years taught me a huge amount about political and economic theory that i am hugely grateful for. When i first joined the organisation i was quite young and inexperianced in many aspects of life, and my head was full of all kinds of incoherent notions. One of the advantages to structured organisations in general, especially ones that have a focus on constantly updating their analysis, is that people within them receive a political education much faster than they’d be able to any other way that i can see.

Even if i eventually decided that there were a few things i disagreed with about the organisation’s positions, i dont really disagree with them as strongly as perhaps other things i’ve written have made it seem. My overall experience of the organisation is that it is full of people who are very intelligent and experianced, who treat their actions in an intellectually rigorous way.

I am sure that people in the Anarchist Federation who disagree with me on some topics could come up with arguments against things i’ve said that would make me stop and reconsider some things, so again, i hope noone is too spiteful to engage with me on them.

If anyone in Afed misinterpreted “Anarchism which is not anti-colonialism is racism in disguise” to think that i am just accusing everyone in it of being racist or White sumpremacist, then i would ask them to look back at what i actually wrote. If anyone is going around claiming that i have said these things about afed then i would ask them to stop, because i never said that.

I was the Latin American secretary for over a year and actually represented the organisation to many other anarchist groups throughout Latin America in face to face meetings. I have to say i think this gives me some right to make comments on the organisation’s approaches to issues of imperialism and racism.

I would also like to make it clear that i am not an “anti-organisationalist”. I have engaged with insurrectionalist theory enough to have made up my own mind on the arguments against formal organisations, and i have pretty much always argued that although they make some interesting points, to completely reject formal organisations is absolutist, and ridiculous.

I do genuinely believe that some of arguments made by the Anarchist Federation and the writers they are influenced by, such as the authors of the Organisational Platform of Libertarian Communists, have never really been answered by any insurectionalist author i have ever read.

the only “insurectionalist” authors that i really do agree with are those who are less absolutist on this issue, such as Peter Gelderloos: http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20070408112944402, and this anonymous writer: http://www.crimethinc.com/blog/2010/01/07/say-you-want-an-insurrection/ who writes under the Crimethinc banner but whose views definitely are not the same as most Crimethinc people. To me insurrectionalism is simply about recognising that certain violent actions carried out by oppressed people can be legitimate even in non-revolutionary situations, and that revolutionaries can and should seek to proactively change social dynamics rather than taking them as given.

However, I believe very strongly that if Anarchism is to play any significant role in social conflict then Anarchists need to be very organised, with accountable decision-making structures and clearly defined roles for individuals within organisations. All my experience of anarchist groups that have not been organised in that way has confirmed this. The Tyranny of Structurelessness definitly exists, and being part of Afed gave me a lot more confidence to argue against it in other groups i was involved in.

Being a part of the Anarchist Federation for two years also confirmed the value of organisations in other ways, as i saw first hand how the organisation’s structure was able to last beyond short term political campaigns and helped provide a sense of continuity between struggles.

So i don’t have any major theorectical problem with the Anarchist Federation trying to organise itself the way it does. The objections i have are mainly based on my impression that some of the specific ways it is structured means that it fails to achieve what it tries to. It doesnt mean i don’t want what Afed wants, which is a well-structured national anarchist organisation.

I have written, in an overly harsh tone i admit, that i thought it would be better if the whole thing was abandoned and a new organisation was formed. On a theorectical level, i still believe this, but there is no way i could imagine it actually happening unless the Anarchist Federation as it exists now played a significant, if not leading role in forming that new organisation. Obviously i did not make that clear in earlier writtings, which were written, as i admitted above, partly out of anger at the rudeness with which i thought i was being treated.

It even says in some Anarchist Federation literature that the organisation does not see itself as necessarily the final answer in Anarchist organising in the UK, and that theorectically it could dissolve and merge with some new future organisation. That was one of the things that attracted me to the organisation, that it didnt seem as up-itself as many other political groups.

i do believe that the time has come to start thinking about a new national organisation that is structured in a slightly more loose way than Afed, but which is still based on core theorectical ideas that afed has about the role of anarchist organisations and how they should be structured. This is because i feel that there are many young people around the country who have been radicalised in recent years but who will for cultural reasons just never be interested in an organisation with the organisational culture of afed.

I also believe that a certain overly defensive group-mentality exists in Afed that might make the process of afed disbanding and being replaced by something more dynamic and effective extremely difficult. I am sure there are lots of people in afed who would just automatically deny that there is anything wrong with it. But i also know that there are also lots of people in Afed who feel similarly to how i do about certain things, even if they still think i’m a rude idiot.

I know i’m a rude idiot sometimes. I just hope that people see that its not all the time, and that i can also be capable of making sensible arguments and good decisions. Even more importantly, i hope people realise that i am interested in putting aside differences and getting on with practical work to advance the same aims as them, whether or not i am part of the organisation again and whatever the circumstances of me leaving were.

One final point i would like to make is that i dont feel that i really know anyone in the organisation well enough to make personal judgements on them, and that i also dont feel that they know me well enough to do the same. In the organisation i was extremely isolated and only communicated with other members via the internet, at a few national gatherings, and once or twice on the phone.

I dont think these experiances of me are really enough for somebody to make an informed judgement on my level of commitment to the same aims and principles as them. I hope that anyone with a negative image of me in their head can take a step back and think about whether it is really justified on the basis of the limited experiance they’d had of me. I have certainly tried to do the same with people in Afed whom i’ve formed negative views of.

I also promise to be more careful in my choice of language in any future public communications where i might mention Afed to make sure i am not being unfair or giving it a bad reputation.

Having said all this i would love it if people from Afed could communicate with me more, even if they have nothing good to say, or even if they only write a few very short sentences. I don’t want to have any kind of feuds or bad relations with organisations that believe in almost exactly the same things as me, as there is too much practical work to be getting on with.

To clear up the issue once and for all, my email is Razchaoten@gmail.com. if more people had known that in afed before they decided to kick me out, perhaps none of this would have happened, as i would have been able to defend myself against accusations of being Anti-organisationalist at the time. But what’s done is done, and if anyone wants to get in touch then they are more than welcome to email me.

Where would Camden Market be without Stalin?

“If it weren’t for Stalin would Post-Modernism have happened?

That is the thought which occurs to me as I look into the mirror brushing my teeth, staring at the tee-shirt I am wearing. It’s a stylised picture of a “worker” holding a hammer, with a slogan in German and the symbol of the former East German Deutsches Demokratisches Republik. The whole style of the shirt is unmistakably Modernist, and what’s more, Stalinist.

In the twentieth century the various State-Capitalist dictatorships going by the name “Communist” made heavy use of this kind of Modernist art, as did the Communist Parties of many Western Countries. When I went to Cuba in 2005 the legacy of this was still intact, as amazingly vibrant surrealist art was everywhere to be seen.

