Libertarian Socialist or Anarcho-Communist? Depends on Who’s Asking.

When a Democrat asks about my politics, I tell them I’m a Libertarian Socialist. It sounds just palatable enough to pass through their MSNBC filter. You get the “socialist” part—Bernie vibes, maybe some Chomsky seasoning—and “libertarian” makes it sound like I still believe in rights or property or some other adult word they can handle.

But when a Republican asks? I’m an Anarcho-Communist.

No soft edges. No training wheels. I want them to picture Molotovs, mutual aid, and the local Starbucks being reclaimed as a community kitchen. I want them to flinch like they just heard “abolish landlords” whispered behind their 401(k).

The thing is, it’s all the same to me. Libertarian socialism, anarcho-communism—both oppose capitalism, hierarchy, and the state. The labels are just different levels of shock therapy depending on who’s in front of me.

I’m not here to fit into anyone’s Overton window. I’m here to kick the damn thing open.

Democrats still think change comes from voting a little harder. Republicans think billionaires are their friends. I don’t have the patience to explain mutual aid to someone clutching a Pelosi bobblehead, or the difference between anarchism and chaos to a guy with a Punisher sticker on his pickup.

So I adjust the mask, not to deceive, but to translate. Because if you say “anarcho-communism” to a liberal, they hear “chaotic Stalinist death cult.” And if you say “libertarian socialist” to a conservative, they hear “soy boy who hates America.

I just believe no one should rule and no one should starve.

I want a world built on cooperation, not coercion. A world where communities thrive without CEOs, landlords, or billionaires buying bunkers while the world burns.

If that sounds extreme, maybe the problem isn’t the label. Maybe the problem is the system that makes those ideas sound extreme in the first place.

“One Big Beautiful Boot”–Trump’s Bill is Just Capitalism with its Mask Off

While liberals are pearl-clutching and conservatives are clapping like trained seals, the U.S. state just reminded us — again — that it only exists to protect capital and crush the poor.

Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” just passed. A 1,000 page orgy of tax cuts for the rich, surveillance-state expansion, environmental vandalism, and open war on the working class. They’re not even pretending anymore. The boot isn’t just stomping, it’s doing it with patriotic fireworks and a press release.

What’s in this monstrosity?

Permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, including “relief” on tips and gig work. Translation: handouts for bosses, crumbs for precarious workers.
Billions for border walls, ICE, and CBP. The U.S. is investing in a future where desperate people are hunted like animals.
Slashing Medicaid and food stamps, forcing people to work to death for scraps while the rich lounge in yachts subsidized by tax breaks.
Torpedoing climate policy. Clean energy incentives? Gone. Fossil fuel subsidies? Pumped full of cash.
Newborn “MAGA savings accounts” because nothing says “freedom” like indoctrinating infants into capital accumulation from day one.

They even raised the debt ceiling by $5 trillion so they could do it all without blinking. No panic over the deficit now because the spending serves power.

This bill is not “big” or “beautiful.” It’s discipline — state discipline in service of capital. It rewards extraction, exploitation, and domination. It punishes care, solidarity, and survival. It doesn’t just hurt the poor, it’s designed to remind them who’s in charge.

Liberals will write op-eds about how “deeply concerning” it is. Conservatives will call it a “victory for the American worker.” But those of us truly on the left know: both parties serve the same machine. One smiles while tightening the chains, the other spits in your face as it does. The illusion of reform is dead.

The state cannot be reformed. You don’t pass 1,000 pages of fascist legislation and pretend this system can be voted out of tyranny. This is why we fight for abolition, not revision. No tweaks. No “better Democrats.” No savior presidents. Burn the whole damn thing down.

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” -Emma Goldman (and probably your gut too.)

So what do we do now?

We organize. Not to win elections, but to build dual power, sabotage capitalist logistics, defend our communities, and imagine a world without the state and without billionaires.

We do mutual aid, we educate, we disrupt. We make it ungovernable.

Because if this is what law looks like then we owe it nothing but our resistance.

No masters. No “beautiful bills.” Just solidarity, sabotage, and the end of all empires.

The Last One to Leave, Please Turn Off the Stars

The end began on a Tuesday, not with a bang, but a corporate memo. Subject line:

“Due to budgetary constraints, existence will be discontinued effective immediately.”

