Skip to content

Muntjac Magazine

4th world Anarchists for a magazine as a community resource by us, for us.

  • Recent Posts
  • Articles
  • Magazine
  • Submissions
  • Zines & Merch
  • Stockists
  • Fellow Travelers
  • Anarchism In Sudan Archive
  • About
  • In The Wild
  • Current Issue

Author: muntjac

Kaneko Fumiko – Becuase I Wanted To

Posted on 31/01/2025 - 31/01/2025 by muntjac

Kaneko Fumiko – Becuase I Wanted To

A zine version of this is avalible on our zines page.

Introduction

Kaneko Fumiko (1903–1926) was a Japanese anarchist living at the early part of the 20th century. Born out of wedlock into grinding poverty, she lived her life as an outsider within Japanese society including a stint with unloving and cruel relatives in then-occupied Korea, her experiences inspiring both her rebellion against authority and feelings of solidarity with others on the receiving end of society’s boot. Together with her friend, partner and, before her death, husband Pak Yol, she started underground anarchist societies, published articles against the Japanese state and society, and, perhaps, planned to kill the Emperor Taisho and then-Crown Prince Hirohito with explosives at Hirohito’s wedding.

She and Pak were some of of many who’d be swept up in the mass arrests and killings of enemies of the state both real and perceived after the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923. Placed into “protective custody,” she and Pak were tried and sentenced to death for high treason on charges related to a plot to kill the Emperor and Crown Prince. While these sentences was later commuted to life in prison by the Emperor, an honor she promptly rejected by tearing the decree up in front of her jailers, she was found hanging in her cell in 1926 and is supposed to have committed suicide.

These interrogation transcripts provide a valuable look into the thoughts and deeds of Fumiko beyond the time of her youth detailed in The Prison Memoirs of a Japanese Woman, a memoir written during her trial. At points we see her discussing her philosophies of nihilism and individualism, and Stirner peeks through in her protest against the “phantasm” of Confucian altruism and insistence that we should be the center of all things. Her denunciation of the Emperor and the Japanese state is stirring as well, though the substance of the assassination plot which features heavily in the second interrogation included here is rather unclear because, as Helene Bowen Raddeker observes, during her interrogations she’d inflated her role in the matter to make herself appear more guilty and thus be sentenced as harshly as Pak. Though she talks about Pak’s failed attempt to procure explosives in Korea for her in the first interview featured here from 1925, she later admitted in 1926 to finding out about Pak’s attempt only after he returned[1]. Nevertheless, she treated her interrogators to a riposte of the Emperor system fierce enough to keep her in prison even after this admission.

This pamphlet includes three interrogations: the first is excerpted from Hane Mikiso’s Reflections on the Way to the Gallows and includes her narrative about how she arrived at her nihilist philosophy as well as a denunciation of the emperor system; the second and third pieces, an original translation by myself, take place two years later than the first and were excerpted by Kurihara Yasushi in his compilation of Japanese anarchist writings, Kurizake, Freedom. These include more robust denunciations of the Emperor and Japanese society. Beyond these there exists a comprehensive transcript of Fumiko and Pak’s trials, correspondences and interrogations in court records which have also been published but are currently out of my reach. Some of their pre-trial writings are also extant, though in limited number, and virtually all of this with the exception of Fumiko’s Prison Memoirs of a Japanese Woman remains as-yet untranslated.

In addition to Memoirs, English-language resources for further information about Fumiko include the aforementioned Reflections on the Way to the Gallows, which has a short profile as well as a translation of her essay Nani ga watashi wo kou saseta ka? (What made me do what I did). Radikker’s Treacherous Women of Imperial Japan relates and analyzes the stories of both Fumiko and Kanno Suga, a Japanese anarchist executed for treason 15 years before, and includes a much more robust profile of Fumiko’s life. Raddeker’s familiarity with anarchism, Stirner and Nietzsche and access to a wide variety of source material make for a very engaging read. The tanka on at the end of this work is also taken from there (Raddeker 232).

— Max Res

New Year’s Day, 2020

Max is a part of Viscera Print Goods & Ephemera, and can be reached at viscerapvd@gmail.com.

November 22, 1923

[The following are excerpts from Kaneko’s interrogation on November 22, 1923]

Question: Why did you embrace nihilism?

Answer: Because of the circumstances of my family and ensuing social oppressions.

Q: What about your family?

A: I have no family in the true sense… I was abandoned by my parents and separated from my brothers and sisters. I had no family life. My birth was not recorded, so I was oppressed by the society. It is the fault of the social system… [After coming to Tokyo] I read the writings of Toshihiko Sakai and socialist magazines. Observing this, my parents seemed to be concerned I was inclining towards socialism. In about 1922 I became acquainted with a Korean, Pak Yeol, who was unknown and propertyless. I decided to live with him and informed my parents about this… After I started living with him my father wrote me a letter, in May of that year, contending that I was a descendant of a Chancellor of the Realm, Fujiwara-no-Fusame, [681–737] who lived over a hundred generations ago. I was besmirching this illustrious Saeki family line by living with a lowly Korean. He was disowning me and henceforth I was not to think of him as my father, he wrote. So I was disowned by my father, who had already abandoned me. Mother too had abandoned me… She even considered selling me to a whore-house… My parents bestowed no love on me and yet sought to get whatever benefit they could out of me. Theirs is a truly selfish love, a form of greed. So I, an object of greed, fail to understand the meaning of filial piety. The so-called morality is based on the relationship between the strong and the weak. That morality is always manipulated to serve the convenience of the strong. That is, the strong insists on preserving his freedom of action while demanding the submission of the weak. From the standpoint of the weak, morality means an agreement that calls for one’s submission to the strong. This moral principle is common through all ages and all societies. The primary aim of those in power is to preserve this moral principle as long as possible. The relationship between parents and children is also based on this principle. It is only coated over the with attractive-sounding term “filial piety.”

Q: How did you come to associate with socialists and eventually arrive at nihilism?

A: Three intellectual groups influenced me while I was peddling newspapers… One was a Buddhist salvation group, the second was the Christian Salvation Army group who beat their tambourines, and the third, the long-haired socialists who cried out in desperate voices… I first approached the Salvation Army.

[She then relates her experiences with Saitō – identified in her memoirs as Itō. She explains she grew disillusioned with Christianity when he said he had to end his friendship with her because he had fallen in love with her.]

What an extraordinary contradiction for a Christian to preach love on the street corner then fail to follow through on a pure, unblemished love. Christians have become fettered to the concept of God which they created. Theirs is a cowardly faith of slaves. The virtue and beauty of human beings is to live naturally, ungoverned by external forces. I decided that I could not embrace Christianity, which preaches the doctrine of life that conflicts with the ideals of beauty and virtue. So I abandoned Christianity…

[She was then befriended by a socialist, Hori Kiyotoshi, but she became disillusioned with him also because Hori, she claimed, was a hypocrite. He concealed his relationship with his geisha wife, fearing it would hinder his chances of getting ahead in the world. He also made all of those under him do all the work in his printing business while he idled his time away.]

I was also introduced to another socialist, Kutsumi Fusako. Her family life and principles were no different than Hori’s. Kutsumi took care of her own personal needs but paid no heed to her children’s needs. She would find some excuse to go out with a young man and stay out all day long. I heard her remark that all she had to do was to get on the platform and make a speech about socialism and say “The present society must be destroyed” to get the police to intervene. The next day the papers would report that Kutsumi Fusako made an extremist speech, and so the police prevented her from speaking. I got disgusted with the widespread desire among socialists to get their names in the paper. At this time Kutsumi had no money even to buy food, so she pawned my clothes. She then let the redemption period expire and allowed the pawnshop to sell them without my permission. I am not complaining about losing my clothes, though she knew that I needed them because winter had come. She showed no sense of responsibility. I detested her attitude, a socialist who gives no thought to other people’s needs and thinks only of feeding herself.

I had imagined that socialists were people that rose above the meaningless customs and morality of the society. I imagined them to be courageous fighters with no interest in so-called fame and honor and social reputation. I thought they were warriors fighting to destroy the perverted society of today and striving to create an ideal society. However, even though they denounce the irrational and hypocritical aspects of the society, and pretend that they are indifferent to social criticisms and to fame and reputation, they in fact are governed by and are concerned about the standards of the mundane society. They seek to adorn themselves with conventional ornaments, and take upon themselves conventional values. Just as generals take pride in the medals on their chests, socialists covet records of arrests in order to earn their bread. They take pride in this. When I realized this fact I gave up on them.

I also came to be appalled at the somnolence of the peasants, who are mired in pain but feel no pain, and the ignorance of the workers, who work diligently while they are being devoured to their bones. If the chains that bind them are removed, they are likely to go to the wielders of political and economic power with their chains and beg them to chain them up again. Perhaps they will be happier if they are allowed just to sleep in ignorance. So I got disgusted at all the currents of thought and from the spring of 1922 tightly embraced the nihilistic beliefs I hold today.

As for the significance of my nihilism… in a word, it is the foundation of my thoughts. The goal of my activities is the destruction of all living things. I feel boundless anger against parental authority, which crushed me under the high-sounding name of parental love, and against state and social authority, which abused me in the name of universal love.

Having observed the social reality that all living things on earth are incessantly engaged in a struggle for survival, that they kill each other to survive, I concluded that if there is an absolute, universal law on earth, it is the reality that the strong eat the weak. This, I believe, is the law and truth of the universe. Now that I have seen the truth about the struggle for survival and the fact that the strong win and the weak lose, I cannot join the ranks of the idealists and adopt an optimistic mode of thinking which dreams of the construction of a society that is without authority and control. As long as all living things do not disappear from the earth, the power relations based on this principle [of the strong crushing the weak] will persist. Because the wielders of power continue to defend their authority in the usual manner and oppress the weak—and because my past experience has been a story of oppression by all sources of authority—I decided to deny the rights of all authority, rebel against them, and stake not only my own life but that of all humanity on this endeavor.

For this reason I planned eventually to throw a bomb and accept the termination of my life. I did not care whether this act would touch off a revolution or not. I am perfectly content to satisfy my own desires. I do not wish to help create a new society based on a new authority in a different form.

Q: What is your opinion concerning the Japanese state and social system?

A: I divide the Japanese state-social system into three levels:

The first class is the royal-clan members.

The second class is the government ministers and other wielders of political power.

The third class is the masses in general.

I regard the first class, the royal clan, as pitiful victims who live like prison inmates whose comings and goings are strictly regulated, just as they are for the imperial regent. I think they are pitiful puppets and wooden dolls who are being manipulated by the second class, the real wielders of power, in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the masses. The third class, the masses, as I mentioned earlier, are ignorant beyond salvation. The second class, the wielders of political power, are the ones who have the real power to persecute the weak, like myself. For that reason I feel nothing but bitter hatred toward this class. Whereas in reality the second class is the actual wielder of power, the first class is the formal wielder of power. So these two classes go hand in hand. Consequently I place the second class on the secondary level and direct my rebellious sentiments against the first class. I also contemplated throwing bombs at both classes. Pak Yeol and I talked about this.

I am keeping a journal of my days in prison. On November 6 I wrote: “The rights of the people are being tossed about by the wielders of power as easily as if they were handballs. The government officials have finally thrown me in prison. But let me give you some sound advice. If you wish to prevent the current incident from bearing fruit, you must kill me. You may keep me in prison for years but as soon as I am released I will try the same thing. I will destroy my own body and save you the trouble. You may take this body of mine anywhere you please, to the guillotine if you wish or to the Hachiōji prison. We all have to die eventually. So you may do as you please. You will only be proving that I lived true to myself. I am perfectly happy with that.” You expect me to compromise with you people, changing my way of thinking, and live in conformity with the ways of the society? If I could compromise with you now, I would have compromised with you when I was out in society. You don’t have to preach to me about that. I have enough sense to understand that. I am prepared for whatever you may do to me. So do as you please. Don’t hesitate. To tell you the truth, I would like to go out into the world once more. I know that all I have to do is make my bid by saying “I have undergone a change of heart,” and bow my head. But I cannot destroy my current self so that my future self can survive.

Officers, let me proclaim courageously to you once more: “Rather than prostrate myself before the wielders of power, I prefer to die and be true to myself. If this displeases you, you may take me anywhere you wish. I am not afraid of anything you may do to me.” This is the way I have felt in the past and it is the way I feel now.

Q: Did you become acquainted with Pak Yeol after you developed this manner of thinking?

A: That’s right. After I met Pak we talked about our ideas and found that our views were similar. So in order to work together we began to live together.[2]

[During the course of the interrogation Kaneko revealed her opinion about the emperor system candidly.]

Even before I met Pak Yeol I believed that the emperor was a useless entity. Pak and I got together because we agreed about this. We joined hands as comrades to overthrow the emperor system. By nature human beings should be equal. And yet human beings who are equal by nature have been made unequal because of the presence of the entity called the emperor. The emperor is supposed to be august and exalted. Yet his photograph shows that he is just like us commoners. He has two eyes, one mouth, legs to walk with and hands to work with. But he doesn’t use his hands to work and his legs to walk. That the only difference. The reason I deny the necessity of the emperor rises from my belief that human beings are equal.

We have been taught that the emperor is a descendant of the gods, and that his right to rule has been bestowed upon him by the gods. But I am convinced that the story of the three sacred treasures [the sword, the mirror, and the jewel, which come down from the age of the gods as emblems of imperial authority] is simply a myth plucked out of thin air. If the emperor were a god, then his soldiers would not die. Why were tens of thousands of royal subjects killed by the Great Earthquake in his immediate presence? We have in our midst someone who is supposed to be a living god, one who is omnipotent and omniscient, an emperor who is supposed to realize the will of the gods. Yet his children are crying because of hunger, suffocating to death in the coal mines, and being crushed to death in factory machines. Why is this so? Because, in truth, the emperor is a mere human being. We wanted to show the people that the emperor is an ordinary human being just like us. So we thought of throwing a bomb at him to show that he too will die just like any other human being.

