I recently suggested that the next necessary step in the cultivation of the pan-anarchist movement will be the coalescence of the many scattered factions and tendencies within anarchism and overlapping philosophies into a new “Gray” anarchist macro-tribe that maintains its own political and cultural identity in a way that is distinctively independent of the Left and Right or, perhaps more important for domestic U.S. politics, independent of the Red tribe and Blue tribe. At present, far too many anarchists, libertarians, and anti-state radicals retain too great a loyalty to either the Red or Blue, or the Left and Right. While we will continue to draw from both sides of the conventional political and cultural spectrum as our movement continues to grow, the eventually establishment of our own independent identity is a long-term necessity.
I also suggested that we need to identify “wedge” issues that are both compatible with our general aims and outlook but which set us apart from both the Left and Right, the Red and Blue, in a distinctive way, and that opposition to consensual crime laws and the related police/prison state that is built up around these is an obvious choice. The Left will have abortion rights and gay rights, the Right will have gun rights and the pro-life cause, and we will have the libertarian project of abolishing consensual crimes.
I have also discussed the various strategic aspects of pan-anarchism in various detail elsewhere: pan-secessionism, core demographic theory, fourth generation warfare, anarcho-populism, inside/outside strategy, the left-right-center tripartite strategy, a pan-anarchist federation, an third-party alliance, alternative infrastructure, the 25 point platform, building coalitions of anti-state interest groups, a peoples’ economic front, legal defense organizations, civilian defense organizations, identitarian organizations, regionalist movements, and a free nations coalition.
I first came across the term “Celebrity Left Twitter” when I realized I had the same enemies as a bunch of communists. My initial reaction was disgust, being that communism epitomizes a collectivist mentality that seeks to downgrade the individual to the lowest base denominator. Nevertheless, the more I researched this phenomena, the more I realized these communists were onto something: these uppity progressive journalists were the spawn of satan.
The far left and the far right are basically the same thing, riling against “the elite” in its various forms. Whether the elite = The Jews or The Nazis or The Communists or The Fascists or The Cultural Marxists, the elite is still the elite.
Now let’s ask ourselves what “the elite” means while removing our political affiliations for a moment. The elite = the people who control us. The elite = those who we cannot criticize. The elite = the people in power. Who is in power now? My answer is as follows: sociopathic millionaires who pretend to be ultra-progressive in order to appeal to the dominant political current. These are the people who were cheering for Bush during his war in Iraq, only this time they are fighting for gay marriage. Their aim is simply to be on the winning team, and they will adapt their views accordingly. They go where the money doth flow.
The enemy of the enemy isn’t always my friend. As Jim Goad puts it, the enemy of the enemy is probably just another enemy of mine. Yet the enemy of the enemy is often worse than the enemy itself. These progressive journalists are worse than communists. It’s these progressive journalists who are keeping us down, while the communists can’t even keep down a tent.
This was originally posted on the “Points to Consider” discussion thread, but the comments are important enough that I’m making them into a feature post. Take notes, readers.
By Julius Ebola
One of the basic aspects of real cadre is a major personal commitment to a movement. Unfortunately, fringe movements in the United States seem to have only two polarities of commitment: either a vague subcultural milieu or a mind control cult.
You see this in both new religions and the new left, and even in things like UFOlogy. Something about our national character seems to make any position between these two points an unstable balance that almost always devolves into one or the other.
This is reflected in protest ghetto left by the two dominant organizational models: the Greenpeace model, and the fanatical pretend revolutionary “party”. Both of these models are children of the sixties, with Greenpeace and the Revolutionary Communist Party as poster children of the opposite polarities.
I suspect that for an American panarchist movement the internal conflict that would parallel the one between dissidence and totalitarianism in the Communist party will be between recreational political consumerism or multi-level marketing on one hand, and mass suicide mind control cults on the other.
Back in 2008, Boston University professor Andrew Bacevich wrote an article for this magazine making a conservative case for Barack Obama. While much of it was based on disgust with the warmongering and budgetary profligacy of the Republican Party under George W. Bush, which he expected to continue under 2008 Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, Bacevich thought Obama at least represented hope for ending the Iraq War and shrinking the national-security state.
I wrote a piece for the New Republic soon afterward about the Obamacon phenomenon—prominent conservatives and Republicans who were openly supporting Obama. Many saw in him a classic conservative temperament: someone who avoided lofty rhetoric, an ambitious agenda, and a Utopian vision that would conflict with human nature, real-world barriers to radical reform, and the American system of government.
