💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › various-insurgency.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:36:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Insurgency
Author: Various Authors
Date: 2019
Language: en
Topics: post-left, anti-civ, green anarchism, anarcho-nihilism, green nihilism, violence, queer nihilism, gender nihilism, insurrectionary, veganism, anti-identity, Warzone Distro
Source: Retrieved on 27/7/2020 from warzonedistro.noblogs.org

Various Authors

Insurgency

~Introduction~

The Left is dead. But rather than wrapping up the funeral the civil

anarchists prefer to continue praying for a resurrection. They pray with

formal organizations, identity politics and some even took up voting in

the recent election! The newest trend in the US is to worship the holy

scriptures of The Invisible Committee and Communization Theory. But some

of us are conspiring against their heavens...

This journal highlights some thoughts behind wild savagery and sabotage.

It is dedicated to the unmedicated animals who refuse to play dead

waiting for “the masses”. We reject the Communes of those pretentious

hipster academics who preach their “Instructions for Autonomy” (ha!).

With mercury switches and promiscuity, knives and blasphemy we are the

ugly, hedonistic harlots of individualist anarchy.

Decomposing the Masses: Towards Armed Individuality

by Flower Bomb

“Anarchists are opposed to authority both from below and from above.

They do not demand power for the masses, but seek to destroy all power

and to decompose these masses into individuals who are masters of their

own lives. Therefore anarchists are the most decisive enemies of all

types of communism and those who profess to be communists or socialist

cannot possibly be anarchists.” -Enzo Martucci

For me, individuality is a weapon. It is the weaponized praxis of

nihilist anarchy and personal ungovernability. An individual becomes

ungovernable by becoming and asserting their negation to socially

constructed identities, formally organized groups, or the monolith of

mass society. From this perspective, negation embodies a refusal to

surrender one’s uniqueness to the confines of formal membership. This is

where I draw a line between anarchy and leftism. Leftism encourages the

rearrangement of constructed identities, rigid formations, and roles

within a formalized social group to which individuals surrender for a

“greater good” or purpose. On the other hand, anarchy as life is the

decomposition of formal social groups allowing for the existential

informality of individual emancipation, development, and limitless

exploration.

Therefore, for me, anarchy is an individualistic refusal to surrender

one’s self to an over-arching power which positions itself above all.

Power structures, socially or institutionally, require the surrendering

of individuality to massify their domination. The State can not exist

without the individuals who choose to put on the badge and uniform.

Capitalism can not exist without the subservience of individuals who

make up the mass social body that reinforce its psychological and social

validity and domination. Capitalism and the State require individual

participation, multiplied to construct mass industrial society. I will

give the leftists credit in pointing out that a massive enough worker

strike could stunt industrial progress, since it is the worker — the

individual wage-slave — that contributes to the life of the

mega-machine. But as history has shown, a mass worker strike is not only

exhausting to coordinate, but impossible to sustain long enough to

collapse capitalism. While many leftists, including myself at one point,

will point out that many workers simply do not have access to

inspirational radical information, I have also come to learn that many

workers simply do not want to strike. For too many reasons to list here,

many workers go into work whether rebellions or strikes are happening or

not. A fact that is often overlooked is that people are individuals. And

as individuals, some choose to rebel against their work place, and some

do not.

Collectives, Community Empowerment, and Organizing

Around 2013, I set off with the aim of building community power through

collectivist projects that were intended to benefit people in my hood.

Everything from a radical book lending library, a zine distro, really

really free markets, food not bombs, and community film screenings. The

collective I was part of was vibrant and full of energy. One year, we

hosted a July 31 st Day of Action Against Racism and Fascism event which

included film screening riot videos and clips of nazis gettin’ beat

down. We left our door open for people in the hallway to come join, and

our tiny apartment was packed with folks who lived above and below us,

cheering in excitement while watching the videos. At the end we handed

out zines and flyers, and promoted a really really free market we were

doin’ the following two days. The next day, only three neighbors from

the event showed up and chatted with us.

The day after that, they didn’t come back. At the time, I tried

understanding why despite the videos, the flyers and zines, and the

conversations — our neighbors, who had talked about experiencing racism

in their lives, were not interested in workin’ on projects with us. A

one-on-one conversation with two of them a few weeks later

reality-checked me: “That’s cool what y’all doin’, but, you know, we

just tryin’ to do that money thing. We just tryin’ to get paid.” After a

short debate about “gettin’ rich”, we departed with fist bumps and me

feeling confused and defeated. “My” people in my own hood, in my own

building, ain’t down with that revolutionary shit.

After a couple more years of hood-based banner drops, graffiti messages,

wheat-pasting, a zine written to document and glorify the history of

anti-racist rebellion where I grew up, and more community events I

realized a truth that no leftist wants to hear: there is no such thing

as a homogenized community to radicalize. What is a “community” when

your hood is composed of individuals who each have different and often

opposing objectives in life? I soon realized that the word “community”

was merely a political word that often flattens important differences

between individuals and propagates false unity. It is a social construct

merely representing a population of people who live in a single area.

Sure, we had a couple individuals here and there who were down with what

we were doin’, got involved and stuck around for a little bit. But the

hood was diverse. And it would be dishonest to say that they or we

represented the interests of that hood. Everyone had their own

individual opinions and life expectations.

I have seen some hood revolutionary projects that involved a large

portion of a community materialize and flourish. Sometimes they last

awhile and sometimes they lose membership and fizzle out. This is where

my life experience started to define a difference between affinity

groups and mass organizing. The individuals who were down with our shit

came to us, with or without us having to propagate a program. They

showed up because they saw other individuals that they could relate to.

Other people just weren’t interested, despite us all living in the hood

together, facing gentrification and being mostly POC.

I see something similar happening with anarchism. The same methods and

appeals to the community, to the masses, to “the people”, are energetic

and heartfelt, but yielding very little results. Potluck after potluck,

radical social center or radical library, all end up bein’ filled with

pre -existing radicals and end up becoming social clubs rather than

places filled with non-radical people living in the immediate community.

Attempts to mobilize the masses through street demonstrations end up

with spectators on the sidewalk and the same radicals chanting, singing

or marching in the street. I watched this spike during different times.

When Trump was running for election, everyone and their momma was in the

streets. Radicals were out, armed with flyers and zines and radical

chants over megaphones. Shortly after the election, tasktttaa things

normalized and soon just the radicals were back in the streets doing

their thing. I admit, I was there too. Marching, chanting, handing out

zines and flyers to sidewalk spectators. I remember, years ago, there

was an Occupy march where we took Michigan Street in Chicago. A mass of

students saw us, joined in for 3 minutes, then ran back to the sidewalk

with high fives and went about their day. We were still in the streets

tryin’ to invite them back with popular music. With the sudden drop in

numbers, the police surrounded us and escorted us to the sidewalk. What

is so wack about this is that this tactic is still being attempted today

by radicals. As if the first dozen times it happened weren’t

embarrassing enough.

Capitalist Individuality vs Individualist Anarchy

Individuality can be conditioned and subjugated by a socio-political

environment that monopolizes a narrative of life. In the case of

capitalism, we’re all born into a pre-configured society that reinforces

its values, roles, and ideology with the psychological force of

formalized institutions. When we walk outside, we see a reality that has

been quantified and institutionally constructed to propagate itself.

Cars, airplanes, highways, skyscrapers, fast food, etc — all normalized

to generate the comfort of order. Without order, without normalization,

there is a chaos that breaks the silence of personal subjugation.

Organization and order go hand in hand. Values, roles, and ideology are

better reinforced when massified to create the illusion of normalcy.

This process discourages individuality, uniqueness, and chaos, since all

three pose a threat to monolithic formations. While capitalism claims to

encourage genuine individualism, it is an individualism that is

pre-configured to reproduce capitalism on an individual level. In other

words, individuals who surrender themselves to the system of capitalism

become members limited to making capitalism functional. Any individual

who refuses capitalism, or systems all together, will seek an existence

that contradicts the interests of capitalism. From this perspective,

individualist anarchy is a refusal to surrendering one’s self to the

confines of a formalized system.

Chaos is the personalized strategy of negation to pre-configured order-

an order that is pre-decided by those merely interested in gaining

further membership. The strategy of creating a mass society or system of

order is a strategy of discouraging individuality, chaos, and

uniqueness. This strategy includes presenting a one-dimensional view of

individualism that is defined by capitalism. But for individualism to be

unique and chaotic, it can not be limited by the confines of formal

organizations or socialized constructs.

Capitalism is a social construct that requires mass participation to

create the illusion of normality to maintain social order. The mass

participation composed of subservient individuals allows for capitalism

to represent itself by materialized institutions- all physically built

by the hands of individual workers. It is true, that the working class

built this world, and therefore can unbuild it as well. But this assumes

there are no subtle, peer pressuring forces at work that subdue the

individual. This is why social war is not only necessary against

massified existence, but also necessary with internally breaking the

shackles of socially constructed identity and crushing the logic of

submission.

The Right and the Left: Two Sides of a Coin Called “Identity”

Identity politics illustrates how different identities are stratified to

create hierarchical power dynamics between groups of people. Identity

politics also illustrates how individuality and uniqueness are

discouraged to the point of social isolation. When people act out of

bounds with the socially assigned identity, they are treated as

“Others”, not validated to represent an experience. Depending on the

system, certain experiences are preferred and validated. For example, to

right-winger A, a successful “black” businessman is celebrated and seen

as the promotion of capitalism as equal and non-discriminatory. But to

right-winger B, that same man is seen as a threat to the white

supremacist order and therefore not celebrated. Under leftist A, that

same individual will be mocked as an “uncle Tom” or a “sellout”. But to

leftist B, the “black” businessman represents successful assimilation,

progress and hope for other black people. Both leftism and capitalism

each have divided sides. But they all, in one way or another, share the

commonality of order, homogenized identities, and membership. Therefore,

in one way or another, this individual can be used as propaganda to

promote a system. So now lets take for example, a “black” “man” who

refuses the identity and roles of “blackness”, patriarchy, and the

membership as a worker. Instead, this individual refuses leftism and

capitalism. What systems can use this individual as propaganda now? From

a leftist or capitalist perspective, what positive aspects of this

individual can be used for promotion? As far as promoting a system,

there is none. The confinements of a system on a social level have been

suspended. All that remains is the anarchy in becoming ungovernable

through individual uniqueness.

Individuals who deviate from the normalized social order are not only

bad for propaganda, but maintain the threat of inspiring other

emancipations. Individuals who desire freedom beyond the limitations of

political programs don’t require a package-deal of future utopia. Rather

than workin’ now to play later, play and adventure accompany a present

determination for wild exploration. Armed with a sense of urgency, life

becomes a playground of individual flowering and negation to social

constraint- a playground that allows free, open-ended social

associations and interactions not coerced by a structural permanence.

Individuality armed with chaos finds itself as an insurgent against the

social forces that attempt to subjugate it. As individuality becomes

wild, it becomes immune and ungovernable to the carefully constructed

programs advertised by the politicians of identity and revolution. Those

self-proclaimed revolutionaries can only conceive of revolution as

merely reforming the social conditions that constitute order. But some

of us prefer insurrection over revolution; an insurrection that doesn’t

end with a new system but a life without measure. I want to weaponize

chaos as an individualized attack on all governance and social order. I

envision anarchy as a wildfire that blackens the civilized, domesticated

kingdom of institutional and social domination. Getting free is more

than just attacking capital and the state. At least for me, it also

means creating your self every single day beyond society’s attempts to

define you as a static being.

My war is an individualist war against the right-wing and all its

variations. I am at war with the materialized construction of

patriarchal “whiteness”, its institutions, and its politically assumed

supremacy that materializes the colonial domination of industrial

capitalism. My war is also against the left, and all its attempts to

manufacture a future world of systematized “freedom” through formal

organization, the preservation of socially constructed identity and the

subservience of individuality to social groupings. My liberation won’t

be found in the holy book of “The Communist Manifesto”, “Forbes

Magazine”, nor “The Coming Insurrection”. Freedom isn’t a pre-configured

future utopia; it is a lived experience by those who have the courage to

reclaim their lives as their own here and now. In the face of those

revolutionary elites who attempt to lay claim to the future with their

poetic social seduction and academic expertise, I remain insubordinate.

The Cryptoliberal creep/the left is dead: AnarchistIndividualist

critique of the left in Ireland

by Renzo Connors

“Freedom is not something that anybody can be given; Freedom is

something that people take and people are as free as they want to be” —

James Arthur Baldwin

“I think my basic viewpoint is that everything the left and right say

about each other is true. And the reason it’s true is because they have

so much in common.” — Bob Black

The so called “radical left” has been a total failure, has done nothing

and has not made any “radical change”. The “radical left” has only been

successful in re-creating institutions of hierarchy and dominance via

its parties, unions and front groups/campaigns. Many leftists building

nice careers for themselves in the process.

The “radical left” of the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and 90’s (most notably former

members of the Workers Party) are now the very people that have been

pushing and implementing neoliberalism in Ireland. The old “radical”

leftists have swapped their radical language and false promises for

Mercedes cars, designer suits and high waged state or union positions.

There is no doubt that many modern leftist will have the same faith as

their counterparts. It’s not hard to imagine. The exact same problems

that existed within the left today are the very ones that were always

there. These problems can be broken down into factors such as: populism,

opportunism, careerism, and reformism (to name but a few).

There is no order of importance, all these factors have equally damaging

effects. These factors are not specific to any one current within the

left but to the whole left. These factors contribute differently but

equally to the left’s failure to create any “radical change” or

transformation they proclaim to want.

Let’s break it down a little:

“SOCIALISM: Discipline, discipline; obedience, obedience; slavery and

ignorance, pregnant with authority. A bourgeois body grotesquely

fattened by a vulgar christian creature. A medley of fetishism,

sectarianism and cowardice.

ORGANIZATIONS, LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND UNIONS: Churches for the

powerless. Pawnshops for the stingy and weak. Many join to live

parasitically off the backs of their card-carrying simpleton colleagues.