At first, no one noticed. Birds kept chirping. Influencers kept influencing. A man in Tallahassee still refused to return his library books.

Then came the second memo.

“This is not a drill. Earth is being decommissioned. Please gather all meaningful memories into a single shoebox. Label it clearly. Return to HR.”

No one knew where HR was, but rumors spread it was located inside a vending machine behind the moon. The vending machine offered two items:

1. A bag of Dust of What Could Have Been

2. The Answer (temporarily out of stock)

A philosopher named Dr. Linda Spoon attempted to rally humanity. She declared: “Omnicide is just suicide with a better view.” She received a standing ovation, then spontaneously combusted from the irony.

The whales voted to stay neutral.

The bees unionized and demanded severance pollen.

The cockroaches opened a jazz club called “The Fallout Lounge.”

Meanwhile, governments responded the only way they knew how: with committees. The United Nations formed the Final Task Force on All That Is (and Isn’t). Their final report read:

“We deeply regret to inform you that everything was a clerical error.”

Earth filed an appeal. It was denied on the grounds of insufficient vibes.

In a bunker beneath Antarctica, a man named Derek attempted to reboot existence using an old Nintendo console and a paperclip. He succeeded, but only in resurrecting Disco.

The skies filled with mirrored balls and Donna Summer.

The oceans turned into soda.

The dolphins began speaking in limericks.

In space, the Galactic Oversight Council convened.

“Who authorized this?”

“I thought you did.”

“No, I outsourced it to a freelance algorithm.”

“Oh god.”

“No, just Algorithm-7. God was laid off last quarter.”

They voted to cancel the universe’s trial period. Turns out, no one had upgraded to Premium.

As atoms began untangling like poorly made spaghetti, one child—unbothered—drew a smiley face in the dirt. The dirt began humming. The humming confused the laws of physics.

The universe paused.

Time asked Space, “Are we… still doing this?”

Space shrugged. “I don’t know, man. I was just here for the free gravity.”

And just before the final pixel flickered out, someone whispered:

“Maybe this was a screensaver.”

Then everything crashed to desktop.

Why Presidents Shouldn’t Pick Supreme Court Justices

Given the news about the Supreme Court’s rulings on all sorts of bullshit Trump executive orders, I felt I had to write my thoughts on it, and my thoughts are as follows:

There’s something deeply broken in the way we appoint Supreme Court justices in the United States.

Nine unelected individuals serve for life, with the power to decide the most intimate and far-reaching issues in our society: abortion, voting rights, corporate power, gun laws, and more. And how do they get that power? They’re handpicked by whichever president happens to be in office when a seat opens up. It’s a political jackpot, not a principled process.

That alone should make us question the system.

We’re told this is how democracy works: the president wins an election and earns the right to shape the future of the court. But let’s be real. Presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote. The Senate–the body responsible for confirming nominees–can represent a minority of the country and still impose a majority decision. Lifetime appointments ensure that some justices rule for decades after the society that empowered them has changed entirely.

This is not democracy. It’s oligarchy in robes.

When presidents nominate justices, it’s not about qualifications. It’s about ideology. It’s about legacy. It’s about stacking the court with people who’ll interpret the law in ways that protect power. Every nomination turns into a televised culture war circus. Nominees dodge basic questions with rehearsed non-answers. Senators posture for the cameras. And the American public is left with yet another justice who serves power instead of people.

I have a better way: Independent Appointments

We need to take this power out of the president’s hands. Let’s create a nonpartisan judicial appointment commission, an independent body tasked with selecting justices based on legal expertise, ethical conduct, and a commitment to upholding the Constitution as a living, evolving document.

This commission could include former judges, constitutional scholars, and representatives from a diverse range of backgrounds, not politicians, not donors, and not partisan hacks. Their job wouldn’t be to pick someone “from the left” or “from the right.” It would be to ensure the court serves justice, not ideology.

It works in other countries. It can work here.

Trust in the Supreme Court is at historic lows and for good reason. When people see a court stacked by partisan deals and rammed-through nominations, they stop believing it represents them. And when people lose faith in institutions, the whole system becomes unstable.

We don’t have to accept this.

We can demand a new way, one where the court reflects the people it serves, not the politicians who manipulate it.

It starts by taking the gavel out of the president’s hand.