Among the Obamacons were Ken Duberstein, Ronald Reagan’s chief of staff; Charles Fried, Reagan’s solicitor general; Ken Adelman, director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency for Reagan; Jeffrey Hart, longtime senior editor of National Review; Colin Powell, Reagan’s national security adviser and secretary of state for George W. Bush; and Scott McClellan, Bush’s press secretary. There were many others as well.
According to exit polls in 2008, Obama ended up with 20 percent of the conservative vote. Even in 2012, after four years of relentless conservative attacks, he still got 17 percent of the conservative vote, with 11 percent of Tea Party supporters saying they cast their ballots for Obama.
They were not wrong. In my opinion, Obama has governed as a moderate conservative—essentially as what used to be called a liberal Republican before all such people disappeared from the GOP. He has been conservative to exactly the same degree that Richard Nixon basically governed as a moderate liberal, something no conservative would deny today. (Ultra-leftist Noam Chomsky recently called Nixon “the last liberal president.”)
In the wake of the Scottish “no” vote on secession last month, former presidential contender Ron Paul has declared that this was inspirational for the cause of secession not only around the world but right here in the United States. It is here, he said, that there is a “growing movement” for secession that is “deeply American:” “Americans who embrace secession are acting in the grand American tradition,” most especially the original departure from Great Britain that Scotland failed to emulate.
This has of course upset the usual crowd of knee-jerk patriots who always argue that secession is illegal or unconstitutional or anti-American, and anyway the Civil War settled all that. But Paul is supported by a new survey by Reuters/Ipsos that shows that 24 per cent of Americans believe that secession is not only legal but something they would support in their own states. That’s a quarter of the land—80 million people, almost 15 million more than voted for Obama in the last election.
For those anarchists and libertarians who might look askance at endorsing a leftist and a socialist like Mr. Puryear, I would suggest taking a look at his track record. He’s on the right page concerning the biggest issues, i.e. the American imperialist empire and the police state. It’s time that radicals stopped pushing their preferred economic system, favorite social issues, and arcane ideological interests at the expense of actually attacking the system and its most pernicious elements.
Within the context of a pan-radical alliance against the system, the political leadership in the Blue zones would likely resemble folks like Mr. Puryear to a great degree, just like the political leadership in the Red Zones might more closely resemble the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, or fans of Alex Jones.
This how it should be.
Eugene Puryear is a D.C.-based activist and graduate of Howard University. In nearly a decade of social justice activism, he has been involved in the anti-war movement, helping to organize mass opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and has served as a key organizer around police brutality, prisoners’ rights and abuses in the U.S. criminal “justice” system. He was the co-founder of the Jobs Not Jails Coalition in D.C., organizing around the rights of returning citizens. Eugene is the author of the recent book Shackled and Chained: Mass Incarceration in Capitalist America, which analyzes America’s prison system. He is a socialist and serves on the editorial board of Liberation newspaper.
Given that elections are coming up soon, I would suggest either one of two possible approaches for anarchists, libertarians, decentralists, secessionists, or dissidents and enemies of the system generally. One of these is to simply not vote at all. Boycotting a corrupt system has the effect of de-legitimizing it. The other alternative is to vote for whatever third parties that might be in the mix.
Ultimately, we should push for an alliance of minor parties for the sake of opening the political system to greater competition, and cultivating minor parties as political vehicles for developing a more seriously radical movement. Preferably, minor parties would agree to stay out of each others’ backyards, and instead focus on building constituencies in regions and localities, and among population groups, where their respective philosophies are likely to find an audience. The leftist and ethnic minority oriented parties should focus on organizing in the Blue zones (mostly the larger cities, majority-minority communities, and liberal enclaves), and rightist and conservative oriented parties should focus on organizing in the Red zones (mostly suburbs, small towns, and rural areas).
An alliance of third parties could subsequently become the foundation for a larger pan-radical alliance for the sake of engaging in pan-secessionist action against the common enemy.
The below is a transcript of the talk I gave yesterday to the TBG annual conference. I may well have spoken too fast, but I was operating on the assumption that I had to get through a 4000 word text in half an hour. John told me afterwards that I would have been allowed to run over, but maybe it was for the best anyway; my voice doesn’t carry whether I speak quickly or slowly. Godfrey Bloom spoke very well on the same kind of link Sean often makes between libertarianism and English reactionism. John’s talk was excellent and I had to suppress my titters when, after John had quoted Susan McClary describing Beethoven as “a rapist incapable of attaining release” just from listening to one of his symphonies, a middle aged man from the audience shouted “Silly bitch!” Oh, yes, and when Gregory Lauder-Frost begins his round-up with “I’ve been told not to talk about mass-immigration, but…” you know you’re in for a treat.