Some join to become spies. Others, the most sincere, join to end up in

jail from where they can observe the mean-spiritedness of all the rest.”

— Renzo Novatore

Opportunism:

Whether as an individual activists or as a member of a party, union or

some other type of organization, leftist take part and use struggles for

a whole lot of reason. These struggles could be in a workplace, housing,

abortion rights, even supporting struggles in other countries that are a

popular, etc. In struggles leftists use political maneuvers in order to

hijack, centralise, and harness the energy, power, and enthusiasm of

angry people for their own political gain, aims and motivations.

Leftists use campaigns and struggles as ways of gaining followers and

support for their programmes, building their own power cliques and

personal networks, climbing the political or union careerist ladders, or

even at the least, for activist scene points.

Careerism:

Many leftists take part in struggles to use them as means to build

careers. The career could be in politics, unions, academia, journalism,

NGOs, etc. Some Leftists becoming “experts”or “specialists” on certain

topics/struggles, using the gained knowledge to further their career.

Populism:

Populism is a curse in the fight for liberation. Populism is dangerous,

populism risks losing or gaining “the party”, “the movement”, “the

organization” or “the campaign” support, credibility or new members.

Populism also creates a dynamic within left organisations that will

determine what “the party” or “group” will support or what actions

taken, projects, or campaigns they will get involved with. They will

always go with the popular option, even if it is wrong. If activists in

a campaign, party, or group swerve off the populist road, they are at

risk of being punished and vilified by the majority. They could have

their names tarnished, blackened, lies made up and spread about them.

All attempts at discrediting and to remove people seen as opposition.

Populism will make people tell lies to mislead others and tarnish

opponents. Struggles have been destroyed and lost because of populism.

These dirty tactics are used against any threats to their positions, to

discredit and isolate people that are opposed to their strategies or

views, to remove opposition in campaigns or projects to clear the field

which will help with them hijacking, having more influence and control;

making people look “bad”,“mad”, “crazy” or “troublemakers” so no one

will listen to their opinion or ideas, to save or gain support.

Reformism:

A large majority of the left, whither they call themselves,

socialists,marxists, leninists, trotskyists, and even some anarchists,

are in fact crypto-liberals. These liberals disguise themselves with

radical language and bullshit. They do not want to overthrow or destroy

the state and capitalism, although they may say they do. They want to

reform it away, make it more “nicer” for people bit by bit. They naively

believe this can be done peacefully and with well thought out arguments,

protest marches and lobbying. The “resistance” they proclaim is of

pacifism, delegation, negotiation and compromise with the state and

bosses.

Trade unions like all formal organizations based on growing in

membership are prone to populism and the other factors I mentioned

above. At worst union officials undermine and disempower struggles,

compromising with bosses, negotiating deals on what would appear to be

the best outcome for workers, but realistically contribute towards

keeping this society intact. At best unions are reformist that help to

make improvements to conditions of exploitation making the daily toil of

work a little bit more bearable. Ultimately unions are a cog in the

machine of capitalism, with the outcome of helping towards the creation

of social peace between exploited and exploiters. There is no

revolutionary potential from trade unions.

For the leftist politico their intentions are to run in elections which

they hope to win so they can make “radical changes” to the state and

therefore make life better for “the people” (as they view it anyway).

The politicos say if they do not have enough power in parliament to make

“radical change” at the least they will be able to make “radical”

challenges to the government.

The outcomes of such bullshit tactics are well known. If a leftist is

elected into parliament they can make counter arguments to the

government, this usually falls to nothing. We have seen this in the

South of Ireland with socialist TD’s (elected representatives) making

arguments against a variety of issues such as the use of Shannon airport

by the US military, the Shell oil company plundering natural resources

in Mayo, the struggle for housing, and the struggle against water

privatization.

If a Leftist party wins enough seats to win power or share power with

another party they end up watering down their “radical” views and

implement the most right wing of policies, we have seen this in recent

history with the Irish Labour party in the South of Ireland and we have

seen it with Sinn Fein in the North of Ireland (not that either party

had very radical views to start off with, but they gave lip service to

socialism at some point), both parties completely selling out to every

person that voted for them implementing neo liberalist policies.

Politicos running in elections and playing in the parliamentary circus

water down their “radicalism” the more they take part in it, constantly

being on the watch, making sure they don’t lose support and wanting to

gain support. This inevitably makes them compromise and sell out little

by little, till they finally stop preaching any type of “radicalism”.

During the struggle against water privatization we have seen the

crypto-liberals use their vanguardist tactics blatantly. From when

people from working class neighbourhoods defended their neighbourhoods

against the installation of water meters in homes in many communities

throughout Ireland. The resistance sparked off sporadically. People

resisting from different neighborhoods linked up together to help each

other. Politicos and union bureaucrats infiltrated different

neighborhoods that were resistant, to hijack the struggle. The politicos

(Parties such as Sinn Fein, Socialist Party, Socialist Workers Party,

the Communist Party of Ireland, Eirigi; and unions such as Unite and

Mandate) invented “Right2Water” a campaign group which plonked itself on

top of the struggle attempting to claim to be the representative of the

all the people resisting water privatization. The politicos used this

campaign as means to bring the struggle down the road of parliamentary

politics. In lots of areas the politicos were successful in their

hijacking, in some neighbourhoods people were wise to them.

Every couple of months there would be a call for a “peaceful march”

through the streets of Dublin with loads of bull shit boring speeches at

the end, from politicos of course. Any people at the march that didn’t

go by the “peaceful march” narrative were tarnished as the “bad

protesters” and “trouble makers”. These so called “troublemakers” would

block traffic or occupy buildings (usually banks) and blocking busy

roads. These type of tactics didn’t suit the politicos because it was

out of their control and did not suit their narrative. During a

demonstration in a working class neighbourhood a youth threw a brick at

a pig car. A Socialist Party politico (and member of parliament) that

had infiltrated the water struggle, publicly condemned the youth calling

for the pigs to arrest, charge and convict the youth. Others were

denounced by politicos for burning vans that belonged to the company

that was installing water metres.

The water struggle came to a head when the Right2Water politicos and

union bureaucrats thirsty for any scrap of power, sat on “the Expert

Water Commision” which was created by the government, and accepted that

a private company would own the water services (ie the privatization of

water). Charges for domestic use of water have been put on hold (for

now). The leftist politicos and bureaucrats try to claim this as a

“great victory”. To this day the Irish Water company continue to put in

water meters into homes, laying the ground for in the future when it

wants to implement charges for using water in homes. The politicos and

bureaucrats done this without any consent, and ultimately they

disempowered the struggle in the process.

These tactics are used time and time again by the crypto-liberals. It

was seen in popular struggles such as: struggle against water

privatisation in the late 1990’s, the anti war movement in the early

2000’s, struggle against bin charges 2000’s, struggle against property

tax in the 2010’s and recently in the struggle for housing, with the

same sex marriage and abortion referendums — crypto liberals maneuvering

themselves into position of mediator between the state or bosses and

excluded and exploited individuals. Of course all these struggles were

(and some still are) hot topics and were high up on agendas for

electionaring.

Why We Fight

by Guará

When you express your opposition to the established order, you are often

flooded with questions, immediately called upon to justify your

opposition on multiple grounds: Why do you see the

state/capitalism/civilization as inherently oppressive? How would you

feed/clothe/treat people without industrial technology? Wouldn’t anarchy

devolve into looting and violence? What about the children?

The questions are endless, and soon you might find yourself stuck in

defending your positions from all sorts of absurd questions and

accusations to the point that you lose track of your actual reasons and

motivation for opposing this shitty society in first place. Not only are

we expected to have a working model of an alternative society in our

heads (a futile exercise), we also have to explain how such an

alternative model would be a better for humanity or at least for

society.

Leaving aside the pointlessness of planning imaginary societies that

would supposedly replace the current one after a revolution which never

arrives (and which wouldn’t turn out like expected anyway), why should

we be expected to define our critique of society in terms of what is

best for society or for humanity? Why should I concern myself with

society/humanity as a whole at all? And why should I be expected to

justify my opposition on such grounds when I might have my own motives

which might have absolutely nothing to do with such things?

Such concerns are a product of the humanism that emerged out of the

enlightenment. Without god, humans were placed at the center of the

world, and a myriad of voices emerged claiming for the progress of

mankind, for a brotherhood of men and for other such nonsense.

The thing is: I don’t give a damn about humanity, whether we are talking

about the totality of all living humans or about an abstract and reified

concept of humanity. Despite being quite good at abstract thought and

wrecking ecosystems, humans are no more special than algae and

jellyfish, and I see not reason to concern myself with the fate of

humankind.

Neither do I care much about the fate of all of those that are stuck in

this wretched society, which is only united as such (and mediated)

through impersonal and artificial institutions and machines. How could I

even pretend to truly care about people that I have absolutely no

personal relationship with? Why do I need to explain how each and every

group of people composing society would have their needs fulfilled

without industrial society before acting against it?

And most importantly: why do I need to justify myself at all when

industrial society is breaking, taming, robbing, caging, destroying,

controlling and ruining everything and everyone I love?

As someone raised in the depths of the industrial best, I can feel the

shackles that constrain me whenever I try to move. Everywhere I go, I am

being watched, tracked and monitored (as I have been since the day of my

birth). I am always being judged according to arbitrary rules that were

created without my consent and are enforced through the threat and

application of institutionalized violence.

I am constantly being exposed to industrial poisons that permeate the

air, the water and the earth, not to mention the disorienting and

mind-numbing assault on the senses that results from the ugliness of the

machines and the machineworld. As I try to fulfill my desires, I realize

that almost all avenues for such fulfillment are mediated by money,

which requires that I commodify myself so I can reach for other

commodities. Other avenues are often illegal and put me at risk of

injury and/or arrest.

Yet, even in this shitty world, there is much that I love. I love myself

and my individuality in all its contradictions for a start. I love my

thoughts, emotions and my flights of fancy, and I love sharing them with

my affinities. I love my body and I love to walk, run, dance, sing,

climb, fight and fuck.

I love my comrades and I love how they enrich my life, inspire me and

strengthen my own individuality. I love particular places that have

shaped and still shape me, even some places within the hellish cities

that I have inhabited. I also love rivers, trees, birds, mountains,

jaguars, snakes and funghi.

There is, however one issue: not only myself but everything I love is

under siege. My friends are mutilated, tired, caged, depressed, anxious,

and stuck between trying to survive industrial civilization and seeking

for some semblance of meaning and dignity. Their pain hurts me too, and

fills me with the desire to destroy its source.

Every wild place I know is being encroached by industrial civilization,

and the places that have already been encroached are witnessing the

destruction of every small vestige of wildness. Rivers I have bathed in

as a child smell of sewage now, and it saddens me to watch the floating

debris make its way downstream. Patches of forests, shrub-land and

grasslands that have often provided me a haven in some of the industrial

hellholes I have lived have vanished, making way for apartments, stores

and parking lots. The singing of birds that lifts my spirits is slowly

being replaced by the sound of machines.

Industrial civilization has no brakes. It moves forwards relentlessly on

its suicidal path annihilating and/or absorbing everything that stands

in its way. It will continue to do so unless it is stopped or collapses.

Leftists “radicals” will say that this isn’t a feature of industrial

civilization. Blame it all on capitalism! We only need a

marxist/anarchist revolution to stop the destruction and turn the

“forces of production” into forces of liberation. Or so they say...

Even if such ridiculous ideas had any credibility to them, I’m not

waiting for their never-coming revolution/salvation while everything I

love is being destroyed. Instead, I chose to fight right here and right

now. And I’m not fighting for an abstract idea of revolution, a reified

wildness or an artificial “brotherhood of men”. Such abstract ideas are

poor sources of motivation and strength, and only encourages the sort of

self-sacrifice that turns the struggle to reclaim our lives into another

prison. Instead, I fight for myself and for real people, places and

living and nonliving entities that are a part of me as much as I am a

part of them. And for us, I am willing to fight to the end.

From Identity to Individuality: A Nihilist’s History in Leftism

by Baba Yaga

Note: In this piece, I will be using ‘‘leftism’ and ‘identity politics’

more or less interchangeably, due to their often heavy overlap.

I grew up in a liberal household to liberal parents, and I had always

had a preoccupation (some might say an obsession) with justice. From a

young age, I would rage against the injustices committed against the

trees felled behind our house, the mice killed in the snap traps, the

insects caught by the glue paper, the deer shot by the hunters. “It’s

not fair!” was a mantra oft screamed from my tiny mouth, and as I grew,

it hardly changed.

In high school, I became acquainted with an ideology eager to exploit my

enthusiasm for justice. I learned that the whole world was unfair – even

more so than I had realized on my own. Same sex marriage, reproductive

rights, and bodily autonomy became my first interests – predictably,

since I discovered I was a queer bisexual and these things quickly

became relevant to me in one way or another. Through these, though, I

discovered more. The police shooting in Ferguson of Mike Brown

introduced me to the idea that racism was alive and well, and learning

this was an angry shock to my sheltered little white life. I couldn’t

scream my will into being anymore, and I wanted to know what to do.

‘Listen’, responded the Activists (capital A – they presented themselves

as The Only Authority). ‘Listen and do as we say.’

I learned all the Correct Language and the Correct Actions, so I would

not be Problematic. I cringed and sucked through my teeth at all the

Problematic People in my tiny rural town, and (I’m sure) a lot of people

got very sick of me. I learned to be pure in thought, word, and action,

so that I would not risk the ire of the Activists. There are certain

things that must never be said, certain questions that must never be

asked. Never question the People of Color.

My exposure to the Activists was purely online, primarily through

Facebook, but after my first altercation, (where I failed to recognize a

latinx queer on sight and was roundly shouted down by the whole group) I

became much quieter. I listened without speaking – as white people were

supposed to do. I didn’t realize until much later how much anxiety began

to build in me whenever I entered these spaces, fearing that any misstep

would result in my admonishment and potentially, my expulsion.

Still, I was unwilling to leave the Left behind. If this was justice,

then I must submit myself, however uncomfortably, to the greater good.