On Palestine, Israel, and the Rotten Core of Empire

I’m not going to dance around it: I stand with Palestine. Not out of trendiness, not because it’s the “left” thing to do, but because I believe in justice, liberation, and the end of colonial domination wherever it shows up, however it dresses itself. And in this case, it’s wearing the face of a U.S.-backed apartheid state.

Let’s get this out of the way: critiquing the Israeli government is not antisemitism. That’s a deflection tactic used to shut down valid criticism of a violent, militarized system of occupation. If you’re more outraged by someone saying “Free Palestine” than by the bombing of schools, hospitals, and entire apartment blocks, you might want to take a long, hard look at your moral compass—and maybe replace the batteries.

This isn’t a “both sides” issue. That framing is a cop-out. One side is occupying. One side is being occupied. One side has nuclear weapons, tanks, and billions in U.S. funding. The other side has rocks, desperation, and a memory of their homeland before the bulldozers came.This isn’t ancient history. This is now. This is 2025. This is settler-colonialism on full display.

And if you think this has nothing to do with you—if you’re watching from your couch in the U.S. thinking this is just another faraway tragedy—think again. Your tax dollars are funding this. Your government sends weapons, signs off on the bloodshed, and spins the PR machine to paint genocide as “self-defense.”

We’ve been trained to accept empire as normal. Palestine reminds us what happens when people refuse to roll over for it. That’s why they’re demonized. That’s why their resistance is painted as terrorism while the bombs dropped on their homes are called “precision strikes.” Orwell would be exhausted.

Do I condemn violence? I condemn occupation. I condemn systems that force people into cages and then act surprised when they fight back. I condemn pretending that peace can be brokered while one side is holding all the cards and the other is buried under rubble.

The solution isn’t another round of U.N. scolding or a new “peace plan” written by war profiteers. The solution is decolonization. Land back. End the siege. Dismantle apartheid. Let Palestinians live, breathe, return.

Until then, no justice, no peace.

And if that makes you uncomfortable, good. It should.

Does Communism Kill Individuality?

Or Is That Just Capitalist Propaganda?

You’ve probably heard it before: “Communism doesn’t breed individuals.” It’s a go-to jab for anyone trying to defend capitalism as the champion of freedom, creativity, and self-expression.

But let’s stop and ask: Is that actually true? Or is it just one of those lazy talking points that people repeat without thinking?

The Claim:

Critics of communism love to say it crushes individualism. They’ll tell you it turns everyone into drones, serving the collective and losing all sense of self. No more art. No more weirdos. Just gray buildings and gray people, all saying the same thing in perfect unison.

Scary, right?

The Reality:

1. Not All Communism Is Stalin in a Bad Mood

There’s no single “communism.” What people usually mean is authoritarian state socialism—like Stalinism. But that’s not the whole story.

There’s also:

Libertarian socialism, which emphasizes radical freedom through collective liberation.

Anarcho-communism, which fights both capitalism and the state.

Council communism, where power is decentralized and workers run everything directly.

Not exactly hive mind territory.

2. Marx Wasn’t Anti-Individual

Marx’s whole project was about freeing people from wage slavery and letting them develop into full human beings. He didn’t hate individuality—he hated a system that forced you to sell your life by the hour just to survive.

“In communist society… the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” – Karl Marx

That doesn’t sound like someone who wants to erase you. It sounds like someone who wants you to have time to actually be you.

3. Capitalism Doesn’t “Breed Individuals” Either

Let’s be real. Under capitalism, your so-called “individuality” often boils down to which brand you consume or how well you perform on social media. You’re free to express yourself—as long as it sells. You can “be yourself,” but only if you can afford the entry fee.

Capitalism sells individuality the way fast food sells happiness: brightly packaged, deeply hollow.

4. Socialist Cultures Produced a Lot of “Individuals”

Ever heard of Dostoevsky? Eisenstein? Mayakovsky? Hell, even the Red Army Choir slaps. The USSR may have been authoritarian, but it wasn’t artistically sterile. And outside of the USSR, there were experiments like anarchist Catalonia and Yugoslavia that explicitly encouraged creativity and local autonomy.

Individuality didn’t die—it evolved.

Does authoritarian communism sometimes suppress individuality? Yes.

Does capitalism do the same, just with better marketing? Also yes.

The truth is: The system that actually supports individuality is the one that liberates you from economic coercion. That might be socialism. That might be anarchism. But it sure as hell isn’t wage slavery in a hoodie.