The styles of art used on old Communist propaganda are edgy, and in most peoples opinion, pretty cool. At the time they first came out they must also have seemed fresh and “modern”, hence “modernism” – signifying the ideals of the Modern Age: Progress, Technology, Big Hammers.

I cannot help but contrast the style of the art on the teeshirt I wear to bed with those I saw just earlier that day for sale in Camden Market. I used to go there as a teenager to actually buy things – rather than just go busking as in the case now – and I remembered seeing (and buying) a great number of old Communist propaganda tee-shirts, with just a few that would make reference to silly things in popular culture like Star Wars and Supermario, as well as a shit-load of teeshirts for rock bands.

There were always a few that were examples of what the Situationists called “detournement”, which basically means “subversion”. These would be shirts where a politically or culturally significant piece of art would be altered in some way so as to change the underlying message.

This process was highly popularised in the UK by the Punk movement, such as with the iconic Sex Pistols images of the Queen with safety pins through her face. In that case the message being expressed was clearly a rejection of Monarchism in favour of a nihilistically destructive, yet fun-loving attitude – Punk.

These days it seems that ‘detourned’ teeshirts are the main sort sold in Camden Market, but rather than signifying any anarchistic political messages there are, in the words of Hamlet, “signifying nothing”.

Take for example the “Obey” brand. This, as I understand it, was a fiendishly clever social experiment by a subversive street artist, to create a new brand that simply contained the word “obey”, sometimes with a funny picture of an angry old wrestler. In so doing I believe he was trying to make a comment on the fact that modern consumer-capitalist society has become so focused on Brands that they have become authority figures in themselves.

The experiment worked extremely well, as the brand has become commercially successful; with the result that now you will see “Obey” written on the fronts of clothing shops next to other brands like Nike and Adidas. This means that rather than having to go around putting stickers on all the shops, he has found a way to make the system itself do the work for him.

Unfortunately I do not believe that too many of the people who actually spend money on clothes which say “Obey” on them really realise that this was the original intention. Ironically most of them are simply taking the brand’s injunction to Obey at face value, which only proves the original point, that our society’s culture has become dominated by Brands to a scary degree.

The “Obey” story doesn’t end there, however, for now in Camden market you can see a great number of tee-shirts which have been “subverted” to say “Disobey”, and the wrestler’s face has been replaced with the V-for-Vendetta mask. This V mask has become something of a brand-name for “revolution”, with new activist groups like Anonymous and Occupy appropriating it as a symbol, and thus advertising the film V-for-Vendetta each time they do so, to the benefit of the production company of that film.

The film itself was already an example of capitalistic appropriation of a genuinely revolutionary piece of art, the V-for-Vendetta graphic novel by Alan Moore, an Anarchist. The film version takes out all explicit mentions of anarchism or even the word Anarchy, and changes the lead female character into a potential rape-victim who needs to be saved by another man rather than a sex worker being oppressed by the government for her choice of profession. This obviously makes the film character much less of a strong female role model, as you’d expect from a Hollywood film.

So now some smaller scale capitalists – the people who put up the capital to make all these shirts in Camden, and the people who own the stalls and shops selling them – are making money from the fact that some people never understood the original intention behind the Obey brand and who furthermore cannot understand a revolutionary message unless a watered-down Hollywood film version of it has been made. It would be interesting to know how many people wearing these “Disobey” shirts even know who Guy Fawkes was.

Generations of graphic designers have detourned so many images from popular culture already that they have started to detourn things that were already, in my opinion, subversive enough. In this process all meaning has started to become lost. Rather than expressing some clearly understood message such as “Fight for revolution against capitalism”, they more and more express an absence of any kind of over-arching coherent meaning at all.

This is called “post-modernism”, the idea that we must consciously do away with any “meta-narratives” such as “society is progressing towards a better capitalist world for us all” – which is still the official narrative of most Nation-States, or “society is progressing towards a better Communist/Islamic/New Age world for us all”.

I have no objection to Post-Modernism in itself as an artistic or political theory, for great damage was indeed done to the world by blind acceptance of these kinds of meta-narratives, and indeed is still being done.

Post-modernism – I believe – was born partly out of the realisation of many genuine revolutionaries that the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary project had become corrupted to the point of representing a reactionary and extremely violent threat to the liberty of the global working class, rather than a force for it’s liberation.

This realisation prompted a crisis within revolutionary circles in the West, with some turning to “Trotskyism”, a mythological version of Marxist-Leninism which portrays Leon Trotsky as a messianic figure whose ideas can save the whole project. Many others dropped out of the Marxist movement and became Anarchists instead, as anarchists had not been tainted by association with the Bolsheviks, and had actually been the first to criticise their corruption. Others just dropped out of revolutionary politics altogether.

Some however – the Post Modernists- began calling into question the fundamental assumptions of Marxism itself, assumptions which many Anarchists had also shared, as they too had been influenced by Marx, even if they did not see him as an authority figure.

The greatest of these assumptions was that capitalism will inevitably collapse in on itself due to the nature of its own contradictions. This prediction of the future relies on belief in some abstract historical forces that have nothing to do with decisions that we as revolutionaries make in our real lives.

It is similar to a religious belief that the final victory of good over evil has already been foretold, and therefore we don’t have to worry too much about it. We just have to do what the Church, or the Communist party tell us, even if they tell us to do “evil” things like kill innocent people in the name of the cause.

Along with challenging the ideas of Modernism – which Communism and Capitalism were both examples of – came challenges to Modernist art work. Post-modern artists began to juxtapose images of progress – like big factories and workers with hammers -with images representing the pre-Modern world – like big old Cathedrals or idyllic countryside scenes – with other images that were just completely chaotic.

The overall message behind this kind of collage is that Modernism is a myth and progress is not necessarily happening at all. Elements of the pre-Modern world are still very much with us now in the 21st Century, as a quick glance at the Islamic world, or indeed most of the former colonised world will prove. These exist alongside elements of “Modernity” – big skyscrapers and constant advances in technology – and of course the chaos of War, Climate Change and Nuclear radiation tearing at the very fabric of reality.

So when post-modernist art is a reflection of this reality in which we live today in the twentieth century, then it’s all well and good. But what the fuck am I supposed to make of a tee-shirt I saw in Camden where the faces of the Olympic athletes making the Black Power salute had been replaced by those of Imperial Stormtroopers from Star Wars? Are they saying that the Black Power movement has been incorporated into the Western Imperialist superstructure? Or are they just “signifying nothing” again?



Dying Is The Only Good Thing Margaret Thatcher Ever Did

The only good Fascist is a dead one, as the old saying goes, and today Thatcher finally achieved this positive distinction. She had made a fair effort at being a good fascist for many years, but clearly did not understand that if she had just killed herself in 1975, the year she became Tory party leader, she would have already achieved her goal.

