Political texts

It Ain’t No Joke

People want things to be simple I guess. No unpleasant scenes. People want to be happy, want to stay happy, and don’t want anything to fuck it up.

Like if there’s a train coming towards you. It’s a real bummer to tell yourself ‘hey, if I stay here on the track I’ll be hit by the train and die horribly’.

Who wants to think about that? Shit, not me.

So you stay there, enjoying the view. Feeling positive, optimistic even. For a while.

So if someone tell’s ya, ‘hey, you’d better move’, then you’re all like:

‘You gotta be kidding me right? Who the fuck are YOU to tell me what to do? Just because you ain’t standing on the tracks you think you can pass judgement on those folks that are? Why don’t you just get a job?”

But it ain’t no joke.

If you stay on the track you’re gonna die.

So what is the track a metaphor for? A metafor phor? Phwoar.

Well, loads of things. Climate change would be the big one of course, but really, what about the bullshit we all put up with every single day?

The people who just keep on pushing our buttons and who we’re too polite to do anything about?

The fact that we can’t even be ourselves without someone making some kind of wise-crack? Like ‘Hey, nice hair, faggot’ or ‘Go back to Russia, commie’

And you just pretend you can’t hear it. Lucky for me I’m partially deaf in one ear so I have a good excuse. And even then it’s all ‘Cripple’ this and ‘spastic’ that.

How many times do people use the word ‘crazy’ to dismiss someone they just plain don’t like because they don’t understand them? I know I do it a lot.

Like ‘man this girl is crazy! She works a job she hates and get’s super-stressed about just to buy overpriced crap she doesn’t need!’

Who knows, maybe I would too, if I had whatever she has going on in her head inside of mine as well. Insecurity. Paranoia. Anxiety. Love of nice-smelling shiny soft things.

But it ain’t no joke.

When you see freedom happen, it’s a beautiful thing. When people help one another to each be as free as possible, by sharing resources they need to be empowered to do the things they each want to do, and when they don’t judge each other or bring one another down. It’s so beautiful in fact that ugly people don’t believe it can possibly be true.

When I say ‘ugly’, I don’t mean just people I wouldn’t have sex with even if you paid me. There’s very few people I WOULD have sex with if you paid me. I got this thing going on now, you see, and I don’t want to screw it up by screwing around.

Ugly, in the sentence above, means cynical, angry, fuckwitted dickheads who are so caught up in not believing in anything and hating themselves that they can’t deal with other people being happy and free. That’s ugly.

Ugly people can be in universities, analysing the shit out of everything so that they feel smug enough to sit around in a bar, pissing on the efforts of revolutionaries and engineers, because it all doesn’t add up to some equation they pulled out of their arse.

Ugly people can be in a different bar, where it’s all about shouting at the TV, looking at people you don’t recognise who walk in the door like you want to kill them, and saying that immigrants are taking the jobs and anyone who says different is a terrorist, but then not even having the conviction to join a far-right group and get beaten up by my friends.

Ugly people can even be in Anarchist squats, throwing boxes of dogshit at people they don’t like and trying to get their most loyal comrades kicked out of their fucking homes for reasons you never bother to explain to them because you’re a cowardly fuck.

So yeah, it’s not so much about where you stand, or where you say you stand. It’s about whether you can stop fretting about the meaningless of life for long enough to stand still and see the beauty that is the freedom people practice all the time, wherever bastards with ugly souls are not around to ruin the fun.

Just be part of it. Grow it. Be free, and help others to be. Otherwise you’re gonna get hit by the train.

Now, people get very cosy in their ugly little souls. They huddle up in them like a cocoon and get afraid of the big bad world out there. Unfurling your wings, breaking through the walls and flying away like a colourful butterfly is often far too much work for some people.

But it ain’t no joke.

Do you want your life to be as shit as it is now forever?

Are you really that jealous of happy people that you aren’t gonna listen to their advice on how to get yourself out of your stupid situation?

Really?

The scientists at the Interplanetary Panel on Climate Change have a model they call the ‘happy hippy’ scenario. It’s where people all over the world decide to change their lifestyles so as to stop depending on non-renewable resources like fossil fuels AND nuclear power.

So this could involve, say, not working a stupid job your hate to buy things you don’t really need, and therefore having the free time to produce things, such as food and electricity, for yourself, along with others.

It might also involve, perhaps, not living lives of crippling alienation from your fellow human beings and suffering in silence from the psychological attacks we are daily subjected to by patriarchy, consumerism, wage-labour, and undemocratic power structures, to name just a few.

So basically, it means, everyone, all over the world, trying to be happier than they are now by getting to the roots of the problems our society faces in a holistic way.

So you’d have to have a pretty ugly way of thinking about things to want to discourage people from doing such a thing, right? You’d have to be a real mean son-or-daughter-of-a-bitch to want everyone to keep on suffering needlessly, right?

So of course, the elected leaders of the ugliest countries in the world, where people’s skin is this horrible pasty white colour, are dead against this

So of course, people with enough sense not to give a shit what dickheads like that think, pay no notice and just get on with it anyway.

People learn to love one another, to grow more and more tolerant of all the quirky differences that we all have, to go into our own minds and find out why we weren’t tolerant of those people already and seek to heal our minds so as to be nicer to people all round.

People learn new skills, like how to cook nutritious food for themselves, how to build shelters, use tools,  repair things, how to manage ecosystems in a way that promotes biodiversity, how to occupy land and build political allegiances, settling disputes without having to call the cops, all kinds of stuff.

People are doing it all the time. You may not believe me, if you are just working a job you hate to buy things you don’t need, but they really are, and they would mostly love to welcome you onboard and help you learn all these things too, so long as you don’t turn up acting like a prick and being dismissive of everything you don’t understand.

