to sameness. The best explanation postanarchists seem tooffer, on how anarchism and poststructuralism might operate together inpractice, is through a synthesis between fragmentation and solidarity. Yes, we must see that there is differencehere from the metaphysical and liberal narratives of a singular politicalidentity that drives practice. However,postanarchist authors seem content to nauseatingly repeat how political practiceneeds to recognize difference, otherness, contingency, etc. These became themes of a doctrine calledpostmodernism. Surely, this is not theonly way postmodernism functions, for it is not one thing, butIt is sadly ironic that the contemporary discourse which talks the mostabout heterogeneity, the decentered subject, declaring breakthroughs that allowrecognition of otherness, still directs its critical voice primarily to aspecialized audience, one that shares a common language rooted in the verymaster narratives it claims to challenge.[8] There is at least one obvious reason for this, besides postmodernauthors alienation from social needs, and it is that the same discourse thatwants to challenge the sovereignty of the subject has not been able tochallenge knowledge as central to its concerns. To challenge the humanist subject with knowledge alone is a task that isbound to reproduce that subjects sovereignty. Interestingly enough, Nietzsche and Foucault told us this in many ways,but so-called pomos have notunderstood. There is no ground, no basisfor the most effective action. Onlycontext and practice can decide action, and even then they do not becomeguides. The critique of humanism with itstheory of the subject, its teleologies, and the normalization that it produces,have only become important because of historical conditions. That critique cannot be made into a guide foraction, as much as they have become important in order to rethink our actionsin this moment. In critiquingidentity, the Same, essentialism, or universal truths, postmodernthought has contributed to multiplying possibilities for emancipation. That same movement, however, has come aboutprecisely at the historical moment of a worldwide process ofdecolonization. Which came first: the chickenor the egg? That is not my taskhere. Resistance reproduces forms ofoppression can we learn the lesson?In locating liberation in the thought of adecentered subject, or a micropolitical intervention, and in judging it asnecessarily better than their opposites, postmodern thought settles for anideology. Regarding postanarchism, ithas become, because it is centered on knowledge as a guide for action, a deadend. The thoughts presented bypostanarchists oppose themselves towhat they configured as modern. Intheir disconnection to life as it is lived, they propose the right kind ofsubject, and most annoyingly, the new theory of the human as nomadic. This is a reversal of values - to play thedualistic game of metaphysical culture. You say Yes, I say No, you say centered, I say decentered, you sayStatist, I say nomadic. Nietzsche wouldshout slave morality! and laugh at what has become of postmodernity. In order to break more fully with metaphysicalmoral culture, postanarchism could not have been this reactive, and it couldnot have centered its task on knowledge alone. Radical critique must be a space where voices and struggles are part ofthe production of knowledge. As much asthe overly abused assertion of difference in postmodernism has contributed topractices of freedom, it has also, when restricted to