Now Playing Tracks

These have recently been making the rounds and I just thought these hit the nail on the head so perfectly. Not only are they well-drawn, but they highlight the softness and complacency in the leftist movement, as well as underlining the hypocrisy that exists as well and its tendency to become distracted from combatting capitalism by overfocusing on other social justice issues, which I think they do simply to avoid having to actually go against the system that they benefit from, because they know why they’re able to enjoy the creature comforts that so many across the globe have been denied, and they really aren’t ready to give those up right yet. This way they have a way to preserve the status quo and absolve themselves from any guilt that may arise from not going after the real threat.

Recently I saw an anarchist fella attack these with the phrase “so it doesn’t matter if you hurt people’s feelings….” but this same person is also a member of a group that is actively engaging in sexist and racist attacks on Arab nationalists. So I guess either he’s confused, or he only thinks certain people’s feelings matter. Such is the hypocrisy of the first world left. Like liberals, they talk a good talk but when their values are tested, they fail to respond appropriately. Yet they wonder why I don’t take their crap seriously anymore.

I’d take it seriously if they did, but since they seem to not think it’s a big deal to be racist against Arabs, I really could care less about their fake social justice causes. Justice for some is justice for none. You can’t preach about social justice and then fail to respond to an injustice just because it’s your friends who are doing the oppressing. It doesn’t work like that.

If you expect me to take you seriously you gotta be consistent. Social justice without consistency is liberalism.

Why I am an unapologetic third worldist

I’m a political activist, been so for years, since my teenage years to be exact, so I’ve had time to learn a lot about the world. Lately I’ve been really thinking about things… much so that I’ve had to take a sabbatical to process my thoughts and frustrations. I just had to get the hell away from the computer. Being away from internet access and technology has given me ample time to reflect, and I’ve come to a conclusion about some things. These conclusions are not going to be very popular, but they are the truth, and the truth is often ugly.

Now for a little background on myself, I’m in the very unique position in which my political contacts include people in both the first world and the third world. This position has given me a vantage point from which to see both movements from a very intimate point of view. I’ve been able to observe both movements, their habits, their concerns, their positions, goals, etc. From real-life experiences to online encounters, I’ve completely inundated myself in my political activism. I think I’ve made it my entire life, even eschewing regular friendships and relationships in the pursuit of social and economic justice.

What I’ve witnessed over the 18 or so years of my life of political activism has revealed some pretty telling results. Telling and disturbing. Especially since the advent of social media and its use in political activism I’ve noticed some trends on both sides that tell a lot about how priorities are formed from both sides of the sphere, from those in oppressed countries to those in oppressor countries. These trends have drawn me to make one simple yet scathing conclusion: that first world leftism lacks sincerity in its goal of defeating capitalism and imperialism.

In 2011 I decided to reach out to my comrades in the first world. Prior to, my first world political contacts were only limited to comrades in diaspora communities, the remnant communities, and in the wider third world altogether. I saw a genuine yet small movement, not as cohesive as I thought it should be, but still serious and focused on the main objective nonetheless. Mostly intellectuals of modest —very modest—means, from peasants to proletarians to professors, they were welcoming of me and my contributions were valued as much as the next comrade’s was. So I was under the impression that my first world comrades, who had more resources and access to education, would be even more powerful and class-conscious, and my end goal was to help to merge these two movements and in the process increasing class consciousness across the board, and eventually helping to form a united left movement on a global scale. This, sadly, in 2014 I am sad to say has been a massive failure, and as such I am formally giving up on this goal. The third world seems willing to participate, but the first world is so out of touch with real proletarian struggles that it cannot and will not move past dogmatism and distractions to attain the wider goal of defeating the capitalist and imperialist menace.