Never mind my questions. Stuff them down deep. I wondered how it was

that white people were simultaneously supposed to ‘shut up and listen’,

‘make space for POC’, ‘don’t speak for POC’, but also ‘put yourselves on

the front lines’, ‘call out problematic speech in white people’.

I questioned how, exactly, I was supposed to avoid speaking over POC and

always ‘stay in my lane’ when POC I knew personally were telling me that

they thought the talking points I got from the Activists were bullshit.

I stressed over wearing ‘cultural’ jewelry and clothing that I had

purchased from people of that culture, knowing the party line instructed

us to support POC artisans, but also knowing that if I wore these items,

I would be subject to the same scrutiny as someone who had purchased

them from a trendy department store.

I self-flagellated over past transgressions such as having dreadlocks,

without ever really understanding what I had done wrong besides doing

something I was forbidden from doing.

But I never dared to ask anyone else – least not the Activists.

I would like to tell you that my divorce from the Left was self-driven.

I would like to tell you that I recognized the oppressive dynamics all

by myself. But until I met others who were questioning the Left as well,

I assumed that the only counter-faction was the Right, and I had grown

up surrounded by enough of the Right to know I wasn’t interested in

their brand. I saw no justice there, no world improvement.

The first time I met a post-leftist, (or if we’re being honest, the

third or fourth time – the conditioning runs deep) I finally felt free

to ask the questions I had buried. I felt free to poke holes where I had

carefully preserved the delicate framework before. But this was not

enough to topple everything – oh no. I still held on to the skeleton of

justice.

‘Surely they mean well,’ I reasoned. ‘Surely this is an overgrown

over-extension of a fundamentally good and just framework.’

And as if called by fate, I began to meet people who had been ‘called

out’; people who had made transgressions so egregious that they had been

banished from the circles of the Left. These transgressions ranged from

accusations of physical abuse to vague allegations of being manipulative

(typically without any specific incidents cited, but with full

expectation that The Community support the victim without question).

Although each unique, these cases had common threads that ran through

them.

As is customary in the Left, most began with a mediation and an

accountability process – where a third party would meet with the accused

and the accuser and theoretically, help them to reach an agreement about

how the accused would atone for their behavior and improve themselves so

they would not repeat it. Many of the folks I met either met these goals

or were on their way to meeting them. Usually, meeting these goals was

the condition for avoiding a call-out.

However, the accusers who had seemingly felt powerless in their

interactions with the accused, now found that they had all the power.

They controlled what actions the accused must take. They controlled the

accused’s place in the social hierarchy, and often, the accused’s

physical safety in the world.

This scenario, which in theory was sterile and completely just, became a

tool for revenge. Regardless of whether the conditions of the

accountability process were met, the call-out came. And as the call-out

spread, across the internet and across the ‘community’, it became social

suicide to associate with the accused. Being an ‘apologist’ is nearly on

par with being an abuser.

The accused became a pariah. No defense, apology, or self-improvement is

good enough when you are marked for life.

I began to wonder where the restoration was in this ‘restorative

justice’.

And if we’re honest, this is where the tower I had built for myself

finally fell. I had labored so long under the belief that we were all

working selflessly, tirelessly, towards justice for all. When the veil

was lifted, it became clear to me that the left was infested with wolves

in sheeps’ clothing, manipulating the good will and efforts of earnest,

well-meaning people.

Or, maybe we were all a little wolfish – although I had fancied myself a

pure, earnest person, I could not deny my efforts to lord my ‘woke’

trivia over ‘nonwoke’ friends. I had not set the dogs on anyone myself

by issuing any statements, but I had helped to share and publicize them.

I had not written any Everyday Feminism articles on why all your

language and actions are racist/sexist/oppressive, but I had read them,

shared them, and actively policed the people around me.

I just wasn’t interested in it anymore. I wasn’t interested in helping

to create a society of unquestionable rigid social mores. I wasn’t

interested in silently tallying each ‘problematic’ misstep of every

individual around me – or quietly policing my own speech in constant

fear that someone was doing the same to me. And I wasn’t interested in

perpetuating the socially assigned identities that fed the hierarchies I

wanted so badly to tear down.

Unlearning the set of behaviors that make up identity politics was a lot

less about deciding I didn’t care about hurting people (as I suspect a

lot of leftists might assume) and a lot more about listening to what

individuals wanted for themselves. Identity politics had taught me that

any given social interaction came with a list of rules – and any

transgression or mistake could be potentially very serious. For me,

these rules became very isolating. I avoided interactions with people

for fear of harming them or offending them.

When I began shedding these behaviors, I became more open and

comfortable with the people around me. Rather than adhering to these

strict rules, we felt free to communicate our individual desires. I

could tell my friends that they could touch me freely, without feeling

obligated to ask me each time. I could assure them that if I didn’t want

to be touched at a particular time or in a particular way, I would

communicate that to them.

My ‘POC’ friends could tell me what words and actions they were

personally comfortable with, rather than feeling compelled to uphold

some sort of community rules or morals.

My friends of all different socially constructed identities – by race,

gender, sex, etc – could behave as they wished, without being concerned

that they were fulfilling stereotypes or betraying their identities.

It’s far from utopian, but as leftism continues to demonstrate, utopia

is impossible without authoritarianism.

What Savages We Must Be: Vegans Without Morality

by Flower Bomb

~ New morals, Same governance ~

““Morality is common sense ideas that we can all agree on. We need to

expand morality to include non-human animals.” -Logic commonly found in

the vegan movement

Most movements who attempt to make social change en masse rely on the

“appeal to morality” tactic as a primary method of gaining support. For

example, “Meat is Murder” is a common catch phrase within the animal

rights movement. This catch phrase relies on the assumption that all

people are against murder since, by the same logic, murder is morally

reprehensible. But this assumes that there is a singular, universal

morality that guides everyone’s decisions when, in reality, it may have

different interpretations to some, and only guide those who embrace it

to begin with. For example, some selfproclaimed moralists defend the

violent manifestations of patriarchy; others advocate white supremacy

and many moralists support violence towards nonhuman animals. “Common

sense” is only common to those who make up the membership of a specific

group, who feel the need to universalize its principles. But “common

sense” does not apply to others outside that group who have

selfinterests that run contrary to its assumed collective “good”. Often

times, it is not a lack of morality that is problematic but the very

existence of morality; the set of principles and values independent of

the complexity of self-interest, which externally guide and justify

one’s actions.

“Anthropocentrism is the belief that human beings are the most important

entity in the universe. Anthropocentrism interprets or regards the world

in terms of human values and experiences. The term can be used

interchangeably with humanocentrism, and some refer to the concept as

human supremacy or human exceptionalism. -Wikipedia

Anthropocentric morality provides the justification for a wide range of

ecodestructive and domesticating disasters. Representing a worldview

that constructs the human/animal dichotomy, anthropocentrism is

reinforced by a capitalist-industrial society that requires the

large-scale death and destruction of wildlife in order to exist. The

“righteousness” of human domination provides the socio-political

normalization required to pacify any potential for emotional outrage

against this systematized violence. So between vegan morality and

anthropocentric morality, which one is “right”?

“Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right

or wrong. There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or

wrong. Therefore, no moral judgements are true; however, our sincere

moral judgements try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of

things. Thus, we always lapse into error when thinking in moral terms.

We are trying to state the truth when we make moral judgements. But

since there is no moral truth, all of our moral claims are mistaken.

-Wikipedia

Morality is a social construct that does not represent a universal

truth, nor the interests of all people. While also failing to account

for the complex circumstances in which moral-based decisions are

impractical, morality limits the scope of decision making and individual

action. Therefore, in order to condition morality on a mass scale, rigid

obedience is required which necessitates an equally rigid violent

apparatus to enforce it.

Obeying morality of any type requires putting aside individual

experience and personal motives of self-interest. This also means

disregarding the pragmatic considerations concerning the practical

consequences of one’s morality-based decision. In society, morals are

socially conditioned in order to maintain a standardized system of

beliefs. This system discourages individualist thinking and questioning

of not only that system, but of the foundations of authority in general.

The primary method for this discouragement is to advertise a desired

belief as a “common sense” or normality that “everyone” knows or

follows. This immediately places the “group” above the “individual”.

With individual self-interest, one might refuse to obey without

questioning, therefore groupthink is socially reinforced to discourage

individual responsibility, creativity, and thinking for one’s self.

Examples of the deployed socialized hostility towards individualism

include labelling those who assert their individuality as “selfish” or

“egotistic” and therefore undesirable.

A movement that moralizes veganism means instituting another social

system that would enforce new morality-based laws and norms. Not only

would this require an (ironically) violent apparatus for reinforcement,

but would still come without a guarantee of a more “peaceful”,

“compassionate” capitalism. As long as there are systems of governance,

(including the contradictory “compassionate capitalism”) there will be

rebels. As long as there are laws, there is corruption within the

apparatus itself that enforces them. As both a historical and

contemporary social project attempting to create peace and compassion on

a mass scale, moralism has failed.

~ Beyond morality: no government can ever give us freedom ~

“Anarchy is the absence of government and absolute freedom of

individuality. -Wikipedia

The same apparatuses of coercion that reinforces morality (religion, the

state, etc.) are the enemies of freedom. While one might say these

institutions could reinforce the vegan morality that would liberate

non-human animals, these same institutions require individualist

subjugation to their collective “good”. But their good wouldn’t be a

“good” of my own; it would be their thinking over mine, empowered by its

assumed “universal truth”. This is the same logic of control and

domination that is used by those who dominate and consume non-human

animals. Guided by the values of human supremacy, there is a sense of

entitlement that positions them above question. The same apparatus that

conditions morality holds that “beyond question” position. But as an

individual, not only do I question it, I reject it all together.

My individualism is empowered by self-interest and informed

decision-making. My refusal to surrender my mind to the “collective

good” of consuming the flesh and secretions of non-human animals is a

reflection of my own rebellion. Along with the inspiration from other

individual vegans I realized the power of thinking independently,

selfishly, and egotistically – against the mass society whose normalized

traditions and values conflict with my interests. As an individualist,

being vegan is practical in extending individual autonomy to nonhuman

animals. My refusal to socially reinforce their commodity status allows

them the natural right to exist as their own autonomous individual

selves, the same way I would expect to be respected by others. I refuse

to individually participate in the mass normalization of their

domination.

Anarchy, for me, means individual negation to laws, order, and systems.

This anarchy not only opposes both vegan and anthropocentric morality

but morality all together: morality being the abstract form of

governance that attempts to subjugate my individuality. My veganism

requires no external governance to enforce or guide it. It is an

individualist choice that reflects the consistency and practicality of

living my life against authority.

For veganism to be logically consistent with animal liberation, it must

be antiauthoritarian. From this point forward, the totality of

capitalist, industrial civilization must be called into question. Being

vegan and pro-capitalist is a contradiction since the full functioning

of capitalism requires large-scale exploitation of natural resources,

subsequently destroying and wiping out entire eco-systems. Capitalism

requires the expansion of technological industrialization to accommodate

the demands of mass society. Mass society requires the ever-expanding

displacement of wildlife to house the growing human population.

Civilization is rooted by agriculture which is predicated on the basic

formula of taking more from the land than putting back. This results in

irreversible damage to all eco-systems that directly affect non-human

animals.

To be vegan and pro-statist is a contradiction, since veganism aims for

animal liberation, while the State is the antithesis of liberation –

reinforcing laws that utilize physical force to coerce all beings into

compliance. The common denominator with the State and vegan morality is

the shared positions held as “universal truths” above the individual.

Both coerce; one mentally and the other physically. Both compliment each

other’s intentions on conditioning “the masses”, and both encourage the

disregard for individual self-interest, creativity, and

self-responsibility.

A well-used example of alienation was deployed to describe private

property and the economic exploitation of capitalism, by which the

worker is separated from what they produce: their ‘power to’ do whatever

it might be is sold as If the basis of animal liberation is freedom,

empowering a governing agency to enforce moral-based laws upon

individuals is a contradiction. It reinforces speciesism through the

division of human and animal; if humans are in fact animals, and the

vegan aim is animal liberation, why wouldn’t “human” animals liberate

themselves from the same shackles of both speciesism and governance as

well? Speciesism is reinforced through human supremacy, and if human

supremacy is to be dismantled socially, animal liberation applies to

everyone. From this point of view, government is not needed for granting

rights: the right to bodily autonomy and equality comes with the

dismantling of governance – both the governance of morality and statism.

It is not a morality that governs my actions, but rather an

individualist desire to wage war upon all systems, moral or not, that

attempt to subjugate me and destroy the earth I require to survive. My

decision to become vegan did not come from a vegan morality or a new law

prohibiting me from consuming flesh and secretions. It came from

ungoverned free thought which helped me view society in a critical way,

discovering pragmatic ways of enacting my own project of liberation. My

vegan anarchist praxis is a shared affinity with the nonhumans who fight

against the constraints and torture devices of modern technology,

slaughterhouses, and the human-made hell of industrial society. There is

no God, government, or morality to save us. Only our individual selves,

the decisions we make and the actions we take.

~ Arming the will to survive with attack ~

“Savage (of an animal or force of nature) fierce, violent, and

uncontrolled. -Wikipedia

One common tenet of morality is the commitment to non-violence. As an

individualist, I find violence to be useful in some circumstances, and

impractical in others. But it is this open-ended utilization of violence

that morality-based non-violence prohibits. When it comes to animal

liberation (or from the statist perspective, animal rights), veganism is

often advertised as a “cruelty-free”, “no harm done” or “non-violent”

movement. This not only ignores the historical examples of successful

animal liberations through violence, but it also promotes a limited

range of strategic activity. The reinforcement of a non-violent morality

discourages the use of violence against the institutions and individual

agents of speciesist domination. Human supremacy utilizes every and all

avenues of violence to maintain its control. To limit the arsenal of

resistance to mere defence rather than incorporating attack is to

strategically limit the range of possibility and potential in advancing

animal liberation. When animal liberation is confined to the legal arena

of statism, the agency of individual insurgency has been surrendered.