Some people would object to my categorization of her as a Fascist. These people need to get a life, and some perspective. Margaret Thatcher was a close personal friend of Augustus Pinochet, the Chilean dictator and even helped him avoid punishment by letting him hide out in the UK. This is clearly a strong endorsement of Fascism.

Pinochet did not come to power as a result of free and fair elections, but as the result of a coup financed by the CIA and the ITT corporation. His regime killed literally millions of people and destroyed the Chilean labour movement.

Thatcher clearly admired this in him as she was committed to destroying the British labour movement. Her regime used extreme violence against striking miners (amongst other workers) and passed legislation that made effective working class solidarity illegal.

Under her reign UK police were given more power and more weaponry with which to fight working class people, starting a trend which continues to this day. This use of direct violence may not compare with Pinochet’s, but she managed to kill many working class people through more indirect ways too, by beginning the dismantling of nationalised industry and the welfare state.

Like most Fascists, she saw left-wingers and ethic minorities as serious threats to the divine order of things and so supported the various bloody “anti-communist” wars going on throughout the 1980s in the “3rd world” and made speeches sympathizing with racist violence against immigrants.

Her policies towards the remaining British Colonies were predictably brutal, maintaining a heavy British military presence in Northern Ireland which collaborated with violent Protestant gangs, and even started a war with Argentina to keep the completely insignificant Falkland Islands under British imperial control.

But of course her major accomplishment toward achieving a Fascist world order in which all power is in the hands of an un-elected elite backed up by extreme State violence and divide -and-rule propaganda lay in her reforms of the financial system.

During the 1980’s international financial capitalists aided by Thatcher and her buddy Ronald Reagan consolidated their power over the international system to an unprecedented degree.

Thatcher deregulated the financial sector in Britain and helped the IMF force indebted “3rd world” States to do the same. This meant that in very real terms financial capitalists had far more power over what governments did than elected officials.

It created a world where those in a position to borrow money are seduced into living in a dream world of material excess which can be taken away at any time, while those that are not able to borrow money face ever increasing hardship and are ignored by almost everyone even when dying on the street.

There is much, much more i could say on this theme, but frankly, i don’t want to right now because it will only make me angry, whereas today should be a day for joyous celebration.

When “Evil” people die, “Good” people should be happy, even if taking pleasure in the death of others is not usually a “Good” thing to do. Like her friend Pinochet, Thatcher never faced punishment for her crimes against humanity and was allowed to die as an “innocent” person in the eyes of official society.

Now that she had been dead only a few hours the mainstream media are already talking as if we are all supposed to be sad about it. What about all the people who died as a result of her economic and military policies? Where are the mainstream media articles commemorating them?

This emotional whitewashing should not be stood for. A huge proportion of British citizens, and many people of other backgrounds besides, have hated Margaret Thatcher for years and have been anxiously waiting for this day. Many people around the country will be celebrating today.

But the mainstream media will probably not report this, or if they do, they will probably make it out to be a bad thing. Well fuck them. We have a right to feel the way we do.

Let the truth be known. Margaret Thatcher was an evil fascist arsehole and millions of people are glad she’s dead.

Now get out there and start partying.



Anarchism Which is not Anti-colonialist is Just Racism in Disguise

Saying you are opposed to Capitalism and the State without talking about Imperialism and Colonialism is quite a strange thing to do. It is in fact suspicious, as it indicates not only that you live in an imperialist country and enjoy the benefits of this, but also that you refuse to admit this fact. I am afraid to say this makes you a racist, even if you don’t realist it. Like with drugs, the first step to giving up racism is admitting you have a problem. The UK Anarchist movement has yet to take this first step.

Divide and Rule Affects Anarchists Too

Many people living in Imperialist countries whose armies have invaded other people’s territory to exploit their labour power and resources may feel pissed off at the government for reasons that have nothing much to do with Imperialism.

They may feel that their taxes are too high, for example, or that the government is letting too many immigrants come into the country, or not providing enough public services. In all of these examples such people may actively support even more imperialist government policies to bring more wealth to the country, such as wars of aggression and tightly regulated border controls between imperialist countries and their colonies.

Basic to the age-old Imperialist strategy of divide and rule is the placing of members of certain ethnic groups in privileged positions in relation to others. In settler-colonies such as the modern day Israeli-occupied Palestinian West Bank, the settlers are the group given the privileges by the government, while the indigenous people are subjected to racist oppression. In imperialist “home” countries it is the “indigenous” population which is given privileges by the State whilst migrants from the colonies and their descendants are racially oppressed. Modern day Israel is also a good example of this, as people of Palestinian Arab descent are systematically excluded from political and economic power.

Sticking with the example of Israel, let us examine the Israeli Anarchist movement. Judith Butler, in a lecture available online misleading called “Queer Anarchism and Anarchism Against the Wall” (which in fact barely mentions Queer Anarchism at all) offers a critique of certain sections of the Israeli Anarchist movement which talk about their struggle against the Israeli state as something separate from the Palestinian people’s struggle for self-determination.

Butler points out that many Anarchists, not just in Israeli but all over the world, wrongly understand “self-determination” to mean “the creation of a State”, which is not necessarily the case. Though it is of course true that many Palestinians do wish to see the creation of a new State of “their own” (which to Anarchists would be an impossibility since States are always controlled by elite minorities rather than whole populations) many other Palestinians keep the ideas of self-determination and State-creation deliberately distinct.

This confusion on the part of Anarchists living in Imperialist countries between anti-colonial struggles for self-determination and chauvinistic nationalist struggles for the creation of new States does not just apply to Palestine, but indeed to all anti-colonial struggles. This leads many anarchists from such countries to refuse to support any anti-colonial struggles unless they are explicitly anti-statist, which is very rare.

Point 4 of the UK Anarchist Federation’s Aims and Principles

… is typical of this confusion, stating:

We are opposed to the ideology of national liberation movements which claims that there is some common interest between native bosses and the working class in face of foreign domination. We do support working class struggles against racism, genocide, ethnocide and political and economic colonialism. We oppose the creation of any new ruling class. We reject all forms of nationalism, as this only serves to redefine divisions in the international working class. The working class has no country and national boundaries must be eliminated. We seek to build an anarchist international to work with other libertarian revolutionaries throughout the world.

Notice that there is no distinction made here between different types of nationalism, indeed the first sentence talks about “the ideology of national liberation movements”, as if they were all the same. They do claim to support “working-class” struggles against colonialism, but what does this mean in regions of the world that remain industrially undeveloped or where capitalist modes of labour relations have not been fully established?

The first sentence also mentions “claims that there is some common interest between native bosses and the working class in the face of foreign domination”, but it does not actually offer any argument against these claims, because there is none. No-one can deny for example that the Chinese working class is better off now than they were under colonialism, even if they are still horribly exploited.