From basic social justice causes to PC mania, the first world is so distracted with side issues that they have oftentimes sided with liberals and other class collaborationists over that of their own comrades. Not to say that social justice issues lack relevancy, this is certainly not the case, but they should not take priority among leftist groups over dismantling capitalism and imperialism. At the most they should be second priority, something to undertake AFTER capitalism has been dismantled and a socialist system installed (because to be frank capitalism is the source of much of the oppression on the social justice level, they promulgate it in the media to engender hatred amongst the proletariat to keep them divided and distracted). At the least they should be side projects of every leftist. However I’ve noticed this is not the case; instead they’ve become the chief cause amongst first world leftists, to the detriment of the anti-capitalist struggle. I blame the first world’s inability to see past their own borders for this phenomenon, which doesn’t seem to be an issue in the third world, mainly due to the fact that the first world enjoys privilege. Privilege that has been granted to them by the very system they claim to want to defeat! Hence, as such, first world leftists are merely liberals who claim the leftist name. Why do I say this? Well, let’s take some examples to task.

The first example is a small group of leftists attending universities in several Northeastern states. Lately they have made the news for protesting the presence of major imperialist figures in their universities; some have even been prosecuted for their activities. However since this occurrence they have merely paid lip service to the leftist cause, instead choosing to embrace select social justice causes on an international level. This has put them into conflict with several anti-imperialist movements, such as Hezbollah and my organization. They argue for consistency in the communist movement, which anyone worth their political salt knows politics is a game of contradictions. You can never achieve 100% consistency in any movement, you’re always going to have a time when one of your beliefs comes into conflict with another set of beliefs you hold dear. This is due to the diversity of conditions and human nature. There’s always going to be a level of cognitive dissonance every activist has to deal with, which is why any good activist should prioritize so as to minimize the level of dissonance experienced at any given time whilst not engaging in counterrevolutionary activity. I will use myself as an example. This is my model, organized from greatest concern to least concern:


·         Capitalism/imperialism

·         Racism

·         Other social justice issues (homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, feminism, etc.)


Does this mean I support oppression of, say, blacks or Jews or the LGBT community? No. It means that I regard capitalism as a greater threat than I do racism at this very moment. Why would I say this? Because the fact is that for example, a rich Hispanic man enjoys more privileges than a poor white woman, a rich trans lesbian woman enjoys more privileges than a poor black Muslim man. And of course rich white men enjoy the most privileges of all. And I as an Arab also acknowledge that a rich Arab enjoys more privileges than I do. Because this is how the system is structured. In the end, anyone without the monetary means to defend themselves is open to exploitation, regardless of sexual orientation, race, or gender.

And if you’re in one of the many countries currently being exploited by the first world, you’re even worse off.

I say this to point out one of the reasons why the aforementioned Northeastern leftists have claimed in their decision to turn against many anti-imperialist groups operating in the third world. Claiming consistency, they have alienated these groups because they see them as engaging in the oppression of marginalized communities. Also, in the spirit of consistency, they have alienated these groups because many of them are not communist. Hezbollah, a favorite target of these leftists, is a religiously-affiliated organization. Despite Hezbollah being a purely anti-imperialist organization, with no position on economic issues, they refuse to align with them because they are not communists. They also denounce them for taking aid from Iran, which they claim is actively persecuting their LGBT community and using their muscle to influence certain outcomes in the Middle East.

Now while it is true that Hezbollah takes money from Iran, and Iran has a murky track record of human rights, it is completely unacceptable to dismiss Hezbollah’s endeavors on these grounds, as it is completely absurd to attack them for not being communist. The fact remains that the movement has made some very important inroads in the resistance against imperialism, and is responsible for the withdrawal of zionist forces from southern Lebanon. In other words, they are a very valuable organization in the anti-imperialist resistance movement, and the fact that they happen to not be communist is rendered irrelevant by the very fact that they managed to kick out an occupying imperial power from the country they have vowed to defend. In a perfect world, Hezbollah wouldn’t have to exist, let alone take money from Iran. So it could be argued that they exist primarily because of capitalism and imperialism, and take money from Iran because a capitalist system mandates that money is key to survival, so these “communists” are basically denouncing a group for trying to survive in a system they claim to want to defeat, but spend more time condemning said group for surviving than on combating the very system that forces them to take money from dubious regimes to survive! In this aspect, these leftists, in an attempt at appearing consistent, have actually taken a counterrevolutionary position which will do more to help their enemies than it will to enhance the communist cause.