If you want to vote for whichever politicians lies you find it easier to pretend are the truth and sit back hoping they will somehow divert the tracks of the train, or slow it down with some hidden emergency breaks that no-one noticed were there before, then seriously, you can do that.

I am not gonna stop you. You would probably beat me up if I tried.

All I can say is that I would personally prefer not to get hit by a train, and since you and I are living on the same planet, there is really no option but to get hit by it no matter what I do, so long as the majority of people, including yourself, keep holding on to ugliness.

Seriously. I really do enjoy life, even if you don’t.

It ain’t no joke.

Not this time, not again

This time it’s for real.

There is no more time. It’s come. It’s now.

Are they going to stop pollution in the next two years and save the world from a climate spiralling madly out of control?

Look at what’s on their agenda for the next few years. It sure as fuck ain’t that.

When I say ‘they’ of course I mean the leaders of the dominant political and economic organisations of the world. Those fuckers who are killing all those people on TV every day with their bombs and the poverty they force us all to live in.

So this time, it’s time to do it right.

No more excuses. No more being too afraid to take action. Get over yourself. We are all afraid. But we struggle anyway.

No more meetings about meetings about meetings that never lead to any means of production being taken over by workers or any oppressive structures of authority being dismantled.

No more ‘moderating our slogans’ to appeal to the mainstream, and ending up forgetting what the hell we were fighting for in the first place.

Fuck the mainstream. Not because it produces awful music, I actually like shitty pop music. But we must completely decentralise power, including electrical power, and that means no more commercial bullshit based on centralised models.

No more wasting time picking pedantic holes in each others arguments so as to sound more radical than each other while disguising the fact we’re too shit scared to actually confront reality in our daily lives.

No more fucking about, basically. Time to seize the means of production.

My strongest possible advice to you at this time is to work on being part of a strong affinity group of people you are on the same wavelength as and start making real, concrete, life-changing plans for how you are going to get yourselves in a situation where you are able to produce the majority of what you need to survive and have enough left over to trade with others.

If that means selling all your stuff to buy other stuff, just do it. Let go of all that old shit. It ain’t gonna save your life.

If it means taking something by force from someone who is a complete bastard, take it. Just do it in a way which means you get away with it.

All of this is easier said than done of course. But DO IT. Seriously. No more excuses

This isn’t even about you, and your fear to do what must be done. This is about the children’s future.

You know, those kids? The ones you see about the place? The ones you know. The ones you don’t know. All of them.

They are alive right now. Do you want them to be alive in twenty years?

Well then. Get on with it.

Nick the means of production!

The frustrating thing about not being able to produce things for yourself is that you end up feeling pretty powerless. It’s always awkward when you have to rely on other people to share things with you rather than feel able to just take whatever you need out of a supply that you have built up yourself.

Even if the people who you rely on are very generous, you still have to wait for the opportune time to ask, or at least for a time when they are awake and have attention to spare on your concerns.

When it comes to the people who actually control most of what is produced in our global capitalist society, well, needless to say, they aren’t particularly generous in the first place.

I would like to be in a position to grow most of the food and medicinal plants that I would use, by myself and with the help of my friends. This is a pretty standard hippyish dream – an agricultural commune. But I would also like to have all the music equipment I need in one place, to be able to compose, arrange, practice, record, mix and produce music whenever I need.

Basically I want a music studio on a big bit of land with a bunch of my friends living on the same land with their own creative projects to be getting on with and all the equipment they need to do them.

I am fully aware that not everyone in the world would want to live like this. Lots of people would not particularly want to grow their own food or to have their own workshop or studio to produce things for themselves on.

Many are content to be dependent on others for the things they need in life, without having to do anything in return. Many are content to do some form of work in return, but not to be in control of how that work is carried out, or what particular work they have to do. I do not understand the mentality of such people, though I do not begrudge them their happiness, if indeed happiness is possible whilst living such a life.

But I know that I am not alone in wishing to have more control of the means of production. For most of human history people have not had the choice to sit around doing nothing while living off the productive labour of others, and so strong tendencies towards working directly to produce what you need have always existed.

When people first started living off of the labour of others, only a small minority of the population was able to do so. Most people had to work to grow the food, build the shelters, maintain the tools, make the clothes, etc, and perhaps one or two people in each group could demand a share of the products of the labour of others through the threat of violence if they did not comply. This is basically how society works in what people call ‘feudal’ society.

In industrial capitalist society, the great majority of people do not work to produce their own food, clothes, shelters etc, and simply give a share to the social elite. Things, as of course we all know, are far more complicated than that.

Workers generally produce things that they will never own themselves, or even only produce parts of those things, or even simply move those things around from place to place, or talk about those things in the abstract whilst typing into computers or speaking into telephones.

We are removed from the process, to the point where we need to look on the labels of things we consume just to have a slight guess as to their true contents, whilst still being little the wiser. We do not know the names of the people who produced the food we ate today, nor the names of those people who moved it from place to place or talked about it in the abstract in an office on a telephone.

We do not know the names of the owners of the companies that produced it, or sold it, or moved it from place to place. We do not know the names of the stock brokers who sold the shares of ownership in that company to who knows how many people yesterday, or the day before, or the names of the bankers who dictated the policies that fixed what the price of the money that the shares, or even the food itself, were sold with.

Yet, the land is still there. There is soil enough around, and water, and minerals, and oxygen. There is sunlight. There are tools around. There are books, articles, websites, which can teach someone how to build or grow almost anything, written in hundreds of languages.

If we all woke up tomorrow to find that all our conditioned reflexes and mental patterns can disappeared in our sleep to be replaced with a new, dynamic, go-getting, optimistic approach to plunging ourselves into the unknown, and a thirst for control over our lives and the means of production, we could create new systems for doing things in no time.