But being less exploited is in their interest, and it has come about because of the interests of their “native bosses” in promoting export-led industrial development. The Communist Party has an interest in enriching itself and trying to outcompete the West, and this has led to increases in the standard of living for working class Chinese people as well.

This refusal to provide an analysis of how capitalist economies actually work, beyond the simplistic communist view of that money and wage-labour are inherently wrong and need to be ended, is perhaps part of the reason for these baffling claims against economic nationalism being in the interests of working class people.

What I think the Anarchist Federation mean to say is “being oppressed by native bosses is not as good as being your own boss”. So why don’t they just say this, instead of ruling out support for any anti-colonial movement that calls itself nationalist?

Benedict Anderson argued that “nations” are Imagined Communities, in his book of the same name, because in any nation there are too many people for them to all personally know one another, yet they still think of one another as a community.

Is it not possible, therefore, to imagine a community that you might even use the word “nation” to describe that does not have a State? Anarchism is after all the philosophy that communities don’t need States to exist or manage themselves. But the Anarchist Federation claim that any form of nationalism “divides the working class” and that “national boundaries must be eliminated”.

I would argue on that it is rather Nation-States that divide the working class and that it is the institutions of border control between such States that must be eliminated. If this happens then it really doesn’t matter in economic or political terms whether or not people choose to identify with nationalist concepts.

In the same lecture about Israel, Judith Butler mentions the “age-old” question of whether Anarchy can only exist if there is a State for it to be opposed to, or if Anarchy is instead something that can exist without States, even though it is defined in relation to them.

I would say that of course Anarchy can exist without states, and that just because the word means “without State” it doesn’t mean States have to actually exist for the concept to make sense. Before there were States people obviously didn’t use the word “Anarchy”, because it wouldn’t have meant anything, like how no one used to talk about “organic” food before chemical pesticides and fertilisers were invented. But just because they may have used different words back then it doesn’t mean people’s food wasn’t organic or their societies anarchic by the definitions we use today.

The words “self-determination” are much less confusing, because they are framed in positive terms. Anarchists would perhaps be better off describing their beliefs in such terms, especially when engaging in anti-colonial struggles. If a group of people “imagines” themselves to form part of a national community and organises a political movement calling for their “self-determination”, there is nothing wrong with this in itself from an Anarchist standpoint.

The problem only comes when people start conflating the concepts of “self-determination” with “state creation”, and as anti-statists Anarchists should be the main people voicing opposition to this conflation, rather than conflating it in our own heads as well.

This means instead of closing our eyes and putting our fingers in our ears whenever we hear about a group of people struggling in the name of their national identity, we should actively participate in these movements as much as possible in order to promote an anti-state perspective from within.

It is strange that organisations like the Anarchist Federation do not apply this logic to anti-colonial struggles when it is precisely the same logic they use to justify their engagement with workplace and community struggles more generally. In these struggles, the Anarchist Federation argues, it is necessary for anarchists to be present in order to counteract the tendency of authoritarian and statist groups, whether Marxist, Liberal or whatever, from taking decision making power over the direction of the struggle away from the rank-and-file.

Anarchists do this not only because it provides opportunities to spread our critiques of States and authoritarianism to wider audiences, which is more like a by-product of taking up this role within wider social movements, but also because we believe that if Statists take control of struggles then the rank and file have already lost, whereas we want them to win.

As anti-capitalists, Anarchists desire a world in which the concept of being “working class” becomes meaningless, because there would be no other classes to compare it to. Yet we are happy to call ourselves “working class” right now in order to join in struggles with other people who identify with this label. So why can we not apply the same logic to nationalism?

Just as we criticise Marxists for claiming that working class self-determination can only be achieved by the creation of a Workers State, so should we also be arguing that national self-determination (whatever nation you might be talking about) is not dependent on the creation of a Nation State, but is actually severely damaged by it.

White Supremacist Anarchism

If anarchists living in imperialist countries (such as Russia, Israel, the US and all the EU countries) do not participate in anti-colonial struggles which are being fought against those same states, then we can only conclude that they do not really care about destroying the State they are oppressed by, or in preventing anti-colonial struggles from being taken over by Statists.

If this is so it suggests that they are in fact merely pretending to be opposed to inequality when they really want to maintain their own privileges over colonised people, whom they are also happy to allow to continue to be oppressed by States, whether “foriegn” or “native”. As they will almost always have a different ethnic identity to the colonised people whose struggles they refuse to declare allegiance with, this position must be seen as fundamentally Racist.

I do not mean to suggest that this racism is conscious, and I know full well how quickly people can lose their tempers once accusations of subconscious oppressive attitudes start getting thrown around. In the past Anarchist Federation members have argued that their position is justified because some of their members are from the same countries as the anti-colonial movements which they criticise. This was the apparently the case with an article they produced which criticised the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka for being nationalists, at a time when Tamil civilians were being brutally murdered and one might have expected words of solidarity instead.

If this article was written by somebody of Sri Lankan Tamil descent, then of course it doesn’t make much sense to accuse them as an individual of being racist. But the Anarchist Federation was not a presence at any of the Tamil Solidarity demonstrations going on in the UK at the time, nor has it been very involved in anti-colonialist solidarity activism in general.

Instead they focus mainly on the struggles of unionised workers in the UK, who are predominantly White Europeans of British descent and so are already extremely privileged compared with other ethnic groups. Though the Anarchist Federation is heavily involved in anti-fascist activities, to its credit, it does not emphasise an opposition to racism in UK society more broadly, and is itself a disproportionately White organisation, despite its black (and red) flag.

The main emphasis of the AF is on issues of economic oppression, which also reflects the fact that it is a predominantly White (and Male) organisation. The minority of Female-identifying and Queer members has enabled a shift towards recognising the necessary interconnectedness of struggles against both class society and patriarchy, but so far even this has been limited and no comparable shift towards an anti-racist focus has occurred.

Islamophobic Anarchism and Atheist Chauvinism 

This may also have something to do with the AF’s 10th point in its Aims and Principles, which declares:

We oppose organised religion and cults and hold to a materialist analysis of capitalist society. We, the working class, can change society through our own efforts. Worshipping an unprovable spiritual realm, or believing in a religious unity between classes, mystifies or suppresses such self-emancipation / liberation. We reject any notion that people can be liberated through some kind of supernatural force. We work towards a society where religion is no longer relevant.

Though an improvement on the previous wording of this point which simply said “we are opposed to organised religion and religious belief”, the fact that this is even part of the Aims and Principles is clearly going to disincline the vast majority of the world’s population from wanting to have anything to do with the organisation. When I was a member of the Anarchist Federation I witnessed and participated in many discussions on this issue and found that the Anti-religious faction was simply too powerful within the organisation for there to be much hope of this changing.