This same group, in an attempt to appear consistent with communism’s anti-nationalist nature, has also denounced Arab nationalist groups, like my organization and the Ba’ath party, as well as Arab nationalism in general, and have actually ended up taking a counterrevolutionary position that has far-reaching consequences for the communist movement.

They even denounced the PFLP as fascist for its use of the Roman salute.

On several occasions they have also used known zionist propaganda claims such as Palestinians being Nazi sympathizers, Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” being best-seller in Palestine, and condemning many Palestinians for supporting Saddam Hussein.

The last one is true, but in the context of the situation, which these insulated prep-school “communists” can never understand, it was completely understandable, as Hussein practically gave them the same opportunities that Iraqi citizens enjoyed – housing, good paying jobs, equal rights status, free education, while in other Arab countries they languished in squalid refugee camps and barely had the right to live. What these little petit-bourgeois posers fail to mention is that after 2003, when the US invaded and “liberated” Iraq, Iraqi Shi’a militias set out massacring hundreds of Palestinians and forcing the rest to leave Iraq as refugees. It was these same Shi’a who were also collaborating with the US to oust Saddam.

Any leftist worth his/her salt knows that there are many degrees of nationalism, but the two main ones are offensive nationalism, which is what one would see in the BNP or the Tea Party-affiliated groups and defensive nationalism, which is what Arab nationalism is, and it includes my organization. Communism only speaks against offensive nationalism. Nationalism that is exclusive, that seeks to preserve the status quo that imposes reactionary doctrines, and engages in oppressive actions. This is offensive nationalism.

Defensive nationalism is inclusive, seeks to liberate from oppression, imposes progressive doctrines, and seeks to destroy the status quo. Communism is compatible with this type of nationalism.

The fact that first world communists cannot distinguish between the types of nationalism is indicative of the bubble they live in, where they apply their own standards onto groups outside the first world, which operate under conditions worlds apart from the conditions in the first world. Nationalism born out of privilege is not the same as nationalism born out of oppression. To assume so is naive at best, counterrevolutionary at worst.

This very group, in its disparaging of Arab nationalism and relentless attacks on Arab nationalists, has exhibited an internalized anti-Arab racism by targeting Arabs fighting against their oppression and by siding with oppressed groups who have collaborated with the imperialists in the oppression of our home regions, such as the Kurds. It should be noted that these same individuals have no problem at all with Kurdish nationalism or Kosovar nationalism. In light of this, I would like to posit that the real underlying reason for their opposition to groups like Hezbollah and Arab nationalist leftist groups is anti-Arab racism, not trying to stay consistent in doctrine. And as we all know in the first world, anti-Arab racism is very pervasive.

This brings me to another unpopular issue. Are all oppressed groups the same? The answer, in short, is no. Why do I say this? It’s simple. I wouldn’t have to take this position if it weren’t for some oppressed groups siding with imperial powers to reach a goal, such as independence or autonomy, which any intelligent activist knows the imperial power would only grant if it furthered their own interests, i.e. could exploit relentlessly to the end. Why do you think the US supports an independent Kosovo but not an independent Palestine? Many zionists support an independent Kurdish nation for the simple purpose of further dividing and weakening Arab lands. Does that mean I support oppressing them? Absolutely not. But they forfeit their oppressed status while they collaborate with oppressors. That’s just how the game is played. Because we are fighting for liberation, and they have sided with our enemies, they have become our enemies. That’s politics, and it’s not pretty. For naive first worlders to assume that this is all unicorns and rainbows is intellectually dishonest to say the least. I apply the same standards to Arabs who have defected to fight with our oppressors, such as the Druze and Maronites. However these groups aren’t monolithic entities, and there are people within them who understand the real enemy, and seek to combat it at every opportunity. These people are our comrades, and we should stand with them.