But those mental patterns are fixed. Many people, in the face of a logical argument for why they should do something they have never done before, or stop doing something they have always done, will scornfully dismiss it as nonsense without even trying to come up with a counter-argument. People are slow to adapt, especially if they are not used to adapting to new things all the time.

I find it baffling that so many people are so resistant to changing their lifestyles, even in such a chaotic society as this, in which we are bombarded with ridiculous and unpredictable changes all the time.

To simply stop doing things you don’t want to do and to take up the tools you need to do something else which is productive, does not make you a bad person. Many people would respect you for your independence and strength of spirit, and if you were generous with the products of your labour, you would surely find yourself with a great many allies willing to help you find whatever things you need which you are unable to produce yourself.

Yet if you did all this without first working for some capitalist, saving up your wages in a bank, or investing your savings in the stock market successfully, you would be considered a very bad person indeed by the governments of the world, and a great many workers as well.

I suppose it all depends on whether you care about what such people think, or if your ego would be content with the respect that the rest of us would have for you, those of us who think differently from the capitalists and their supporters.

I would say, don’t worry about it. Nick the means of production. It’ll be fine

Time for David Cameron to have that smug fucking grin wiped off his face

So. 11 Million people have voted for the Conservative party. These people are Class traitors. They should be forgiven if they repent. They should hide in fear until then.

But, nonetheless, despite the fact that it’s a huge number, its only around 1/7th of the UK population. So it’s a case of a smallish elite of dickheads getting their way and the rest of us having to suffer. This is not a tolerable situation.

This government has no legitimacy to rule. It’s laws are not worth following. Just forget about them, don’t even read them. It would be like taking the words of a drunk angry man threatening you with violence too seriously. It’s just bullshit, don’t listen to it.

If you want a better life for yourself, your friends, your community, you are going to need to BREAK THE LAW. Don’t worry, it’s fine, millions of people break the law all the time and we are leading perfectly happy lives as a result.

The important thing is breaking the law COLLECTIVELY. It means having SOLIDARITY. If you don’t know what that word means, look it up. It is not going to be explained to you by the television news or the mainstream press. They don’t want you to understand what solidarity is, or how powerful it can be when millions of people decide to break the law together and to support one another in doing so.

Most of us in the UK have ancestors who worked in factories in the 1800’s, and who were peasants in the 1600’s who had their land stolen from them by force. The people who fought back, to demand their rights to control the means of production for themselves rather than work as a slave for someone else, they broke the law.

They were heroes. Without them we would not have the rights we have now. If people in the past had not broken the laws that existed in the past, those laws would still exist today. If you want to change a bad law, you have to BREAK IT, and keep breaking it until it is completely BROKEN.

Slavery was abolished this way, through slaves breaking out of the plantations and spreading their stories to white allies. But mainly through BREAKING FREE.

The poll tax was abolished this way, through millions of people deciding not to pay it. The law was BROKEN, so the government had to stop it.

There are many laws that are on the books right now that we need to BREAK. So let’s get on with it.

If you are not connected with other people who hate the government as much as you do, FIND THEM. If your friends don’t feel the same way as you, don’t worry, you will make new friends, maybe better ones than the ones you have now. There are millions of us, and many of us have email addresses. Shit, even email me if you want and i’ll try and help connect you to someone: williamsewardburroughs@riseup.net.

Once you have found a group of people you feel you can work with, IMMEDIATELY START TAKING ACTION.

Steal something, squat a building or some land, start a project to provide a public service based on the principles of mutual aid rather than hierarchy, just GET ON WITH SOMETHING REAL. Don’t just have meetings where you talk about daydreams, make the more realistic of your day dreams into REALITY, and SOON.

BE BRAVE. Keep your energy up. Take care of your physical and mental health. Listen to inspiring songs, read inspiring books, keep your friends inspired too, don’t criticise them too much or lay big guilt-trips on them.

Being arrested is not that bad. I was arrested just last week, and i’m fine now. Bit of a shit few days, but whatever. It’s nothing to be afraid of.

Being physically hurt by cops is sometimes pretty bad, sure. But just try and be smart about the way you break the law so you don’t get caught, and if the cops are there and are trying to hurt you, be smart about how you deal with them. Remember that they are just scared little idiots, and don’t aggravate them unnecessarily. Flatter their stupid little egos by pretending to respect them, until you get away from them and start breaking the law again.

ACAB- Always Chuckle At Bobbies (it makes them less likely to suspect you want to kill them).

The worst that can happen to you is that you will get killed. But you could get killed crossing the fucking street.
You could get killed by a cop just because they think you’re a terrorist. Or you could die of malnutrition or curable disease because of this shitty capitalist system we live under, or get stabbed by a poor, deranged person whose life has been destroyed by the system already.

It’s a choice between the risk of a proud death with the possibility of improving your life, or the certainty of a shit life and a death that no-one would be proud of.

Let’s start a crime wave. Let’s start an insurrection. Let’s get the things we deserve: food, shelter, medicine, security, community, by any means necessary.

Let’s wipe that smug fucking grin off David Cameron’s face.

You Don’t Need to Be a Dickhead to Be a Nihilist, But It Helps

06/April/2015

I sit in a caravan in the Sully site, where most of Kilnaboy is based, contemplating the events of the last 24 hours or so, in which I have experienced a series of changing interpretations of the same event

I have heard things second hand, third hand, fourth, all at different times, piecing together the implications. It has caused me at certain moments to doubt whether I had any friends in the world, then to be reassured. At times I felt that the forces of evil were triumphant, and that I was resigned to abandon all my hopes and dreams to discover a new life on the road.