Within mass society, speciesism is not just confined to grocery stores;

it is also embedded in the social and cultural traditions reinforced by

individual participation. Therefore, individuals socially reproduce the

normalization of non-human animal abuse, control, and domination. And

while some of these individuals might emancipate themselves from the

speciesist mindset of human centric entitlement, others might embrace

and defend it. Therefore, violence becomes a necessary task carried out

by those individuals who refuse to stand by and allow the social

reproduction of anthropocentric morality and practice.

I find affinity with those of the wild that struggle against the

machinery of industrial society and those who fight to defend the

ecological habitats within which they survive. The need for intensified

confrontation with speciesism is one that encompasses an

anti-authoritarian strike against the ideology and institutions of

capitalism, the state, and anthropocentric morality. Beyond mere

legislative reform, animal liberation from this perspective necessitates

the destruction of all cages and apparatuses that physically captivate

non-human animals. Simultaneously, a war waged against the forces of

“human” animal captivity and enslavement opens avenues of exploration

beyond the superiority complex — the role and identity of “human” as

distinct from animal and wildness.

Through spontaneous ruptures to the civilized order, vegan savagery

asserts resistance through attacking the foundations that produce

enslavement. From non-participation to feral insurgency, anarchy is the

personification of any individual with the courage to become wild

against domesticating subordination.

But vegan savagery is more than just violent veganism: it is the

celebration of life against the laws of morality, civilization, control,

and domination. It is the refusal to internalize the

capitalist-industrial view of others as mere objects to exploit,

consume, or enslave. This allows individuals to define themselves as

their own autonomous beings, armed with the agency to attack those who

attempt to subjugate them.

As a vegan anarchist, my fight for freedom is parallel with the

struggles fought by the wild since the dawn of industrial society and

civilized domestication. What savages we must be — fighting for freedom

with every breath, reclaiming our lives through every act of violence

against the machines of social control and domination! While the

movements of morality continue to ignore the vital reality of amoral

violent necessity, some of us continue to wage war against speciesism

with nothing more than a fire for freedom in our hearts. In solidarity

with the wild, and in defence of the ecological terrain I call home, my

fight is fierce and ungovernable. Toward veganism beyond morality,

toward industrial collapse and total liberation!

Subversive Anarchy Past and Present (A brief look at Illegalist,

individualist and nihilist anarchy)

by Renzo Conners

“Revolution is aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no

longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and set

no glittering hopes on “institutions.” – Max Stirner

Don’t follow me… I’m not leading you… Don’t walk ahead of me… I’ll not

follow you… Carve your own path… Become yourself…” – Conspiracy Cells of

Fire, Imprisoned Members Cell

“I know that there will be an end to this fight between the formidable

arsenal of the State and me. I know that I will be vanquished, I will be

the weaker, but I hope I can make you pay dearly for the victory.” –

Octave Garnier

On the this day over 100 years ago on the 21^(st) of April, 1913,

Illegalist and Individualist anarchist Raymond Callemin was executed by

guillotine by order of the French state. On the anniversary of his

execution I write this in memory of all those that have fallen or been

jailed in the social war against society.

The illegalist current is an offshoot of individualist anarchism.

Refusing to be exploited, forced to work for some rich tyrant, instead

the illegalist chooses to rob them. It’s an anti-work ethic for

individual autonomy to be realized in real life right away through

Individual expropriation also known as individual reclamation.

Individual reclamation gained notoriety in France in the last decades of

the 19^(th) and early 20^(th) century and gave birth to what was to

become known as illegalism. Proponents of individual reclamation were

anarchists such as Clement Duval and Marius Jacob. Marius Jacob stole to

fund himself as well as the anarchist movement and other causes. This is

the main factor that separates illegalism from individual reclamation,

the illegalists stole solely for themselves. Although some Individual

illegalists did fund individualist anarchist newspapers from the

proceeds of their expropriations and gave money to comrades that were in

need.

The illegalists, many of whom, inspired by Max Stirner and Friedrich

Nietzsche were of the persuasion of why should they have to wait on the

passive herd of exploited and poor classes to rise up and expropriate

the rich? The poor seemed quite content with the conditions they

inhabited. Why should the illegalists have to wait on the exploited

workers to become enlightened with a revolutionary consciousness? Why

should they have to continue to live a life of being exploited and

worked to death while they wait for the future social revolution that

may not ever happen? The illegalist anarchists had no faith in the

workers struggle, so decided to fight back and rob the wealthy, it was a

purely egoist endeavor.

Stirner would have called them “conscious egoists”, expropriating their

lives back for themselves, not asking for permission to exist. They

refused to be slaves to bosses and the state. The illegalists chose to

steal through conscious revolt against society.

The illegalists anarchists robbed, shot, stabbed, counterfeited money

and committed the odd bit of arson across Europe, but predominantly in

France, Belgium, and Italy. There were gun battles and shootouts with

cops. Long jail sentences and executions.

One such group of illegalist anarchists were to become immortalized as

“The Bonnot Gang”.

Raymond Callemin was born in Belgium, a former socialist who then became

an anarchist after becoming disillusioned with the reformism of the

Belgian Socialist Party. Having become influenced by anarchism, Raymond

left the Socialist Party with Victor Serge and Jean De Boe who were

equally disillusioned with socialist electoral politics. Together they

published an individualist anarchist newspaper “Le Revolte” which was

totally hostile to unions and political parties, and was for “permanent

insurrection against the bourgeoisie”.

Octave Garnier on the run from France, fled to Belgium to avoid being

conscripted to the army. He had already committed several expropriations

on the rich via burglaries and had spent time in jail. He first started

out in syndicalism but didn’t take long before developing a disgust with

the union leaders being akin to the bosses using and manipulating

workers for their own ends. He then joined the ranks of the anarchists.

Not being able to work in the profession of his choice, having to work

menial jobs and forced into being a wage slave in jobs he did not even

want in order to live, he became a committed illegalist.

The four anarchists were in their early 20’s, they found each other

through the anarchist circles in Belgium and shared a mutual hatred for

the rich and their system of exploitation. Raymond and Octave carried

out many burglaries together and tried their hand at counterfeiting

coins.

Victor Serge writing articles for Le Revolte brought a lot of attention

on himself from the Belgium state. Since he was a refugee in Belgium

from childhood it made it easier for the Belgian state to get rid him.

He was expelled from Belgium as a dangerous subversive. He left for

France and set up a libertarian commune with other anarchists. Not long

after, Octave Garnier having warrants out for his arrest, followed

Victor to France, with Raymond.

In France they met with Jules Bonnot who was on the run. Jules was in

his early 30’s, an ex soldier and a committed illegalist anarchist. The

police were looking for him for a murder, which was really an accidental

shooting of a comrade. Jules having a lot of experience carrying out

expropriation and being quite successful, offered Octave and Raymond a

proposition to carry out a big job together. The pair were only happy to

accept Jules’s offer, being fed up not making as much as they’d like to

from the burglaries and counter fitting, risking a lot while not getting

much back in return.

The three along with another anarchist, Eugène Dieudonné, came up with a

plan to rob a bank messenger who would be delivering money. They started

by robbing a high powered car from a rich neighborhood on the outskirts

of Paris. Jules learned how to drive in the army so he’d be the getaway

driver. Raymond, Octave, and Eugene would rob the bank messenger. And so

on 21^(st) of December 1911 in broad daylight they robbed the messenger.

They held up the messenger’s security guard as the pair were leaving the

bank. Octave demanded the messenger to hand over the briefcase. Raymond

grabbed it and attempted to make his way for the getaway car. But the

messenger wouldn’t let go of the case. Octave shot him twice in the

chest (the messenger was badly wounded but did not die). They made their

getaway speeding through the streets of Paris in what was one of the

best model cars of the time. It was the very first time a car was used

in an armed robbery in France, because of that the media nicknamed them

the “auto bandits”.

From the robbery they made 5,000 francs which they weren’t happy with.

They expected to have expropriated much more. A few days after the

robbery of the bank messenger they broke into a gun shop stealing many

guns including high powered rifles. Not long after, on the 2^(nd) of

January 1912, they broke into the home of a rich bourgeois, killing him

and his maid in the process They got away with 30,000 francs from this

burglary. They soon fled to Belgium carrying out more robberies and shot

3 cop along their way. Then back to Paris to rob another bank, but this

time they would hold up the bank. While doing the robbery they shot 3

bank clerks. After the robbery a bounty of 700,000 francs was put on the

anarchists heads, the Société Générale bank they robbed put another

100,000 francs on their heads.

There is a deep nihilism, egoism, and anti-reformism within illegalist

praxis with its continuity today with groups like the Conspiracy Cells

of Fire, the Informal Anarchist Federation/ International Revolutionary

Front and individuals such as the Chilean Anarcho-nihilists Sebastian

Oversluij who was shot dead while expropriating a bank, and Mauricio

Morales who was killed when the bomb he was transporting in his backpack

detonated prematurely.

Modern day insurrectionary anarchy also has a direct lineage with this

anarchist history. Many of the main components of ideas and praxis that

comprise illegalism and individual reclamation (which includes

propaganda of the deed, which is individual direct action against the

bourgeois class, their property and their flunkies, ie pigs, screws and

judges, in the hope the action will inspire others to follow suit;

anti-organisational in the form of individual insurrection, affinity

groups and informal organisation; and an extreme disliking of the left

and its tactics of reformism) are also found in the different strands of

insurrectionary anarchism today.

What was branded the “Bonnot Gang” by the media and the pigs was an

affinity group. Jules Bonnot was not a leader of the group, there were

none. The individuals that comprised the different affinity groups that

carried out the so called crimes that were branded with the name the

“Bonnot Gang” were simply individuals with mutual aims that came

together to carry out actions. The French state used the name to brand

any anarchist they pleased with association to any of the so called

crimes.

On the 30^(th) of March 1912 André Soudy (an anarchist who took part in

some of the robberies of the group) was caught by police. A few days

later, another anarchist involved with some of the robberies, Édouard

Carouy was arrested. On the 7^(th) of April, Raymond Callemin. By the

end of April, 28 anarchists had been arrested in connection with

the“Bonnot Gang”.

On April 28 police discovered the location where Jules Bonnot was hiding

in Paris. 500 armed police surrounded the house. Jules refused to give

himself up, a shoot out commenced. After hours of exchanging shots, the

police detonate a bomb at the front of the house. When the police

stormed the house they discovered Jules rolled up in a mattress, he was

still firing shots at them. He was shot in the head and died later from

his injuries in hospital.

On the 14^(th) of May police discovered the location of Octave Garnier

and Rene Valet (another member of the group). 300 cops and 800 soldiers

surrounded the building. Like Bonnot the pair also refused to be

arrested. The siege lasted hours, the police eventually detonated a bomb

and blew part of the house up killing Octave. Rene badly injured was

still firing off shots, he died not long after.

A year later on the 3^(rd) of February 1913 Raymond Callemin, as well as

many other anarchists including Victor Serge were put on trial by the

French state for their alleged parts in the “Bonnot Gang”. Although

Raymond did carry out many robberies and shot dead a bank clerk, many

others who were put on trial had no part whatsoever in any of the

so-called crimes that were attributed to the “Bonnot Gang”. The French

state was thirsty for revenge and so after it gunned them down and blew

then up; the state executed, locked up and exiled many anarchists. On

the 21^(st) of April, 1913, Raymond Callemin, Étienne Monier and André

Soudy were executed by guillotine . Many of their co-accused were

sentenced to life and hard labour in French colonies.

This revenge practice by states is still carried out today with the

Scripta Manent trials in Italy which are directly related to the

kneecapping of the manager of a nuclear power company by individualist

anarchists Alfredo Caspito and Nicola Gia, and other acts of resistance

in Italy. And the repressive trials in Russia against anarchists,

anti-fascists, and the FSB’s (Federal Security Service) fabricated

“Network” organization case. In retaliation Anarcho-communist Mikhail

Zhlobitsky last October detonated a bomb in the Russian Federal Security

Service Regional Headquarters in Arkhangelsk, dying in the process. And

so the FSB carried out another round of repression against anarchists

after the bombing, arresting, interrogating and slapping false charges

on many anarchists as payback for the attack. On the 22^(nd) of March,

2019 a cell from the Informal Anarchist Federation naming Itself FAI/FRI

Revenge Faction – Mikhail Zholbitsky carried out a grenade attack

against the Russian embassy in Athens, Greece as revenge for the

repression carried out by the Russian state against anarchists.

Whichever current of anarchism am individual lives, it doesn’t matter,

once it is subversive and in conflict with whatever authority that

attempts to infringe on an individual’s autonomy. The ongoing war

against industrial capitalist society has been raging for over 200

years, which has claimed many lives of anarchists with even more being

jailed. The same insurrectional spirit of no mediation and no compromise

with authority continues to flow in subversive anarchy today. In

solidarity with all anarchists imprisoned and at war with industrial

capitalist society.

On Savage Attack and the Moralization of Violence

by Guará

Anarchists have always been one of the most radical and uncompromising

enemies of the system. As such, we have always been among those most

willing to use militant tactics such as the use of violence. That being

said, the debate around violence within anarchist circles is a complex

and divisive debate, and one often mired in civilized (and particularly

leftist) morality.

From the inception of the movement in the 19^(th) century, the vast

majority of anarchists have agreed on the necessity of violence as a

tool for fighting the system. In practice, however, the actual use of

violence by anarchists has cleaved deep divisions between anarchists.

Such divisions are evident in the debates surrounding the idea of

“propaganda by the deed” that generated so much controversy in the late

19^(th) century and in the beginning of the 20^(th) century. While the

inspiring revolts of anarchists such as Ravachol, the Bonnot Gang and

Severinno Di Giovanni were acknowledged and praised by many anarchists,

the majority of anarchists at the time sought to distant themselves from

such acts. Many went as far as claiming that the perpetrators were

nothing more than antisocial terrorists who have nothing to do with “The

Movement”

In 1901, an anarchist immigrant named Leon Czolgosz shot Henry McKinley,

the U.S president at the time, in the stomach. McKinley died a few days

later. Despite the fact that the only person to be targeted by the

action was a tyrant presiding over an empire, the assassination of

McKinley generated a huge outrage among anarchists at the time, who

condemned the action not only on tactical grounds but also on moral

grounds. With a few other exceptions, the only anarchists who stood for

Czolgosz and his actions at the time were Emma Goldman (who was

imprisoned by the state as retaliation for the shooting)and some Italian

anarchists.