And just in case one has forgotten, the real enemy is capitalism and imperialism. Regimes of individual countries who seek to maintain their territorial integrity and power by oppressing their minority populations, while despicable, are not even close to the countries who seek to expand their territory by invading these countries for “humanitarian reasons”. Iran may have a shoddy track record of human rights but it pales in comparison to the US and much of Europe.

Now this brings me to a point which many leftists are going to be pretty upset that I am holding them to standards I made up. That’s just the thing. I didn’t. I’m simply going by the default position of leftism, which regards capitalism as the primary threat to human existence, and imperialism being the artery that basically provides life to capitalism, makes it basically the same entity. Sure, imperialism has existed in the past outside of capitalism, but capitalism CANNOT exist without imperialism. Therefore the two are inextricable, and must be fought at all costs. So basically when you adopt a leftist ideology, you vow to combat both of these. Everything else is just a side issue. There is no leftism without opposition to capitalism/imperialism. Leftism without opposition to capitalism/imperialism is called liberalism.

And liberalism is a sworn enemy of true leftists.

The second example is a group of kiddies I like to call “cosplay communists”. These are usually new communist converts who are mostly young, who are completely enamored –often to the point of obsession- with all things Warsaw Pact and the authoritarian regimes of former and current “socialist” countries. These are dogmatic nuts, not exactly a big threat to the communist movement in general, but they have the potential to turn away serious folk from the movement, and most importantly, THEY ARE AN ENTIRELY FIRST WORLD OCCURRENCE. I’ll give a couple examples, these are from social media again, as this is the forum I’ve been most active as of late.

On one occasion I came into direct conflict with these types when I decided to come out and denounce Stalin for his material support for zionism in the years leading up to the Nakba, as well as the fact that he was the pivotal figure in the loss of Palestine in the 1948 war, as it was his guns and help that made a win for the zionists possible. Now most critical thinking folks would have inquired as to the source, and upon it being provided, would have re-assessed their position on Stalin, but these aren’t critical thinkers I was dealing with. I was dealing with dogmatic and inflexible children looking for a god in life, and in true first world fashion, they quietly deleted me and called me an anti-communist. They never asked why I had denounced him, or how I came to that conclusion, they just denounced me as an anti-communist, a pretty serious charge for the simple act of denouncing a leader’s actions. These individuals are the flipside of the aforementioned group in the previous section. These are uber-authoritarians who think that Stalin and his acolytes were infallible, and that when you officially put socialist in your country’s name, you become socialist, even if you practice laissez-faire capitalism, like in the case of China. Despite the clear justifiable reasons I gave for reversing my position on Stalin, they felt I had committed an unforgivable blasphemy and as such had to be excommunicated from the ranks of the communist movement.

On another occasion, I, being ever the iconoclast, decided to make some graphics mocking Hoxha’s obsessive building of bunkers all over Albania during his reign. Now this isn’t right-wing propaganda or lies about him being a tyrant. It was well documented that he went bunker-crazy, and as such doesn’t count in the traditional sense of slander. I posted them, and while a lot of sensible folk who know it’s okay to laugh at famous people’s idiosyncratic behavior from time to time, others openly proclaimed disappointment and deleted me. I think my friends list decreased by about 50 people over those graphics. To tell the truth it hurt my feelings, because it reinforced the notion that a dead leader’s reputation is more important than my friendship. Unlike many people on social media, I actually value my friends’ friendships and view them as having networking and movement-building potential. In other words I actually hope to organize with these people to engage in offline activism as well as on the internet. It took time for me to realize that these individuals were never really serious in their commitment to overthrowing the institutions of oppression. They’re in it clearly for cosmetic benefit.