Basically, some shit went down, but it all seems sorted now.

The future ahead of me seems bright, my plans seem not only feasible but almost inevitably bound to come to fruition almost without much effort needed. Of course, this is not actually the case at all and I will need to constantly keep the dream alive in the minds of others, and of course myself, which takes considerable energy.

It’s basically a dream war that I am engaged in, and sometimes rival dreams come into collision to my own in ways that are disturbing and most confusing. Indentifying malignant dreams in the minds of others seems to me now to be of paramount importance for the success of any venture.

Witness the nihilist-individualist-insurrectionalist tendency of the anarchist mileu. Their dreams are on full display, they make no bones about it. They want destruction.

I am not unfamiliar nor even particularly unsympathetic to their world-view. Sympathy is after all about feeling the same way as someone, and I have often felt that there is a great need for the destruction of a great many things that currently exist in this world.

But much of the literature of this tendency uses the word ‘existent’ to describe that which they wish to destroy. Now I am sure that many of these writers have chosen their words carefully and probably could give you a pretty reasonable sounding reason for why they choose to use that word, which sounds so awfully close to the word ‘existence’. But it is certainly not a word in everyday usage in English speaking countries, so it is extremely likely to be misinterpreted.

My understanding of what nihilism means as a political philosophy is not so much that they wish to simply destroy everything that exists, but that they are in favour of the violent destruction of all authoritarian structures and yet do not believe it is wise to formulate a program or vision for how society should be organised afterwards.

I can see a certain logic there from the point of view of someone who wants to see a better world and is convinced that it necessarily involves the dismantling of all oppressive structures. Most anarchists do not claim to have all the answers for how a post-revolutionary anarchist world would look after all.

Indeed, for enough people to be mobilised against the forces of the State in order to stand a chance of defeating them, there would need to be an extraordinary level of unity and cooperation amongst working class people, and perhaps this is unlikely to be achieved if people are to insist upon too much consensus upon theoretical questions.

It is often the case that groups of well-meaning people end up arguing for hours about theoretical questions without coming to a consensus and that this causes much less work to be done than when these discussions are somehow avoided.

Some nihilists may be people who would indeed like to see a world based on mutual aid and cooperation, but just don’t want to ram that vision down other people’s throats while they are trying to unite with them and take on the forces of oppression.

For example I once read a pamphlet called ‘nihilist communism’ which seems to be arguing for nihilism as a strategy for libertarian communist revolution. They claim that attempts by ideological communist and anarchist groups to inspire class consciousness amongst working class people have little to no effect on the actual likely hood of a revolution.

Instead they assume that in the workers will take over the means of production and reorganise them along communist lines inevitably without communist activists having to do anything.

This may just be a rationalisation of these particular nihilists’ laziness or ineptness at reaching out to the public. Or it may be an interesting contribution to a debate on revolutionary strategy. Perhaps both.

At least it is clear that they ultimately believe in a world based on a positive vision of human solidarity, to the point where they naively imagine human nature to be such that people conditioned their entire lives by capitalism would suddenly change their entire world view and way of life over night simply because the power of the State had collapsed.

The same can not be said though of a certain individual I have recently met describing themselves as a “nihilist individualist” – which I understand to be an increasingly popular tendency amongst certain members of the anarchist milieu, thanks in part to the ‘propaganda of the deed’ of certain groups such as the Conspiracy of Cells of Fire.

As an individualist, this person claims not to care about the working class, and as a nihilist, not to care about the world once the State is gone, or even about trying to destroy the State completely, merely doing lots of violent actions against it just for the hell of it. He seems to be one of those people who believe that climate change will sweep away the State, or that everything will collapse on its own.

In this regard he is similar to the nihilist communists in that he thinks the State will collapse on its own and then his preferred vision for the future will come about. Where he differs from the communists is that his preferred vision seems to be a nightmare apocalypse world rather than one which is actually good to live in.

He thinks there is no hope to save the world, and that anyone who thinks there is so stupid that their ideas should be violently opposed.

This is what he has spent many hours talking to me about, even when I have made it clear to him that I do not particularly enjoy listening to it. He will sketch out in detail just how doomed everything is, painting a vision in other people’s minds that he fills in more and more details of. Whatever visions he has in his own mind of such a world must be even darker.

His dreams are on a collision course with those of almost everyone else in the anarchist milieu, and he seems to actively take pleasure in destroying their faith in whatever it is they believe in, through constant angry ranting, regardless of how much people beg him to stop for the sake of their mental health.

This experience is going to make it very hard for me not to become prejudiced against any person claiming to hold views they call ‘nihilist individualist’, or any actions or literature bearing that title.

I know it is not fair to blame a set of ideas for the actions and attitudes of a particularly unpleasant individual, but he truly has scarred my mind, which will surely be likely to impair my rational judgement of a set of philosophical ideas that are so closely intertwined with these unhappy memories.

All of this has made me feel it more necessary to affirm what I do believe in and how it differs from nihilism, and especially nihilist individualism.

The set of ideas that first convinced me that the anarchist project had validity were those of the social ecologists, such as Murray Bookchin. In short, social ecology is the theory that in order for human beings to live in harmony with other species as part of sustainable ecosystems we must organise our society on basically anarchist communist lines, while of course also making other more obvious technological and agricultural changes.

Social ecology is a radical tendency of the environmental movement which has been explicitly influenced by anarchist communist ideas, and creates a theoretical framework for understanding the intersections between social struggles and environmental struggles.

To me, social ecology is compatible with class struggle anarchism, anarcha feminism, queer anarchism, and pretty much every other strand of anarchism. It can be an intellectual tool to help unite working class people of all identities to unite to create a more sustainable world which is also one in which individuals are more or less completely liberated by the fact that their basic needs are met by communistic forms of social organisation.