We have been taught that the Japanese national polity consists of an unbroken lineage of the imperial family throughout the ages. But the imperial genealogy is really fuzzy. And even if the genealogy is unbroken through the ages, it signifies nothing. It is nothing to be proud of. Rather, it is shameful that the Japanese people have been so ignorant as to acquiesce in having babies foisted upon them as emperors.

Under the emperor system, education, laws, moral principles were all devised to protect the imperial authority. The notion that the emperor is sacred and august is a fantasy. The people have been led to believe that the emperor and the crown prince represent authorities that are sacred and inviolate. But they are simply vacuous puppets. The concepts of loyalty to the emperor and love of nation are simply rhetorical notions that are being manipulated by the tiny group of privileged classes to fulfill their own greed and interests.[3]

This translation, including paraphrasing and footnotes, can be found in Mikiso Hane’s Reflections on the Way to the Gallows: Rebel Women in Prewar Japan.

May 14th 1925

52nd Interrogation Record May 14th 1925 Ichigaya Prison

(Opening omitted)

Question 1: Is your statement from last time correct that the idea of asking Kim Han for explosives in order to use them during the Crown Prince’s wedding emerged from your discussions with Pak?

Answer: That’s correct.

Q2: Is it also correct that your asking Kim Han for explosives was also in preparation for the Crown Prince’s wedding?

A: I learned they’d be holding a wedding ceremony for the little prince in the near future around the time Pak went to Gyeongseong to make contact with Kim Han.

I recall that at the time the date for the little prince’s wedding hadn’t been firmly decided. In any case, I’d anticipated the wedding procession being held in the near future. I remember it was due to this that Pak went to Gyeongseong so I’d have a bomb in time for this incredible opportunity of a procession.

Q3: Was there a discussion between you and Pak when he left for Gyeongseong about being on time for the wedding ceremony?

A: I talked continuously with Pak about presenting a bomb to the young prince during the Imperial wedding ceremony. Whether that was something that happened before he left for Gyeongseong, or whether it was after, I can’t clearly remember right now. In any case, because from the time Pak left for Gyeongseong I thought using a bomb at the wedding ceremony was best, I think Pak probably told Kim Han to give us a bomb in time for it.

Q4: After returning from Gyeongseong, did Pak tell you that he’d discussed with Kim Han about having bombs in time for the wedding?

A: I didn’t hear from Pak that he’d had that kind of conversation. The only thing he told me after coming back from Gyeongseong was that Kim Han would finally be sharing bombs with us.

Q5: In that case, from the time Pak returned from Gyeongseong at the end of 1922, did you discuss how you wouldn’t be able to get bombs from Kim Han due to the Kim Sang-ok incident[4], and about using them at the ceremony once you got the bombs from him at the end of 1923?

A: There were many conversations between myself and Pak about using the bombs at the ceremony, but I don’t have any certain memories left of whether they happened at that time or what.

Q6: What about at the time of your involvement with Kim Jun-han?[5]

A: I remember clearly at that time there was a conversation between Pak and I about using the bombs at the procession.

Q7: Who were you going to throw the bombs at?

A: Ultimately, we’ll be happy as long as we bag the little prince.

It’d be good to kill the Emperor too, but the procession was a rare opportunity and the Emperor’s a sick man, so the value of the statement we’d make killing him instead of the little prince would be different and not worth it. So we targeted the little prince.

Q8: Once you got the bombs, who was supposed to throw them?

A: Of course myself and Pak were, but I also had the thought of asking other comrades like Nīyama, Choi Gyujong, and Yamamoto Katsuyuki to do it.

The idea I had in mind was, because Nīyama and Yamamoto had been worried about chest troubles for a while and were prepared to die, and Choi’s the kind of person who, once fired up, will do any kind of direct action, Pak and I could have these three divide up and throw bombs into places like the Diet, Mitsukoshi[6], the police headquarters and the Imperial Palace at the same time we were throwing ours.

But then, with regards to Nīyama, after she’d fallen into a romantic relationship with Kim Jun-han we felt her character wasn’t fit for this kind of direct action and we dropped the plan to use our comrades.

Q9: Was throwing a bomb at His Majesty the Crown Prince your only objective?

A: Ultimately we’d have been happy just killing the little prince, but if able we’d have liked to kill him along with the Prime Minister and other true political power holders. But as we’d been slow to take the opportunity once we’d gotten our hands on the bombs, and if we’d been caught by the officials we’d have really looked stupid as I myself do sitting here, we considered that if we really didn’t have the chance we’d set our eyes on the sending a message route, and considered throwing the bombs during events like the May Day celebrations or the opening of the Diet.

Q10: Did Pak have the same main intent as you of throwing a bomb at His Majesty?

A: He did.

Q11: Why did you attempt to cause to such harm to His Majesty the Crown Prince?

A: For a long time I’ve thought deeply that all humans are equal. Everyone being human, they must all be equal. In that there’s no difference between stupid and smart or strong and weak. As humans that exist naturally on earth, I believe that all humans are completely equal in value, and following from the sole qualification of being human they should enjoy completely and equally their right to human activity.

To put it concretely, all actions that have been done, are being done and can be done by humans are built on the foundation of their being human. Thus I think all of these actions, built on a natural foundation and performed by humans on the earth, should be recognized as equal human activities by the sole qualification of their being done by humans. And yet, how very much these natural actions, this natural existence itself, are being denied and controlled in the name of laws made by humans. Humans who should be by nature equal, how unequal their situation is in this society. I curse this inequality. Only two or three years ago, I thought of the so-called nobility[7] of the upper class like a peculiar race, endowed with a shape and substance in every way different from the so-called commoners. As a matter of fact, even looking at pictures in the newspaper you can see that the so-called nobility aren’t in any way different from the commoners. With two eyes, one mouth, two legs for walking and hands to work with, it seems they’re not lacking in the least.

Actually, I didn’t think a deformed child [sic] lacking those things could ever be a part of such a class.

This understanding of, in short, the class of the Imperial household, the understanding that when you speak of them you instinctually feel like you’re speaking of noble, inviolate people, is something that’s likely been entrenched in the hearts of the people. To put it differently, things like Japan’s states and rulers have tapped a bit into this vein of popular understanding.

From the start, things like countries, societies, peoples and rulers are nothing but ideas. Nevertheless, in order to bestow the rulers of these ideas with majesty, political power and holiness, there exists in this very Japan something that represents what I just wrenched out—the divine right of kings. Just as anyone born on Japanese soil is instilled with this idea, even grade school students, in order to impress upon the guileless people notions like the Emperor himself being descended from the gods, or his right to rule being something bestowed by decree of the gods, or else the Emperor being someone who controls the power of the State in order to realize the will of the gods, and thus the law is the will of the gods, they base these things in fantastic legends, vaunting and solemnly offering praise to things like a mirror, a sword and a jewel[8] like they were given by the gods, completely deceiving them. The poor deceived people, engulfed in these absurd legends, consider things like the government and Emperor to be incredible gods beyond compare, but if the Emperor was a god himself or descended from the gods, if the people were under the protection of these gods, existing under the spirits of successive generations of these god-emperors, no Japanese soldiers should have to die in times of war, not one Japanese airplane should fall from the sky, and some tens of thousands of loyal subjects shouldn’t die in the gods’ own backyard due to a natural disaster like the one last year[9].

But this unbelievable thing that became an unwavering truth, that is the divine right of kings which is nothing more than a supposition, isn’t it proven all too clearly that the legends in which it’s grounded are empty? And regardless of whether an Emperor who’s the almighty omnipotent manifestation of the gods and implementing the will of the gods truly exists on earth or not, don’t some of this society’s children that exist under him cry from hunger, suffocate in coal mines, and die miserable deaths crushed by machines? And isn’t this enough evidence of the truth, namely that the Emperor is just a lump of meat, someone in every way the same as the so-called public, and that everyone should be equal to him? Wasn’t it the same for you, officer? I was taught in elementary school that because our sole glory as human beings was having the fortune to be born into the nation without compare that is this country, where we live under an Emperor who’s part of a continuous, unbroken line, we had to put our effort into enhancing this glory. And while I don’t know whether their being of one bloodline is true or not, in any case is it such a great honor to be ruled by a single lineage? I’ve heard before of an Emperor who drowned and became fish food, Antoku[10] or something, that bore the responsibility of ruler of Japan at a mere two years old. Is vaunting such an incapable human being as their ruler really the glory of the ruled? Rather, granting some ten thousand year imperial line the power to govern even as a formality is the deepest shame of people born on Japanese soil, and proof of the ignorance of the Japanese people.

Last year’s tragedy, where many people burned to death by the side of the currently breathing Emperor, was something that proved he’s actually just a foolish lump of meat and at the same time scorns the foolishness and naivete of people in the past.

Schooling endeavors first to teach humans who exist naturally on earth the word for “flag” and instill in them the spirit of nationalism. And the wide variety of activities that are all equally founded in their being done by humans, all of these are divided into right and wrong under the single standard of whether they support authority or not. And that standard is human-made law and morality.

The police, who administer the law which teaches only the path to a better life for society’s victors and submission to authority, lower their sabers and menace human actions, taking everyone who they fear might shake the pillars of power and bam, bind them up one and all. And the judges, those respectable officials, flip through law books and hand down arbitrary judgments on human actions, alienating themselves from human lives, denying even their humanity as they undertake their duty as protectors of authority.

Like when Christianity was at its height and, in order to protect its sanctity, they banned scientific research for fear of shaking the pillars of the superstitious miracles of God and long-held traditions they preached, things like the sanctity of the State or the holiness of the Emperor are also ephemeral, and force is used to oppress those ideas and arguments that would expose them as nothing more than illusions.

Thus the earth is currently occupied and being trampled upon by a devil called power, because the lives which should by their nature be enjoyed by humans who are natural existences on the earth are only permitted if they fulfill the mission of serving it.

And the representatives of the devil called power that’s trampling upon the lives of the humans on the earth who should all be equal are the Emperor and the Crown Prince. All the reasons for targeting the little prince I’ve given up to now proceed from this idea.

And for those representatives of power who trample upon the lives of the naturally equal humans on the earth, those lumps of meat equal to lumps of dirt called the Emperor and Crown Prince, the poor people they’ve deceived give them an exaggerated holiness and provide them superior, inviolate positions while they’re being exploited. And it’s there that I wanted to show the people clearly that those being impressed upon them then as sacred inviolate power, the Emperor and Crown Prince, are in truth empty lumps of meat among lumps of meat, nothing but puppets, to show those being exploited that they’re nothing more than marionettes and foolish dummies used by the privileged few to enrich themselves by deceiving the people who serve as their source of wealth, and through this to show that the mountain of long-held traditions that bestow the Emperor with divinity are purely empty superstitions. To show, because the empty substance of this Japanese nation that’s considered the land of the gods is nothing more than a provisional system for increasing the personal gains of the privileged few, the ideology of self-sacrifice for the nation called “loyalty and patriotism” that’s glorified and propagandized and even considered a national slogan being in truth nothing more than a cruel desire to sacrifice the lives of others for their own benefit wrapped up in pretty adjectives as a means of indulging their self-interest. I targeted the little prince to warn the people that consenting to this uncritically means consenting to being a slave to the privileged few, to let people know that the fundamental altruistic morality demanded by the Confucianism that Japanese people up to now have held as their life’s creed, that slave morality that subdues the people’s hearts today and even in that action inclines them to being ruled, is in truth an illusion emerging from sheer conjecture, just an empty phantasm, and in letting them know that, opening their eyes to see that people should act entirely for themselves, that the ones who make the universe are they themselves, and thus every “thing” exists for them and everything should be done for them.

I thought in any case that by throwing that bomb, I’d soon be putting an end to my life on this earth. The reason I’ve just told you for targeting the little prince, with the idea being to make a declaration to the outside world, that is, an explanation for the people, this scheme was in fact something consisting of my reflections made to hold a faint color of hope and nothing more, in other words it was me extending outwards thoughts that had been directed towards myself, which is all to say that thoughts which had myself as their object were at the root of this plan.

Regarding thoughts which have myself as their object, what’s referred to as my nihilistic ideology, I already talked about this in detail last time. To follow my plan to its logical conclusion, the negative goal was to negate my own life, and the positive, ultimate goal, the heart of the plan itself, was the destruction of all power on this earth.

This is why I targeted the little prince.

Q12: How is your physical health?

A: My health? That was resolved a long time ago.

Q13: Have you reformed yourself?

A: I’ve done absolutely nothing I need to repent for. Indeed you could say that my ideas and actions, my plan are all bad because they’d cause trouble for other people, but at the same time they’re things that I myself benefit from.

Judging things according to your interest certainly isn’t bad; rather, it’s human nature, a condition for living. If judging things according to your interest was bad, the blame would be on the fact that humans themselves are alive. To me, things that are to your benefit are good, and things to your disadvantage are bad.

But I didn’t carry out this plan because I believed it was good. I only did it because I wanted to. Just as no matter how I’m criticized as being bad by other people, I don’t stray from my path, no matter how you might flatter me for being good, if I don’t want to do something, I’m not doing it.

I’ll keep doing things because I want to. I can’t predict what those things will be, but what’s certain is as long I exist above ground I’ll be living in the moment, pursuing the things I most want to do from one to the next.