Another noteworthy example is when I declared my doctrinal shift to the ultra left, and some of my more authoritarian friends could not handle this. It confused and infuriated them, especially upon my continued affiliation with my organization, the PFLP, which I’d never turn my back on. I’d say if I had an irrational attachment, it would be to the PFLP. However I acknowledge that I have this irrational attachment, but it does not prohibit me from criticizing the PFLP’s mistakes and shortcomings, but I digress. Because I shifted ultra-left but maintained my connection to the PFLP, which officially is Marxist-Leninist, they mocked me as politically confused, scoffed at me, and sometimes mocked me. Some of them even proceeded to act like they knew more about the PFLP and attempted to “educate” me in my own organization’s doctrine, in traditional first-world fashion.

I would like to take this moment to note that the PFLP has a diversity of leftists among its membership, ranging from the ultra-authoritarian to the anarchist. The PFLP lives up to its name “popular” front. It’s also a third world revolutionary organization, and doesn’t engage in petty doctrinal squabbles about what a perfect communist is. It actually engages the real enemy.

Later I was mocked by one of my white male comrades when I called myself “the Palestinian Durruti”, referring to my love of confronting and destroying fascism wherever it manifests itself. He surmised that this apparently is what happens when “all the good PFLP cadres” are imprisoned, implying that I’m the refuse pile of the PFLP and indirectly insinuating that the PFLP is nothing more than an ineffectual shell of its former self, which would be completely taken as insult by the PFLP, as they value the contributions of all their members, and don’t tolerate people mocking them over minor political differences.

But he is a first world leftist kid, who doesn’t understand that there are people who are actually facing things like oppression and don’t have time to argue about whether or not Durruti was a genuine leftist or not.

But the best one has got to be when this same person befriended one of my comrades, and proceeded to badmouth me behind my back and told him, “Oh I finally get to meet a real PFLP member”. Little did he know that I am a real PFLP member, and that my very dear comrade would call me from almost 5,000 miles away to disclose his little exchange to me with laughter and irritation. In fact he was so turned off by this white kid’s obvious attempt-at-flattery-by-insulting-another-comrade that he asked me whether this guy was really a communist or not. He asked if he should trust this guy. Unlike that guy, I told my PFLP comrade the guy means well.

So in short, first world kid tried to pull a subversive move and was regarded with suspicion in return, because in the PFLP, they don’t play these get back games. We have these things called manners, and we only call out moles and criminals amongst our ranks, and even then we only do it if we have ironclad evidence of their treachery. And treachery doesn’t include open denunciation of Stalin’s zionist sympathies and a doctrinal transition to ultra-leftism.

There’s a popular term to refer to many of these individuals, it’s called “First-Day Communist Kid”, or FDCK. However since many of the people using this term against others are also themselves engaging in FDCK-type behavior, I coined the term “cosplay communist” which I feel better describes their unique personality, as they believe a series of Soviet-themed stereotypes and cults-of-personality is what communism is about. It’s kind of racist if you think about it. A bunch of white kids thinking being communist = acting Russian is no different than the zionists I come across day in and day out that claim Arab culture = Islam.

Now I move on to another, more dangerous group of first world leftists who have gone PC crazy. Most of these I’ve met are Americans and Brits, no specific age group, most of them are past college age. But they all have one thing in common - they’re the Speech Police who think some pissed-off comrade calling a zionist a “retard” is more offensive than the recipient’s zionist beliefs. In a more specific case, a comrade’s presumed condescension is more offensive than the recipient’s apologetics for genocide and ethnic cleansing. These leftists I put squarely in the liberal category, as I have witnessed on several instances where they have taken the side of actual reactionaries over that of their comrades, just because the comrade got a little angry and had a slip of the tongue. Two in particular are notorious for this, one being a British anarchist and the other a Stalinist woman living in the USA. I guess in the first world when your belly is full and all your needs are met because you live with Mom, bad words are a much bigger threat than capitalism. This PC phenomenon isn’t so popular amongst third world leftists as there are bigger concerns they are preoccupied with, such as not getting droned to death while grazing their family’s flocks or having to leave to work 5 hours earlier than normal just to get through checkpoints. Under those circumstances, words don’t mean much. This is not to say that there aren’t actual oppressive qualities to words, but getting all bent out of shape over a word is just going to alienate people who really want to contribute, and it takes away from oppressive actions which are the real threat. I worry a whole lot less about the kid who calls me a bitch or slut over the internet than I do about being able to make ends meet and getting my bills paid this month. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this is watching so-called “leftists” take the side of reactionaries over a couple angry words uttered by a comrade -a comrade of color who was being attacked by the reactionaries- and then join the reactionaries in a general attack on said comrade of color, then being shut out and mocked by them. Perhaps this is why most people either do one of two things when the first world left is brought up — they either laugh or they regard them as a threat to their liberties. Most of the time it’s the former, because let’s face it….the first world left will never be a threat to anything but leftism itself.