This is one of the reasons that I declared in my “Critique of the Anarchist Federation” that the organisation should just be abandoned and a new one formed, because it is too set in its ways to be reformed, much like the State it purports to oppose.

I found many Anarchist Federation members, and other White UK anarchists generally, to hold Islamophobic views almost identical to the fascists they opposed. Many Anarchists fall into the trap of accepting the Fascists’ own terms of the debate, including the assumption that Islam is inherently authoritarian and sexist.

Most Westerners have a very poor understanding of the core teachings of Islam, and Anarchists are no exception. All you need to do in order to be considered a Muslim, according to the most liberal interpretations of the Koran, is declare belief in a single God and Mohammed as the messenger of that God. In itself this has nothing to do with the question of whether or not one is opposed to the state or has a materialist analysis of capitalism.

Going one step further in being a good Muslim than simply saying you think the Koran is genuinely the word of a single God who actually exists, you could also decide to pray 5 times a day (which is mainly just declaring the first point over and over again), give 2.5 per cent of your income to the poor, fast during Ramadan and try to visit Mecca at least once in your life.

That’s it. Those are the 5 pillars of Islam and everything else is pretty much optional (again, according to the most liberal interpretations). Women don’t have to cover their faces, and have the right to divorce their husbands. All races of people are considered equal. Usury and inequalities of wealth are considered immoral. Oppressed people have the right to fight back against oppression.

Rather than being opposed to Anarchism, liberal forms of Islam actually complement it incredibly well. Any religion that emphasises “One God, One Authority” can also be interpreted as an anarchistic statement that “there should be no human authority in the material world”.

Just because you don’t believe in God doesn’t give you the right to say that people who do cannot be true revolutionaries. Just because you were brought up to believe in Christianity – a particularly illogical religion which tries to say that God both is and isn’t human at the same time –  then lost your faith in it later, that doesn’t mean you know everything about all world religions.

Believing in “materialism” as the Anarchist Federation claims to, usually means having been raised in a society where you have been able to achieve a high enough standard of scientific education to be able to get at least the basic gist of both the Biological Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and the Cosmological Theory of the “Big Bang” as well as the Socio-economic “Labour Theory of Value”.

These theories are all on the State school curriculum’s of many Western countries, and open discussion of them is not punishable by law. This is not the case in most of the rest of the world.

Even if many anti-colonial political organisations may be “secular” this does not make their members Athiests, and secularism is in fact more often used to help people of different religious faiths get along rather than to help them get along with athiests.

I am not going to claim that refusing to work with religious people is actually racist, even though the majority of people who take such a hard line against religion are likely to be from ethnically privileged backgrounds. What I will say though is that it does nothing to help the aims of the movement, which I understand to be the achievement of greater working class unity around the world.

There is no reason why someone cannot have both a materialist analysis of capitalism and a moral one which is prepared to actually call capitalists and governments Evil. The use of moral language in political discourse makes for much more powerful propaganda than just “holding to a materialist analysis of capitalism”. If you say “capitalism is against our interests as a working class people” the obvious response is “So what? Who are we to assert our interests anyway, in a value-free materialistic universe?” but if you also say “revolutionary activity is the only moral thing to do” then you hit people where it hurts, their hearts.

Non-white people living in the UK, or the world in general, are much less likely to be Atheists. This means that most people actively struggling against colonialism – and therefore against presently existing States – have some kind of religious view. Saying that they “worship…an unprovable spiritual realm [which] mystifies or suppresses [their] self-emancipation/liberation” is not only a terrible way to express solidarity with them, it is also quite clearly not true.

Religious faith is often cited by its practitioners to be the only thing keeping them going in tough times, such as when they are fighting revolutionary wars against the State for instance. Far from “suppressing” their self-emancipation, religious teachings often provide a catalyst for it, for example when Malcolm X encouraged Black people in the US to organise for “self-defence by any means necessary”.

This was a most revolutionary idea and one which was based on Islamic religious teachings that legitimise violence against oppressors. Indeed, one of the last things the Prophet Mohammed said to his followers before he died was “do not oppress, and do not be oppressed” which could be considered an elegant summing up of anarchist revolutionary practice.

Again, just because you may see your own society’s dominant religion – Christianity, for most Westerners – as a force keeping down the working class in your country, it doesn’t mean that religious belief necessarily always plays this role everywhere in the world.  Even Christianity has sometimes been used as a catalyst for revolutionary anti-colonial and anti-capitalist struggles, especially in Latin America, where many Catholic Priests influenced by “Liberation Theology” even took up arms themselves against the State alongside poor people.

If the Anarchist Federation, or any other similar organisation, wants to be a private members clubs for atheists only, it should choose another name. Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu Anarchists have all played roles in world history and will continue to do so. So will anti-statist nationalists involved in anti-colonial struggles.

Anarchists of all ethnic and religious/philosophical identities should unite on the basis of a shared commitment to the self-determination of all people and the negation of all States, and leave religious and national/racial identities out of it.

Then we might just stand a chance of really becoming a global working class movement.




The Key to Understanding Imperialism is Knowing Who Prints Money


If you suggest to most people that almost all the political unrest, war and economic crisis in the world is the result of the manipulations of tiny elite groups of people they will probably call you a conspiracy theorist. But the reality is that all the information you would need to prove such a statement is freely available to the public.

The reason people are still largely unaware about the true nature of the Global System is that this information is usually dressed up in jargon that is deliberately designed to be incomprehensible to most people. In this essay I will try to explain some basic economic concepts using only normal English language. If any readers are still confused by anything I write here please let me know by leaving a comment and I will try to explain it in an even simpler way.

The essay begins by explaining who prints money in the Western world, and how these same people can be said to control the governments and economies of the West. Then we will look at how the system for printing money in many countries which oppose the West is organised differently, but still in a way which means that a small minority have all the power over the economy.

Lastly I will explain two completely different systems that I think are much fairer and democratic, and which I believe it is necessary for people to struggle in order to replace the current systems with. Both the systems I will propose can be said to be Anarchist systems, which means they are organised in a way which discourages inequalities of power from forming, and which do not require the existence of governments to function.

I should make it clear at this point that I am writing from an Anarchist perspective. This means I am biased against both governments and capitalists, so readers should bear this in mind. I am also not going to cite any sources, because hopefully once you read this you will already know what kinds of things to type into Google to find more detailed academic information which I am certain will confirm what I am going to tell you.

Central Banks Control the West

By the West I mean the United States and the European Union as well as all the countries around the world which are dominated by them. The most powerful military forces in the Western world apart from the US and the EU States are Israel, Australia and Japan, who should be considered Western countries even though they are not geographically in the Western world. Despite decades of struggles against Western Imperialism, the majority of other former European colonies in the world are still hopelessly weak in the face of Western military and economic power.