The Privatisation of Offspring
Let me begin with Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s theory of the origin of private property and the family. He starts in North-East Africa about 10,000 years ago from which time onwards there were various migrations: some went east, some west. These migrations happened because there was a deep Malthusian pressure on the existing hunter-gatherer societies of behaviourally modern man. (It was taking about a square mile of land to sustain comfortably a person back then.) So it was that they had to do their best to engage in very strict birth control by forcibly inducing abortions or practicing infanticide. Both of these methods were found to be inadequate, therefore they could either do three things: fight, move, or organise themselves in a different way.
Exclusive: America’s neoconservatives, by stirring up trouble in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, are creating risks for the world’s economy that are surfacing now in the turbulent stock markets, threatening another global recession, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
If you’re nervously watching the stock market gyrations and worrying about your declining portfolio or pension fund, part of the blame should go to America’s neocons who continue to be masters of chaos, endangering the world’s economy by instigating geopolitical confrontations in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
Of course, there are other factors pushing Europe’s economy to the brink of a triple-dip recession and threatening to stop America’s fragile recovery, too. But the neocons’ “regime change” strategies, which have unleashed violence and confrontations across Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran and most recently Ukraine, have added to the economic uncertainty.
This neocon destabilization of the world economy began with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 under President George W. Bush who squandered some $1 trillion on the bloody folly. But the neocons’ strategies have continued through their still-pervasive influence in Official Washington during President Barack Obama’s administration.
The neocons and their “liberal interventionist” junior partners have kept the “regime change” pot boiling with the Western-orchestrated overthrow and killing of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the proxy civil war in Syria to oust Bashar al-Assad, the costly economic embargoes against Iran, and the U.S.-backed coup that ousted Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February.
When one travels there is a lot of time spent thinking while on long transits between cities and places. Personal things and also the odd political thought. And while I was on a bus traveling in Argentina, I saw a news clip about ISIS, who are currently marauding through the Middle East. Somehow their actions and belief system looked familiar. And then it came to me; they are just like the Anti-Fascist groups, also known as Antifa, that terrorise everybody they believe is a fascist in the western world.
Having had personal experience with these so called “defenders of democracy”, it is actually amazing the extent to which the tactics, rhetoric and belief system of these two groups are identical. So let’s have a closer look at these two groups and their actions.
The ISIS fighters believe, like Antifa, that they have the moral high ground when it comes what is right and what is wrong. And whatever is not right in their eyes has to be fought and destroyed. While the ISIS believes in a rather obscure interpretation of the Koran, Antifa believes in a rather obscure interpretation of democracy. Both groups are righteous and fanatical in upholding what they think is right. And whatever doesn’t fit in their dogmatic box has to be eliminated.
ISIS fights a brutal war against the non-believers, beheading people by the hundreds, enslaving and selling women, and killing others by the thousands. We all saw the clips where they themselves celebrate and promote those kinds of activities. Slogans like “Kill all infidels”, “Destroy Democracy”, etc., are well known to be spread by them. All in the name of Allah and his prophets.
Now Antifa might not kill people by the thousands, but I know many political activists that have been beaten and, yes, killed by Antifa activists. Even more notable are their threats, which are an indication of their fanaticism – threats of violence to, and the destruction of property of the people that they deem to be fascists. And all this they promote and celebrate in video clips that everybody can access on the web. Equally, you can have a look at the Antifa slogans like “Death to Nazis”, “Smash Fascists”, “Destroy Racism”, etc. While they are all only slogans, you might think, the truth is that they are not just slogans for Antifa activists but a call to action!
February 3-5, 2012, a a conference was organized in Hamburg, Germany. The theme was “Challenging Capitalist Modernity: Alternative concepts and the Kurdish Question.” The following text was delivered as a speech to the conference.
In February 1999, at the moment when Abdullah Öcalan was abducted in Kenya, Murray Bookchin was living with me in Burlington, Vermont. We watched Öcalan’s capture on the news reports. He sympathized with the plight of the Kurds—he said so whenever the subject came up—but he saw Öcalan as yet another Marxist-Leninist guerrilla leader, a latter-day Stalinist. Murray had been criticizing such people for decades, for misleading people’s impulses toward freedom into authority, dogma, statism, and even—all appearances to the contrary—acceptance of capitalism.