To be fair, it makes sense to criticize the shooting in terms of its

consequences. The state used it as an excuse to fuel anti-anarchist and

anti-immigrant sentiment, ushering a wave of repression. That being

said, criticisms went far beyond that, with many anarchists attempting

to completely deny any connections between the act of a “lone madman”

and anarchism. Such anarchists seem to believe that any anarchists who

are willing to act for themselves without regards to what the priests of

“The Movement” or the masses think are no true anarchists at all, and

should be shunned from “The Movement”. Yet, how can one claim to stand

for anarchy while attempting to control the actions of those that choose

to act without asking for permission? The contradiction is appalling.

Another debate that highlights the civilized morality predominant in the

movement is the current debate around the use of militant tactics and

violence.

Anarchism is often associated with violence, which isn’t surprising when

you consider it’s history (and the fact that most anarchists advocate

for a violent revolution). Yet, most of those who call themselves

anarchists (even those who take part in militant actions) will go to

great lengths to deny that “The Movement” is violent at all. They will

say that property destruction isn’t violent, that all violence practiced

by “True Anarchists” is defensive violence or that the state is the one

that is really violent.

There are also those who argue that appreciation for militant tactics

among anarchists is simply a reflection of “macho” dynamics. While such

dynamics do exists and influence anarchist projects, should we accept

such an essentialist gendering of violence and relegate violence to the

realm of the “masculine”? What about the violence of radical “women” and

queer folks that chose to bash back? Are they being “macho” too?

With the exception of the association of violence with macho attitudes,

all of these arguments play into the moralization of violence, which is

seen as an “unnecessary evil”. I have even seen anarchists saying that

one should never have fun (!!!) while taking part in militant actions.

Should those that choose to fight deny their feelings and become mere

fighting machines?

While the fetishization of violence can be problematic (especially when

it comes from those who have never experienced it firsthand), so is its

demonization. In a society based in the monopolization of violence in

the hands of the state and in the pacification and declawing of those

under its rule, we shouldn’t shy away from admitting ourselves to be

violent and from celebrating violent acts perpetrated against those who

are immmiserating our lives and waging a war against all that is wild.

Now, I am not saying we should uncritically support any violent acts

committed by anarchists (there is nothing we should uncritically

support). But neither should we interpret these actions through a

moralist framework that attempts to distance “moral” anarchists from

“antisocial criminals”, accepting violence only when it serves the goals

of “The Movement” (what movement?). Instead, we should understand that

violence is inseparable from the anarchist struggle, as it is from life

itself. There will always be unruly elements that feel moved to strike

back at society whether or not they are supported by “the masses” or

whether the conditions are ripe for such actions. It is only by

embracing these elements and rejecting the moralization of violence that

we can become a force that strikes fear in the hearts of those that

uphold the civilized order.

The Nature of the Left

by The Green Anarchy Collective

Marx considered industry the “open book of human essential forces.”

Nowhere on the Left is this formulation refuted. Its origins, logic,

destination are taken for granted. We find here, in fact, a core

assumption that unites leftists: that the means of production/technology

should be progressively developed, its reach always extended. This

notion is very close to the heart of the modern conception of progress.

All of life must yield to its imperative.

Domination of nature and domestication are in no way problematic for the

Left. Leftists fail to notice that this accounts, in a fundamental way,

for the Left’s sorry record in practice concerning both the natural

world and the individual.

Like other defenders of civilization and modernity, leftists uphold the

“neutrality” of technology. They cling to this credo even as the horrors

of genetic engineering, human cloning, the cyborg future for the self,

etc. unfold for all to see. Soon, apparently, a wholly mediated and

artificial reality will arrive, with the virtual/digital erasure of

direct experience itself. Modern industrial “medicine”, for example, is

on course to dispense with human contact altogether.

But no matter, this development is “neutral”; it all depends on how it

is used or who is in power. As if these innovations weren’t hugely

estranging and destructive processes in themselves.

Technology embodies the dominant values of the social order where it

resides. It is inseparable from those values and is their physical

expression. Technology becomes a system, as its society becomes a

system. At a fairly early stage of the development of division of labor

(specialization), tools become technology. Where once there were

autonomous, equal individuals and tools accessible to all, the effective

power of experts gradually takes over, promoting social hierarchy.

Division of labor is a fundamental motor of complex, stratified,

alienated society, today as from the beginning.

The Left doesn’t question this basic institution that drives all the

rest, and so must repeat the dominant lie about the neutrality of

technology. In this way the Left works continually for the preservation

of the values and the society that produce ever more powerful and

oppressive technology.

Globalization is not only the cutting edge of the world system of

domination; it also represents division of labor at the global level.

The Left, of course, takes even this for granted, opposing only the

excesses of certain policies, not globalization itself. Thus “Against

Globophobia,” (The Nation, December 1, 2003) rails against those of us

who do oppose it, e.g. “This might be a good time to junk local

self-reliance as an ideal and embrace a deeply global perspective.” The

current bible of the Left, Hardt and Negri’s Empire (2000), is at least

as committed to contemporary society’s mainstays of productionism,

technology, and the basic world system. This system is stamping out all

difference, including indigenous lifeways, in favor of standardization

and global homogeneity.

In his Mirror of Production (1972), Jean Baudrillard showed that marxism

(and all of the modern Left) is just the mirror image of capital’s

techno-economic essentials. Even earlier, Walter Benjamin understood

that “mass production is the production of masses.”

The Left is not radical and really never was. Its adherents challenge

none of the underlying givens of this rotten, massified anti-life world.

On the contrary, the Left — including the anarchist Left — defends them

all. What leftists do oppose is a qualitatively different vision, in the

direction of decentralized, face-to-face, small-scale community where

individual responsibility makes division of labor and domination

obsolete, and human anarchy is part of nature.

Decolonize Earth

by Ria Del Montana

I was born belonging to a field and a forest edge until civilization

stole my being and ‘developed’ my home. Years later I was still a

teenager when I stole back some summertime alone in noncivilization, a

juniper knoll over a lake. Each dawn a mourning dove perched on the

branch above greeted morning cooOOwoo-woo-woooo. For years after,

work-consume city culture swallowed my life. One day I opened my city

door shocked to find a lame mourning dove on the deck. My mind wondered

on which human construct caused the collision. My inner self, original

self, truest self, arose from artificial hibernation. My animal being

compassionately watched over this other animal being through days and

nights as her body healed. When she found strength to fly away, I mused

mystical meaning of this visit from my past converting this deck

artifice into wild refuge. Too quickly I distracted back into illusory

life.

I moved to another urban area, this one with sloped landslide-prone

‘parks’ astonishingly let be as withered wildlife habitat. They were

dumped, fragmented and encroached into by domesticated humans and their

invading tag-along plants and animals. These wild lands civilization

rejected for ‘development’, however degraded, became my authentic life.

In forests dominated by conifers, much taller and widespread than

junipers, in swaths along saline shores, my animal being reawakened.

This time I heard nature’s cries and responded wholly, learning ways of

tending the wild. Indigenous plants are the locus of thriving wild, so I

observed their characters, their pleasures and aversions, movements and

constraints, givings and takings, shape-shifting communities and ranges,

and what assists them in their struggles with invading colonizers.

My assists aligned with the science of restoring ecology, but my

emphasis on caring observations of everything wild awakened a connection

deeper than anything science. I didn’t see my change coming, or plan it,

though I was ready for it and accepted it fully. Despite reports as

increasing in population, the only time I saw a mourning dove since

moving to the land of towering conifers was on a walk through a human

altered environment. Crows harangued with raptorwarning caws from

electric lines above her lifeless body on roadside lawn. Blood dripped

from her beak as a hawk held her still with a talon to rip open her

breast. My mind wondered if humans’ ‘development’ vastness created space

too open, stealing cover that serves hawk the advantage. After years of

lying dormant inside me, mourning dove’s call intuitively sounded, not

entering through my ears but emanating through my voice.

cooOO-woo-woo-woooo

Mourning doves are so uncommon in the forests that I began using the

call to communicate with habitat restoration friends working within

sound range, drawing selective attention of others familiar with

expected bird calls of the place. I varied the emotionality of the call

to signal meaning, from “I’m here now” to “Come check this out!” Now

that my project focuses on inviting return of extirpated indigenous

plants, each time I cast seeds, bury rhizomes or stake stems into a

habitat in which the species once thrived, I sound the mourning dove’s

call selectively to all others who live in this home to announce the

plant’s presence. Then I leave the wild alone to reacquaint.

During a recent training on how nonNatives can ally with Native

Americans I learned a lesson not taught: restoring wild ecology is the

deepest way colonized humans can decolonize. Returning a place toward

its pre-colonized state is rewilding both the place and the rewilder’s

self. This training however centered on identity politics, which I see

as correlational to and part of the birth of human colonization:

civilization. Humans’ domestication and domesticating is colonization’s

core, which is wild life’s core problem. As this training revealed,

civilized humans wage futile fights paradoxically against civilization’s

hierarchies. Further, they see the heinous power they hold over nonhuman

animals as worth the price of civilizations’ ‘progress’, from world

takeovers much farther back than humans’ most recent post-stone age

globalization.

Post-stone age colonization removes us from wild ways of knowing, for

example, replacing childhoods in connection with nature to childhoods

enclosed behind walls studying ways of controlling nature. Humans’ stone

age colonization enculturated humans away from primal ways of living by

unnaturally positioned themselves as Earth’s top predator as they

expanded. This most noticeably manifests in the shifting human foodway

from biological herbivores to advantageous omnivores. From foraging to

dominating by organized hunting.

Past shifting human lifeways of a place creates a curious predicament in

restoration ecology. The restoration reference point of a place

resembles the most recent phase diversity of life was thriving there. In

most cases that phase was a settled period after the habitat was

markedly altered by human colonizing actions impacting the environment.

If nature restorers’ reference point for a place was shaped by actions

such as old growth forest burns set by some to open gaps for hunting

opportunities, how do they account for these missing human interactions

that shaped the ecology?

For thousands of years humans have decided how all life live, further

which life and entire species live and which die. Imagine a pre-human

colonization wildlife map. Imagine wildlife timelines fluctuating at

points of first human contacts, how interconnections transitioned from

wild dynamics to hierarchies under human control. Species deemed

appealing to human usefulness or preference moved to the top, while any

species unwanted was marginalized and risked extermination. Imagine

nonhuman animals hosting a training for humans on the history of their

oppression and exploitation, complete with stories of their slaughters

and species extinctions, as well as their resistance stories and

strategies, with an invitation for you to support them.

An invitation to ally with nature, to liberate Earth from human

colonization, would center on rekindling primal relations with others we

now oppress. A training to ally with wild life would confront humans’

colonizing propaganda, stereotypes and defenses with countering truths.

Not all past humans hunted, many remained foragers, just as many humans

today as young as toddlers instinctively choose to refrain from animal

exploitation. Humans’ reign over others is not natural, nor is humans’

consuming animals part of the ‘circle of life’, no matter how much

‘thanks’ is expressed. The heart of wild interactions and relations is

not using others as resources, but thriving community wild life. Other

animals do not mystically ‘offer’ themselves for consumption, whether or

not ‘every part’ of their body is used. They are not ‘food’ animals

brought into existence for us to live, but wild animals often bred into

unnatural form by imprisoning civilized hands.

Truth is, humans are an incredibly adaptive species with great abilities

to change toward sustainable lifeways, if they would take steps in

overcoming their speciesism. In a training to ally with nature, they

would get a checklist to test their speciesism, akin to Dr. Raible’s

checklist for antiracist white allies. *I demonstrate knowledge and

awareness of the issues of speciesism. *I continually educate myself

about speciesism. *I raise issues about speciesism over and over, both

in public and in private. *I identify speciesism as it is happening. *I

take risks in… Like civilization, speciesism is so rampant, so ingrained

in all of everywhere, the chasm feels unbridgeable. But going hand in

hand with civilization, not facing the daunting task of bringing down

speciesism means humans’ own demise.

Like all oppressions, the dominant group benefits leave tracks of misery

seeming so unnecessary in retrospect. Bringing down the old ways gives

space for the new. Humans can identify and breach the cracks in the

cycle of systematic oppression of nature at each step. The generated

misinformation and propaganda. The justification for further

mistreatment. The institutions perpetuating and enforcing speciesism

birthed in civilization. The internalized dominance and feelings of

superiority. The internalized oppression via subscribing to the

narrative. The cultural acceptance, approval, legitimization,

exploitation, that we cannot empathise with parallel lives that become

mere normalization. The systemic mistreatment of nature. Whether targets

are specific or broad, planting seeds in the hearts and minds or

immediately effective actions, opportunities abound.

While the path of the new way does not and cannot have an overarching

plan, some potential actions of the new way can be envisioned.

Collectively reduce human population. Give back land for indigenous

rewilding. Restore habitat toward times of last thriving ecosystems,

that is pre-European colonization. Invite the return of extirpated

species. Where possible, reintroduce humanremoved indigenous top

predators. Sanctuaries for liberated animals bred into domesticated

forms who cannot go feral or co-adapt into habitat community. Shrink

animal agriculture first, plant agriculture second. If possible, skip

over architecting food forests & permaculture with humans at the center

and return straight to foraging. Draw from sciences without bias

barriers to wildlife’s innate right to live on their own terms.

Humans will either soon drive themselves to extinction with many others,

or they will decolonize themselves by mutualizing their alliance with

Earth’s living communities. Hope lies in releasing mass delusion, in

bringing down speciesism and civilization that dragged it in, in

assisting Earth’s transition into a rewilded state that includes the

compassionate feral folio-frugivore human living in symbiosis with

others. Not utopia, but liberating Earth from human domestication. The

transition has already begun, and all humans are invited to join.