Most of these former colonies are in unimaginably huge amounts of debt to two financial institutions which work closely together, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), both of which are run by Western governments and investors. This debt gives the West power to dictate what the economic policies of other countries should be, through IMF “Structural Adjustment Programmes” (SAPs).

These SAPs do in fact sap the wealth from all these countries and convert it into money that ends up in the hands of Western Governments and businesses. This is because, as the name suggests, they adjust the structure of these country’s economies into whatever shape Western governments want them to be in. For example, if the West doesn’t want a rival government to develop its industry by educating it’s people and putting money into new industrial companies, the IMF will tell that government that it must take money away from schools and spend it’s money only on developing agriculture instead.

The IMF also always says that governments must not put taxes on foreign products or investment money being imported into the country. This makes it very easy for Western companies to buy all the best businesses in poorer countries and to make sure everyone in those countries has to buy Western products instead of their own. The poorer governments have no choice but to do what the IMF-World Bank system dictates because if they don’t it will punish them by not letting them borrow more money, or by raising the interest on the money they already owe.

The Treasury Department is the name given to the part of a government which looks after its money. But all of the money that most governments have is actually debt to banks. For poorer countries most of this debt is to the World Bank/IMF but even powerful Western governments are also in huge amounts of debt to their Central Banks.

Central Banks are a special type of bank that has the power to print a country’s money. The US Dollar is printed by a bank called the Federal Reserve, the British Pound Sterling is printed by the Bank of England and the Euro is printed by the European Central Bank.

All of these banks are actually private companies, not parts of the government, even though they have names which make them sound like they are. Western governments all used to print their own money themselves, but starting with Britain in the 1690’s they all gradually changed this to let private companies have this power.

This means that Government Treasuries in these countries don’t actually print money. Instead they print things called “Treasury Bonds”, which are just pieces of paper that basically say “please lend the government some money, and if you do this piece of paper will mean we promise to pay you it back, at interest”. They could just print money themselves, and not have to pay interest at all, because after all, they are the government and have lots of guns, so who is going to argue? But they don’t.

Instead they let these private businesses called Central Banks print lots of their own money and then buy these “Treasury Bonds” with it. This means that the government has money to buy more guns and do all the things governments do and the banks have lots of pieces of paper which say the government promises to pay them back. This gives the Central Banks a lot of power over Western governments to tell them how to run their economies and also what policies they should have in dealing with other countries.

For example, after the Bank of England was created and given the power to print money in the 1690s the country whose government it now controlled – Britain -became a huge empire all around the world which murdered millions of people, enslaved millions more and made lots of money for itself to pay back its debts to the Bank.

Similarly, after the Federal Reserve was created and given the power to print dollars in 1913, the United States government stepped up its own efforts to become an imperial power and eventually was powerful enough to force most of the world to use the dollar to trade in important goods like Oil.

Even now the United States will invade any country with a government that tries to trade its oil in a different currency, because this will mean among other things that the owners of the Federal Reserve will make less money. Since the War on Terror was announced in 2001 there have been Western military and secret service interventions in many Oil producing countries for this very reason: Invasion of Somalia by US 2002, Attempted Coup in Venezuela by US secret agents 2003, Invasion of Iraq by UK and US 2003, Lebanon by Israel 2006, Libya by UK, US and France in 2010 and the ongoing conflict in Syria in which US secret agents are also heavily involved.

All of these Wars were officially described as wars against “Terrorism” and for “Democracy”, both of which are never really defined by Western leaders when they use these words. It seems that their definition of Democracy is “selling Oil in money printed by the Federal Reserve Bank” and that they similarly define Terrorism as “selling Oil in any other currency”.

As well as explaining their Imperialist practices, the Western governments’ debt to their Central Bank also explains most of their policies in their home countries as well. If you have ever been to a Western country, or even seen a movie set in one, you will have noticed that Western culture is largely based on the idea that having lots of money is a good thing to aspire to and is in fact more important to focus on than pretty much anything else.

The result is that many people are really very depressed because they do not have as much money as they think they should, even if they actually have everything they need to survive as well as a community of loved ones, whilst those that have more money than they need seem to always be purchasing ridiculous items and living lives of shocking vanity and disregard for the less fortunate. But the prevalence of this psychologically damaging culture is only partly ordinary Westerners’ own fault.

The people who own the Western Central Banks are Capitalists, which mean that they earn their living from the fact that they have “Capital”, which is just money they choose to use to invest in profitable business rather than spend on something else.

All the money that these Bankers get from governments, and all the money that they print in the first place, will stop being “Capital” as soon as they let it just sit around somewhere without any profit being made from it. This means it is in their interest to force the governments they control to run a system that provides as many opportunities as possible to invest their money and make a profit.

This is why so many things in the West are run by private companies instead of by the government or by Non-governmental organisations. It is also why there are so many Western businesses around that don’t actually produce anything society needs, and often just cause lots of problems by their very existence.

Money in the West is not invested in places where it needs to be if everyone was to have a good job and be able to afford everything they need in life, because the Western governments don’t care about that.

They care about doing what’s good for the Central Bankers and the other capitalists that benefit from the system they set up. In fact, by their own laws they have to care more about that than anything else, because they are the ones who choose to be in debt by selling Treasury Bonds. So we should not be surprised at the class divide in Western countries or the divide between Western countries and the other countries they control.

Central Bankers ultimately profit from any other capitalist business going on in the country that they print money for because the government taxes these businesses and their workers in order to pay off it’s debts to the Bank. That’s right, the only reason the government takes so much of your wages if you work in the formal Western economy is to pay their debt to these banks, not to run public services, which are all paid for by the debt itself, as is the military.

Capitalists in general, and so the Central Banks in particular, need to have cheap workforce to exploit if they want to make a profit. There’s only so much money to be made from just buying something cheaply in one place and selling it for more in another. You make a lot more if in the middle you get someone to do some kind of work to change it into something more valuable, but only if you don’t pay that worker the same as the value that their work adds to the product. Instead, if you pay them a set wage per hour or per year, and make that wage pretty low, you can fool them into putting a lot of “value” into your products for free. (If you understand this paragraph you basically never need to bother reading Karl Marx, who made economics even harder for ordinary people to get their heads around, by making up a load of new jargon of his own).

This is why you see Western and Western controlled governments refusing to just give working class people free access to everything they need to live happy lives without working for someone else: Land, Education, Healthcare, Shelter, Clothing, Civil liberties etc, because they want to keep them in poverty. By keeping us in poverty they make us feel like the only way to survive is by either working for a capitalist business or living off hand outs from other people that do.