Bookchin himself had been a Stalinist back in the 1930s, as young teenager; he left late in the decade and joined the Trotskyists. At the time, the Trotskyists thought World War II would end in proletarian socialist revolutions in Europe and the United States, the way World War I had given rise to the Russian Revolution. During the war Bookchin worked hard in a foundry to try to organize the workers to rise up and make that revolution. But in 1945 they did not. The Trotskyist movement, its firm prediction unfulfilled, collapsed. Many if not most of its members gave up on Marxism and revolutionary politics generally; they became academics or edited magazines, working more or less within the system.
Bookchin too gave up on Marxism, since the proletariat had clearly turned out not be revolutionary after all. But instead of going mainstream, he and his friends did something unusual: they remained social revolutionaries. They recalled that Trotsky, before his assassination in 1940, had said that should the unthinkable happen—should the war not end in revolution—then it would be necessary for them to rethink Marxist doctrine itself. Bookchin and his friends got together, meeting every week during the 1950s, and looked for ways to renovate the revolutionary project, under new circumstances.
This study of recent anti-imperialist resistance in Kurdistan, looking back to the anarchist resistance in the Ottoman heartland in the period before the formation of the Turkish state, consists of extracts — kindly proof-read in part by Will Firth — from the forthcoming book by Schmidt & van der Walt, Global Fire: 150 Fighting Years of International Anarchism & Syndicalism, Counter-power Vol.2, AK Press, USA, scheduled for release in about 2011.
Introduction: Second-Generation Anarchism in Anatolia: The Kurdish National Question
Anarchism in Turkey  — once a significant radical force that contested Ottoman imperialism over its Bulgarian, Macedonian, Greek, Arab, African and Jewish subject peoples — began to re-emerge in the late 1970s. However, this flowering was forced to take root in hostile soil as since the formation of the Turkish state in 1923, Turkish left politics had been dominated by the Communist tradition and by nationalist and socialist groups seeking independence for Kurdistan, which is split between Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria (the most notable such group being the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, formed in the mid-1970s, and the Turkish Communist Party — Marxist-Leninist, or TKP-ML,  both of which are basically Maoist). Kurdish separatists have also been a factor in Iran and Iraq. However, in the 1970s, things began to change; the American anarchist Sam Dolgoff mentioned meeting a Turkish anarchist student in the United States in 1979 in his memoirs, and by the 1980s, accordng to Anarchism in Turkey — produced by the Turkish anarchist group Karambol Publications  — anarchist groups and periodicals began to emerge, expanding in the 1990s. The “anarchists first participated in the May Day celebrations with their black flag in 1993 in Istanbul and again in 1994, in Ankara and other centres, creating “big interest in the media,” which gave “special coverage to the anarchists and announced that ‘at last we have our anarchists.’” Among the new generation of Turkish anarchist groups are Firestarter, founded about 1991, an Anarchist Youth Federation (AGF), the Anatolian Anarchists (AA), the Karasin Anarchist Group (KAG), and moving into the 2000s, the “Makhnovist” KaraKizil (BlackRed) group and its affiliated Anarchist Communist Initiative (AKi), the latter being an anarkismo.net founding organisation.
The PKK could play a key role in the battle against Islamic State, but their roots as Marxist guerrillas leaves the west wary. Channel 4 News looks at how the group is pursuing a Kurdish Spring.
After over 30 years of an anachronistic Marxist-Leninist insurgency against the Turkish state, militants of the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party) say they are rejecting nationalism, Maoist military strategies and even the idea of a nation state – adopting instead the teachings of an obscure US academic.
After PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan was arrested and imprisoned in 1999 he began re-evaluating the hardline Marxist-Leninist strategy he had followed since founding the group in 1978 and the subsequent violent guerrilla war launched in 1984 that led to thousands of deaths.
In prison Ocalan discovered the writing of Murray Bookchin, an anarchist academic and contrarian from New York, whose theories of “social ecology” and “libertarian municipalism” remained obscure even within his own political current until his death in 2006.
Combining these ideas with teachings from Fernand Braudel and Friedrich Nietzsche, Ocalan announced the new direction he believed the PKK should take.
As the prospect of Kurdish independence becomes ever more imminent, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party transforms itself into a force for radical democracy.