CooOO-woo-woo-woooo.

Alienation

by Return Fire

Alienation – the result of individuals and, through them, societies

‘becoming alien’ (i.e distant, disengaged, even uncomprehending) to the

results of their own activity, the environment in which that activity

occurs, from the people who share that environment and activity, and

from themselves. Alienation is marked in those of us living out systems

of social relationships which thus redirect our energy from living on

our own terms in a manner we ourselves can choose and assert, and into

simply reproducing and reinforcing that social system in order to attain

the means for survival. Individuals with the means (intellectual,

ecological, social) to create lives they freely desire are difficult to

base top-down authoritarian systems upon without the draining use of

constant force. Alienation makes it possible to relatively smoothly

maintain the centralisation of wealth, knowledge and power, separated

from us yet raised by ourselves and many like us.

labour power, transforming it into an owner’s ‘power over’ them and

thereby alienating human beings from their capacity to create. However

it would be a mistake to simply stop there, as Marxists mostly do for

instance. (In the 20^(th) century what became known as ‘the Fordist

compromise’ began to allow producers a limited amount of access to the

commodities they produce; without however changing the course of

alienation, now even more marked in the ‘postindustrial’ consumer

classes.)

We believe that the problem runs much deeper and older than wage

relations, in both the ‘external’ world of habitual interactions and

their ramifications and in the psyche. While alienation can be and is

implemented through many institutions (religion, for one) with a far

longer history, a more holistic example of how alienation begins to sink

its deeper roots would be the dispiriting result on untold numbers of

land-based cultures from assimilation into conquering empires, and the

industrial revolution that forced a mechanical division between

individuals and their livelihoods, their tools, their communities, their

lands; the separation between production and knowledge itself. Let’s

take a step back to a more fundamental appraisal of what it might mean

to be a potentially-free being on a living planet.

What do you know about the trees outside the window? What keeps them

healthy? What about the other animals that live close to you; do you

recognise their calls or tracks? What they do, what they prefer? What do

you know about the lives of human animals that go on over the other side

of the wall next-door, or the masses you pass on the street? What do

they know about you? How does that make you feel?

What do you really know about where the food you eat comes from? Or

about what has to happen for our homes to be lit, heated, or built? How

many of your survival necessities or subsistence skills are truly in

your own hands or those of your relations?

What proportion of your conversations still enjoy the depth of face to

face interaction? How much of your daily environment can you navigate on

foot, walking, climbing, swimming, being helped by a companion, or how

much of it is it necessary to depend on regulated means of

transportation through? How much of your immediate surrounding area are

you physically, socially or legally barred from exploring? Why?

How much of your daily activity is to suit your own needs? Aside from

within the symbolic order of the wage economy, that is. How much of it

do you even really see or understand the repercussions of? Would we live

in this manner if we could directly see and touch the impacts that are

hidden from most, in ghettos, toxic dumps, slaughter-houses, hospitals,

cemeteries, refugee camps, battlefields and felled rainforest in distant

lands, youth jails, oceanic garbage-gyres? Or have we become so

distanced from other lives by the allotment of everything into

categories of utility, so justifying their and our resources for our

own, as rulers living off us cannot empathise with ours?

Does the concept of diversity have much relation to your life beyond the

array of brands at the supermarket, or inter-relatedness have a meaning

beyond message boards? We are tricked and trick ourselves into believing

that the damming of a river or disappearance of wildlife doesn’t really

affect us, burying ourselves in air-conditioned coffins as a society to

separate ourselves from the world we were born in.

Do you even remember how to enact and express your joy as you may have

in your early years? What actually gives you deep satisfaction; or fails

to, even though it may be what advertising and marketing, your parents,

school, politicians or your peers tell you should do? How in touch are

you with your own desires, multi-sensousness, thoughts and feelings?

Might they be directed by social constructions of gender roles, ‘human

nature’, class positions, urban desensitisation...? Might any tendencies

which don’t fit those constructions be smothered daily, in this world we

endure? Do you ever feel like something is missing?

What about your own body; are your familiar with its cycles and drives,

or are they an abstraction in a textbook or something that simply comes

upon us from the blue? Is health just something obscure that a technical

industry exists for and which we’re objects to? Isn’t the direction of

our culture one directly away from the immediacy of human sensations,

evidenced by inflating reliance on machine-readings of our ‘vital

statistics’ and symptom-numbing drugs, shifting value from group play or

physical activity in general into the spectacle of online games and, at

best, exercising isolated with the iPod, or the generational proportion

of Japanese society with a disinterest or even phobia of partner sex?

Do you find that you float from one hobby, job, friendship group or city

to another, but never seem to be able to feel at home in yourself? Have

you ever felt, like a comrade wrote, that the only revolutionary thing

about your life is its relentless circularity? What systematically seems

to push people into these directions, and aren’t reflected in all

histories and cultures, which suffer less of the loss of personality,

loss of place, loss of purpose? What does it mean to be brought up and

inherit not an intimate wealth of folklore to help us navigate a living

landscape with reverence, but to be left grasping for a handle on an

impersonal life that always gets away from us; as it did our immediate

predecessors for multiple generations in the West, with little

understanding or influence, our ancestral capabilities, skills and

memories expropriated or sterilised? What does it tell us about the

trajectory of this system when depression is a main cause of death in

the ‘developed’ world?

Do you find that you float from one hobby, job, friendship group or city

to another, but never seem to be able to feel at home in yourself? Have

you ever felt, like a comrade wrote, that the only revolutionary thing

about your life is its relentless circularity? What systematically seems

to push people into these directions, and aren’t reflected in all

histories and cultures, which suffer less of the loss of personality,

loss of place, loss of purpose? What does it mean to be brought up and

inherit not an intimate wealth of folklore to help us navigate a living

landscape with reverence, but to be left grasping for a handle on an

impersonal life that always gets away from us; as it did our immediate

predecessors for multiple generations in the West, with little

understanding or influence, our ancestral capabilities, skills and

memories expropriated or sterilised? What does it tell us about the

trajectory of this system when depression is a main cause of death in

the ‘developed’ world?

It’s this ‘developed’ world that we imagine most of our readers will be

accustomed to: with the alienations of wage-labour, claustrophobic

built-up areas, an endless routine repeated day after day to attain the

means to go on surviving in the way we’re used to, navigating the

artefacts, mass media representations and bureaucracies of this

civilisation, however irrelevant to our own thoughts and wishes. A while

ago, Michele Vignodelli characterised the deeply meaningful interactions

with a living Earth, as the cornerstone of existence, as having been

replaced by “over-stimulation by artificial, coarse, mechanical inputs,

through fashions, revivals, disco music, roaring toys, cult actors,

events... a whole flamboyant, uproarious and desperately hollow world. A

rising wave of fleeting inputs, a multitude of fake interests and fake

needs where our emotional energies are swept away, drowning us in

nothingness[...] This sumptuous parade seems to consist substantially in

the stream of toxic, hidden grudges that flows beneath the surface of

politeness, in the corridors of industrial hives; it consists in the

snarling defence of one’s own niche, to protect ‘freedoms’ and ‘rights’

that are sanctioned by law, in a deep loneliness which is increasingly

hidden in mass rituals, in a universal inauthenticity of relationships

and experiences.”

We’re awash with communication technologies, and yet more often living

alone, with fewer off-screen friends and little real-world social

solidarity. In replacement we are given the imagined community of the

market, the nation, or the virtual. What was once lived directly,

becomes mere representation.

Alienation results in sensations including (but not limited to)

powerlessness, shame, despair, delusions, hostility, social withdrawal,

feeling constantly threatened or self-destructive, which are all

pandemic within industrial civilisation. Its outward manifestations are

on the rise everywhere that industry and ‘development’ have become the

social norm, not just in the capitalist ‘Old World’ but now China,

India, Africa. Alienation is needed for how our bodies are currently

regulated in ways both great and small by being enmeshed within norms

and expectations that “determine what kinds of lives are deemed livable

or useful and by shutting down the space of possibility and imaginative

transformation where peoples’ lives begin to exceed and escape [the

system’s] use for them” (Susan Stryker). It forms a society of

individuals largely isolated and dissociated from each other and

themselves, despite the crowded cities, depressed, apathetic or filled

with violent and directionless anger; and we identify it in how the

dominant social mode pushes us further into this estrangement. It’s the

anguish of the living subjected to a deathly regime, and a condition

that must be struggled against to overturn the whole social order –

which we are demanded to adapt ourselves to fit. To adapt ourselves to

evermore limited and virtually superfluous roles, at any time liable to

be replaced like a faulty cog. Beneath the surface of modern life, we

live in what can only be described as a state of captivity, and the

neurotic way we internalise this reality to cope with it seeps out and

permeates our every interaction. The loss of perspective that the

overwhelming totality of the current system engenders, casting a shadow

over all past ways of life, makes it easier to be fooled when we’re told

that it is us who are maladjusted, malfunctioning, and when the system’s

guardians tell us they have just the cure for the mysterious undermining

of life.

Yet in spite of generations of ‘naturalisation’, psychological

immiseration tells us we are not at home in the world of social media,

council estates, gated communities, artificial parks, billboards, office

blocks, traffic jams, cash machines, asylums, factory farms, call

centres and other prisons, stuck in a flaccid cycle of work, nuclear

families and programmed entertainment. This is the environment our

pre-determined interactions, which we all go through every day, has

created; yet it is created against us and our own selfdetermination. Our

health (inseparable from that of our landbase), solidarity, spontaneity,

and indeed in the era of vast climate changes even our continued

existence itself is jeopardised by our own alienated activity. The

blackmail of the market keeps our habits and relationships, more often

than not, not just delaying but actually antagonistic to the fullness of

autonomous creativity. Mass social organisation is the separate power

that stands apart from us as individuals, regulating and imposing on us,

as the truly human-scale in life is dwarfed by an unending cycle of

representations, bureaucracy, requirements, regurgitating what is; and

what cannot fail to oppress us. The conditions of life forced upon us by

the economy, the State and technological society have become powers that

rule over and direct us, not tools to use as we see fit. The segregation

from a multitude of lifeforms displaced by the city not just

unfamiliarises us with our planet, but makes it much easier to

participate in the industrial structure devouring everything.

Ignore these facts we may, they continue to come back to haunt us in the

unarticulated precarity of our helpless dependence, the interpersonal

violence, the deadly sadness. Self-medication doesn’t cut it. Reality TV

can’t mask it. The chatter of the crowd won’t drown it out. We are under

mental and physical occupation by the capitalist-industrial system,

leaving the firm but false impression of there being no outside, no

choice, no escape. Is this really what we could call living?

Anti-Left Anarchy: Hunting Leftism with Intent to Kill

by anonymous

By presupposing the axiom of the economic, the Marxist critique perhaps

deciphers the functioning of the system of political economy; but at the

same time it reproduces it as a model. There is neither a mode of

production nor production in primitive societies. There is no dialectic

and no unconscious in primitive societies. Marxism is the projection of

the class struggle and the mode of production onto all previous history;

it is the vision of a future “freedom” based on the conscious domination

of nature. These are extrapolations of the economic. To the degree that

it is not radical, Marxist critique is led despite itself to reproduce

the roots of the system of political economy. —The Mirror of Production

Leftism isn’t merely deadly in its dullness, it’s homicidally deadly in

practice and implementation. In the 20^(th) century the Soviet Union

massacred an estimated twenty to forty million people in the

establishment of their communist empire (some estimates exceed upward of

fifty million, but are difficult to verify for as people were sent to

camps, the Soviets often deleted all records of that persons existence);

Mao TseTung’s “Great Leap Forward” in China (widely recognized as the

greatest disaster in an attempt to construct a centralized economy) is

believed to have left about forty million dead; and Cambodia’s Khmer

Rouge massacred two million (one fourth of the population of Cambodia)

in killing fields—all in the name of an “equal form of communism”. The

communist regimes of the last century all ran a madman’s course and

their scientifically designed Utopias all came in the form of death

camps. In essence, communism is just another (particularly violent)

administrative branch of civilization—like feudalism—and is committed to

a production based industrial social model with even more religious

fervor than capitalism.

Now one would think that anarchists, of all people, would be hostile to

the inherently totalistic and collectivizing nature of leftist

ideologies—like communism and socialism—yet to this day, a large number

of so called anarchists continue to express sympathy with communist

goals, communist epistemology, and Marxist class analysis—and allow

their brains to be bamboozled and mislead by euphemisms like “anti-state

communist”, “autonomist Marxist”, or the current favorite of the urban

hipster: “communization”. Anarchists who drool over this bullshit are

worshipping at the altar of a stagnant pool and remain tethered to a

political tradition of authoritarianism and mass graves—regardless of

the updated terminology (the thin rhetoric of “communization” has

reached new summits of tedium with the trendy writings of mealymouthed

shysters like Tiqqun and the imbecilic gurglings of Applied

Nonexistence: both duplicitous commie front groups that specialize in

speaking postmodern gibberish, in substituting elitist, masturbatory

language for real speech, and in choking unfortunate readers with a

foul, dreamless air—much like that emanating from uncovered garbage

cans).

We have long grown tired of this dialogue and sought to allocate new

anarchic color combinations to the political rubbish that engulfs our

lives. The deceptive verbiage of the Left has placed a strangleknot on

our imaginative field for far too long, freezing our energy and

obscuring the essence of the struggle for Anarchy, its basic and

intrinsic qualities, with artificial and pretentious ideologies that

stifle the action of thought and dream in tedious, one dimensional

holding patterns. All ideologies are straight jackets to the Free

Spirit, but ideologies that don’t reflect the chaos, nonsensical whimsy,

and maniacal laughter of life—like Leftism—are particularly boring

impediments to the unrestrained expression of autonomous and uncivilized

rebellion. Green Anarchy—or the critique of civilization—is class

analysis that doesn’t go halfway, that doesn’t remain trapped in

capitalist logic (as communism does), and that attacks alienation,

domestication, and division of labor at their roots...their civilized

roots. The Left is solidly embedded in the civilized order and as we

struggle against this poisoned, horrible darkness that is dragging us

towards universal collapse, it would behoove us to struggle with open

eyes.