My experiences as an active anarchist militant between 2007 and 2011 led me to the conviction that the ideas of the insurrectionalist tendency, and especially Alfredo M Bonanno, about the ways in which anarchists should organise in order to help build working class revolutionary consciousness were correct.

At least, I thought they were more correct than those of the platformists, specificist’s and ideological anarcho-syndicalists, though I still retain sympathy for the IWW concept of trying to build ‘One Big Union’ as part of a diversity of tactics, but not as a sole strategy.

Ideological anarchist syndicalists, like the IWA, or groups inspired by platformist and specificist ideas, like the IFA, in my opinion are wasting too much time trying to convince people that anarchist communism is what they should believe in.

This is why I find the ideas of the nihilist communists interesting, but I believe they take it too far. I believe that we should be trying to convince people of anarchist communism, but not by talking about it theoretically as a potential vision for the future that we can choose to struggle for if we want to.

I believe we must demonstrate the necessity of the ideas of anarchist communism by showing how they are directly useful in creating a new society based on a sustainable relationship to the earth, and be actively trying to build a working class movement to fight for the revolutionary changes necessary to save the human species.

I believe that to build such a movement we should adopt an insurrectionalist approach to strategy and organisation. We should organise as informally as possible while retaining as much structure as is absolutely necessary for practical reasons, and the basic unit of organisation in any anarchist project should be the affinity group.

Affinity groups should seek to make direct contact with working class people outside the anarchist milieu to form ‘autonomous base nuclei’ who then engage in a conflict with the State around a clear, achievable goal. Insurrectionalist Social Ecology would mean forming autonomous base nuclei that were engaging in struggles against the State based around both social and ecological goals at once.

By taking action with people outside the anarchist milieu, we avoid ghettoising ourselves and becoming irrelevant ideologues. If we achieve our specific goals we will hopefully inspire other working class people to replicate the actions we have taken alongside the people in our autonomous base nucleus rather than only inspiring other anarchists, as would be the case if we only took action in our own explicitly anarchist affinity groups.

An example of a conflict with the State that had both social and ecological aspects and which involved a combination of anarchists and non anarchists taking action would be a squatted piece of land being used by anarchists and non-anarchists alike to promote ecological awareness and the benefits of communal living, which actively resists attempts by the State to evict it and mobilises the community to help with the resistance by pointing out that they have a common enemy in the local capitalist landlord.

Such a struggle is going on now in the Yorkely Court Community Farm in the Forest of Dean, and it is successfully building it’s support base in the local working class community, while at the same time hopefully inspiring them to care more about ecology and the necessity of struggle against the state.

Thousands of similar revolutionary projects are going on around the world, resisting Fracking, Mining, Tar Sands Oil extraction, and many other environmental disasters being perpetrated by the State and it’s capitalist friends.

The amount of territory on earth which needs to be taken out of the control of the State and be put in the hands of working class people organising in ways compatible with Social Ecology, is huge, and in fact grows by the day. We not only need to be reclaiming the land, sea and sky from our enemies but also to be repairing all the damage they have done over the past two centuries and creating something sustainable at the end of it.

It’s a ridiculously huge task, but luckily for us as individuals we don’t need to really waste our time thinking about how big a task it is, because we are just playing very small parts in a very big task, so we just need to look after our mental health, stay positive and get on with doing our own fair share of the revolutionary work.

By carrying on pushing, by creating good strategies and by constantly updating our understanding of how best to inspire people to change their consciousness and become actively involved in fighting for a more sustainable world, I believe it is possible that the human race will survive the twenty first century.

We are not going to get there if our efforts are hampered by people who openly admit that they do not want to help fight for that world because they either do not believe it is possible or even desirable. If such people get in our way we must resist them and not sacrifice our revolutionary projects to their death-wish for the planet.

If there are people reading this who call themselves nihilists but who do actually care about the survival of humanity and just have some difference of opinion about what kind of strategy we need to get there, then I do not mean to cause you offense, so long as you are someone capable of polite conversation and debate.

If you do not care, either about humanity, or the feelings of those humans who do care about humanity and are trying to help save it, then I don’t know why you would hang around the anarchist milieu except to deliberately provoke people and cause them harm just because they have a different, more positive outlook than yourself. In other words, you’re a dickhead.

Order Within Chaos: Why Informal Anarchist groups still need formal meetings

The ideas of the ‘insurrectionalist’ anarchist theorists like Alfredo M Bonanno have influenced the direct action and anarchist groups in the UK a lot even though the majority of the anarchists who are involved have probably never even heard of these theories.

Lots of Anarchists in the UK try to organise in ways that Bonanno advocated without even realising they are doing it. They have just got involved in groups that already run like that and so just got used to it, without necessarily realising what the original point of it was.

There is a lot of confusion, ending up with a bizarre way of organising things that is actually the opposite of what Bonanno was advocating, at least as far as i understand it.

The main confusion that i can see is that people have mixed up the idea of organising in “informal” networks, with the idea of just generally organising everything in an informal way.

Bonanno was against having formal Anarchist organisations based on models like the Anarchist Federations in different countries. He thought that when Anarchists put too much energy into creating these organisations then they don’t have energy left to actually get on with working with other oppressed people to take action for liberation.

(Bonano talks about this in “Why a Vanguard” and “The Real Movement vs the Fictious Movement” available from Elephant Editions http://www.elephanteditions.net/.)

Anarchists can get so caught up in the day to day running of their organisation that they can start to think that somehow by helping their organisation they are helping the actual struggle.