Excluded from negotiations and betrayed by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne after having been promised a state of their own by the World War I allies during the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds are the largest stateless minority in the world. But today, apart from a stubborn Iran, increasingly few obstacles remain to de jure Kurdish independence in northern Iraq. Turkey and Israel have pledged support while Syria and Iraq’s hands are tied by the rapid advances of the Islamic State (formerly ISIS).
The Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, has been active in the Kurdish parts of Turkey since the ’70s. It has a sometimes sordid history: Its politics were Marxist-Leninist, and its willingness to kill prisoners and civilians earned a rebuke from Amnesty International. Its leader, Abdullah Öcalan, has been under arrest since 1999, but its armed struggle with the Turkish state continued until a ceasefire was reached last year.
I was vaguely aware of all that, and I may even have read at some point that Öcalan had recently rejected his old Leninist outlook and terrorist tactics, proclaiming a newfound devotion to democracy. What I did not realize was what brand of democracy had attracted Öcalan’s interest. Somehow, he became smitten with the American left-anarchist Murray Bookchin. He appears to be particularly interested in Bookchin’s idea of devolving power to cities governed by neighborhood assemblies.
I just called Bookchin an anarchist, but by the time he died Bookchin had rejected that label, calling himself a “Communalist” instead. But I’m not writing this post to discuss Bookchin’s ideas—the curious reader can check out my obit for him here and Reason‘s interview with him here—so much as just to express my astonishment to see Bookchinism bubbling up in the PKK, of all places.
ROAR has more on Öcalan’s evolution here. Bookchin’s partner Janet Biehl discusses these developments here. Some left-anarchists greet the PKK’s conversion with a mixture of interest and skepticism here. Kevin Carson is enthusiastic here. The most blistering critique of Bookchin ever written is here. A latebreaking correction to my Bookchin obit is here.
ERBIL, Iraq — The body of Zanyar Kawa is making its final journey to Sulaymaniyah, in northeastern Iraq. The slain fighter died 500 miles from his hometown battling the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, in Kobane, a Syrian town near the Turkish border.
Though an Iraqi Kurd, Kawa did not die serving the Iraqi Kurdish security forces, known as the peshmerga. Rather, he was killed fighting alongside guerrillas associated with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which seeks self-determination for Kurds in Turkey and across the region. Both Turkey and the United States consider the PKK a terrorist organization.
Resolved:Opposition to so-called “victimless crimes” or “consensual crimes” has long been a hallmark of libertarian and anarchist thought. It’s time the ball started rolling a little bit faster on this question. These kinds of laws are the primary reason why the U.S. police state has grown dramatically in recent decades, and are the primary reason why the U.S. prison population is so large. While some progress has been made in the areas of medical marijuana and marijuana legalization in recent years, for the most part there has been very little traction on the issue of consensual crimes. This is because neither the Left nor the Right has adopted it as a primary issue in the way that the Right has adopted gun rights and the Left has adopted abortion rights and gay rights. It would appear that this is a natural issue for libertarians and anarchists to take up, and essentially make this into a definitive issue for all enemies of the state.
We need to begin organizing a political coalition of all those impacted negatively by consensual crime laws for the purpose of repealing all of these laws across the board and at every level of government. It would be a mistake to focus on some of these laws on an individual basis (for example, focusing solely on drug legalization or solely on repealing seat belt laws). Rather, it is best that opponents of these laws unite and take up each others’ banners in the name of unity of those persecuted by the state. The first order of business might be to make up a list of specific laws to be repealed and policy actions to be pursued. My recommendations would be these:
In a new article for Rolling Stone, “Inside the Koch Brothers’ Toxic Empire,” Tim Dickinson attempts to present the frequently demonized brothers Koch as essentially hardline libertarians, whose radical free market ideology is thoroughly mixed into their business philosophy and practices. We’ve all seen this article before. Liberal media outlets have made a whole industry of attempting to discredit libertarianism as the exploitative ethic of rich, white people, and have presented the Kochs as the representatives of this ethic.
Mr. Dickinson regrettably takes it as a given that libertarianism is merely a thin ideological vindication of big business, with all its abuses and ruination of the natural environment. Such a flagrant misunderstanding is rather embarrassing considering both the breadth of libertarianism’s ideas and its history, and the fact that Dickinson took the time to write a lengthy article that is in part a denunciation of libertarianism. We might’ve expected a more careful and knowledgeable treatment of the subject if this kind of hit piece weren’t so commonplace among mainstream liberal outfits.
Kurdish forces fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria have received a surprising accession. While allied forces refuse to take part in military action on the ground, several German bikers have reportedly joined the fight against the jihadists.