July 18th 1925

1st Interrogation Record[11] July 18th 1925 Ichigaya Prison Kaneko Fumiko (interrogation document)

Regarding the case of the aforementioned defendant being charged under Article 73[12] as well as with violating the Explosives Control Act, the following interrogation took place in Ichigaya Prison on July 18th 1925, being carried out with Judge Tatematsu Kaisei of the Tokyo Appeals Court, charged with the preliminary hearing under the special power belonging to the Supreme Court, and Secretary Okuyama Gunji of the same court in attendance.

Question 1: Your name?

Answer: Kaneko Fumiko.

Q2: Age?

A: Officially I’m 24, though I’m 22 by my recollection. But to tell you the truth, I don’t believe in either. And what’s more, I don’t need to believe. No matter how old I am, it has nothing to do with me living my own life right now.

Q3: Your class?

A: A divine[13] commoner.

Q4: How are you employed?

A: My job is tearing down everything that currently exists.

Q5: Place of residence?

A: Tokyo Prison.

Q6: Permanent address?

A: Yamanashi Prefecture, Higashi-Yamanashi District, Suwa Village, 1236 Somaguchi.

Q7: Place of birth?

A: Yokohama City.

Q8: Do you hold any rank, decoration, insignia for military service, retirement, pension, or public office?

A: You can’t give me any of that stuff, and even if you could I wouldn’t take them.

Q9: Have you ever been sentenced for anything?

A: I’ll be receiving one soon, won’t I?

Q10: Have you read the official change of jurisdiction document for you and the other defendants?

A: I have.

Q11: Are there any discrepancies in the facts recorded in that document?

A: There aren’t.

Q12: On that point, do you have any comments on the Attorney General prosecuting you and Pak Jun-sik[14] in this way and requesting the preliminary hearing from the Supreme Court?

At this time the judge has begun reading the section entitled “Indictments of the Preliminary Hearing Request.”

A: No comment.

Q13: And on the intent to have me carry out the preliminary hearing by order of the Head of the Supreme Court?

A: No objection.

Q14: Are there any errors in what you’ve said at the preliminary hearing of your case in Tokyo District Court for violating the Security Police Law and Explosives Control Act?

A: There aren’t.

Works Cited

Hane, Mikiso. Reflections on the Way to the Gallows: Rebel Women in Prewar Japan. University of California Press, 1988.

Kurihara, Yasushi. Kuruizake, Freedom: Anarchism Anthology. Chikuma Shobou, 2018.

Raddeker, Helene Bowen. Treacherous Women of Imperial Japan: Patriarchal Fictions, Patricidal Fantasies. Routledge, 1997.

Bent over,
watching others from beneath
my thighs —
the state of the world I
need to look at, upside-down.Kaneko Fumiko

[1] Raddeker 70.

[2] Tokyo District Court Interrogation Records for November 22, 1923.

[3] Setouchi Harumi, ed., Onna no Isshō, Jimbutsu Kindai Joseishi, Hangyaku no Onna no Roman, 8 vols. (Tokyo: Kōdansha, 1980), VI: 168–69.

[4] Sang-ok, a member of the resistance to the Japanese occupation of Korea, threw a bomb into the Jongno police station in Seoul in January 1923, dying in a shootout with the police a few days later.

[5] An associate of Fumiko and Pak’s, they belonged to a number of radical groups together and likely parted ways due to arguments between he and Pak in August of 1923.

[6] A Japanese department store chain.

[7] Meiji society was divided into formal class positions of nobility, those descended from samurai households, and commoners.

[8] Items known as the Three Sacred Treasures (sanshu no jingi). According to legend they were brought to earth by the ancestor of the Japanese imperial line.

[9] The Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, in which more than 140,000 are estimated to have died, many engulfed in fires which broke out as a result.

[10] Antoku (1178–1185) was drowned by his grandmother when she jumped overboard during a navel battle rather than risk him being captured.

[11] This is the first interrogation since she was indicted on additional charges.

[12] The crime of high treason under the Meiji criminal code.

[13] Radikker sees this as a provocation towards the Emperor’s divine status (234).

[14] Pak Yol’s birth name.

Further reading

Her biography; https://ia800503.us.archive.org/8/items/KanekoFumikoThePrisonMemoirsOfAJapaneseWoman/Fumiko-ThePrisonMemoirsOfAJapaneseWoman1.pdf

A poster by Haters Cafe of one of her poems. https://haters.noblogs.org/files/2021/02/Fumiko.pdf

Athena – Addicted to Losing + A Response

Posted on 31/01/2025 - 31/01/2025 by muntjac

We have chosen to make a zine of this text + a poinient critique of it posted shortly after its release. You can download it on our zines page.

Athena – Addicted to Losing

illwill.com/addicted-to-losing

To restart the revolution is not to rebegin it, it is to cease to see the world alienated, men to be saved or helped, or even to be served, it is to abandon the masculine position, to listen to femininity, stupidity, and madness without regarding them as evils. —J.F. Lyotard

Can you be immortalized without your life being expired? —Kendrick Lamar

In the summer of 2020, we saw the largest uprising in America’s history. Its racial character was undeniable: in a landscape of unfrozen civil war, the negro question once again took center stage. Among those most eager for destruction was the black working class, which made short work of police cars, cops, and storefronts. Looking back on these events, part of the reason the uprising died down was that it hit upon both technical and social limits. As has been pointed out by others, the “memetic” quality of the movement — i.e., the way it ramped itself up through the iteration of destructive gestures — reached its limit with the burning of the Third Precinct in Minneapolis, an attack that, while awe-inspiring, set a high bar to clear. On the other hand, in terms of its social limits, the imaginary of the rebellion, its revolutionary potentials, were shamelessly repressed by the Black counter-insurgency. The Black counter-insurgency consists of a network of middle class black folks, black academics, rich niggas and their cohorts who, in cooperation with the police, helped to put down the wave of property destruction by recuperating its energy towards the construction of a social movement. Managers are endemic to such movements, a role that the black counter-insurgency was all too eager to assume. In their hands, questions of revolution and how to make one evaporate into liberal talk of “abolition,” a slick cover for more police reform. Since this distinct brand of repression within movements is not isolated to 2020, but saturates both our past and present, it is decisive that we grasp its meaning and purpose.

In what follows, we wish to clarify the ground upon which the standpoint of Black counter-insurgency rests, the set of beliefs and assumptions that allow it to reproduce itself. Why is the notion that racialized people need masters so easily swallowed, even by so-called radicals? How do we injure the stupidity that is spread by this idea, this ongoing perception of people of color as unsuited to the task of ending the world? In today’s movements and organizing spaces, the reign of white supremacy is nourished by the paternal concern for the welfare of people of color, an insidious apparatus that works to attenuate our militancy by instilling in us feelings of inferiority and dependency. Our task therefore is twofold: not only must we confront racist repression at the hands of police in our streets, but also the fluid web of social control that extends beyond that terrain into our own social and political circles. In seeking answers to these questions, our aim is to make way for more unruly and ungrateful black and brown insurgents, a specter feared by both whites and non-whites alike.

Gimme danger, not safety

The politics of the black counter-insurgency is what Jackie Wang has called a “politics of safety.” For Wang, the politics of safety is based on the racializing requirement that, unlike their white counterparts, in order to warrant political consideration, oppressed people of color must be innocent. As she shows, the difference in treatment between the case of Trayvon Martin, a Black teen the regarded by the public as “a kid like any other,” and that of Isaiah Simmons, who was choked to death by multiple counselors in a juvenile facility, can be attributed to the former’s appearance of innocence. Trayvon sees ample news coverage and protests, while Isaiah’s criminal status exempts him from public empathy, relegating him to obscurity. This prerequisite of innocence serves a hidden assimilating function: empathy with the oppressed is possible precisely in proportion to how relatable they are to the public. Those who are racialized must appear as morally pure, or not at all. To have one’s oppression verified or authenticated, one is obligated to be innocent, in the way a child supposedly is — and therefore inferior, in the same way the child is thought to be. The politics of safety is a whitewashing operation. The boundaries of whiteness — what it permits and what it forbids — are established by reference to this distorted view of the dominated.

This infantilizing construction of the marginalized is used to justify a politics in which violent and conflictual ways of being are disqualified in the name of “keeping the less privileged safe.” When they police a demo that is beginning to get out of hand, those professing a politics of safety can then claim that they are doing so in the name of protecting the vulnerable in their flock. This is easier than confronting their real fear, namely, that non-white people and other marginalized groups might truly slip out of anyone’s control. In the case of people of color, the common articulation of struggle against white supremacy is one entirely without teeth. The savage, the negro, the person of color can only be thought of as fragile, to the point of ineptness. Confused non-whites believe it to be the duty of “radicals” to convince other non-whites to relate to themselves as if they lacked the kind of political agency that only white people can hold. Wang expresses this point succinctly:

People of color who use privilege theory to argue that white people have the privilege to engage in risky actions while POC cannot because they are the most vulnerable (most likely to be targeted by the police, not have the resources to get out of jail, etc.) make a correct assessment of power differentials between white and non-white political actors, but ultimately erase POC from the history of militant struggle by falsely associating militancy with whiteness and privilege. When an analysis of privilege is turned into a political program that asserts that the most vulnerable should not take risks, the only politically correct politics becomes a politics of reformism and retreat.

Today, calls for “white bodies to the front” are met not with ridicule but unflinching obedience. Even in anarchist circles, which one foolishly hopes would be immunized from such behavior, comrades fall victim to it. For instance, why do people of color so often find themselves exempted from the practices of folk justice applied to everyone else in radical milieus, prompting jokes about people of color being “uncancellable”? Why is it that, after all these years, it has been so hard for radicals to shake the politics of safety?

Wang wrote “Against Innocence” in 2012, but it feels as if it could’ve been written yesterday. Feeble attempts have been made to combat it, usually in the form of a lukewarm critique of vulgar identity politics, but these attempts are neither satisfactory nor novel. Is it enough to blame the issue on the Combahee River Collective’s concept of identity politics, which sought to clarify interlocking modes of oppression? Such critiques are all too eager to dismiss race and gender as central modes by which governmental power operates. These forms of power cannot simply be avoided, but must be moved through in order to be overcome. An indifference to the question of race only preserves one’s sense of comfort, whether it be through self-serving emphasis on supposedly common elements of domination like class or through the naked denial of social difference. Moving through these structures requires that we confront what Idris Robinson calls the “morbid libidinal core of white supremacy, identity politics, intersectionality, and social privilege discourse.” For us, this means giving form to a sentimental analysis, one inseparable from an actual practice of civil war. By sentimental, I mean that we root through the innards of that space improperly marked as “personal,” going beneath the veneer of intellectual pretension to confront what hurts, frightens, and disorients us. The politics of safety, I propose, has flourished by preying upon the moral values dominant among radicals. An examination of such values then, may aid in plotting an escape route.

The politics of sacrifice

Where do our concepts of good, bad, and evil come from? In his landmark history of morality, the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche illustrates the difference between two types of morality by recourse to a myth. Once upon a time, there were “masters” who were strong, and affirmed their strength and vitality as “good.” The concept of “bad” was an afterthought, associated only secondarily with traits proper to “slaves” who they considered beneath them. This set of values Nietzsche calls “master morality.” The slaves, oppressed by the masters, respond by transforming the meaning of good and bad, calling the strength of their masters evil, and (by extension) their own weakness good. According to Nietzsche, this reversal was a way of exacting a moral or spiritual revenge on the masters, since they lack the material strength to overthrow them. This cunning maneuver succeeded, at least for a time. However, Nietzsche argues that this tactic has overstayed its welcome, leaving in its wake a reigning slave morality that valorizes dispossession and weakness. Slave morality recognizes the good only where there is bondage, while regarding all attempts to escape from this bondage as evil. Nietzsche’s prime example of slave morality is Christianity, which he sees as a denial of life and its pleasures, which holds the material world in contempt.

Nietzsche’s analysis of slave morality is useful. Even among anarchists/anti-state radicals, slave morality survives in the form of a politics of safety, an illness similar to Christianity. This should not be surprising, considering radical politics and Christianity have long had a love affair. As communist philosopher Walter Benjamin noted, many radical concepts are, after all, secularized theological concepts. To observe that the ruling moral values among radicals exhibit the traits of a slave morality need not amount to an endorsement of master morality. Slave morality doesn’t always arrive in the stiff posture of the priest. In the radical milieus it can also assume the disarming language of zines and hair dye, which only makes it all the more difficult to pin down. This new look of slave morality, which allows for the continued worship of weakness, is based on an illusion among radicals that they have already conquered asceticism. We laugh at the Christians and socialists, ignoring the beam in our own eye. If the politics of safety is an effective strategy of counter-insurgency, this is because it exploits the underlying slave morality of radicalism.

According to the slavish values of radicals, experiences of oppression — racial and otherwise — are assigned the quality of “goodness.” In other words, a diminished capacity for action is treated as a virtue in and of itself. Those vital, rebellious fragments that exist among the oppressed are swept aside in favor of a moral fetishization of wretchedness. This fetishization is reflected plainly in the ragged dress code of the radical circles, a cultural signification of one’s aversion to decadence. More generally, efforts of radicals to increase their power of acting, whether through acquiring spaces like houses and social centers, money for bail funds and projects, or even forming larger strategies about how to defeat the police in the streets are treated as a violation of an implicit set of values that venerates the experience of being trapped. These tactics are seen by some radicals as a dangerous ploy for power, which risk being reigned back into domination.

Skepticism surrounding what it means to build consistency as a revolutionary force is important, and we should be cautious about the recuperation of projects designed to give us more material power. But when the concern clearly bubbles up from a sensation that such tactics betray the holy, servile image of the revolutionary as someone with barely enough will to throw a brick, our sympathy should cease. To struggle against one’s subjugation is too often framed as a simple shift from the position of the slave to that of the master, every other path being met with disdain. The romanticization of revolutionaries as “beautiful losers” only ensures that the medicine goes down smoother. Such myths beg for disenchantment in reality, like Christianity before it, radicalist slave morality is ultimately premised on a rejection of life.