The Fetishization of the Working Class

by Guará

The left is mired in identity politics. While leftists often express

their opposition to systems of domination based on class, gender,

sexuality and race, they tend to oppose such systems by accepting and

reinforcing the very identities created and imposed by such systems of

domination. While all such identities are problematic, I believe that

none of them is as harmful as the left’s idealized and fetishized

identity of “the worker”.

The working class as an identity differs from identities such as

identities based on gender and race in the sense that a worker is an

actual thing that exists apart from how we define it(as opposed to a

“black” person or a “woman”). That being said, the worker only exists as

long as he reproduces social relationships that define him as a worker.

The moment he stops working he ceases being a worker. But why do I

consider embracing the working class identity to be so harmful?

Before we get into that, let’s look back at the creation of the working

class and the working class identity. We can trace the birth of the

working class back to the dawn of the industrial revolution in England,

which needed a disciplined workforce to run the factories that were

emerging like mushrooms after the rain. There was, however, one major

problem for the owners of these factories: nobody wanted to work in

them.

Peasants preferred to work their plots of land, and autonomous artisans

wouldn’t dream of submitting themselves to the nightmarish factories.

Both saw wage labor for what is is: paid slavery. Unfortunately, the

state and the bourgeoisie were determined to turn both peasants and

artisans into workers, and they had the tools and the power to

accomplish that. Land enclosures robbed peasants of their lands,

creating a mass of landless vagrants. Anti-vagrancy laws forced these

ex-peasants to chose between being criminalized or reduced to mere cogs

in an assembly line. Mass-produced goods out-competed artisans, and the

creation of the modern police made sure that the population was

proletarianized whether they wanted it or not.

This process sparked a wave of resistance. The most emblematic revolt

against the new conditions being imposed was the Luddite uprising, when

textile workers and weavers rose in revolt against industrialization and

proceeded to destroy as many machines as they could. Eventually, the

uprisings were put down and people were forced into becoming workers.

The shared experienced of being forced into becoming workers and of

working together under grueling conditions (16 hours work journeys,

miserable wages, poor workplace safety, etc) forged a solidarity among

the first wave of proletarians, which created the conditions for the

birth of the labor movement.

Accepting their new role, workers began to organize and fight for better

conditions. Struggles for better wages, working-hours and for the

legalization of unions took place, and the tactics of the infant

movement began to develop. Working class solidarity grew, and the

identity of the worker slowly took hold upon the new class as new

ideologies were developed around it. These are the ideologies that

eventually gave rise to the modern left.

It is in this context that socialism appeared. As a critique of

capitalism emerged from worker struggles and from the thoughts of

socialist thinkers, the bourgeoisie was identified as an enemy of the

working class. From this perspective, visions of struggle and

“liberation” began to emerge. The most well known of these perspectives

is that of Karl Marx, which originated marxism. Marx recognized the

antagonist nature of the relationship between classes, and sought to

create a vision that could lead to a stateless and classless society

(which he termed communism). His revolutionary subject was the working

class, which Marx believed to be the only inherently revolutionary class

under capitalist soiety. The non-workers who were excluded from the

system were seen by him as crude “lumpens” with no revolutionary

potential.

According to Marx, workers should seize the state through a violent

revolution and create a “proletarian” (and socialist)state. With the

state in their hands, workers would dismantle capitalism and speed the

development of the “productive forces”, which Marx believed are being

held back by capitalism. As the socialist society ran it’s course, the

state would supposedly become increasingly unnecessary and wither away

(although no marxist ever made clear how this process would actually

happen).

Bakunin and other anarchists living at that time (correctly) predicted

that the takeover of the state would simply create a class of state

bureaucrats that would become a new self-serving elite. This critique

was essential to the development of anarchist theory and praxis, which

views the state as an inherently oppressive institution that cannot be

used for liberating purposes.

That being said, both Marx and Bakunin (as well as socialists/anarchists

at the time with very few notable exceptions) believed that the

productive forces should not only be maintained but also developed. Not

only they failed to identify the inherently oppressive nature of

industrial technology, they also failed to see that workers can never be

liberated as long as they remain workers.

Much time has passed since then, but the left still glorifies and

fetishizes industrial society and the working class that keeps it

running. Even the vision of the most “radical” elements of the left

(contemporary revolutionary socialists and left anarchists)refuses to go

further than the idea of a society where the means of production are

administered by the working class. But what good is it to get rid of the

bourgeoisie if we are still enslaved by work, civilization and

industrial technology? Should I be exhilarated at the possibility of

managing my own misery instead of seeking to abolish it?

And why should I look upon the working class as “The Revolutionary

Class” when the vast majority of the working class would defend

industrial society with teeth and nails even though it is the source of

their misery? Now, don’t get me wrong. In the struggle between the

bourgeoisie and the working class I will always side with the working

class. That being said, I cannot envision more than a small fraction of

the working class rallied behind a true liberating vision, not when most

workers cannot even imagine (and wouldn’t want) a world free from the

shackles of industrial civilization.

And how can the “radical left” claim to fight for the liberation of the

working class when most workers don’t want to be liberated? If forced to

choose between the radical left and their capitalist overlords, most

workers will side with the latter (not to mention the increasing number

of working class folks who are willing to turn to fascism in response to

an increasingly crisis-ridden world). You can always claim that this is

simply a matter of educating workers so they can see their own

oppression, but it doesn’t change the fact that you cannot speak for

those who would never wish to be represented by you. Also, Seeing

workers as mere pawns of capitalist propaganda is a patronizing and

elitist attitude which denies people their agency as individuals. Yet,

such attitude is prevalent among the left.

This is not to deny the social dynamics that are at play shaping people.

What we can accomplish as individuals is always limited by our social

environment. Yet, if we are nothing more than products of our

environment with no individual agency,there isn’t even a point in trying

to oppose society.

Either way, it is clear that the left’s ideas about the working class

and its revolutionary potential are as irrelevant as their ideas about

revolution and “liberation”. The working class can only be liberated to

the extent that it is destroyed and transcended. As for me, I will side

with members of the working class that are willing to rise up when it

suits me, but I won’t let off the hook those that get in my way. As for

those who refuse to be molded into workers and are willing to steal back

their lives, they can always count on my strength and solidarity.

Arming Negativity: Towards The Queerest Attack (A Response to Beyond

Negativity: What Comes After Gender Nihilism?”)

by Flower Bomb

“We are radicals who have had enough with attempts to salvage gender. We

do not believe we can make it work for us. We look at the transmisogyny

we have faced in our own lives, the gendered violence that our comrades,

both trans and cis have faced, and we realize that the apparatus itself

makes such violence inevitable. We have had enough.”

“Rather, what comes after Gender Nihilism must be a materialist struggle

against patriarchy, white supremacy, and capitalism which understands

and is attentive to the complex interrelations between these structures

and which refuses to reduce any one of them to any other.” We are not

looking to create a better system, for we are not interested in positive

politics at all. All we demand in the present is a relentless attack on

gender and the modes of social meaning and intelligibility it creates.”

The essay Gender Nihilism: An Anti-Manifesto was an explosive reflection

of my own experience with both “gender” and “nihilism”. As a queer who

possessed no desire for queer recognition and societal assimilation, the

quote above summarized a position of pure negation which I found

exciting affinity with.

I wanted to write this essay, not as a critique of Gender Nihilism but

as praise, and as a personal response to some of the questions posed in

Beyond Negativity: What Comes After Gender Nihilism? In this essay I

outline a few quotes from that piece and respond with my own gender

nihilist perspective.

“As such we are left with the need for the abolition of gender, the need

to push back against reformist projects that simply seek to make an

expanded notion of gender. What remains to be created is the

establishment of a path forward.”

I think it is important to acknowledge that many individuals craft their

own paths of queer negation towards society and its projects of

assimilatory reform. For me personally, a path forward means a queer

nihilism armed, wild and ferocious against the social standardization of

gender and industrial control. This includes but is not limited to an

individualized path of destruction which targets the internalized

governance and roles that define an assigned gendered identity. The

personalization of this governance, which dictates the roles and

behaviors of the assigned identity, surrenders the shapeless wildness of

individuality to the solitary confinement of politics. Towards the

abolition of gender and against reformist projects, my anarchist war

does not limit itself to the confines of politics. Instead, it includes

a queer nihilist life-experience of becoming ungoverned by gender and

any other social constructs intended to subjugate and discourage

individual uniqueness. Beyond the limitations of theory, this also

includes clandestine attack on the manifestations of society, negating

the domestication of law and order.

“Only real, concrete, and organized struggle can move us forward. Mere

negation, senseless violence, or embrace of unintelligibility cannot be

enough. In short we must move beyond negativity. The project at hand is

to adequately account for the violence of gender, the necessity of its

abolition, and the strategies for achieving that abolition in material

terms. Only then will we have the ability to not only achieve abolition,

but to change the world.”

I believe real, concrete, and organized struggle is most powerful when

orchestrated at the individual level. Since in daily life, it is the

individual who experiences the struggle of survival in this gendered

nightmare, no one other than that individual is most qualified to

materialize that revolt. Gendered violence is unique to each individual

who accumulates a history of struggle against it. Electing

identity-based movements or organizations to represent individualized

experience often flattens differences found between individuals,

erecting a false sense of unity. This often leads to one’s association

with an identity determining the legitimacy of one’s experience, rather

than the experience being legitimized as individually unique. This point

was eloquently summarized by Lena Kafka in Destroy Gender:

“My personal experiences with gendered violence are only taken seriously

in light of revealing myself as a trans woman. Our theories should start

from the ways we have experienced gender violence in our daily lives,

not identity. Our relationships to each other should be based upon our

affinities and similarities with each other, rather than based upon the

lowest-commondenomintator politics. Daily life is far too complicated to

be reduced into two categories.”

From my own individualist perspective, nihilism is so much more than

just pessimism, negation and violence; it is the personification of

anarchy, the reclaiming of individuality and the embracing of

ungovernable uniqueness. Queer negativity is hostility towards socially

constructed expectations, those who enforce them, and is subsequently

the emancipation of one’s undefinable “self” from gender conformity.

This includes the expropriation of violence and the total abandonment of

victimhood. Queer nihilism materializes itself as a declaration of war

on society. For every possibility of sexual assault there is a blade

being sharpened for self-defense. Dangerous spaces are personified,

replacing the positive politics of safety. Armed queers don’t just make

waves; they are tsunamis against the logic of submission.

“This means recognizing that these things can only be overcome by a

communist politics oriented towards the future. Abandon nihilism,

abandon hopelessness, demand and build a better world.”

My queerness is an experimentation that never ends. It is the totality

of a life lived against the law, insubordinate and wild. It is not a

communist politics but a nihilist negation to all systems that attempt

to subordinate individuality. It is not the leftist politics of

demanding and building a better world but an anarchist insurgency of

reclaiming life day to day, and setting fire to its captors. Since

gender is embedded in every fabric of this industrial, civilized

society, I find no hope in salvaging any part of it- only joy in every

second of its calculated demise.

“I think its telling that I am presented as the voice of the gender

nihilism, when two of the other largest contributors are indigenous

trans women. Their voices matter in this debate more than mine, yet

people have completely and consistently centered my voice and

perspective. This is harmful.”

Society and those who wish to preserve it require identity politics to

categorize people based on socially assigned constructs. Identity

politics is where individual experimentation goes to die. Like studying

the bricks in a wall rather than venturing beyond the wall itself,

identity politics, like all politics promotes the death of imaginative

exploration. Politics represent the fixed ideological prescriptions of

living, assigned to “the masses” who are treated as if they are

incapable of thinking and acting as individuals.

In the realm of academic recognition, identity politics predetermines

the popular narrative by reversing the hierarchy; those belonging to the

marginalized category become the dominating group who then are given a

pass to trivialize the experiences of those they view as opposite. But

this hierarchical reversal doesn’t challenge hierarchy itself – it only

reforms it in an attempt to create a power masquerading as equality.

This power, composed of social capital, is then used as the power to

ridicule, coerce and dominate others with impunity.

Anyone who presents a single individual as the voice of something as

wide spread as gender nihilism is someone who interprets the world in

terms of textbook definitions rather than the organic fluidity of free

thought and social interaction. Quite simply, it erases all those

individuals who had already discovered and lived gender nihilism but

didn’t have the academic language or status to be credited and

recognized in the mainstream. Alyson’s experiences with gender are not

trivial to mine simply because I am a person of color. Their experiences

are unique from mine, and far more complex than the oversimplifying

measurement of social constructs and any theoretical analysis of

identity and privilege. And it is this uniqueness of individual

experience that gets lost in the homogenizing formations of identity

politics. In my opinion, the harm here is the assertion that voices

belonging to certain individuals matter more than others. Ironically,

there is inequality in pursuit of “equality” and the common denominator

is always a social construct in one form or another.

“Rather, what comes after Gender Nihilism must be a materialist struggle

against patriarchy, white supremacy, and capitalism which understands

and is attentive to the complex interrelations between these structures

and which refuses to reduce any one of them to any other.”

Patriarchy, white supremacy, and capitalism have identity politics of

their own. They each essentialize a role and behavior which reinforces

their power socially. In addition to physically attacking these

institutions, for me it is important to reclaim my self and emancipate

from their mental captivity. This means refusing their language to

define others, allowing others to define themselves beyond

identity-based assumptions. It also means any positive projects that

attempt to occupy space in the courtyard of capitalism compromises the

integrity of their rebellion. The transforming of “queer” into another

rigid, social identity by capitalism and liberalism is one of many

examples. The positive politics of queer identity legitimizes the state

and glorifies a civilized standard of submission. With the help of

internalized and often celebrated victimhood, “queer” soon becomes

another identity pacified and manufactured by capitalism.