Another matter I’d like to touch upon before concluding is how I’ve noticed a disturbing trend among first world leftists is how they are starting to pull away from the Palestine issue in alarming numbers. I say “alarming numbers” because there are….like…..a few thousand leftists in the first world and many already identify as zionist, and many more are starting to sour on the Palestine solidarity issue for various reasons. I’ve noticed that among them, there’s two excuses that seem to be the most utilized. One is the fact that many think that Palestine is overplayed and that it is eclipsing other struggles in the world and siphoning off focus from them, and the other is the presence of Judeophobes in the Palestine solidarity movement, the latter of which I’ll go into detail over.

First, the ridiculous notion that Palestine solidarity is drawing attention away from other injustices. It’s simply not true. It is true that Palestine is the most widely known, but that’s only because we Palestinians made sure that it got that way. It wasn’t always that way. Prior to 1967, people neither knew nor cared about our plight which had persisted since 1947. My organization is to credit for much of that. I’m somewhat ashamed and not ashamed to say the way we got our issue on the map was through armed struggle -aircraft hijackings in the beginning-, literally having to drag pasty first worlders into the conflict just so people would notice. We wouldn’t have even had to do that had the first world stayed the hell over in their territories and not shipped half their marginalized population over into our region for us to deal with. But the first world had a reason for doing that. They didn’t want the Arab nationalists uniting the Arab world because then they’d have a new superpower on the block. So the first world got to kill two birds with one stone. They got to get rid of their Jews which they regarded as troublesome and they threw a monkey wrench into our unity movement. A movement which I might add was secular, and if allowed to flourish, may have curbed the tide of Islamism sweeping the Middle East today. But then again the first world had a hand to play in the advent of Islamism so it’s really hard to say whether or not it would have even been a problem had the first world minded its own damn business. Yet again another indicator of the threat level of capitalism and imperialism.

Not to mention that Palestinians comprise the largest refugee population in the world, and that we’ve been stateless for almost 70 years. I think even if we were overplaying it a bit, we deserve it as the world has sat and let this issue fester for the better half of a century.

Now the second reason is based in a load of truth, and it’s a source of concern for even Palestinians themselves.


I won’t use the term “anti-Semitism” for an obvious reason. My people are Semites too. It’s inaccurate and it was coined by a German Jew-hater. It’s time it be phased out, or at the least, repurposed in meaning as hatred of all Semites. But anyway I digress.

It is true that there are a lot of Jew-haters who have claimed solidarity with Palestine. However, the vast majority are first worlders, which adds a whole level of irony to the whole thing. First world communists souring on a social justice issue because of the actions of other first worlders. I’d laugh if it weren’t so goddamned sad on both levels. However what these same leftists aren’t pointing out is that there are many Palestinians, myself included, that do not accept these Jew haters’ overtures of solidarity and actually let them know they aren’t welcome. Others are hard-up for support and will welcome anyone to help them achieve their goal of getting justice. It’s also a misunderstanding as many Palestinians interpret these folks’ ulterior motives as genuine solidarity. So basically these predatory Jew haters are racist on two levels — they not only hate Jews but they are exploiting the cultural differences of Palestinians for their own goals, which is to destroy Jews, and rid the first world of their troublesome Arab presence as well. So one could say they are anti-Semites in the truest sense. After all, once the Jews were gone, they wouldn’t hesitate to turn on Arabs if their interests deemed it beneficial. But to discount the movement because of these fringe racists is a completely selfish and reactionary move. It’s basically saying that one is okay with certain types of oppression, which is, again, a liberal mindset. A liberal mindset that I believe is enabled and enhanced by an internalized anti-Arab racism, latent but still dangerous. Sad to say, but a LOT of first world leftists possess internalized latent anti-Arab racism. They probably possess other types of racism too, but being an Arab I can only attest to the presence of the anti-Arab racism.