Like the megachurch preacher who scolds the taste for revenge and filth of queerness, the radical experiences shame in the face of every expression of strength, seeing in it nothing but a conspicuous consumption of privilege. In the name of liberation, the radical paradoxically calls for a political modesty: are you really going out dressed like that? We are at a point where even declaring that we want to be stronger raises a certain kind of alarm. Why should it?

Revolutions take strength. Deactivating that which governs us takes strength. We should want that power and should shamelessly seek it, rather than smothering it beneath the specious garb of asceticism. This shame that blocks us is rooted in what Nietzsche calls ressentiment, an envy felt toward another whom we believe to be the sole cause of our lack of power. Ressentiment is what leads radicals to police attempts at freedom that lie outside of their preferred grammar of conflict, which they wrongly interpret as the reason the enemy keeps winning.

Shame in the face of power surfaces as the primary driving passion of would-be revolutionaries. Rather than dreaming of the excesses this world holds back, and spitting on the poverty of its justice, its love, its pleasure, and what it passes off as “sociality,” radical culture responds punitively with the stick of shame, a reactive passion. The real exploitation of the oppressed is treated as a pretense to deny any and all ecstasy to radicals. Shame seeps into our bodies, to the point where we learn to see ourselves as little else than instruments of domination, until our own self-destruction becomes a moral duty. In this way, the suicidal despair that this world proliferates is thereby transmuted into a radical consciousness. The miserable and dejected preach their “good news”: the true revolutionary is unworthy of life. Living is for someone else, not for them. Nowhere is this groveling attitude more apparent than in that Maoist slogan, “serve the people.”


So much for the radlibs and protest managers. But what of the militants in our movements? With them, slave morality emerges as a politics of sacrifice. Their neglect of the question, “how are we to live?”, leads them to reproduce the same nightmare over and over. Whereas the liberal politics of safety embodies the condescension of Christian charity, the more “anarchistic” politics of sacrifice draws instead upon the legacy of Christian martyrdom. Rather than a playful mode of affirmation, its style is that of pleasureless service. The politics of sacrifice is ruthlessly utilitarian, but like all utilitarianism, its understanding of the good is completely detached from the world it actually inhabits. The tendency towards martyrdom among the advocates of violent direct action attests less to revolutionary piety than to a complete exhaustion of the imagination, a death drive thriving in an absent sense of the possible. Fighting against this world is reduced to the gesture of giving one’s life over to a complete destruction. Political effectiveness is measured by the degree of suffering one endures in their efforts at resistance. This sickening resignation to oblivion lives as much in the sad militant who prays to be arrested in the black bloc as it does in the anarchist organizer who stretches themselves thin to the point of breaking, because others have it worse. Outside of these attempts to chip away at Empire through sharp masochistic bursts, we live our lives otherwise unchanged. At bottom, the politics of sacrifice doesn’t really desire autonomy; such acts reflect instead a need to gratify that voice inside of us that tells us we don’t deserve any other world than this.

By giving our souls over to a flattened image of the oppressed, we fail to earn our own trust. In our reflection of the long, disastrous history of counterrevolution, we deny ourselves permission to attempt once more to transform our lives, reverting instead to a political sterility that excuses itself from the task of transformation entirely — after all, is this not the safer option?

The politics of sacrifice confers a predictable shape upon our struggles. We see this in the refusal to engage with the mass intelligence of crowds, the suspicion of any openness to cross contamination. The militant embodies a knight-like position with respect to the crowd: rather positioning themselves within it, they act like a kind distant protector, ever anxious to ensure that the membrane between savior and saved is never breached. Either they make themselves so small as to avoid influencing anyone, or they assume a paternalistic vanguard posture that tries to safely, but separately, guide the little lambs. The impurity proper to all genuinely strategic thinking, which invites us to explore the contours of a situation rather than defer to an ideology or tribe, is denied in favor of a puritanical mode of critical thinking. Rather than being a tool to challenge one’s base assumptions, “critique” assumes the form of a neurotic scanning of oneself and others in search of some hidden authoritarian germ. Milieus devour themselves through the endless production of holographic enemies, allowing the resentful to cloud our sight with confused battles whose only purpose is to satiate a drive for “salvation”, a nakedly desperate need to be needed. All of which is simply a smokescreen for the actual conflicts: a widespread rape culture, racial segregation among revolutionaries, and the unutterable fear of our own freedom. Nietzsche spoke of the “anarchist dogs” that roamed Europe; today we can speak of hyenas.

By giving in to the nihilistic politics of sacrifice and its disgust with the sweetly overflowing quality of existence, we excuse ourselves from creating new ways to increase our power of acting. In my experience, it is the radicals who issue from more privileged positions in the world that are most readily trapped in the politics of sacrifice, using increasingly finer points of marginalization rhetoric to assert their essential goodness and moral authority. Who among us hasn’t been at the business end of the middle class or white comrade, who transforms their soul-wrenching guilt into everyone else’s punishment? While rebellious segments of “the meek” are busy figuring out how to live in spite of it all, others scheme only about how to die. Certainly, all kinds of passions can motivate beautiful acts of sabotage. But what must be challenged is this abnegation that asserts itself as the only mode in which we wage war. We are blocked from the full spectrum of what makes us disobey when, in reality, there is plenty of room for the self-negating agony to break bread with contagious shared joy. The devil lies in an art of distances.

Learned helplessness

Let’s return to the question of race. Radicals of color become central objects in this politics of sacrifice. We are things that represent the stakes, either directly or symbolically. A black person cannot just be herself. Her fungibility makes her interchangeable with the gangbanger, the prisoner, or the factory worker in the global south, even if her own social and economic conditions have nothing in common with them. When white radicals coddle people of color, it is often out of a misguided effort to place themselves in contact with the “most wretched.” The concrete person of color is always already a stand-in, devoid of any being. The white’s desperation to be a savior and to spread the dichotomy between savior and saved reflects an unspoken sense of superiority, a racist narcissism. If I don’t act, who will? Certainly not those poor folks. The politics of sacrifice discourages militants from taking responsibility for their desire to rebel, as if rebelling for one’s own sake, or for one’s own reasons, were merely a gratuitous pleasure. It is forbidden to acknowledge that smashing cop cars is fun. The erotic dimensions of rebellion, the euphoria that comes from breaking this world apart, must be conjured away. To avoid the bludgeon of shame, a scapegoat will be needed; to this end, the pitiful racial other offers a perfect alibi. In this way, flattened categories of whiteness and blackness are enlisted as aids in the disavowal of anarchic desire. When whiteness is constructed as all-powerful and non-whiteness as helpless, the basis is created for a politics that is only for, rather than with others. Anarchic desire must be kept on a leash, corralled by a duty to serve the good of the racial Other exclusively. Non-white radicals are not immune to this racist logic, which survives even when we break off into our own milieus, in sad spirals of competitive fragility. In one way or another, the black and brown person — but especially the black person — can never be seen on her own terms. The relation of savior/saved that is perpetuated by the politics of sacrifice demands that for every nigger an overseer must be found. The perceived need for the overseer manifests itself even in non-white separatist circles, where it appears either as a desire for “BIPOC leadership,” or else in the suggestion that one is taking orders from a fictitious racialized proletariat that is always conveniently somewhere else.

What unites all radical milieus today is their structural need for people of color to be unfree, or at the very least, to feign unfreedom. Wherever radical milieus bind themselves to people of color through the duty of self-sacrifice, the racist burial of non-white militancy becomes an essential cohering force. This danger can be partially averted through the autonomous self-organization of racialized people, which can negate this, since, by saving ourselves, we render attempts to “save us” wrongheaded. However, as can be observed in today’s radical BIPOC circles, this becomes pointless if the aim is not to become stronger. The dull commiseration afforded by these spaces is no substitute for attack. The politics of sacrifice would have us believe that black and brown revolution is not something we make with each other, among friends, but the pursuit of an abstract and reductive idea of the good to which we must submit our lives, to the point of death. It is hard to avoid the impression that the Black Liberation Army was swayed by a similar spirit, despite how inspiring its efforts to spread anarchy often were. Its failure to build a popular guerilla front against the United States was at least in part due to its tendency to separate the task of struggle from the task of living, a problem intertwined with its insular vanguardism. The challenge of today’s struggle for black and brown autonomy is therefore twofold: on the one hand, to stay militant, without detaching ourselves from the question of how to live; on the other, to combat the gluttonous appetite of whiteness for non-white inferiority — in other words, its dependency complex. It is through the attachment to living that we remain pliable like a young tree, capable of feeling the free lives that we are fighting for, instead of just deferring this gift to those who come after us.

If black counter-insurgency continues to capture us, this is because we have failed to make worlds that seduce. Why do people of color become merely activists, rather than insurgents? Confusion plays its part, to be sure. But it may more so be that we have failed to find each other, to link up and partake in an open conspiracy against the racial nightmare. Too much emphasis has been placed on the banal contemplation of past victories and defeats, at the expense of the pulsating reality that lies before us. Militants of color speak endlessly of the sixties; but how do we elaborate black liberation in the present age, now that the subject of our revolts is really no one at all? How long can one lean on the rapidly deteriorating New Afrikan hypothesis, or huff the fumes emitted by bored academics spinning poetics out of the fossilized intensities of dead guerillas?

The politics of sacrifice must be broken. In the end, there is no one left to serve, and no one worthy of service. To break with it requires that we unchain all that is living in blackness, indigeneity, and all other evasions of whiteness. This affirmation is threatened by those profiting off the lucrative spectacle of our demolished culture. Watch BIPOC content online, talk about how proud you are of your skin, while ignoring that this civilization has eaten your traditions alive. Become educated, stay informed, and sit like a good negro until white people fix everything; they have the power now, just wait your turn until you get yours. Representation is a putrid balm — anyone who permits themselves even the slightest sense of touch can feel that our madness, a black madness, cannot be projected onto any screen. What those screens want us to believe is clear: there is nothing living to affirm in not being white. In those rare moments with other people of color where my spirit moves, attaching to something older than me, I have felt the opposite. These experiences have emboldened me. The aggressive campaigns of the spectacle to re-present the lives of the racialized in total submission, the millions of dollars spent on BIPOC non-profits and pointless activism, testify to the dangerous potential that exists in the genuine refusal of whiteness.

A fanged, boundless blackness

Whiteness wins if we let it. Its victory means the spread of a colonial shame that blocks our ability to enjoy unmaking this world. The voices of our ancestors become more muted and we, children of “savages and cannibals”, resign ourselves to becoming radlib gurus of our own suffering. For racialized people, the politics of safety and the politics of sacrifice are merely tools of white supremacy. Stop saying that niggas cannot riot for their own sake, that they are either confused or misled by whites. We owe our dead more than submission. Let us have the courage to say this: if decolonization still has any meaning, it is found in the uncompromising, violent upheaval of this world. The mediocre poetry and papers of BIPOC academics are not decolonial violence, liberal workshops about resiliency or black trauma are not decolonial violence. The strange, criminal gestures that send the cops scattering and the cybernetics of the metropolis into a panic are decolonial violence. How we live in tandem with this sedition, caring and loving one another, is intimately bound up in that violence. This ferocity is a fruit I wish to eat while I’m alive. To speak of whiteness without understanding what is required to destroy it is to let the leviathan speak through you. Years ago, Fanon saw the writing on the walls: we either become more white (that “we” is the most royal I can deploy, as it includes white people), pulled by the assimilating gravity of the present regime, or we revel in our corruption by blackness. We can understand this process as traced through an elaboration of black insurgency, which is always more perverse than its white counterpart, since the end-times are always already bound up within it.

Despite it all, we still glimpse ways to escape the racial order and authority. Why not turn to our fugitivity, an irreducibly black mode of sociality which affirms blackness as a force that escapes control? Fugitivity is being with and for one another as we are on the run, dashing towards the Outside of the law, whiteness, and order. Its perversity is absolute, a porous conspiracy that is promiscuous with its blackness, refusing to check one at the door. Fugitivity says: when our play entails the destruction of the enemy world, then the more the merrier. Perhaps it can help us escape our addiction to defeat, and the chokehold it exerts over people of color and whites alike. Cutting through the despair spread by the politics of sacrifice, a fugitive blackness beckons us toward the exit door of the present. To have done with shame, with the idea that the practice of ending this world should be sad work, demands that we embrace a militancy that is joyful. We must not give in to our new overseers, even if they speak the tongue of the old radicals and have brown or black skin. Through affirming the life that escapes whiteness, we discover our strengths, an act which is loathed by that which governs. We embrace the excesses of our own rebellion, how we dance, hold on to each other, and don’t take any shit. We revel in our obscenity, our lucidity, the living memory of when the miserable settlers hadn’t yet enclosed the world. To live in the black is to evade the traps of politics, of representation, of diversity and inclusion. It is to improvise ties between fragments of marronage. We want everything. Nothing less.