When people start to think like this they are basically making the same mistakes as Marxists who think that the working class can only be free if they are organised by the Communist/Socialist Party, so put all their energy into making those Parties, and sometimes even do things which destroy real struggles for the benefit of the Party.

The same thing can happen with formal Anarchist groups like the Anarchist Federation. For example if there is a big riot or wildcat strike or other form of action that is illegal, then Anarchists can help the people doing it by explaining to the wider public why it is happening and arguing that it is actually a good thing by giving a critique of capitalism and advocating liberation.

But if people in the group are worried about what reputation the group will have then they might not do this, or might even say to the public that they disagree with it, which helps destroy the struggle by helping the State punish those taking action by cutting off public support for them.

Lots of Anarchists realize the problems of Formal Anarchist groups and so try to avoid them. But what often happens is that they just form informal ‘scenes’ of people which end up doing the same thing without even having the advantage of a formal way of making decisions.

In informal anarchist ‘scenes’ people often end up caring so much about the internal politics of the ‘scene’ that they also do not have energy to go out into the wider world to start real projects for liberation.

When they do go out into the world and try to do a project they often only work with other people in the ‘scene’ instead of uniting with other oppressed people and they often do things in a very ineffective way because they have no formal structures.

Formal Anarchist groups at least can get things done, such as printing regular publications and organising public events that are well advertised and run smoothly, because they have a structure to organise all the tasks and hold people to account to make sure they do them.

In informal anarchist scenes often people just talk about things really vaguely, then don’t really do the tasks necessary to follow through on their ideas, or just leave all the work to a few individuals who might happen to have a hard-working personality.

Actions, demonstrations and publications are often extremely badly planned and executed and therefore pointless. No-one does any serious work to think about what their goals actually are, what strategies and tactics will achieve them, but instead just do random actions when they feel like it.

People end up getting arrested, beaten and traumatized because they tried to do actions that were pointless anyway and then badly planned so that they are easily dealt with by the authorities. No one is inspired by these actions to fight for liberation and often the wider public have absolutely no idea that the actions even happened, or what they were supposed to be for.

Bonanno’s theory shows how informal anarchist scenes can do the same thing as formal Anarchist organisations. They can prioritize themselves above actual struggles.

For example an informal anarchist scene that is based around a social centre can end up just spending all its time organising things at that social centre that only appeal to other anarchists instead of using the social centre to reach out to people in the wider community.

Even if people in the wider community might be involved in real struggles against local capitalists and authorities, the anarchists in the social centre might not even know about it because they are too busy arguing with each other about minor theoretical points. They may even misunderstand the struggle and start to fear it, feeling that they have to protect their scene from local angry working class youth rather than uniting with them.

Bonanno and other people like him basically said that instead of organising big Anarchist organisations with a formal decision making structure, we should just stick to working in small affinity groups and that these affinity groups should network with each other.

(Bonanno talks about this in ‘Insurrectionalist Anarchism’)

An affinity group is just a group of people who share ‘affinity’ with each other. This means that they don’t just agree with each other on big political ideas (e.g. being against capitalism and for Anarchy) but also have the same focus for what they specifically want to spend their time on, and have a lot of trust and respect for each other.

When you are part of a group of people like this you can go out into the world and start trying to start projects with other working class people who maybe are not anarchists.

For example, if you have an affinity group of people who feel strongly that they want to put a lot of energy into workplace issues, they could go and find a workplace where the workers are trying to resist the bosses oppression in some way and try and link with those workers to support their struggle in whatever way seems relevant.

If the anarchist affinity group and some of the workers start to form a group together to organize the things they are doing as part of the struggle, then they have formed what Bonanno calls an “autonomous base nucleus” – which is a very weird phrase so i will try to explain it word by word.

“Autonomous” means “self-law making”, so an autonomous group is a group that has no power structure above it which can tell it what to do, how to organise or what rules or ‘laws’ it should obey. Instead the members of the group decide amongst themselves what the rules are going to be.

“Base” in this context means “the bottom of society”. The idea here is that people on the bottom of society, people who are poor and oppressed in various ways, are the ones who can change society.

By struggling for their own freedom, people at the bottom of society can change the whole system, because everyone at the ‘top’ depends on exploiting and oppressing those at the bottom, so their whole system would collapse if people on the bottom could free themselves.

Anarchists should completely reject the idea that you can change things in society without working directly with the people on the bottom who are struggling for their own liberation.

“Nucleus” means ‘a thing which other things rotate around’, like the planets rotating around the Sun, or electrons rotating around the nucleus of an atom, or chemicals in a cell of an animal or a plant being group around the nucleus of the cell.

So an Autonomous Base Nucleus is a group of working-class oppressed people who are organising by themselves, with noone above them telling them how to do it, and which other oppressed people might ‘rotate’ around in some way.

To go back to the example of the anarchist affinity group organising with some workers, the group they would form would probably only consist of the most radical workers, or the workers who had the most energy to put into the struggle.

But if a group like that exists then the other workers will know about it and probably help out with the activities of the group from time to time, even if they don’t go to all the meetings or participate in absolutely everything. That’s what i mean by ‘rotating around the nucleus’.

When you have an autonomous base nucleus then all those other oppressed people who don’t really have the energy to put into being part of the group can still end up being part of really amazing actions that actually change things in society, because the group does most of the work of organising things and then the others just have to come along at the right moment and be part of it.

But if there is no autonomous base nucleus then pretty much nothing is likely to happen, as the people who don’t have much energy will not just magically come together and make something happen without someone, somewhere, working hard to organise it.

So we can see here that lots of meetings, planning and organisation are involved at every step of this process.