So next time someone says “Communism kills individuality,” ask them:

Does your job let you be yourself? Or just sell a version of yourself that keeps the shareholders happy?

J.D. Vance’s Ego Just Got a Tourist Detained

In a story that sounds like it was ripped from The Onion but was sadly reported by actual newspapers, Vice President JD Vance has found a new way to embarrass America on the world stage: by getting a Norwegian tourist detained, harassed, and ultimately denied entry into the United States … over a meme.

Yes, a meme.

According to Nordlys, a Norwegian news outlet, traveler Mads Mikkelsen (no, not the actor) flew into Newar Liberty International Airport on a trip to visit friends in New York City, continue on to Austin, Texas, and finally meet up with his mother to tour the U.S. national parks. That is, until he was flagged by customs agents — not for any actual crime, but because his phone contained a funny picture of J.D. Vance.

Mikkelsen says he was pulled aside by U.S. border officials, stripped of his shoes, backpack, and phone, and interrogated in a room surrounded by armed guards. Officials grilled him on drug trafficking, terrorism, and right-wing extremism — all without the slightest indication that he was involved in any of it.

He described the ordeal as “an abuse of power and harassment,” saying, “I had traveled for twelve hours, slept poorly, and was physically and mentally completely exhausted even before they started questioning.”

After being threatened with prison time or a $5,000 fine unless he unlocked his phone — again, over nothing — Mikkelsen complied. That’s when officials discovered a meme of Vice President Vance, in which Vance’s face is grotesquely bloated and distorted for comedic effect. The meme went viral after Vance’s infamous Oval Office tantrum during a meeting with Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where Vance berated Zelensky in a petulant, scolding tone that made even some Republicans cringe.

Apparently, the meme touched a nerve.

The agents also found a photo of Mikkelsen holding a homemade wooden pipe. That, too, became evidence — not of wrongdoing, but of the apparent thoughtcrime of making MAGA look bad. “Both pictures had automatically saved to my camera roll from a chat app,” Mikkelsen explained. “I really didn’t think these innocent pictures would stop me from entering the country.”

But stop him they did. Officials fingerprinted him, took blood samples, and tossed him into a holding cell. “It felt like I was a terrorist suspect,” he said. “I tried to pull myself together several times, but in the end, I just wanted to go home again.”

He never made it out of the airport. He was deported.

Welcome to the New America: Where memes are a national security threat.

This is authoritarian behavior, full stop. This is how you treat people in a surveillance state. And this isn’t some isolated case — it’s part of a disturbing pattern where the MAGA regime lashes out at criticism, jokes, or even art, as if the First Amendment is an asterisk next to it now.

It’s the kind of behavior that makes America look paranoid, insecure, and hostile, not just to its own citizens, but to the rest of the world. Why would tourists want to come here if their phones are going to be searched for satire?

Instead of promoting freedom, MAGA is exporting fear. Instead of welcoming visitors, they’re detaining them over memes. And instead of leading the world, we’re becoming a punchline.

If you’re wondering why the American tourism industry is struggling, this is it. If you’re wondering why foreign allies are side-eyeing us, this is it. And if you’re wondering whether the MAGA movement is thin-skinned, authoritarian, and completely detached from reality then this is definitely it.

J.D. Vance didn’t just get roasted in a meme. He got humiliated on the global stage, and instead of laughing it off like a normal person, his cronies treated a tourist like a threat.

America isn’t great when it’s scared of jokes.

Trump Doesn’t Hire the Best People–He Hires the Most Obedient

Donald Trump ran for president on the promise that he’d hire “the best people.” What we got instead was a revolving door of sycophants, grifters, and opportunists–many of whom ended up resigning in disgrace, flipping on him in investigations, or publicly admitting they were just along for the ride. The pattern is clear: Trump doesn’t value confidence. He values loyalty. Un-questioning, cult-like loyalty.

It’s not about skills or expertise. It’s about saying “yes sir” even when the ship is sinking.

Need proof? Let’s take a tour.

Rex Tillerson: Trump’s first Secretary of State and former ExxonMobil CEO, was reportedly called a “moron” by Trump–and left after constant clashes.

John Bolton: former National Security Advisor, said Trump didn’t even know Finland wasn’t part of Russia.