March 2024

Words and History Mean Things: A Response to “Addicted to Losing”

bbnews.noblogs.org/post/2024/05/02/words-and-history-mean-things-a-response-to-addicted-to-losing/

Most of what comes out in the text “Addicted to Losing” is not new. Black anarchists and anti-authoritarians have been critiquing black non-profits, Black academics, Black activists and black authoritarians for years before the 2020 uprising. Black anarchists who have been active PRIOR to 2020 have been deeply aware of these critiques, mainly based on their experiences. We are unsure how connected the author is to Black anti-authoritarians but, best believe Black anarchists been having these conversations. There has been so much talk over the past four years about Black counter insurgency. It is important to recognize that Black revolutionaries have been theorizing about these formations long before it became popular or deemed important to do in the anarchist scene. We think it’s also important to recognize that most Black anarchists have been too busy doing anarchy to write articles on the cracker anarchist-baiting websites. We’ve included two critiques of the Black Counter-Insurgency written by Black revolutionaries prior to 2020. We don’t agree with everything in the texts; however, we think it is important to acknowledge that there is a history of Black radicals making our own critiques separate from the white, ill will editions and crimethinc milieus who continue to trail us politically.

https://archive.iww.org/content/4th-precinct-black-anarchist%E2%80%99s-perspective-struggle-minneapolis%E2%80%99-northside-streets/

https://libcom.org/article/why-black-lives-matter-cincinnati-changing-its-name

While there are actually parts of “Addicted to Losing” that we agree with, we struggle with a variety of parts within it as anarchists. We imagine the author(s) would consider us and our comrades as the people who hold “ressentiment” because we are critical of “efforts of radicals to increase their power of acting.” But what exactly does this mean?

For us, as anarchists, we have a certain set of political values that we operate from. That doesn’t mean we are “addicted to losing”, it means we have standards when it comes to our ethics. For instance, many Black male revolutionaries within the 60s and 70s engaged in misogynistic behavior towards Black women while simultaneously facing serious political repression. But because these men were engaged in revolutionary activity and faced repression, misogynistic violence was often covered up or excused. Assata Shakur talks about this in her autobiography and how detrimental the culture of protecting abuse was to the struggle. Were Black revolutionaries who critiqued misogynistic violence “addicted to losing” or “violating security culture” or “engaging in horizontal repression?” As Kuwasi Balagoon said, those unwilling to critique racism, authoritarianism and misogyny when it rears it’s head are ROBOTS.

The argument on the necessity of revolutionary strength and castigating those who are critical as “nihilists enemies” or “resentful” is essentially the same as those who ignored the gender based violence back in the 60s/70s. This is a serious backpedal from the 60s and 70s in terms of gender politics in particular. But this can be applied to anything that is viewed as a revolutionary “strategy.” It is politically convenient to call anyone who is critical of a tactic, strategy or behavior as “ressentiment.” We think it is strange that the text focuses upon “ressentiment politics” as “police attempts at freedom that lie outside of their preferred grammar of conflict.” It is extremely valid and necessary for political formations/groups to reflect and critique themselves and others. We were again confused on how buying property, which the text mentions is a very standard and correct thing to do in racial capitalist society, is somehow an attempt at freedom not a continuation and investment in white, western, and bourgeois lifestylism. Perhaps in the text, there is an underlying right wing association of property with freedom (unsurprisingly considering the appelist flirtation with right wing politics). However, we desire property to be destroyed.

“Efforts of radicals to increase their power of acting, whether through acquiring spaces like houses and social centers, money for bail funds and projects, or even forming larger strategies about how to defeat the police in the streets are treated as a violation of an implicit set of values that venerates the experience of being trapped.”

This part of the text is so convenient as it speaks of radicals as if we do not exist within a racial and gendered society. “Increasing our power to act” is not something that happens outside of racial, class and gender confines. As the author suggests, these contradictions have to be moved through and addressed rather than derided as “ressentiment”. But again, it’s easier to defame your critics as do nothing nihilists who are “addicted to losing” while you gentrify Black neighborhoods to build your isolated “community.”

The whole text becomes even more strange and contradictory when the author references widespread rape culture and segregation of revolutionary formations. The question is why the author chooses to acknowledge these problems while contributing to them by writing what essentially reads as an upset screed conflating anarchists who critique with the black counter-insurgency. This is why it is hard to take the text seriously especially since it’s been published on ill will (a well known appelist project). To read a deeper critique of the appelist tendency and why they love property (whitey loves property), go check out Against the Party of Insurrection.

https://www.anarchistfederation.net/against-the-party-of-insurrection-a-look-at-appelism-in-the-u-s/

And finally, maybe the authors should consider that Black anarchists and revolutionaries are having strategic conversations and building projects that they have just not been invited to participate in? As participants at Bash Back 2023 discussed the problem is not just resentment of whites but, also tokenization and Black radicals safety in that tokenization.

“One of our comrades back home who didn’t attend remarked that he felt anarchist convergences are often disappointing because very often the Black people who attend them don’t really fuck with Black people. Anarchism, unfortunately, can exist as a subculture for Black people who are uncomfortable being around other Black folks, which opens up the space for tokenism.” – From Black Anarchist Reflections from Bash Back and Beyond

Unfortunately, the politics of “Addicted to Losing” seem to lose the plot when it comes to actually moving through Black liberation alongside Black people. Generally, there are parts of this text that read like someone airing out their personal problems and we think it maybe speaks to the author(s) lack of presence within the “autonomous organization of racialized people” that they speak of. As an aside, white people are racialized too but, we understand they meant organizations of racially oppressed people. But again, a lot of the problems described in this text just seem like the result of spending too much time in a white milieu. And by white, we mean politically white as well as phenotypically.

For instance, “the militant embodies a knight-like position with respect to the crowd: rather positioning themselves within it, they act like a kind distant protector, ever anxious to ensure that the membrane between savior and saved is never breached.”

This sounds like a personal problem. No Black militants we know be doing this shit, it sounds uninteresting and boring. It gives the vibe of white militants being scared to do something because they don’t want to deal with social repercussions of their racism.

“Either they make themselves so small as to avoid influencing anyone, or they assume a paternalistic vanguard posture that tries to safely, but separately, guide the little lambs.”

Like who are you spending your time around? This sounds like a horrible time and lacks centering people’s autonomy.

Finally, “for instance, why do people of color so often find themselves exempted from the practices of folk justice applied to everyone else in radical milieus, prompting jokes about people of color being “uncancellable?”

We’ve seen multiple examples to contrary to this. It just sounds like the author spends a lot of time in mostly white milieus so, they don’t ever see folks handle business cause we don’t know any “uncancellable” Black or Brown folks. We suppose that’s a reality that some white liberals and their tokens live in. We’ll definitely will put hands on someone regardless of what they look like. But we suppose if you exist in a scene, like the appelist scene, with mostly tokenized Black and Brown individuals, who are comfortable and happy in that tokenization, this “cancellableness” probably only occurs with Black or Brown people who are critical and deemed useless. Luckily for those of us who organize, live, and fight alongside Black people, we don’t deal with those sorta problems. If you don’t like whites….you can just not spend time around them.

The author also clearly has little command or knowledge of Black liberation history. Unsurprisingly, this is quite common if you are a member of a mostly white milieu as the engagement with Black revolutionary history among the appelists is largely surface level and for show. Their reference to a “rapidly deteriorating New Afrikan hypothesis” is quite strange when the Five Southern States remain where the largest concentration of New Afrikans live not to mention that Black people are returning to the South in record numbers (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-new-great-migration-is-bringing-black-americans-back-to-the-south/).While New Afrikan thesis is still hotly debated in Black anarchist circles, we would invite the author to study a bit more instead of repeating tired ass lines about Black liberation that they learned from whites.

Their engagement with the Black Liberation Army is also dull and uninspired. Understanding the Black Liberation Army as a formation that “failed to build a popular guerilla movement” rather than a formation that was forced underground due to mounting repression is an important historical consideration. While as anarchists we share critiques of authoritarianism, it is strange considering when the most recent text from ill will (“states of siege”) advocated for a specialized formation-a vanguard-and against the power of spontaneity. Rather than appelist understanding the importance of interplay between mass movements and guerrilla formations, they are simply pushing for anarchist to abandon a belief in mass struggle. We highly encourage the author to study some documents from the Black Liberation Army as well as reading Akinyele Umoja’s text Repression Breeds Resistance.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232940302_Repression_breeds_resistance_The_black_liberation_army_and_the_radical_legacy_of_the_black_panther_party

Little in “Addicted to Losing” is new. Resentment of whites is not a stand in for real Black liberation based politics but, tokenism within and for white milieus isn’t revolutionary either. Or at least not revolutionary in a way that is interesting to us. The variety of essays on the Bash Back website after the Black anarchist convergence that happened in Chicago in 2023 addressed many of the questions internal to Black revolutionary spaces that the author discussed. Though without the apologism for the white gentrifier clique in Atlanta. We hope the author(s) finds some Black revolutionaries to build alongside.

 

poet of da soil – nu year nu me(?)

Posted on 30/01/2025 - 30/01/2025 by muntjac

https://poetofdasoil.substack.com/p/nu-year-nu-me?

for as long as eye can remember i’ve had dreams of my own funeral

of tha tears ppl wept for me – idk what it meant 2 wish for your own death so regularly

but eye do remember leading bible study groups at 16

and being bothered by cults who wanted control over what their yutes were hearing

and eye do remember church events where i’m called 2 tha front and prophecies come out that i’m going 2 be a leader (they want me 2 inherit my grandpas church sooo bad)

faith/spirituality/(G)god have been apart of my life 4 Eva. eye breathe theological musings like eye breathe oxygen. i’ve seen faith carry my family through the most absurd and ridiculous challenges and tha most mundane of moments.

my relationship with tha Divine has always been one of hatred, disgust, desire and hope(?) yeah it’s complicated


 

bap bap bap

 

eye am riddled with contradictions and they make it hard 2 walk

and eye have tried 2 alleviate it

be it thru tha loud or scriptures

thru quetiapine or my headphones

nostalgia and grief are twins

so eye whisper “never again” thinking back 2 tha times i’ve harmed loved ones

eye whisper apologies 2 an inner child that neva got 2 fly

nostalgia and grief are twins who eye cherish dearly

but right now im tryna figure out a politik of despair

because hope makes me nauseous and feels like a fool’s gambit

tryna figure out how 2 transform these immobilising feelings about life on dis dunya

into action

how 2 move in tha now – relying on how my ancestors moved tomorrow

they say we borrow tha earth from our children eye ask why all our proverbs leave us with debt(?)

is that all we will ever be(?) black bodies swimming with a loan shark called history

maybe death, like pain is not out 2 harm us

maybe, like pain it simply wants acknowledgement and recognition

what does it mean 2 acknowledge eye am dead and dying each day

maybe that in itself is life that lasts forever


 

 

anyways i’m thinking back 2 prophecies and bible passages

and how we give everything 2 god without appreciating it is our hands that bring forth creation and destruction

eye am here cold, and in love with so much while feeling pregnant with rage.

thinking about everything eye am

all my flaws and glories,

tha kindness and passion my ppl say they see in me

and tha ways in which eye am quick 2 anger and destructively impulsive

everything eye am is mine 2 have, 2 hold and 2 be

eye am not owned by dis dunya and its ways of rendering blackness as death

not redeemed by tha blood of another

not under tha lordship of some higher power

everything eye am is mine 2 have, hold and be

and there’s power in realising that

so yeah eye commune w yeshua, chat 2 him about his ppl and how much they hate waywardness

sometimes he grimaces and shrugs when eye cuss him out

sometimes he smiles

and eye pour one out 4 my ancestors when eye can

they greet me with necklaces made from flowers and fire

in tha night they come as shadows 2 remind me everything is alive and must be fought for

that everything that is dis world must die 4 tha earth 2 be

and when i’m praying salat im not praying 2 a god in tha sky or outside of myself

im praying 2 a god that can only be known as praxis

as mau mau

as breaking thru hmp walls and freeing em all

as tha burning of money

and communion with tha land

im praying 2 a god that is wholly within me and moves through me, a god wholly within you, and tha air we breathe, tha trees and tha rocks

a god who looks a lot like self-determination + self-sovereignty

a lot like truth and justice

a lot like negation and nihilism and death and freedom and whatever these words mean

so that submission, that bowing of my head in prayer is not 2 some higher being

but 2 place myself in a space, in communion with something eye cannot adequately name, that eye know in some form

that eye experience as divinity, as islam, as ori mi, as crucifixion and resurrection and lust and ugliness and whatever there is, and whatever there isn’t

whenever eye war against babylon be it in my spirit, body or tha world we live in

eye am scared no one will war with me

but eye guess

that’s where faith comes in.

Alvette E Jeffers – Barbudans Will Write Their Own History

Posted on 26/01/2025 by muntjac

Taken from; https://medium.com/clash-voices-for-a-caribbean-federation-from-below/barbudans-will-write-their-own-history-2cd5557f000b

Our ancestors were conquered people. We, the descendants of those who were conquered, enslaved, dehumanized and exploited, celebrate our ancestors’ struggles to regain control over their lives. We continue to learn from them the important lesson that laws which justify the conquest and control of economic resources and the domination and organization of people and labor for the benefit of Empire, foreign capital or State, are not immutable.

We Honor Our Ancestors by Confronting All Hierarchy and Domination

We best honor our ancestors by confronting and eliminating all hierarchical structures that reinforce forms of socioeconomic domination that hinder us from creating the condition that allows for our total mastery over our spaces and existence.

Our ancestors were up against a formidable enemy. It has been estimated that by 1913, according to Wikipedia, the British empire had sway over 458 million people, 25% of the world’s population. And by 1925, it covered 13,700 000 square miles.

Wherever they went, the British colonizers compelled the colonized to submit to their authority at the point of a bayonet. Violence, death and forced displacement were the results of conquest. Despite its formidability, there was always resistance to British colonial rule, for it constructed a socioeconomic system which delayed and undermined the social and economic development of the colonized people while, manufacturing at the same time, the white myth of African inferiority. Colonialism represented a real threat to the development of Africans everywhere. Urged by a compelling desire to end their continuing debasement, Africans had to resist because it was in the process of revolutionary struggle that human beings discover both their capabilities and limitations.

Every 9th December, Antigua celebrates heroes’ day. Antigua’s heroes get noticed because they refused to accept the social limitations that British colonialism imposed on the African Antiguan working class and estate workers. Those leaders we now venerate were up against a legal system that codified oppression and repression. All this was occurring when Africans in Antigua and Barbuda were being denied political representation.

