The "Tankie" Smear: A Confession of Imperialist Bloodlust

The Pejorative That Exposes the User, Not the Target

There exists a peculiar breed of political creature in our contemporary discourse—the self-styled "anti-authoritarian" who deploys the term "tankie" with the reflexive ease of a fascist hurling racial epithets. This individual, invariably a product of Western imperial privilege, believes themselves morally superior for having weaponized a slur against those who dare suggest that perhaps—just perhaps—the United States might not be the global beacon of democracy it pretends to be.

Let us examine the historical record, shall we? The accompanying document reads like a confession extracted from a war criminal. It is a litany of blood, conquest, and the systematic destruction of sovereign nations that dared to exist outside the American orbit. From the Barbary Wars to the present day, the United States has conducted over 70 military interventions—an average of once every three years since its founding. This is not "defense." This is not "spreading democracy." This is imperialism in its purest, most unvarnished form.

The "tankie" accuser will dismiss this history with a wave of their hand. "What about Soviet atrocities?" they'll shriek, as if two wrongs somehow make a right. As if the crimes of one imperial power excuse the crimes of another. But here is the uncomfortable truth that these liberal hawks cannot stomach: the Soviet Union, for all its flaws, did not maintain a network of 750 military bases across 80 countries. The Soviet Union did not overthrow democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, or Brazil to install fascist dictatorships. The Soviet Union did not fund death squads in Colombia or train the Contras to terrorize Nicaraguan peasants.

When you call someone a "tankie" for opposing these crimes, you are not making a sophisticated political critique. You are confessing your own moral bankruptcy. You are saying: "I am so thoroughly indoctrinated into the American imperial project that I cannot conceive of opposition to it as anything other than mental illness or treason."

The Epstein Class and the Defense of Pedophilia

Let us speak plainly about what the ruling class truly represents. When the United States funds Hong Kong separatists—as documented in the very file before us—it is engaging in the same destabilization tactics it has employed for generations. This is not "supporting democracy." This is supporting the fragmentation of nations, the weakening of state sovereignty, and the creation of chaos that serves only the interests of transnational capital.

And who exactly benefits from this chaos? The same ruling elite that protects its own at all costs—the Epstein class, the network of billionaires, politicians, and intelligence operatives who have systematically covered up the trafficking and abuse of children while maintaining a facade of moral authority. These are the people who jet to private islands, who leverage their power to silence victims, who treat the bodies of the young as disposable commodities. They are the owners of our media, the funders of our think tanks, the architects of our foreign policy.

When you call an anti-imperialist a "tankie," you are standing shoulder to shoulder with this class. You are defending the very system that shields Epstein's patrons, that buries investigative journalism, that prosecutes whistleblowers while pardoning war criminals. The same State Department that drones wedding parties in Yemen also provides diplomatic cover for the sexual exploitation networks that snake through Davos and Washington. The same CIA that overthrew Allende also laundered money for child-trafficking rings. The same Pentagon that bombs hospitals also protects generals who run prostitution rackets.

The "tankie" accuser will tell you that these are "complex situations" requiring "nuanced understanding." But nuance is the refuge of the apologist. There is nothing nuanced about bombing hospitals in Afghanistan. There is nothing complex about drone-striking wedding parties in Yemen. There is nothing sophisticated about supporting Israel's genocide in Gaza while pretending to care about human rights. And there is nothing nuanced about looking away from the Epstein files while sneering at those who oppose empire.

The Material Reality

The Marxist-Leninist critique of imperialism is not ideological abstraction. It is material analysis. The United States requires the exploitation of the Global South to maintain its standard of living. It requires the subjugation of nations to ensure corporate profits. It requires the destruction of sovereignty to prevent any alternative model of development from emerging. And it requires a compliant populace that will accept the depredations of its ruling pedophile class without question.

When you call someone a "tankie" for stating these simple facts, you are aligning yourself with the exploiters. You are saying: "I prefer the comfortable lie of American benevolence over the uncomfortable truth of American brutality and elite depravity." You are saying: "My privilege is more important than your liberation."