This is why my queerness is not a positive project. It’s meaning runs

contrary to the collectivized subordination in both capitalism and the

left. Queer nihilism means arming negativity against the pacifying

effects of positive politics, exploring the intimacy of criminal

affinity with others, and arming individuality with the queerest

savagery against domestication. The fire in my heart burns every

gendered prison assigned to me. Queer is confrontation: my desire for

freedom has intercourse with my hatred for civilization. What blooms is

a lifelong dance that materializes the queerest attack on capital and

social control. I find myself immersed in the chaos of bloodied weapons,

broken glass and shrieking alarms. My body is a dangerous space of love

and rage ungoverned by the morality of non-violence. With love, and in

solidarity with the wild, and with all those who embrace queer anarchy

with hysterical laughs of joy- towards the queerest attack upon the

civilized order!

Liberation lies in action, not liberalism: For a subversive anarchism

by Renzo Connors

“For anarchists our ideas come from action. Our ideas are action and

action, revolutionary anarchist action, is theory.” — Jean Weir

“Liberty belongs to him who takes it” — Max Stirner

“It is not by organizing into parties and syndicates that one struggles

for anarchy, nor by mass action which, as has been shown, overthrows one

barracks only to create another. It is by the revolt of individuals

alone or in small groups, who oppose society, impede its functioning and

cause its disintegration” — Enzo Martucci

While the crypto-liberals favor reform and stick to civil tactics the

subversive anarchist creates the life she wants and fights domination

through direct action.

Direct action is a force to create change in a person’s life. It is

empowering, it gives individuals an opportunity to fight back at their

exploiter and oppressor, or can give the means to create a new life and

new ways of living. Direct action can be carried out by all sorts of

means and for different reasons.

When used to carry out a conflictual action, direct action carried out

to its fullest creates points of conflict (where the individual or

individuals carrying out the direct action meet the subject they are

against head on). It is individuals taking action for themselves, not

waiting or wanting someone else to do it for them, it is total

empowerment. Direct action is the opposite of voting and delegation, it

is taking power into one’s own hands, it is the power to create change.

It is creating and living the life you want here and now. There is no

room for mediators, every person taking part is fighting their own

struggle. They are not seeking help from politicos or union bureaucrats

to represent them.

Direct action can take many forms, it can be big or small. Direct action

doesn’t necessarily have to be (but can be) firebombing a bank or

throwing a molotov at cops. It can be graffiti,a banner drop,

occupations, blockades, guerrilla gardening, sabotage, etc. Direct

actions can be carried out for all shorts of needs, for example

squatting a house, shoplifting for food or cloths; can be an attack

against exploitation for example a wildcat strike in the workplace.

Direct action can be an act of sabotage to resist injustice or

oppression, or a direct action can be a sit down protest to block

traffic on busy roads or lock ons useful for stopping work, boycott

actions, etc, etc. The list and possibilities are endless — alls one

needs is a little imagination. Direct action is defining your own goals,

aims, and achieving them through your own efforts.

As much as the leftists love to feitishize “mass organisations” there is

no need for such large scale formal organization with set structures and

roles. Direct action can be carried out by a single individual or small

groups of 2, 3, 4 or more individuals, using minimalized informal

organisation. This method is usually carried out by small numbers of

people who have prior knowledge of one another and have a shared

interest in carrying out a specific action or task. As soon as the

action is complete the informal organization dissolves. If individuals

involved in the informal organization or group want to carry out more

actions, nothing is stopping them to reorganize again with the same or

with different people.

Leftist anarchists fear informal organising seeing informal hierarchies

emerging as a direct result of being “unorganised”. They believe the

only way to counter informal hierarchies forming is by having formal

organisations with formal structures and positions. Hierarchies can form

within formal organisations just as easily as within informal, the only

cure for combating informal hierarchies is by challenging them and try

keep them in check when they appear. With formal organisations and

groups hierarchies usually get set as part of the structures and are

easier to be hijacked and open to manipulation by opportunists.

In struggles against the state and capital when trying to push points of

conflict to their fullest, crypto-liberals can be a very dangerous

enemy. They will undermine pushing points of conflict with the state

because ultimately they are not against the state; for the

anarcho-leftists their excuse can be afraid to “alienate the people”

from their theories and programmes. Some liberals even go as far as

viewing pigs and screws as “workers in uniforms”. In most part liberals

are against the use of direct action although at times (when popular)

they do opt for very controlled and milled actions, they will usually

liaise with the police, the courts, or any other body of the state they

need to. These actions (if they can even be called such) are more so

political stunts not carried out for empowerment but more so to

publicize themselves.

Crypto-liberals favor more passive tactics such as petitions, pickets,

protest marches or lobbying. At these pickets and protests they will

always have negotiators on standby to go into talks with the state; and

ask for permission to hold protests. The crypto-liberals work within the

parameters set by the state, never stepping outside of the terrain which

the state allows them. These useless tactics go nowhere and achieve

nothing; liberals pacify struggles and actions. Their reformism is a

failure, it has done nothing but kept this society intact.

Act for yourself, build, take, steal the life you want, fight for your

liberation, on your own terms, no one will do it for you. One things for

sore the liberal lefties aren’t going to do it for you.

The struggle for liberation is always an individual struggle. This

rotten society with its institutions and systems of domination will only

be destroyed by a revolt of conscious individuals in the fires of social

insurrection

This may never happen… on till then…my struggle and revolt will go on…

Pure Negation & Jouissance

(Excerpted from Blessed is the Flame: An Introduction to Concentration

Camp Resistance and Anarcho-Nihilism )

“The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!” -Mikhail

Bakunin

“It is ridiculous to even contemplate co-existing with this fascist

apparatus. It all has to be destroyed to start afresh. We will taste the

fruits from the trees we’ve grown ourselves in the ashes of their

empire.” -Anonymous, Incitement to Burn

The call from Bakunin to embrace the destructive urge forms the backbone

of both anarchist and anarcho-nihilist thought. The latter takes this

axiom and runs with it, arguing that in the face of global systems of

domination our sole aim should be to destroy all that constitutes those

systems. This stands in direct contrast to other anarchist tendencies

that place at least some emphasis on “positive programs” — aspirations

to construct something ideal in the present world or to craft plans in

preparation for the downfall of the current system. Anarcho-nihilism

understands the positive program as “one that confuses desire with

reality and extends that confusion into the future” by either making

promises about what a revolutionary future might hold, or attempting to

bring those conditions about from within the existing order.[1] Such

positive aspirations offer nothing more than a dangling carrot for us to

pursue in a situation in which the stick, string, and prize all need to

be destroyed. The example of those living under Nazi rule illustrates a

situation in which, for those deemed Ballastexistenzen, positive visions

were un-fathomable: establishing long-term projects or alternative

infrastructure would be ludicrous, except to the extent that they

facilitated the destruction of the existing order. So long as Hitler

reigned, no Jewish commune would be tolerated, no anarchist child-care

collective could ever hope to thrive. To be immersed in a social order

as violent and controlling as Nazi Germany warranted a reaction of

absolute hostility, attacks aimed at every level of society — pure

negation. So too does anarchonihilism understand the existing order of

today as without potential for a positive agenda. Whatever we build

within its bounds will be co-opted, destroyed, or turned against us: “We

understand that only when all that remains of the dominant

techno-industrial-capitalist system is smouldering ruins, is it feasible

to ask what next?”[2] According to this line of thought, our situation

today is similar to the Lagers to the extent that positive projects,

attempts to create a new world in the shell of the old, are simply out

of place. Aragorn! writes: “Nihilism states that it is not useful to

talk about the society you ‘hold in your stomach’, the things you would

do ‘if only you got power’...What is useful is the negation of the

existing world.”[3] Similarly, imprisoned members of the CCF write:

“We anarcho-nihilists ...don’t talk about ‘transformation of social

relations’ towards a more liberated view, we promulgate their total

destruction and absolute annihilation. Only through total destruction of

the current world of power... will it be possible to build something

new. The deeper we destroy, the more freely will we be able to build.”

[4]

The visions that rebels tend to entertain about what life will be like

After The Revolution are not only unproductive, they are dangerous

because they presume that a unified vision of life is desirable. Such

forward-looking conversations attempt to herd an infinite spectrum of

possibilities onto an ideal anarchist path. The CCF write:

“Very often, even in anarchist circles, the future organization of

‘anarchist’ society is discussed along with the role of work,

selfmanagement of the means of production, direct democracy, etc.

According to us, this kind of debate and proposal looks like the

construction of a dam that tries to control the impetus of the abundant

stream of Anarchy.” [5]

Even resisters in the concentration camps sometimes concerned themselves

with this kind of political fantasizing: In Buchenwald, for instance,

three underground political organizations banded together in 1944 to

plan out the future governance of Germany, at a time when other

organizations in the camp were focused on saving lives and staging

coordinated resistance.[6] Nihilism urges us to consider the fact that

such forward planning is simply unnecessary and that it obfuscates our

more urgent goal of negation: “There’s no need to know what’s happening

tomorrow to destroy a today that makes you bleed.”[7]

From the foundation of this critique, nihilism identifies a common trap

experienced by anarchists: the magnetic compulsion to identify ourselves

positively within society even though we strive for its destruction. In

my local context, this often looks like anarchists responding to critics

of property destruction with reminders of all that we contribute to

society (when we are not rioting, we are community organizers, Food Not

Bombs chefs, musicians, etc.).

Negation, however, is justified by the existence of a ruling order, not

by our credentials as activists. Our riots are justified not because we

contribute, but because we exist under the heel of a monstrous society.

Positive projects are the means of surviving within that order; negation

is the project of destroying it completely. As Alejandro de Acosta

reminds us, we must not be tempted to “frame destructive action as

having any particular goal beyond destruction of the existent.”[8] Bæden

too rails against this tendency, insisting that we have nothing to gain

from hiding our true intentions:

“We understand destruction to be necessary and we desire it in

abundance. We have nothing to gain through shame or lack of confidence

in these desires. This world... must be annihilated in every instance,

all at once. To shy away from this task, to assure our enemies of our

good intentions, is the most crass dishonesty.” [9]

When we call ourselves anarchists, or even “anti-capitalists,” we are

implying a commitment to the destruction of systems of domination — why

do we so often shy away from this? Nihilism unabashedly embraces

negation as being at the core of such positions.

Jouissance

Despite its gloomy connotations, the commitment to pure negation finds

its most interesting manifestations as a joyful, creative, and limitless

project. Most notably, Bæden utilizes the French word jouissance,[10]

which directly translates to “enjoyment,” but takes on a variety of

connotations related to “uncivilized desire,” those aspects of our

existence which “escape representation,” a “shattering of identity and

law,” and that which “shatters our subjective enslavement to capitalist

civilization.[11] Jouissance is an ecstatic energy, felt but never

captured, that pushes us away from any form of domination,

representation, or restraint, and compels us towards fierce wildness and

unmitigated recalcitrance. It is “the process that momentarily sets us

free from our fear of death” and which manifests as a “blissful

enjoyment of the present,” or a “joy which we cannot name.”[12]

Jouissance is the richness of life evoked by resistance, the spirit that

allowed Maria Jakobovics to continue her acts of sabotage despite the

sting of the club or the threat of the noose, and the spirit that

perhaps allows many of us to lead lives of resistance in absolutely

overwhelming circumstances. It is the visceral experience of negation as

ecstatic liberation.

Although the spirit of jouissance animates many anarchist texts,

nihilism seems to approach it with the most naked embrace; for many

nihilists, jouissance is the core of anarchism. Without expectations of

the world to come, without deference to moral code, and without

adherence to a right way to do things, nihilism embraces the act of

resistance as a goal in itself. Through this lens, the joy of pissing in

a Nazi rocket cannot easily be measured against its risks or results —

in jouissance, we find a richness of life unattainable under the status

quo. Without using the word explicitly, some imprisoned members of the

CCF describe jouissance perfectly: “Neither victory nor defeat is

important, but only the beautiful shining of our eyes in combat.”[13]

This emphasis on the act, without attachment to its outcomes, is one of

the aspects of nihilism that has made it such a puzzling force for other

anarchists. Critics of nihilism see this sort of emphasis on jouissance

and negation as simply a form of indulgent retreat into the realm of

personal experience, “because it hurts too much to hope for the

improbable, to imagine a future we can’t believe in.”[14] While this

critique has some merit, I think it largely misses the strength of the

nihilist position and the beauty of jouissance. Whatever we may chose to

do with it, however strategic, ambitious, or optimistic we may feel, our

understanding of we resist can still be solidly rooted in a place of

jouissance. I think the nihilist position leaves space for victories,

while still recognizing that our capacity to win is quite different from

our commitment to liberatory action. Even when we run out of optimistic

rhetoric and inspiring stories, our lives can still be oriented against

the grain of society. Even from a place of utter hopelessness, we can

still find the jouissance in our bodies to attack. Once again, the CCF

insists that:

“what really counts is the strength we feel every time we don’t bow our

heads, every time we destroy the false idols of civilization, every time

our eyes meet those of our comrades along illegal paths, every time that

our hands set fire to the symbols of Power. In those moments we don’t

ask ourselves: ‘Will we win? Will we lose?’ In those moments we just

fight.”[15]

Jouissance is that which animates resistance for its own sake so that

even if we have no future, we can still find life today.

[1] Anarchy and Nihilism: Consequences 13

[2] 325: An Insurgent Zine off Social War and Anarchy 20

[3] Nihilism, Anarchy and the 11^(st) Century 1 8

[4] A Conversation Between Anarchists 23

[5] A Conversation Between Anarchists 22

[6] Wasowicz 1 19

[7] In Cold Blood 10

[8] De Acosta 9–10

[9] Bæden Vol. I 12–13

[10] A word that also has a strong history in Lacanian psychoanalysis,

poststructuralism, and feminist theory.

[11] Bæden Vol. I 66,43,44,55

[12] Bæden Vol. I 44,73,53

[13] A Conversation Between Anarchists 1 1

[14] Zlodey 6

[15] A Conversation Between Anarchists 11