Do Our Heroes’ Day Celebrations Downplay Working Class Struggle?

It seems to me, though, that in our celebration of the past, we totally ignore or downplay working class struggles against colonial rule that preceded the arrival of VC Bird et al, in 1939. It is my humble opinion that these struggles are not made significant on Heroes’ day because they were led by ordinary working-class leaders whose emergence undermined the idea that everyday people are incapable of self-mobilization.

An important historical uprising which took place in 1918 is of great significance for us. It had the capacity to undo the colonial system, and it was more incendiary than any single event that took place in the 30s and 40s. Those who are interested in the story of this insurrection are advised to read Professor Glenn Richards ‘Race, Class and Moral Economy In The 1918 Antigua Labour Riots.’

These insurgents were sugarcane workers who initiated a general strike to control how sugarcane was weighed. They brought their protest to the streets where they faced the armed might of the colonial state. Two persons were killed by the armed forces of the state. One was John Furlong. The other was James Brown. Fifteen were wounded, and twenty-two were indicted for participating in the 1918 insurrection, according to Professor Richards. They challenged the plantocracy and colonial state. They caused the ruling classes to shudder, to the point where colonial rulers sought military help outside of Antigua to prop up their rule.

Insurrections That Cause Aspiring Rulers to Shudder

The attempted slave rebellion in 1736, the insurrection of 1918, and the labor struggles between 1939 and 1950s, are all significant moments because they influenced political developments in Antigua and Barbuda. Though not the most important conclusion, what we can draw from those past struggles is that they all contested the authority of the political and economic classes who wrapped around themselves a fragile, legal shield to ward of any complaint about the illegality of their domination over land and people.

I do not know any African existing today who, in looking back at the past, would assert that laws the slave masters and colonizers made to legalize the ownership of captured black bodies and land were laws that the enslaved, dispossessed and displaced had to honor. I certainly would be flabbergasted if I were told that was the case.

Why? Not even the European countries that competed with each for possessions in the Caribbean accepted each other’s claim to land as a fait accompli. After the battles, treaties were signed and then, occasionally, honored in the breach.

Those who have been uprooted, dispossessed, displaced, exploited, degraded, and disregarded are placed in a position where the only alternative they are offered to end the process of their dehumanization is to attempt to end the conditions that deny them their humanity. Their liberation is the sole justification for their struggle.

Rulers Never Sanction Liberating Actions Aimed at Their Demise

Ruling classes never sanction liberatory actions that are aimed at their own demise. Every obsolete, ruling class tries to hold on to power until the moment that it is left with no other alternative but to give up and adjust to the new order or perish. Any student of the French, American, Haitian, Russian, Cuban and Grenadian revolutions would quickly recognize this fact. In opposition to a ruling class and in the process of struggle, the revolution establishes its own rules as it overturns all hitherto existing political and economic relations while building its own. The revolution justifies itself. The 1804 Haitian revolution ended French rule in Haiti, and it established itself as the only successful slave uprising in history. Africans all overlook admiringly at what the Haitians achieved in 1804 in much the same way Antiguans look back at their own efforts to end colonial legal, political, and economic arrangements that impeded their forward movement.

I write all that to bring me to Barbuda, some may say in a very circuitous way. Barbudans say that the land on which they were enslaved and have continued to live from the 17th century up to the present moment belongs to them. That is more than three hundred years in the same place. A respected Antiguan who occasionally advertises his opposition to all things colonial has written that Barbuda’s claim to the land is invalid because their enslavers and colonizers whom he claims to despise, did not pass title to them. His position converges with those of the Antiguan and Barbuda Labour Party (A&BLP). Others have pointed out that the Barbudans lost command over their lives the moment Barbuda was linked to Antigua in 1860. They say, metaphorically, that this one hundred and sixty years old, long, iron chain with each of its rusty links stained with the dried blood of our ancestors eternally binds Barbuda to Antigua, even if Barbudans’ lives remain an ignoble one.

Britain and the island’s white administration made a decision about the future of two people on two separate islands and never asked them what they thought about the decision. At that time, blacks were unable to vote, and trade unions were illegal. Those who oppose Barbuda’s land claim and their efforts to be self-determined have summoned the ghost of the colonizers to their side. Their pronouncements on Barbuda express and endorse colonial notions and practices of property rights; the same rights and practices that Antigua sugar workers contested and lost their lives or were imprisoned for doing so.

Celebrating Anti-Colonialism but Repressing Self-Directed Barbudans

Yet they celebrate Antigua’s anticolonial struggles while overlooking or devaluing Barbudans’ efforts to redirect their lives, which cannot succeed if they are not free to organize their resources to support and manage their own development. They also support black self- determination and self-reliance in Africa but encourage foreign control in Barbuda.

When in the 19th century, an Overseer observed that Barbudans “acknowledged no Master and believe the island belongs to them,” it was a confirmation that Barbudans had a vision of living that was in opposition to the life the colonialist had designed for them in 1860. It is a life of self-determining, which the Overseer, like Gaston Brown today, would have been hostile to. (See Justin Simon, in Observer Newspaper, September 01, 2020)

This is the starting point of all great revolutions. It is where the Haitian and American revolutions began. The rejection of “masters” puts on the agenda, the overthrow of the old order. Scholars who have written to defend the authenticity of the 1736 planned rebellion against Antigua’s slave masters to make themselves “masters” of the land, do not admit to a similar value in Barbudans’ expression to be “masters” of their land.

They equivocate about it or fight it, either out of prejudice or deference to the wishes of the government that they represent and willingly serve. Barbudans will, nevertheless, write their own history, and the Antiguan working class and everyday people will help them when they too fulfill the dreams of their ancestors by becoming the true masters of their own land.

[First published in the online journal of the National Workers Union of Trinidad, September 15, 2020]

Decolonize Anarchism – The “Butcher of Tehran” is dead, and we are dancing.

Posted on 24/01/2025 - 25/01/2025 by muntjac

Decolonize Anarchism are a collective of SWANA (Southwest Asian and North African) Anarchists. Despite the similar names, our organisations are not related.

This peice is also avalible as a flyer! You can order copies of this flyer and another by Decolonize Anarchism on our ko-fi.

Decolonize Anarchism – The “Butcher of Tehran” is dead, and we are dancing.

The fascist and criminal president of Iran, Ebrahim Raisi, known as the “Butcher of Tehran,” is killed in a helicopter crash on May 20th. Whether it was an accident or a targeted assassination, we stand in solidarity with the revolutionary people in the Global South, especially our sisters and comrades in the LGBTQ+ communities in Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon. We, as anarchists of color, who have lived under theocratic fascist states, understand the intersectionality of oppression and the importance of fighting on all fronts. We know what “NO GODS, NO MASTERS” means; therefore, we do not prioritize one struggle over another. We stand in solidarity with all oppressed and revolutionary people against all states and ruling class internal and external oppression.

1988 Massacre: Mass Execution of Political Prisoners

Raisi was the Deputy Prosecutor of Tehran and a member of a committee known as the “Death Committee.” Following Khomeini’s fatwa, the committee executed at least 4,500 to 5,000 political prisoners over three months, primarily leftists and members of Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) and other groups such as The Organization of Iranian People’s Fedai Guerrillas (OIPFG) and the Tudeh Party of Iran. The exact number of deaths is unknown because many of the killings were carried out in remote regions in Kurdistan and Baluchistan. According to figures provided by various sources, the numbers could be as high as 30,000.

Crackdown on the November 2019 Protests

Raisi was the Head of the Iranian Judiciary when the government announced a 50% increase in petrol prices, leading to protests nationwide in 2019. The protests began as peaceful gatherings but quickly spread to 21 cities and became the most violent anti-government unrest since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Raisi’s judiciary was responsible for overseeing the brutal repression of the protestors by security forces. They used military weapons, frequently targeting the heads of unarmed protesters, and killed at least 1,500 protesters, including tens of children, in only five days, and detained and tortured thousands during demonstrations.

Crackdown on the Jin Jiyan Azadi Uprising in 2022

In September 2022, a Kurdish woman, Jina (Mahsa) Amini, was killed while in police custody for allegedly violating hijab regulations. This incident sparked the “Jin Jiyan Azadi” (Woman, Life, Freedom) uprising around the country. Raisi’s government brutally repressed the uprising and killed at least 550 protestors, including 49 women and 68 children. Thousands of people were arrested, injured, permanently disabled, tortured, and raped. According to Amnesty International, at least 853 executions were carried out in Iran in 2023, marking a 48 percent increase from the previous year.

Suppression of women and LGBTQ+ Rights

Raisi’s government intensified enforcement of compulsory hijab laws and suppression of women’s rights, with harsher penalties and increased surveillance to ensure compliance. This includes the use of morality police to enforce dress codes, leading to the arrest and harassment of women who disobeyed these measures. Under his watch, at least a dozen feminist activists were arrested and sentenced to long prison terms. Raisi strictly upheld and enforced Iran’s laws criminalizing LGBTQ individuals, leading to severe punishments, including imprisonment and execution. His hardline stance was in line with the broader theocratic regime’s policies, which view same-sex sexual activity as a sin and a crime.

Crackdowns on Labor Movements and Working-Class Protests and Strikes

Raisi’s administration consistently opposed labor movements and used security forces to suppress labor protests and strikes. During his tenure, labor activists and union leaders were arrested and
imprisoned, with strikes and protests met with harsh responses. Just as an example, during Raisi’s term, the government cut budget proposals and insurance for 300,000 to 400,000 construction workers, leading to significant backlash and increased financial insecurity for these workers and their families.

Anti-Immigrant Laws and Afghanophobia

Under Raisi, Iran implemented harsher immigration policies, leading to mass deportations and systemic discrimination against Afghanistani immigrants. Afghanistani immigrants faced restricted access to healthcare, education, and other public services. The government detained undocumented immigrants without due process. Afghanistani immigrants were often exploited in the labor market, taking the most difficult and dangerous jobs. Negative media portrayals and cultural stereotypes exacerbated their marginalization, contributing to a rise in Afghanophobia.

Environmental and animal rights Issues

Despite severe environmental issues, including air pollution, and water shortages, Raisi’s government cut the national budget for combating air pollution by half, reflecting the government’s prioritization of economic growth over environmental protection. These environmental issues disproportionately affect ethnic groups, and marginalized people, especially in water-scarce regions in the South and South East of Iran. Under Raisi’s government, the policy of killing stray dogs escalated, leading to public outcry. The brutal methods, including poisoning and lethal injections, causing prolonged suffering, sparked significant protests from animal rights activists and the public.

Military and Economic Support for Assad and Hezbollah

Raisi’s administration continued to support the Axis of Resistance alliance as a key component of Iran’s foreign policy. Raisi maintained substantial military and economic support to Assad’s regime during the Syrian Civil War, ensuring that Syria remains a key ally in the Axis of Resistance. This support included sending the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) forces and backing Hezbollah fighters to violently suppress Syrian opposition forces and prevent the collapse of the Assad regime. Similarly, Raisi advanced supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon to maintain its significant military and political influence. Both the Assad regime and Hezbollah have violently suppressed popular protests in Lebanon and Syria.

 

Decolonize Anarchism – Anti-imperialism of the Idiots

Posted on 24/01/2025 - 25/01/2025 by muntjac

Decolonize Anarchism are a collective of SWANA (Southwest Asian and North African) Anarchists. Despite the similar names, our organisations are not related.

This peice is also avalible as a flyer! You can order copies of this flyer and another by Decolonize Anarchism on our ko-fi.

Anti-imperialism of the Idiots: How Western Campists and Tankies Align with the Axis of Resistance

Following Iran’s rocket and drone strikes on the Israeli apartheid regime on April 13th, authoritarian leftists in the Global North once again turned a blind eye to the struggles of oppressed peoples. Instead of focusing on the class struggles of the people, they centered their political analysis on states, offering support to oppressive regimes, and extolled the Iranian regime and the Axis of Resistance.

For these authoritarian leftists (campists and tankies), Iran is praised as the leader of the “Axis of Resistance” against both the US Empire and Zionism, disregarding the regime’s history of torturing, raping, and killing hundreds of thousands of its own people. During the 2022 “Jin Jiyan Azadî” uprising, at least 550 protesters were killed by the Iranian regime, including 49 women and 68 children, and thousands were injured. In detention, state authorities tortured, and raped protestors to extract confessions or punish them. More than 700 executions occurred in Iran between January and November 2023, predominantly affecting ndividuals from the Kurdistan and Baluchistan regions.

During this uprising, at least 82 Baloch protesters and bystanders were killed by the state in a crackdown known as Bloody Friday. The Baloch people in Iran live in absolute poverty and are denied fundamental human rights. They are stateless people in their own country; they do not have access to birth certificates, water, education, and healthcare. Baloch children drown in Hootag (water ditches) daily while trying to get water for their families. The lack of employment prospects forces people to turn to smuggling fuel.

During the April 13th attack, the regime launched widespread drone and missile attacks from within its cities, causing panic among the Iranian populace, compelling people to flee, and preventing potential uprisings in the event of war. Concurrently, during this attack, the regime intensified its suppression and arrest of women disobeying the mandatory hijab law. This law is not only the state’s apparatus to control women’s bodies but also to increase the presence of security forces, quashing any possible revolts.