First the anarchist affinity group needs to have meetings and conversations where they decide what their project is going to be. Who are they going to try and form and autonomous base nucleus with and why? How are they going to get in touch with those people? How are they going to make sure that they don’t get caught by the authorities before they’ve even done anything? What are they going to do if they do get caught? What are they going to do if the people they want to unite with are skeptical, or even hostile?

All these things take careful planning. Serious decisions need to be made. Lots of points need to be debated and consensus needs to be reached. Particular things that need to be done need people to volunteer to do them and they need to be accountable to the rest of the group if they don’t do what they promised to.

All of that will take a lot less time is people organise their meetings with some kind of formal structure.

Choose someone to be the chair or ‘facilitator’ of the meeting, who decides whose turn it is to speak so that everyone doesn’t talk over each other and people with dominant personalities don’t drown everyone else’s voices out.

Write an agenda for each meeting and put time limits on each point, for example: “we will try and finish this meeting in one hour. Lets spend ten minutes going over what things we said we’d do last time and seeing if they got done or not, then twenty minutes talking about new ideas, then half an hour talking about how to put those ideas into practice”.

Without organising what you are going to talk about in advance and for how long meetings can end up lasting for hours and going around in circles, which makes everyone feel bored and uninspired, possibly even making them want to give up the whole project.

Choose someone to act as ‘secretary’ to make a note of who said they would do what and then to check up on them later to remind them what they said they would do, and then make sure everyone knows when the next meeting is.

Without someone acting in this ‘secretary’ role people can forget what they said they would do, and if someone isn’t able to do what they said they would and then doesn’t come to the next meeting, no-one knows if it got done or not so it can be impossible to move forward.

All these are simply suggestions of things i have seen work well in the past, but the main point i am trying to make is that having formal meeting structures can actually help an affinity group begin a project to start an autonomous base nucleus.

Once the nucleus is formed and you are actually part of a struggle, then there is even more need for meetings and decisions to be made. You need to decide what you are fighting for and what strategies and tactics you are going to use to try and achieve it. Then as you are putting these plans into practice things can change rapidly and you may need to completely change tactics.

Lots of things need to be done and people need to be held accountable for doing them, so all these kinds of formal mechanisms like agenda setting and secretary roles become really important, possibly even matters of life or death depending on what kind of struggle it is.

For example, if you run the risk of being arrested or beaten up or killed if a particular action goes wrong, then all the people who volunteered to take on the different tasks of organising the action really need to do what they said they would do, and others need to know whether or not they have done it, not just assume they have.

I hope by now i have explained the importance of formal meetings and a generally professional attitude to the insurrectionalist anarchist project.

It is not enough to just “reject formal structure” in general, as an absolute rule that applies to everything and just sit around chatting shit with other anarchists in your little scene without ever being prepared to be serious and figure out how to engage with real struggles and conduct yourself in an appropriate way as a revolutionary.

If you fail as a serious revolutionary you will not be punished by any kind of Anarchist authority. You will be punished by the fact that you will continue to live in a system that oppresses you without you being able to do anything to effectively challenge it.

When you are doing serious revolutionary work, rather than fake bullshit for some formal organisation or informal scene, you feel great. You don’t feel oppressed, you feel like you are free and on the road to greater freedom.

You don’t feel the need to complain about things while being too depressed to do anything. You feel happy and inspired to be part of a real movement for liberation.

So please, think about what struggles are going on in communities of oppressed people around you that you could help to radicalize then form an affinity group and make a plan to form an autonomous base nucleus and get on with it.

Good luck, comrade.

What does the Anarchist Action Network want to be?

This text is intended to be a contribution towards helping to build a new Anarchist organisation in the UK. Individuals and small groups of Anarchists from various cities have been cooperating for several months already under the name of the Anarchist Action Network and are organising several events aimed at reaching out to working class communities in which the Anarchist movement is not currently very strong.

Over the years much has been written about the problems that can occur in situations such as this, when a group of people who are in a minority – Anarchists – attempt to reach out to “the masses”.

Anarchist groups and organisations often run the risk of acting like “vanguards”: separating ourselves off from the rest of society and then reaching out to people as if we believe our ideas are better than theirs and that therefore they need us to educate them or follow our example.

If we allow ourselves to think like this too much then we fail to see reality as it really is. Oppressed people struggle against their oppression in a self-organised way whether Anarchists are around or not. This is something we should never forget, especially because it is where the real hope for an anarchist revolution lies, rather than in our own actions as a minority of people.

However, because Anarchists by definition reject all forms of hierarchy and have an uncompromising attitude towards the State, we can often play useful roles in the struggles of the oppressed in ways that people of other perspectives usually do not.

When people organise their own struggles without hierarchies and are directly fighting against the sources of their oppression, the struggles can get more and more intense, with lots of energy behind them, as individual people tend to feel empowered and inspired in these situations, especially if they struggling together with other people and there is a sense of real, practical solidarity going on.

But powerful people know this and so use a number of strategies for destroying this rebellious energy in individual people’s minds. Power tends to offer concessions and to encourage the oppressed to delegate representatives to negotiate on their behalf, then to try to corrupt these representatives and to go back on any promises of concessions as soon as the struggle has quietened down.

Anarchists, if we are genuinely part of a struggle in which this is going on, would usually be expected to argue against this, and to push for an uncompromising attitude with power and for non-hierarchical self organisation so that there can be no representatives for the powerful to corrupt.

We would do this simply because we are anarchists and that’s what we do. But we can only do it if we are genuinely part of the struggle, which means that if we start from a situation of being outside a struggle, we need to think deeply about how to merge with the struggles that we wish to be a part of.

People who are already in a struggle will often be grateful to anyone who comes along and helps out in a practical way without trying to take over the struggle or impose their own world-view.