Kawan A., the club leader of the ‘Median Empire’ gang, wrote on hisFacebook: “While others blabber on, our guys are at the front and fighting against ISIS,” stating that at least two of the group’s members are fighting alongside Kurdish Peshmerga fighters.
Founded by Kurdish Germans, Cologne’s Median Empire is a biker gang named after an ancient community which extended from eastern Turkey to India in the VIII century B.C.
The gang also posted pictures of its members alongside Peshmerga fighters.
Javier Sicilia stopped writing poetry after his son was murdered by drug traffickers. He has turned his attention full time to protesting the drug wars.
Seattle’s South Park neighborhood has seen its share of drug-related crime and violence. Many of its residents are recent immigrants from Mexico; some came north fleeing the drug cartel violence that has ravaged their home communities. So the South Park Community Center was a poignant venue for Mexican poet, writer, and activist Javier Sicilia to speak about his campaign to end the drug war in his home country. He began the evening with a moment of silence for all the lives lost – somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 – since the Mexican government stepped up the war against drug cartels in 2006. Then, his commanding voice heavy with grief, Sicilia read a poem:
I think that ARV-ATS has to a great degree developed to the point where we are ready to enter a new stage of our development. Over the years, I have made an effort to assess the limitations of previously existing anarchist movements, and to formulate a new theoretical paradigm and strategic model for a 21st century anarchist movement. I call this the “third wave” of anarchism, with classical 19th/early 20th century anarchism being the first wave, and the New Left/neo-Marxist anarchism that dominates anarchism today being the second wave. At this point, I think we have all theory and strategy we need, and it’s time to start developing more action-orientated cadre of radicals and activists.
The first task would seem to be the development of an Anarchist “gray” macro-tribe that forms and maintains a political and cultural identity of its own that is completely separate from either the Left or Right. At present, far too many anarchists, libertarians, and others with similar views are merely leftists or rightists under another name. They are ultimately leftists or rightists first, and anarchists second, third, or fourth. However, what we need is a pan-anarchist movement that has “Anarchy First!” as its revolutionary battle cry irrespective of the kinds of fault lines that normally divide left and right.
The need for anarchists to coalesce into a gray macro-tribe is the most pressing movement issue we face at present, and the one that is most hindered by divisiveness over other matters. I have been especially critical of left-anarchists and left-libertarians over these issues in the past as the cultural Left has for some time maintained hegemony in the anarchist milieu. However, many right-leaning libertarians and anarchists likewise display similar characteristics.
The movement question of the era is: How can all of these scattered anarchist tendencies ultimately unify into an effective fighting force, as they must do if anarchists are to go about shaping the future evolution of societies around the world?
In the midst of the war against ISIS (Islamic State) now taking place in both Iraq and Syria, a possible shifting of alliances that could fundamentally alter the balance of power in the region is taking place, and no one seems to have noticed. Specifically, the burgeoning relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region of Northern Iraq has the potential to remake the political landscape of the Middle East. Naturally, such a development is part of a broader geopolitical gambit by Iran, and it will have significant ramifications for all regional actors. However, it is Turkey, the gulf monarchies, and Israel that potentially have the most to lose from such a development.
While Iran has long-standing disputes with elements of its own Kurdish minority, it has demonstrably taken the lead in aiding Iraqi Kurds in their war against extremist fighters loyal to ISIS. As Kurdish President Massud Barzani explained in late August, “The Islamic Republic of Iran was the first state to help us…and it provided us with weapons and equipment.” This fact alone, coupled with the plausible, though unconfirmed, allegations of Iranian military involvement on the ground in Kurdish Iraq, demonstrates clearly the high priority Tehran has placed on cooperation with Barzani’s government and the Kurdish people in the fight against the Saudi and Qatari-backed militants of ISIS. The question is, why? What is it that Iran hopes to gain from its involvement in this fight? Who stands to lose? And how could this change the region?
Sukant Chandan: “Here you can see a rough sketch of how nato has mobilised death squads from around the world & subjected Syria to these rapists, slavers of women, mutilators & generally nato’s razor blades against our peoples. They are being fought back by a formal & informal alliance of Syrian nationalists, Arab Nationalists, socialists, communists, militias of Christians, Armenians, PKK/YPG Kurds, Lebanese Hizbullah, and many more all led by the Syrian government & army, as well as back up from Iran, Algeria, Socialist Korea, Russia, China, South Africa, Venezuela, Cuba and many more. All victories to our anti-nato anti-death squad alliance.”