William Barr: Trump’s second Attorney General, admitted post-2020 election that Trump’s fraud cases were baseless–after enabling them just long enough to keep his job.

By the end of his first term, Trump had burned through most of the people who had any shred of integrity or independence. His cabinet and advisors had been turned over so many times, it started to look like speed dating at a Banana Republic junta.

But instead of learning from that chaos, Trump doubled down.

After losing the 2020 election — and refusing to accept it — Trump filled his inner circle with election deniers, legal cranks, and sycophants willing to do or say anything to stay in his good graces. The “best people” were long gone. What remained were yes-men, power-chasers, and people whose careers had nowhere to go except deeper into Trumpworld.

Let’s look at a few:

Jeffrey Clark: A low-level DOJ lawyer Trump tried to install as Acting Attorney General because Clark was willing to push election fraud claims the rest of the DOJ refused to endorse.

Rudy Giuliani: Once “America’s mayor,” reduced to leaking hair dye while babbling about dead Venezuelan dictators rigging voting machines.

Sidney Powel: One who promised to “release the Kraken” and ended up releasing nothing but lawsuits that courts laughed out of the room.

Peter Navarro: Pitched “Green Bay Sweep” plan to overturn the election — and then got indicted.

Kash Patel and Johnny McEntee: Young loyalists with almost no relevant experience, given increasing power simply for saying “yes” to Trump and echoing his grievances.

Pete Hegseth: A Fox News talking head and professional culture warrior. Someone who wasn’t hired because he had the chops to manage massive bureaucracies or make strategic decisions, but because he praised Trump on TV and fed him exactly what he wanted to hear.

Linda McMahon: Someone who got a spot as one of Trump’s picks because she and her husband donated $6 million to a pro-Trump super PAC

This is what a Trump administration looks like: cable news hosts, podcasters, wrestling executives, conspiracy peddlers, and cash donors pretending to be a government. Not a cabinet — a fan club. Not a team of rivals — a team of sycophants

Trump’s not building a cabinet, he’s casting a reboot of The Apprentice: White House Edition. Only this time, instead of “You’re fired,” it’s the Constitution getting voted off the island.

The Existentially Moist Wish of Darlene Crumb

A friend of mine asked me to write a sequel to my last short story involving the genie. This is what I could come up with. I hope she enjoys it…

—

Darlene Crumb was a woman haunted by one, unrelenting truth: she was always a little bit damp. Not soaking wet. Not sweaty. Just perpetually… moist. Elbows. Neck. Behind the knees. The mystery persisted across climates, shampoos, and three failed marriages.

One Tuesday—because all the strangest things happen on Tuesdays—she wandered into the back of a defunct Payless Shoes, looking for nothing and finding everything.

There, underneath a pile of expired insoles and dusty Crocs, sat an antique humidifier. She plugged it in. It sparked. The fire alarm laughed. And then, in a cloud of grapefruit LaCroix mist, emerged the same genie. Hawaiian shirt. Aviators. Pursed lips of someone who had once dated an energy healer named “Blade.”

“You’ve summoned me,” he said. “One wish. No bartering. No do-overs. No wishing for more wishes unless you’re into recursive paradoxes.”

Darlene blinked, the condensation on her eyelashes catching the light like tragic disco balls.

“I want,” she said slowly, “to finally understand the universe. I want the truth. All of it.”

The genie’s brow did a little dance. “That’s the big one. Cosmic enlightenment. You sure?”

“Positive. I’ve been wet for 39 years and I think it’s related to everything.”

With a shrug and a snip-snap, the genie granted the wish.

Instantly, Darlene’s brain exploded—not physically, but conceptually. Her eyes dilated into portals of pure comprehension. She saw time as a Möbius strip braided into a cat’s cradle. She understood dark matter, gravity, and why bread always lands butter-side down.

She gasped.

“It’s all soup.”

Everything. Matter. Meaning. Morality. Relationships. Socks. Soup.

Existence was just soup, swirling in infinite flavors, none of them consistent, all of them burning the roof of your mouth if you tried too hard to enjoy them.

She wept.

Then laughed.

Then threw up alphabet pasta that spelled out THE VOID WAVES BACK.

For the next three weeks, Darlene became a guru. She wore bathrobes in public and answered all questions with the phrase, “Only the broth knows.” She gained a cult following among TikTok astrologers and people who read horoscopes ironically.