If you look at the average wages in Western societies (adjusted for inflation) over the past few decades you will see that they have just gone down and down while the shareholders of Central Banks and the biggest other Capitalist businesses have gone up and up. All of this can be traced back to government policies and the monetary policies of the Central Banks themselves.

The IMF/World Bank and Western Central Banks have deliberately created economic crises in countries all over the world many times in order to further the consolidation of their power, and the power of large capitalist businesses generally, over society as a whole. One simple way they can do this is to print so much money that it starts to lose value. This is the law of supply and demand, which says that in any kind of marketplace something has more value if its supply is low and the demand for it is high and has less when the opposite is true. When this happens with money, which if something that is traded in markets just like anything else, it is called inflation. Inflation has been the root cause of most economic crises in Western Imperialist history, and it is caused by deliberate Central Bank policies.

They cause these crises because in these situations many small capitalists and even poor people are forced to sell their assets, which is a fancy word for “valuable stuff” like their houses or their businesses or their land or their jewels or Treasury Bonds, to the bigger capitalists, including the people who own the Central Banks. This is what is called “Class War”, when one class of people attacks another in order to steal their property, but the suffering inflicted on the poorer classes in order to make them surrender their assets is caused by denying them what they need to survive – in this case money – rather than direct physical violence. But it is War just the same.

This is why you might sometimes hear about people talking about Capitalism or the Capitalist System as the name for the political-economic system in the West, and saying that Capitalism is imperialistic and oppresses the working classes. I prefer to be more precise and call it the Western Imperialist system, rather than “The” Capitalist system, because, as we will see, Non Western societies and theoretically even non-oppressive systems can also be called “capitalist”.

State-Capitalism in the Anti-Western World

State-Capitalism is when a government (State is just another word for government) acts like a capitalist business itself, rather than just being controlled by separate capitalist businesses. This means of course that the government in a State-Capitalist country has to print its own money rather than just get into debt to capitalist banks.

Many Anti-Western governments have understood the power of the Central Banks over the Western Imperialist system and sought to make sure that they have not been able to take over their own countries as well. I have already explained about how many Oil producing States have tried to free themselves from domination by the US Federal Reserve system and been invaded or had their leaders killed by the CIA. There have been two Anti-Western countries, however, which have managed to resist such a fate for many decades due to their size and military capability: Russia and China.

Russia was called the Russian Empire until 1917 and was ruled by emperors called “Tsars”, so this period of history is often called “Tsarist”. In Tsarist Russia the Central Bank was not an independent private business but was actually owned and controlled by the government. After the Russian Revolution in 1917 the new government run by the Communist Party kept this system going. Even today, when Russia is now called the Russian Federation and Communist Party rule is finished, the Russian Central Bank is still heavily controlled by the government, which takes half it’s profits.

Russia’s independence from the Western Imperialist Banking system means it has always been able to run it’s economy in a different way and have a foreign policy that actually challenges the West’s dominance. During the time the Communist Party was in power many revolutionary-minded people in other parts of the world naively thought that the Russian system was actually run for the benefit of the working class and for anti-imperialist struggles in other parts of the world.

In fact Russia’s foreign policy was still as Imperialistic as it was when they called themselves the Russian Empire, and workers in Russia were still deliberately kept in poverty by the government so that they could be exploited, just like in the West. State-Capitalism (which they called Communism to piss off real Communists, who mostly changed their name to Anarchists) just meant they were exploited by State-run businesses instead of private ones.

Nonetheless there was much more social equality (except within the Communist Party, whose leaders lived in luxury) in Communist Russia than in the West, and except for times of severe shortages the living conditions of the working classes were actually better than in the West in many ways. Even though they had less political rights – like the right to free speech or assembly- Russian workers had economic and social rights which Western workers did not have, like the right to have a job and healthcare. The Russian government did not make sure this was the case out of love for the people though, it did it to secure their loyalty and make the West look bad.

The Russian Communist Party did also actually give lots of money to revolutionary groups around the world who were fighting Western Imperialism, and many of the civil wars in what was then called the Third World (Africa, Latin America and Asia) were actually wars between the US and Russia in disguise, with Russian secret agents supporting one side and American ones the other. The Russians were not fighting for the liberation or self-government of these countries though, they just wanted to be the ones exploiting their workers and resources instead of the Westerners.

Russia was able to do all this, and still is able to control the economies of most of its neighbouring countries, because when it wants to start a new industry it can just print money itself with which to do so, rather than having to borrow money from other people, because the government runs the Central Bank. Because Russia has always been a dictatorship as well it has also been able to just force people to work to build up its empire, especially during the time they were led by Josef Stalin. Stalin ordered several “5 year plans” which were successful in revolutionising Russian industry and were only possible because of the State-Capitalist combination of a dictating government with its own State-run central bank.

The other State-Capitalist country is of course China, which was also taken over by a group calling itself the Communist Party, who are still in power today. The Chinese Communist Party was always separate from the Russian one, even though they were obviously inspired by them in many ways. The Chinese dictator Chairman Mao, who brought the Communist Party to power and created the State called the People’s Republic of China, followed similar policies to the Russians when it came to industrialising the country.

China also supported many anti-imperialist and revolutionary movements around the world, and still does, but just like Russia it has always been simply another Imperialist power in itself, supporting these struggles for its own interests rather than out of genuine solidarity.  Just a few years ago a Maoist Communist Party took power in Nepal after a civil war that had gone on for ten years. The Chinese government were supplying them with weapons all throughout the civil war and now that they are in power they are adopting policies that benefit China. This is exactly what the Western Imperialists are trying to do in Syria.

The People’s Bank of China is the Chinese Central Bank which prints the Chinese currency, the Yuan, and is controlled by the State. This Bank’s policies have helped China to become the world’s biggest industrial economy, producing more industrial goods than any country in history.

Here we see an important difference between the Western and State-Capitalist systems. Because the Peoples Bank of China is not simply concerned with making the most profit for itself as possible, but can also have more long term goals in mind they have strategically supported the development of China’s industry in such a way as to provide jobs for most of the working class and to be able to export more products than they import. In China the State doesn’t employ all workers anymore, but let’s private capitalist businesses exist as long as they don’t challenge the Communist Party’s power, and this has helped industry to grow, as private capitalists are greedier than Communist bureaucrats so run their businesses more efficiently.

In the West almost the exact opposite has happened. Western governments, controlled by their need to make money for private capitalist bankers, have allowed the industries of their countries to all but collapse, with terrible consequences for working class people. This has not been a well thought-out strategic long term government policy, and Western governments are probably regretting now that they have allowed this to happen.

Because the bankers always had a short term interest in letting Western factories shut down and be replaced by factories in other countries where wages were lower instead, that’s what Western governments allowed to happen. The bankers had an interest in this because they were always investing in the other companies that ran the factories (as they invest in pretty much everything) so they shared in the increased profits from the cheaper labour in other countries.