Authoritarian leftists in the West lack nuance and fail to grasp the historical and political dialectics of Southwest Asia. As a result, they overlook the crimes of authoritarian and theocratic states like Iran, glorifying them for their anti-imperialism. This phenomenon, termed “The Anti-imperialism of the Idiots” by British-Syrian author and activist Leila Al-Shami, highlights the activity of a large part of the Western “anti-war” left during the Syrian war. They only opposed Western interference while ignoring or even supporting the engagement of Russia and Iran. “For this authoritarian left, support is extended to the Assad regime in the name of “anti-imperialism.” Assad is seen as part of the Axis of Resistance against both the US Empire and Zionism. It matters little that the Assad regime itself supported the first Gulf War or participated in the US illegal rendition program where suspected terrorists were tortured in Syria on the CIA’s behalf. This pro-fascist left seems blind to any form of imperialism that is non-western in origin. It combines identity politics with egoism. Everything that happens is viewed through the prism of what it means for westerners – only white men have the power to make history.”

The “campist” views the US, Europe, and the Israeli occupation government as the “imperialist camp,” while Russia, China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and other countries are the “anti-imperialist camp.” Regardless of how much their regimes abuse human rights or how totalitarian they are, the latter camp is always backed. Everyone who rhetorically challenges the imperialist narrative is viewed as an ally. Therefore, in the perspective of campists, it is frequently sufficient for a cause to be rhetorically “supported” by the United States in order for it to be immediately
discredited.

Within this framework, many failed to support the popular revolution that occurred in Syria in 2011 or Iran in 2022, instead supporting the tyrants in Syria and Iran, who were falsely depicted as opposing U.S.- engineered regime change. The anti-imperialist left took at face value the Syrian and Iranian regime’s claims that it is one of the last bastions of resistance against Western and Israeli hegemony.

On October 17, 2019, the people of Lebanon took to the streets to challenge the country’s sectarian political system, calling for an overhaul of the regime. In response, Hezbollah and its allies, often working alongside government forces, suppressed the demonstrators. Despite the broader scope of the Lebanese protests, Hezbollah, under Nasrallah’s leadership, was quick to defend the sectarian status quo, discrediting the demonstrators by accusing them of being manipulated by foreign interests. This scenario is familiar to Iranians, who endure similar repression from a regime that supports Hezbollah’s influence. Following the brutal killing of Jina Amini by the Iran’s morality police ignited a nationwide revolt against the regime, marked by direct confrontations with government officials.

This movement highlights the extensive spread of oppressive methods across the region, methods that Iran has exported to Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq since the time of Khomeini and which have intensified with the frequent crises faced by the Assad regime since 2011.

Campist anti-imperialism weakens internationalist politics by essentializing certain struggles and erasing victims in the region, ironically reinforcing the discourse that seeks to erase the Palestinian cause by claiming it to be an extension of Iranian geopolitics. The perspectives on Syria and Ukraine, alongside those on Palestine and Lebanon, underscore the contradictions of the pseudo anti-imperialism of the Global North left and emphasize the need for transnational solidarity among oppressed peoples in the Global South. This understanding highlights that supporting the Palestinian cause does not require backing authoritarian governments; rather, it necessitates confronting both internal and external oppressions. In doing so, we reaffirm our commitment to self-organization and solidarity against the war-mongering policies of states, upholding our anarchist principles of anti-authoritarianism, consistent anti-imperialism, solidarity with the
oppressed, and critical engagement with all forms of power and domination.

As anarchists, we fundamentally oppose all forms of coercive authority and centralized power, advocating for self-management, mutual aid, and voluntary cooperation instead. When Western leftists support authoritarian regimes, they often compromise on this essential principle. These regimes embody the antithesis of anarchism by centralizing power, suppressing dissent, and
curtailing freedoms. Supporting such states contradicts the anarchist commitment to dismantling oppression and authority. As anarchists, we oppose imperialism in all its forms, advocating for the self-determination of all peoples. A nuanced, consistent anti-imperialist stance should not equate to supporting any state that opposes U.S. hegemony. Authoritarian regimes often engage in their own forms of imperialist or oppressive behavior both within and outside their borders. By supporting such states under the guise of anti-imperialism, leftists can inadvertently endorse alternate forms of imperialism and oppression.

As anarchists, we emphasize solidarity with the oppressed and strives towards liberating the most marginalized. Authoriterian states have records of human rights abuses including the persecution of minorities, political repression, and curtailing of freedoms. Western leftist support for these regimes often overlooks or minimizes the suffering of these oppressed groups, thus betraying the principle of international solidarity with all oppressed peoples. As anarchists, we critically analyze and challenge all forms of power and domination. By uncritically supporting authoritarian
states due to their opposition to the West, some leftists fail to critically engage with the nature of power and governance in these countries. Such support can become an endorsement of one form of domination over another, rather than a true challenge to all power structures.

As anarchists, we demand consistency in ethical positions against all forms of exploitation and abuse. Supporting authoritarian regimes requires a selective ethical stance, where some human rights violations are ignored due to political convenience. This inconsistency undermines the ethical foundations of leftist and anarchist ideologies, which aspire to universal principles of justice and equity. We call for transnational solidarity among all oppressed peoples, disregarding the geopolitical power plays that have shaped the present circumstances.

Read more:
https://libcom.org/article/anti-imperialism-idiots-leila-al-shami

Pear Nuallak – being irreconcilable in ESEA contexts

Posted on 17/01/2025 - 17/01/2025 by muntjac

being irreconcilable in ESEA contexts

I deleted “space” off the title and replaced it with “context”. I am sick of “space” being used as a vague word to describe everything from industries to rooms. Let us be more specific!

Indeed, I crave specificity, but I am afraid I did not do justice to my desires recently, when I shared a warm university room to discuss criticality and politicised engagement within ESEA spaces.

The thought that weighed on me was this: I should not have been there. Someone from Kanlungan or a solidarity group should have been there. A staunch trade unionist, a seasoned organiser. I keep wanting to spill out my insecurities, explain my identities and experiences and credentials, but that individual egotistic self is part of the problem. Boring. You don’t need to see my insides, what I am saying needs to hold up and that’s that. Why the fuck am I worried that I didn’t do a good job when it’s ludicrous that I can grift around like this in the first place?

Let’s call this self-criticism. I’m sick of thinking about my career and hearing about others’ careers. That is not the same as discussing labour conditions.

I wish I had been braver and said something like this from Being In The Room Privilege by Olúfémi O. Táíwò:

The facts that explain who ends up in which room shape our world much more powerfully than the squabbles for comparative prestige between people who have already made it into the rooms. And when the conversation is about social justice, the mechanisms of the social system that determine who gets into which room often just are the parts of society we aim to address. For example, the fact that incarcerated people cannot participate in academic discussions about freedom that physically take place on campus is intimately related to the fact that they are locked in cages.

When I leave the university room someone else is gonna clean it.

I should have said very simple things like: disabuse yourself of the notion that spectacles of mass will free anyone and escalate your actions accordingly. We must continue to resist immigration raids. If a support role is more your capacity, join your local copwatch network. Sign up for arrestee support and Legal Observer training. Look out for all the participants at your local encampment. Ensure you’re attending to the material and emotional needs of people abandoned and vulnerablised by the state, which at times means risking your job if you have mandatory reporting duties. Like my friend Kirstin said, we need to recognise that in this moment we’re opposing fascism. Let’s act like it!

*

At the launch of Rifqa last year, one of my editors, Brekhna, asked Mohammed El-Kurd about the importance of representation. He began his answer with ‘Well, what are we representing?’

Can we get real about answering this? What do our frameworks allow us to see and prioritise?

*

I know I am just saying words. Typing them, rather. I’m not under any illusions that we’re gonna post our way to liberation. We may for example talk about who gets to access and control digital space but what does that mean? Certainly an audience member was correctly and excitingly sceptical, especially because we drifted away from a question on future organising. But I still return briefly to this topic because I want to use this as an opportunity to insist on specificity of language. By “access to digital spaces”, do we mean instagram reach or fibre optic cables being bombed? We have seen how the state can and will institute blackouts and how our phones are absolutely full of incriminating data–and these devices are of course produced through minerals and labour extracted from the bodies and earth of the Global South–so we need to bring about organising and information security which does not rely on our current technologies. I recall from an anarchist forum that there’s someone at 56A infoshop interested in this.

In the context of resisting state violence, visibility is simply not the goal. When we talk about “seeing ourselves” maybe what we’re really talking about is liberal spectatorship, of spotlit role models rather than the practicalities of avoiding state surveillance and intervening against racialised hypervisibility. What would our conversations look like if, to gloss A. Sivanandan, we interested ourselves in the racism that maims and kills? I simply cannot understand why “representation” on the screen and stage is described in explicitly existential terms while multiple genocides are being carried out by the imperialist project of the West. I reject such a framing with my lungs, heart, and teeth because I know a lack of theatre roles is not starvation, dispossession, martyrdom. We are misrepresenting state violence by eliding genocide with arts careers.

Of course in theory these are not irreconcilable positions (i.e. you can be active about representation in the CCIs while also mobilising against state violence). You don’t need to pick up a weapon to be a revolutionary figure. Culture itself is a site of struggle. As Louis Allday writes, Ghassan Kanafani and the late Refaat Alareer fought the Zionist entity through their revolutionary art and cultural criticism and were martyred for it. This is because they understood the seriousness of the struggle on the cultural front and acted accordingly. In his introduction to the 2022 English translation of On Zionist Literature, Steven Salaita writes:

Kanafani was a searing and incisive critic, at once generous in his understanding of emotion and form and unsparing in his assessment of politics and myth […] Anything that threatens centers of power earns the label of “political,” perforce a negative evaluation, and the disrepute that comes along with it. Power therefore comes to embody the apolitical. This sort of environment is unwelcoming of critics such as Kanafani.

These writers did not desire a vague representation or to rise through the ranks of imperialist cultural industries, but what they wrote about and how they shared that work furthered the cause of Palestinian liberation, the Palestinian experience under the conditions of settler colonialism, building political energy and internationalism against the different faces of imperialism. That is existential representation!

Contrast this with how some ESEAs discuss the importance of representation. Think about the language we use to describe certain problems – I have noticed that a vocabulary filled with “representation” is inevitably accompanied by terms like “opportunities”, “competition”, “entering white spaces”, “bureaucracy”, “data”, “tick box”, “checklist” &c. What do these words allow us to see? Does a conception of “tick boxes” help us see who’s targeted to work the most precarious, dangerous jobs? Might we be able understand how certain jobs are criminalised by conceptualising work through “opportunities”? Can a reference point of “entering white spaces” open our understanding of how border securitisation enforces white supremacy? Does “data” include challenging information-sharing with police, and can “bureaucracy” adequately describe the formalised xenoracism that migrants struggle against to secure their settlement here? We should get clear and honest with ourselves about the ideology attached to such language: neoliberalism, the slick reduction of all human life to the logic of the market. (N.B. yeah, you can beef with me about whether “neoliberalism” is a useful way of examining the irreducible nature of capitalism.)

Along the same lines, for the past few years, I have noticed a persistent circular reasoning behind the importance of representation–

  • Representation is important because it’s representation because it’s important.
  • There is a link between fictional representation and real life therefore representation is important because it’s linked to real life.
  • We need to change things through representation in bureaucracy so bureaucracy can change because of representation.
  • We need to be represented in data so we need to collect data so we can change things because it’s important and it’s important to change things so we need to collect data to be represented in data to be–

–and so on. Round and round it goes, like a washing machine.

To speak of data, have we noticed that this vocabulary of “over-” or “under-representation” is the language of data analysis and policy work? For example, “ethnic minority over-representation in the criminal justice system” is office-speak for police violently targeting Black populations (in itself a genocide). Which do we think more appropriately registers what is at stake here? Does a language of representation force non-Black Asians to reckon with our role in counterinsurgency through anti-Blackness, normalisation of zionism, our currently inadequate opposition to police intervention for “Asian hate” and hate crime data collection (in itself criminogenic, as Dylan Rodríguez notes)? Of course not. Because the point is to just see ourselves, only ourselves. This vague language fogs up the mirror so we can shine it clean, brightening our own image.

Saturating conversations in any and all contexts with the language of representation advances the ideology and class interests of liberal ESEA professionals as the solutions to the problems they’ve identified are, in essence, improved career opportunities. The representasians will write the books and papers and screenplays, perform roles centred on their stories, organise rallies with police support, get the research funded and present it, tour the speaking circuit, facilitate workshop after workshop–which, of course, implicates myself and most other freelancers working this grift. I can criticise and complain and invoke my working class parents and my state school education–and I am still in that room.

Afterwards, when I’ve pretend to know anything about anything, I will get love2shop vouchers worth fifty quid because I have done my job. Then, long after I’ve gone home, outsourced cleaners will do theirs.

*

The more specific and detailed your group objectives are, the less it matters if you disagree about other things (generally speaking & caveated to all hell). If you’re never specific, then you never have to show your discernment.

This feels like the appropriate point to bring up a major rupture in ESEA organising which I feel has not yet had adequate public discourse. The wound has festered. I had thought of bringing this up during the panel talk in answer to whether or not the “ESEA space” had changed or what we could do differently in the future, but I didn’t trust myself to verbalise these sensitive details, so I will share it with you now in writing.

On June 21 2021, Remember & Resist, my friends who organise against state violence by advancing the abolitionist project in ESEA contexts, released their full statement on the fallout of the Demonstration of Unity, a rally organised by ESEA groups intended to take place the previous month. The event disintegrated due to a lack of transparency, accountability, and commitment by some of these other groups, especially around platforming a speaker, A. I first heard about the legal issues in 2017, and his former partners and their supporters were still struggling against a defamation case brought by him 4 years later in 2021, coinciding with the Demonstration of Unity.