But her enlightenment began to curdle.

She couldn’t enjoy anything anymore. Romance? Soup. Art? Soup. Her favorite podcast? Two Blokes Talk Soup, suddenly too literal. She once screamed for 14 minutes in a Whole Foods because someone asked if she wanted bone broth.

Her moistness increased. Because, of course, what is soup, if not the ultimate damp?

Desperate, she found the genie again, this time running a hemp-scented vape bar called “Vaporwave Vespers.”

“You gave me enlightenment!” she hissed, dripping all over the floor. “Take it back!”

The genie looked up from his crossword. “‘Cosmic reversal’ isn’t in the contract. One wish per customer. Union rules.”

“But I’m unraveling!”

“You asked for the truth,” he said, handing her a complimentary kale-flavored vape pen. “Turns out the truth is kind of a wet noodle.”

Darlene now wanders the world wrapped in towels, whispering cryptic soup-based riddles to strangers in parking lots. Her cult disbanded after she declared celery “the key to death.” She exists beyond joy, beyond suffering, beyond dryness.

She knows the secrets of the universe.

And she deeply, deeply regrets it.

Moral? Never ask for everything. Especially from a genie who smells faintly of citrus and has strong opinions about ska music.

Trump’s Iran War Talk Is Bush’s Iraq Invasion All Over Again

Donald Trump is at it again—saber-rattling about going to war with Iran. In recent speeches, he’s said things like, “We’re gonna have to hit Iran hard” and warned that Iran is “begging” for war. It’s the kind of talk that grabs headlines, fires up his base, and echoes the kind of imperial chest-beating that led us into Iraq in 2003.

If this feels familiar, it’s because we’ve seen this movie before. Trump is playing the same tired role George W. Bush did: the tough-talking cowboy standing up to the “axis of evil,” ready to bomb another country under the banner of “freedom” and “security.” But behind the performance lies the same playbook of distraction, destruction, and empire.

In the early 2000s, the Bush administration spent months building a case for invading Iraq—claiming Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, was connected to terrorism, and posed an existential threat to the U.S. None of it held up. But it didn’t matter. The invasion went forward, and the Middle East has been on fire ever since.

Now, with Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza drawing worldwide condemnation, the U.S. political class is eager to shift the narrative. And Iran—a longtime enemy and convenient scapegoat—is the perfect target. Trump’s recent comments aren’t just random bluster; they’re part of a larger strategy to re-center American power and to justify further U.S. entanglement in the region.

Bush lied about WMDs. Trump talks about Iranian “proxies.” Same trick, different jargon.

Yes, Iran supports armed groups in the region—so do we. The U.S. backs Israel’s military campaign with billions of dollars and weapons. Calling Iran the aggressor while ignoring our own role is imperial hypocrisy at its finest.

Just like Bush made Saddam into a caricature of evil to justify regime change, Trump is doing the same with Iran’s leadership. He paints them as irrational monsters, despite the fact that most of their actions have been responses to U.S. sanctions, assassinations, and Israeli airstrikes.

When presidents talk war, it’s rarely about what they say it is. For Bush, Iraq was about oil, military contracts, and reshaping the Middle East in America’s image. For Trump, war talk with Iran is a distraction from his legal problems, a way to appear “tough”, and a means of keeping the U.S. permanently tied to Israel’s military agenda.

Just like in 2003, the corporate media amplifies the danger without challenging the narrative. And just like then, liberals wring their hands but refuse to name the deeper problem: American imperialism and its bipartisan addiction to war.

Let’s not forget what war with Iran would mean. Iran isn’t Iraq. It’s bigger, more organized, and has powerful allies. A war would be catastrophic—not just for Iranians, but for the entire region. It would mean more dead civilians, more displaced families, more anti-American hatred, and another generation traumatized by endless war.

We’ve already seen what U.S. regime-change efforts do: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan. Each time, we’re told it’ll be quick, clean, and necessary. Each time, it ends in chaos.

Trump’s talk about war with Iran isn’t just dangerous—it’s a rerun of a bloody imperialist strategy that never ended. It’s Bush in 4K, with the same script and higher stakes.

If we want peace, we have to reject this cycle. That means opposing war no matter who’s selling it—Trump, Biden, or anyone else. And it means finally confronting the empire that keeps dragging us—and the world—into ruin.