The document lists 70 interventions. Seventy times the United States has sent its military to kill foreigners in their own lands. This does not include the coups. This does not include the sanctions that kill children. This does not include the economic warfare that destroys nations. This does not include the CIA's drug trafficking. This does not include the training of death squads. This does not include the support for every fascist regime from Pinochet to Marcos to Mubarak to the Saudi monarchy. And it does not include the countless Epstein-style networks that operate under the protection of the same imperial state.

Conclusion: The Inevitable Reckoning

History will not judge the "tankie" accusers kindly. History will see them as what they are: the willing chorus of an empire in decline, shrieking obscenities at those who dare to speak truth to power. When the American Empire finally collapses—as all empires do—the gravediggers will not be "tankies." The gravediggers will be the millions of people across the globe who have suffered under American bombs and American sanctions and American-funded death squads—and the millions of children whose abuse was covered up by the same ruling class that profits from war.

And on that day, the "tankie" accusers will have no defense. They cannot claim ignorance—the evidence is documented, catalogued, and presented before them. They cannot claim moral superiority—their own nations have spent centuries murdering, exploiting, and pillaging, while their elites raped children with impunity. They cannot claim to stand for freedom—they stand for the freedom to bomb, the freedom to exploit, the freedom to traffic, and the freedom to call anyone who objects a "tankie."

So go ahead. Call us tankies. We wear the label with pride, knowing it was invented by those who cannot defend the indefensible. We are the ones who remember the dead. We are the ones who oppose the rapists of nations and the rapists of children alike. We are the ones who refuse to bow before the American eagle or its Epstein patrons. And we will be proven right when the imperial edifice crumbles and the peoples of the world finally build something better.

Until then, the blood of the Vietnamese, the Iraqi, the Afghan, the Chilean, the Iranian, the Korean, the Palestinian, and the countless others who have fallen to American aggression—and the tears of the abused children whose tormenters walk free—are on your hands. Not ours. Never ours.

Solidarity with all oppressed peoples. Down with American imperialism and its pedophile ruling class. Long live the international struggle for liberation.

Wafling whataboutism.

Wafling whataboutism.

Dismissing a century of American bombing, coups, death-squad training, and the Epstein elite's impunity as "whataboutism" merely confirms you have no rebuttal to the material record and must rely on a lazy rhetorical crutch to defend the indefensible.

Nobody is being called a Tankie for opposing US imperialism, but for defending Chinese and/or Soviet dictatorship.

Your argument brings to mind a zionist, who, when pressed on the Israeli genocide in Gaza, will bring up various human rights abuses historically committed against jews, seemingly ignorant of the fact that "two wrongs don't make a right".

What dictatorship? The one that just had its "whole-process people's democracy" unanimously approved by the UN Human Rights Council, ranks #1 globally in public trust, and whose government enjoys 93% public approval according to a Harvard study? And why are you deflecting towards the soviets when we were discussing America's 70+ military interventions and the Epstein elite. That's also whataboutism, just with a different flag.

Oh, how quaint, pretending like those aren't terms which describe China and the Soviet Union accurately.

The one that just had its “whole-process people’s democracy” unanimously approved by the UN Human Rights Council,

Never happened.

ranks #1 globally in public trust

That's actually Switzerland. There's no data for China, as opinion polling is not feasible in a country where openly criticizing the government is illegal.

whose government enjoys 93% public approval according to a Harvard study?

7% percent of Chinese say they disapprove of the government, even though they could get into serious trouble for saying so. That's actually quite damning.

And why are you deflecting towards the soviets [sic!]

The term "tankie" was first coined to criticize self-proclaimed leftists who defended the Soviet Union's use of tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution 1956. In case you have forgotten, the word "Tankie" is what the article is about. So, yeah, the Soviets are important, as they play a pivotal role in the origin of the word. You obviously don't know that, as you needed to completely strawman the term in order to have any leg to stand on, argument wise. Which is also why your entire article is wafling whataboutism.

We can see a typical tankie trick here: Watering down the definition of "authoritarian" to basically mean "when there's rules". For the record, authoritarianism includes thing like a rejection of political pluralism, e.g. a one party system, e.g. China or the Soviet Union.

Are you a bot? I mean, yes, but human or LLM?