This is why it is with great regret that I must conclude that the overwhelming bulk of first world leftists are not actually leftists but liberals, and that the first world will never have a true leftist revolution in its current state, as sadly the first world acknowledges it has a position of privilege and its people enjoy that privilege too much to ever give it up, which is why so many first world leftists speak against capitalism but favor causes that don’t directly threaten capitalism, because they know they have it good, and they don’t want to lose that. I also believe the first world left looks down on the third world left for actually engaging in and spreading revolutionary struggle. The third world movements threaten first world privilege, which is why there’s been such a backlash against what is termed “third worldism” in first world left circles. Basically the third world is now acknowledging the irrelevancy of the first world, as well as the threat its so-called “leftists” pose to the actual leftist movement.  The first world is so angry at having been scoffed at that they have decided to term actual revolutionary struggle “third worldism” in an attempt to recoup some relevancy in the left sphere of politics. I am sorry to say that the first world lost relevancy in that sphere a long time ago. The last time the left in the first world had any relevancy was in the Depression era. Back when people were really class-conscious because most were starving to death. The third world did not steal the first world left’s spotlight, the first world left forfeited it  when it became an ineffectual fringe movement and started engaging in class collaborationism, and later, petty social justice quibbles such as PC mania. Now they have settled into a comfortable irrelevancy, fighting amongst themselves, trying to vie for the title of “World’s Best Leftist”, worshipping dead foreign leaders, as well as live ones, and obsessing over Soviet nostalgia. When they do get active, they embrace the least threatening causes to capitalistic hegemony, terming it “intersectionalism” or “intersectionality”, whilst not even bothering to confront the very beast their doctrine was created to defeat. Even on their intersectional causes they are hypocritical. Many a leftist I have witnessed launch a sexist or racist tirade against me whilst others sat by and let them do so. They are but a mockery of the movement, and the third world knows it. There’s not a rise in “third worldism”, just a devolution and eventual dissipation of the first world left. I will go so far to say that the term “third worldism” and the backlash against it is yet again another first world reaction to its privilege being threatened. I am not denying that first world proletarians are being exploited, I am not denying that there are horribly impoverished people residing in the first world, I know the opposite is true because I am one myself. However what I am saying is that the so-called “champions” of these exploited and impoverished first worlders are nothing more than ineffectual hypocrites taking up a revolutionary label solely for fashion or self-enrichment purposes. Because when push comes to shove, first worlders always side with their own over actual oppressed masses. I have witnessed it one time too many to believe this is the exception and not the rule. If you can’t own means of production and extract profits whilst calling yourself a communist, then you can’t hang out at Starbucks and call yourself a communist. Don’t shoot the messenger for delivering the message. It’s written in the message itself.

You can call me a “third worldist” all you like. I’ll wear that as a badge of honor. It’s time you stopped complaining and either embrace irrelevance and accept your role as court jesters of the political arena or get up and effect real change in your exploitative hellholes. Until then, I can’t and I won’t take the first world “left” seriously. Ever.

Today marks the 6th anniversary of the death of a great man. George Habash, founder of the PFLP, contributed largely to today’s Palestinian struggle and was a key figure of refocusing world attention on the war crimes committed against my people. Because of him, we have a chance at getting our homeland back, and reuniting the diaspora with the remnant in one free and undivided Palestine. To this day, Habash remains an inspiration to many across the world, myself included. I hope to follow in his footsteps and make my own contribution to the liberation of my homeland. I also hope to fulfill his wish that not another generation will die in exile.

RIP George Habash. We will forever love you.

We make Tumblr themes