This is where the Western Imperialists have fucked up, perhaps so much so that they will soon lose their empires and never get them back. They now have to import goods from China, their Imperial rival, because they cannot produce them by themselves. This means that American Dollars and other Western currencies are flowing into China, as Westerners use them to buy Chinese goods, but not many Chinese Yuan are flowing into the West.

That means that Chinese businesses have more Western currency that they need to convert into Yuan so they can spend them in China than there is Yuan that Western businesses want to change into Western currencies.  In other words: the supply of Yuan is less than the demand for it and the supply of Western currencies is higher than the demand for them. This means that the Yuan should in theory start to be worth more in relation to Western currencies (stop and think about this for a few minutes if you need).

If the Yuan started to be worth more compared with Western currencies then people in the West would have to pay more for Chinese products and so they would stop buying them. For example, if you earn 6 British Pounds an hour, then if that gets you 100 Yuan, you can buy two shirts that cost 50 Yuan in China. But if 6 pounds starts to be worth only 50 Yuan then you can only buy one of those shirts and maybe you will not bother because you can find them cheaper somewhere else.

The People’s Bank of China does not want this to happen so they print more and more Yuan as they earn more and more dollars so that the supply of Yuan will stay the same relative to Western currencies, so that its value will stay the same. They call this “pegging” the Yuan, and just like with the Western inflation crises they do it by simply printing money,

They then use this extra Yuan to change Western currencies that Chinese businesses have earned by exporting products into Yuan, which those businesses need to pay their workers. The Peoples Bank of China therefore keeps earning more and more Western currencies for itself.

Because the Chinese government is like one big capitalist enterprise, they do not want this money to just sit around doing nothing, they want to invest it in something than will earn them even more money. The best things you can buy with Western money are Treasury Bonds from Western governments. If you remember, these  are just pieces of paper the government gives in exchange for loans at interest – a pretty sure way of making a profit as they are backed up by the whole authority of the government. So now the Peoples Bank of China owns huge amounts of Western Treasury Bonds, which means that the Western governments are now increasingly in debt to the Peoples Bank of China, and therefore to the Chinese Communist Party itself.

So although the United States is still the biggest military power and still uses that fact to try and force Oil producing countries to sell in Dollars, as just one example among many forms of imperialist military operations, China may one day own more of the US government’s debt in the form of treasury bonds that the Federal Reserve actually does, making the global Oil markets use of the dollar seem less likely for the future, all because China has used State planning to successfully out-manoeuvre the West’s system of private capitalism.

So What Are We Supposed To Do About All This?

Though Western Imperialism is unquestionably a bad thing, that doesn’t mean that it’s decline is necessarily good if it is just going to be replaced with Eastern Imperialism. The BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) is a political alliance of extremely big Anti-Western countries that already exists and is growing stronger, symbolising the very real threat of a new Eastern Imperialist world system.

So if we don’t want to maintain the old Western System, but are also frightened of the new Eastern one, which after all is led by a totalitarian dictatorship which already has a history of supporting armed groups in other countries, what are we supposed to fight for instead?

The truth is that we don’t need either of these systems, neither Central banks run by governments in the East or visa versa in the West. In fact we don’t need anyone to print money at all, if we just got rid of all these governments and collectively decided that everyone was entitled to all they needed to survive and live a good life, free of charge. There are more than enough resources in the world for that to be possible if no capitalists or “Communists” were around making a profit.

So for me personally, that’s what I am fighting for, a system called Anarchist Communism in which there are neither governments or central banks, neither laws nor money but instead merely a culture, everywhere in the world, in which no-one lets anyone else get oppressed or go without access to food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare or the wilderness. As I said before, there are enough resources for this to be possible and I genuinely believe that this global cultural revolution is all that would be necessary to achieve it, plus of course the destruction of all the worlds governments and capitalist businesses, which admittedly is a tricky thing to achieve.

But even in such a utopian world some people may still decide that they want to start using money for some reason and there would be no government around to stop them.  The global anarchist communist culture would not be able to stop them either so long as they did not start oppressing people or denying people of access to what they needed.

If everyone’s basic needs were already met for free and people wanted to set up some kind of money based market place for purely unnecessary items, then this would not be a threat to the overall Anarchist Communist system.  Even if they started acting out roles as capitalists and workers the exploitation of the workers would still be truly voluntary if they could just walk away from the job at any moment and still have all they need to survive happily, which is not the case for most workers today.

But I hope I have already convinced you that whenever some kind of system based on money is created it becomes necessary to ask “Who controls the printing of this money?” If we do not want the power to print money to be in the hands of elite minorities, whether they be private capitalists or Communist Party Bureaucrats, then we must ensure that this power is held collectively by ordinary people.

Many small communities around the world have successfully experimented with local currencies that they can only use in that area, but which the decisions about monetary policy (which is policy about money) for are made democratically by everyone who uses the currency. These experiments are a reminder to the world that Central Banks are not necessary even in a capitalist economy. The only thing they are necessary for is an Imperialist economy.

No political party, lobbying group or social movement will ever be powerful enough to get Western Governments to change their banking systems or turn the People’s Republic of China into a genuinely democratic communist system, and small-scale local currency projects, as promising as they are, will never be allowed by governments to grow big enough to really challenge the Central Banks. The only way we can liberate ourselves from the tyranny of bankers and bureaucrats is through Revolutionary Direct Action against the power of all governments.

We cannot fight against the West without fighting the East at the same time, or else we will just find that we have been helping the East to take over our lives. We must work on building the global cultural shift towards a world where no one accepts poverty of oppression any longer, and at the same time work on building a united global insurrectionary movement against all the power of all States.

Even if you do not agree with me about the need for Global Anarchist Communist Revolution against all States and Empires, I hope I have at least convinced you that we do indeed live in a world of empires, and of the importance of the role of Central Banks in explaining global inequalities of wealth and power.

I hope I have also convinced you never to become either a capitalist or a member of a Communist Party, but rather to try and live your life in as free a way as possible from their systems.

You don’t have to try to get rich, and if you can find ways to get what you need to survive for free then you don’t even have to use money at all. Money and the laws of governments are not real things and you don’t have to treat them like they are. The more you do, the more you make them real. Sure, you can pretend to believe in them when it suits you but you don’t have to lose your sense of self because of them like so many people have. Revolution begins in the mind.

Even if you do not want to join in with any revolutionary activity to do with actually bringing down or sabotaging governments, I hope you will at least be as free from them in your own life as you can and that you will encourage others to do the same.

I hope you will put your trust in love for all people, in your own self-reliance and in strengthening that of your community, whatever that might mean for you, rather than in money, governments or the murderous ruling class fuckers that they are controlled by.

Good luck, and Power to You.