I emphasize this timeline because harassment and abuse eats up so much time and hearts and bodyminds. Abusive behaviour is enabled over the years by a whole raft of interpersonal and legal structures. It simply doesn’t go away if you ignore it or silence it; the resulting and deliberate implosions pull in new targets, not just people but anything we might try to create, since what we’re able to make is the sum of our relations, not the product of individual genius. Even its second- and third-hand effects are deeply felt. Abuse parasitises the political energy, care, and compassion we so urgently need to nurture. In organising contexts this is compounded by treating survivors and their supporters like troublemakers, telling us we need to set aside “personal problems” so the big stuff, the real problems, can be solved. There are key ideological and practical reasons why this is absolute nosense. We cannot wait until later to resolve abuse because abuse itself obstructs effective organising. Resisting abuse of power in all its forms is integral to the struggle. As grassroots research by Salvage Collective shows, in practical terms the outcomes are consistently the same: the people (usually men) remain in positions of power, groups close ranks around them to protect themselves and isolate survivors and their friends, who are inevitably pushed out. This is so that financial and social capital, access to employment on projects / campaigns / events / services, public platforms and venues and other sites of organising & production &c are still controlled by the core group(s), ensuring nothing is redistributed.

This is how it happened in long-established leftist organisations such as the SWP and MFJ. This is how it happened in the nascent conglomeration of groups claiming to progress ESEA causes. The dismissal, victim-blaming, and harassment compounds the burnout of organising. So when I hear others say that we’re being too harsh on ESEA groups or that “just like other groups” we need to have agreement and unity to get things done, it makes me wonder what we’re actually doing here. Because we’ve already shown that “just like other groups” we’re capable of actively creating unsafe spaces for survivors and anybody else who struggles against sexual violence and abuse of power. Since a key tenet of ESEA rhetoric (such that it exists) is insisting on our victimhood and innocence, this reads to me as a reluctance to own our potential to cause harm just like anybody else. “Calling out”, disagreement, and conflict are presented as problems-qua-problems, but exactly what they’re “calling out” &c is left vague, a magic trick: presto! Complainants become malcontents and we never get round to tackling the pre-existing power structures and group dynamics. Such repeated experiences would make anyone angry, impatient, exhausted. Can we grasp that all at once? To think through Audre Lorde’s uses of anger, do you refuse to listen because my tone is harsh or because you’re afraid my words contain information that will change your life?

*

Returning to the statement by Remember & Resist, I encourage close attention to this footnote:

Some groups decided to call for a strong police presence to “ensure safety” of attendees unaware of the cancellation, which led us to have to coordinate legal observers the night before.

This encapsulates the failure of certain liberal ESEA groups to understand the disciplining role of state violence, whether it’s the HKPF or the Met. If we heed the call to view racism through a lens of state-sanctioned predilection to premature death (vide Ruth Gilmore Wilson), and we understand the police as violent protectors of bourgeois colonial interests empowered by the state to kidnap, detain, violate, maim & cause death with impunity, then… what does it mean when we call on such forces to protect a demonstration on “ESEA unity”, if not capture of the identity by reactionaries? What did we need to be kept safe from, when it was members of our own community that said and did harmful things?

In co-ordinating legal observers in advance, the members of Remember & Resist did more to practically advance the cause of “unity” than anyone who insisted cops could keep us safe. As Kevin Blowe from Netpol wrote in his call for solidarity not service provision, this forward planning is in itself a form of relation, of co-operation rather than prioritising a big demonstration and leaving overstretched volunteers to pick up the pieces later.

Four years on, little has changed. The British ESEA liberalism held by certain groups is so trapped in its own image that a spectacle of mass is prioritised over informed and practical deployment of any meaningful organising, learning nothing from recent struggles against state violence from within / against Asian contexts, from abolitionist feminist practices, from Palestinian liberation movements and their repression in the west.

*

But I hear you protest: we really are learning! please don’t shout at us, we’re trying ever-so hard! And perhaps, indeed, we are not so different. In my early radicalisation from liberalism, I agreed with the need to decolonise and admired decisive protest action—but I also viewed it all as “activist stuff”, actions that were probably secret and specialised that you had to be very brave to do, and that my struggle (fighting in online comment sections about whether a book and its author was racist or not) was also important. I actually believed that we were each advancing an anti-racist cause, we were just doing it in our own way, from our own positions. Then I started volunteering with local queer creative groups, and quickly learned that the struggle against racism, gentrification, homelessness, criminalisation, institutional transphobia, policing, poverty, borders &c needed to approached all at once. The police aren’t just out on the streets, they’re in our safeguarding practises and community centres. I had to learn quickly that the state has been explicit in its intentions to create targeted harm in the name of order, and that we need to actually see the state as it is, not how we want it to be, in order to come up with practical solutions to meet people’s needs. We can’t afford to be trapped in an image.

And I hear you say, But we can’t do everything at once, do you want us to BURN OUT? What about OTHER GROUPS who all agree on things to do stuff, why can’t we just agree as well? Do you want us to be PERFECT all the time? I ask you, where in anything I have said or written have I ever demanded perfection of you personally—and do I have the power to not only ask that of you but somehow enforce it? And where are these other mythical groups with perfectly aligned beliefs? To draw on my experiences in queer community, we have had to actively & collectively (amongst many things) combat transphobia and gentrification and police in our social services and arms manufacturers at Pride! So I’m not picking unfair targets, I am in fact trying to be consistent. (Which probably then prompts certain people to say, But surely our situation is different. Round and round it goes, like a washing machine.)

I believe it’s past time to be honest that there are irreconcilable positions within ESEA groups. We’re not struggling from different places and we actually do not want the same things! Why soften that? It goes beyond a matter of disagreeing on what we feel should be prioritised: some of us want to decisively oppose state violence and imperialism through coalitional struggle and creating spaces of mutual care, placing this as our political centre. That informs and energises anything we do, from art to support services to bricks thrown at weapons factories (which I know nothing about, obviously). And some of us want better representation in the census, screen, and stage, the whole world shrunk into a white space bounded by four straight lines, rather than reckoning with the intimacies of four continents. Sorry to pull out this by now corny paraphrasing of Marx, but surely the point is to change the world, not just interpret it.

Rather than seeing liberals as passively unradicalised, people who aren’t quite there yet, still learning, I find Dylan Rodríguez’s framing of militant liberalism to be clarifying. Either own it or take up another position with firm intentions, contextualised according to our specific skills, knowledges, and communities–and have the humility to know when we lack this range, accept conflict & join already existing movements where applicable.

What if you look at where you already are and what you’re already doing, and try answering the following question: What would it mean for our practices to start at the point of resisting, critiquing, and analysing state violence?

[Changes: 08/06/2024 small edits for typos, clarification, phrasing]

Sans Nom – Guadeloupe: seizing the opportunity of a blackout

Posted on 16/01/2025 by muntjac

Guadeloupe : saisir l’occasion du black-out…

Guadeloupe: seizing the opportunity of a blackout…

On Friday October 25 in the French colony of Guadeloupe, shortly after 8:30 a.m., striking EDF employees in a month-long dispute with their management invaded the control room of the Pointe Jarry thermal power plant, shutting down its 12 engines*. Given that this power plant supplies almost all the electricity on this archipelago of 380,000 inhabitants, this provoked “a generalized electrical incident” – in other words, a blackout that lasted 39 hours and 28 minutes, until the evening of October 26 and the full restoration of electricity on the island.

Following the impromptu shutdown, the authorities dispatched gendarmes half an hour later to regain control of the control room, and then issued a prefectoral decree requisitioning the employees needed to get the thermal power plant back up and running, which took several days. On the street side, given that the blackout was set to last, the prefect also decreed a curfew (7pm-6am) for the night of the 25th to the 26th throughout Guadeloupe, then in 11 communes for the following two nights (10pm-5am): Abymes, Baie-Mahault, Basse-Terre, Gosier, Lamentin, Le Moule, Morne-à-l’Eau, Pointe-à-Pitre, Petit-Canal, Sainte-Anne and Sainte-Rose… to ensure that no one takes advantage of the blackout to carry out property transfers or targeted destruction. Officially “to limit the movement of people who might take advantage of the lack of light to damage property…”.

Which, of course, is exactly what happened! So, let’s take a non-exhaustive look at what happened in Guadeloupe when alarms, cameras, street lamps, neon lights and cell phone masts were suddenly deprived of juice…

Looting and backhoeing

In just a few hours on the night of October 25-26, eleven businesses were looted in the Pointe-à-Pitre and Abymes area. These included a supermarket, a bank and three jewelry stores.

What’s more, a backhoe was used against the jewelry stores to break their iron curtains, as well as against a Bred cash dispenser, which was literally ripped off the front of the building thanks to the skilful work of the masked driver of the machine…

Flaming barricades and retaliation

Flaming barricades were also erected in Pointe-à-Pitre, Les Abymes, Baie-Mahault, Le Lamentin, Le Moule, Morne-à-L’Eau and Sainte-Anne, in order to break the state monopoly of territorial control, but also to “facilitate the destruction”, according to Harry Durimel, mayor of Pointe-à-Pitre: “It’s the same method of creating places of attraction for the forces of law and order when they act elsewhere”. And when the latter try to intervene, the rioters have plenty to answer with, according to the official report from the Guadeloupe prefecture, which states, for example, that between 2.45 a.m. and 3 a.m. in the Pointe-à-Pitre area, police forces were fired on three times with live ammunition against the territorial security brigade and the RAID.

In all, the fire department was called out to extinguish 27 dumpster fires and 6 burning vehicles.

Destruction of school buildings

In the Baie-Mahault commune, the first night of the blackout saw more attacks and ransacking of schools than businesses. In addition to the Cora Mayeko, Merosier Narbal and Edinval schools, which were visited by the rioters to express their appreciation, it was the Collège de Gourdeliane in particular that bore the brunt of the blackout: after a thorough ransacking, high flames engulfed a large part of the college’s administration building, including the principal’s office, which went up in smoke. The preschool was also ransacked, with the headmistress’ office and the kindergarten across the street completely destroyed. On the second night of the blackout, a jewelry, perfume and handbag store in the commune was also attacked with an angle grinder.

In terms of repression, the first sentence handed down on Monday October 28 was 18 months in prison, six months suspended, for looting a telephone store in Pointe-à-Pitre, with “an obligation to reimburse the civil parties, an obligation to work” and placement “under an electronic bracelet, as the Basse-Terre prison is 245% overcrowded”. In addition, concerning the voluntary origin of the blackout itself, the management of EDF Guadeloupe has lodged a complaint against several employees for “endangering others, sabotage and destruction of public utility property”. The investigation has been entrusted to the Pointe-à-Pitre Research Unit (S.R.).

As for the looting of jewelry stores, supermarkets and banks, as well as the burning of schools, several investigations have also been opened… with the paradox that while the blackout had blinded the city’s video surveillance cameras, some of the protagonists and their friends were still willing to freely provide images of the looting to the investigators on social media networks…

* Guadeloupe, an archipelago in the middle of the Caribbean, is a non-interconnected zone, which means that it has to generate its own electricity to meet demand in the territory. Nearly 70% of its electricity production relies on thermal energy: fuel oil for EDF and wood pellets for Albioma, which was still running on coal until July. The stoppage of power plant engines by the strikers has led to an imbalance between electricity supply and demand, forcing the grid operator, EDF Archipel, to shut down the entire island to prevent irreparable damage to equipment.

[Local press summary, October 25-28, 2024]

Translated by Act For Freedom Now

Guadeloupe: seizing the opportunity of a blackout…, island in the southern Caribbean Sea

Biographies of Anarchist Fighters in Territories Dominated by the Iranian State

Posted on 15/01/2025 - 20/01/2025 by muntjac

Taken from Fugitive Distro. 

9 Biographical Sketches of Iranian anarchists.

In zine format, Reader / Printable

Also avalible on our Ko-Fi

Sudanese Anarchist Gathering – Dispatches From Khartoum

Posted on 15/01/2025 - 20/01/2025 by muntjac

Taken from Fugitive Distro

10 communiques from anarchists in Khatroum, Sudan sent to British anarchist magazine organise.

Avalible as a zine to read and print here. Also avalible on our Ko-fi

Posts navigation

Older posts
Newer posts

"Anarchists know that a long period of education must precede any great fundamental change in society, hence they do not believe in vote-begging, nor political campaigns, but rather in the development of self-thinking individuals."

Lucy Parsons - The Principles Of Anarchism, 1905

Contact us
fawnarchy@grrlz.net

Social media
We hate it, but we're on most of them here: linktr.ee/muntjac

Newsletter (Via Email)
We won't spam you, just updates on the project and a monthly round-up of new articles on the website. (you will need to make a lists.riseup account)
lists.riseup.net/www/info/muntjac

Distro
Buy Stuff / Donate / Subscribe
ko-fi.com/muntjacmag

Send Us Stuff!
We adore books, zines, love letters, posters, and sweet treats.
Please contact us first though as we would need to send someone to check the P.O. Box ...

Muntjac Collective
C/O Freedom Press
84b Whitechapel High St
E1 7QX
London
UK

Protect Yourself
Operational Security, Personal Security and Online Privacy.
anarsec.guide
notrace.how

Stay Informed
Check out a counter-info site for the news, reports and discourses you won't see on socials:
actforfree.noblogs.org
unoffensiveanimal.is
unravel.noblogs.org
sansnom.noblogs.org
switchoff.noblogs.org
radar.squat.net/en

Police Monitoring
Copwatch Network
linktr.ee/copwatchnetwork
NetPol
solidarity.netpol.org

Stop Deportations
Find Your Local AntiRaids Network
antiraids.net/local-groups

Prisoner Solidarity
Anti-repression work is everyones responsibility, learn about political prisoners, send letters and money to imprisoned anarchists and anti-colonial fighters.
bristolabc.org
brightonabc.org.uk
iwoc.iww.org.uk
palestineaction.org/prisoners
nycabc.wordpress.com
prisonersolidarity.com
june11.noblogs.org
solidarity.international

All our publications are free for prisoners.

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: micro, developed by DevriX.