The Anarchist Action Network should therefore aim to be an organisation of people with useful skills and resources to offer people who are engaged in struggles of various kinds, rather than an organisation of intellectuals or propagandists for a particular ideology.

This does not mean that we should not be an intellectual organisation. We should on the contrary be constantly analysing hierarchies in the struggles we are involved in, the success of failure of these struggles, and being self-critical about our own position in these struggles to make sure we are not acting like vanguards, and make sure the struggles actually win.

Anarchists do not only have to argue in meetings of other people that the struggle should not compromise with power. We also sometimes need to actually take action as a minority within a broader movement in order to counter-act the hierarchical or treacherous tendencies in the movement.

For example if some powerful individuals within a movement are trying to steer the movement towards accepting a compromise rather than pushing for more action, sometimes we need to just take action ourselves, to make sure than action happens. This may even involve organising actions in secret from other people in the movement against oppression so that no-one stops us.

This is basically what happened at the Millbank demonstration in 2011. A group of anarchists, who were probably not even students themselves, decided to take the action of attacking the Millbank building, correctly assuming that other people would join in.

This meant that the NUS, which was lead by the Labour Party and was trying to get students to accept compromise with the same government that was oppressing them, became irrelevant as an organisation in the struggle against fees.

The Millbank action sabotaged the NUS’s ability to control the student movement by reminding students that they could take action in more autonomous ways. Sure enough, in the week following the action thousands of students were organising their own autonomous demonstrations, occupations and actions, all around the country.

The wave of militant struggle was coordinated through the National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts, which was an autonomous organisation that developed from the reality of the struggle, rather than being an ideologically anarchist organisation, although anarchist activists played a role in creating it.

The Millbank experience demonstrates the kind of approach that anarchists can take when acting as a minority in a wider struggle.

Anarchists took actions themselves without waiting for anyone to give permission, but had a good enough analysis of the struggle to know what kind of action would resonate with the rest of the people in the struggle and help kick it up a notch.

Anarchists also were involved in helping to shape the autonomous decision making structures that were born out of the struggle in order to make sure they were as horizontal as possible,as well as taking part in the propaganda of the movement, but all without making too big a deal of the fact that they were anarchists.

This shows that instead of being a bunch of people promoting a particular ideology, we are at our best when we take action that helps to radicalise real struggles while being a minority but without acting in an authoritarian way ourselves – simply by living by the principles we believe in: in favour of direct action and against hierarchy.

The Anarchist Action Network should also avoid as much as possible the formation of any kind of hierarchy within itself. Whatever tasks need doing to keep the organisation actively engaging in real struggles should be done by people chosen to do those specific tasks and particular people should not be allowed to take on too many important tasks so that they become more important figures than others.

Any tasks that are not actually about moving the real struggles forward but are simply about preserving the Anarchist minority organisation itself should not be done at all – or at least kept to an absolute bare minimum- because otherwise we will be just another irrelevant political clique.

We should not be interested in anything except the increasing self-organisation and direct action of the oppressed masses for their own liberation. If anything we do goes against this or is irrelevant to it then it is not Anarchist just because we say it is, unless we change the definition of Anarchism to mean “whatever we say”.

We should also bear in mind that not all struggles are “visible” to us in the same way that trade union or community campaigns are. Not all struggles have organisations with names and leaflets and public meetings behind them. So we do not have to just wait for public meetings to be organised by other people so that we can come to them and argue against hierarchy from within them, we can be the ones to organise public meetings ourselves for struggles that do not currently have them but which are still real struggles.

One important example is the never-ceasing struggle between the police and the various marginalised populations of the country. People resist the police in many ways: through setting up lookouts to warn when they are coming so that people can run away; through security culture (‘gangsta no answer no unknown number”); through solidarity (not grassing each other up); and sometimes through massive riots.

As anarchists our rejection of the police is absolute, as we reject the whole State, and the only forms of “policing” that would be compatible with our beliefs would be those in which the “police” were directly elected by and accountable to the communities that they serve through community assemblies etc (though many anarchists would not even accept this).

In the direct action subculture that many Anarchists are a part of there are many people with lots of skills that are useful to direct confrontations with police such as Legal Observing, prisoner support, affinity group tactics, ‘dearresting’ skills and much more.

The Black Panther Party for Self Defence – perhaps the most important revolutionary organisation to emerge in the Western world in the last 50 years – in fact began with just two people with legal observing skills going out to marginalised communities as a physical presence on the street to confront police when they would harass people for no reason other than to intimidate and oppress them.

By directly helping people in marginalised African-American communities to avoid getting arrested, and by having the courage to get in the faces of their oppressors, the Black Panthers quickly gained the respect of disaffected working class people of all races and grew to become a national organisation in just 2 years despite intense state surveillance.

Given that the most significant working class uprising in recent years in the UK was a nation wide uprising sparked by the murder of a Black man by police, the experience of the Black Panthers is not something we should ignore when attempting to build a new national revolutionary organisation.

Despite the fact that some Anarchists claim that the Mark Duggan riots were a continuation of the student riots in which the anarchist movement unmistakably played an important role, the truth is that there was very little involvement or even support from the “official” Anarchist movement – in the form of federations, social centres and various informal hierarchies in different single-issue direct action campaigns.

This shows how Anarchist organisations can become irrelevant to the real struggles of oppressed people and become self-serving, pointless organisations, if they have the wrong attitude.

Unfortunately Anarchist ghettoes really do exist in which people just play out the motions of keeping their own groups going without successfully attracting new people, because they are not involved in real struggles and are only interested in keeping an anarchist minority together for it’s own sake.

There is no point in creating the Anarchist Action Network if it is going to become just another example of this. We need to get out of the anarchist ghetto and into the real ghetto, and to anywhere else that oppressed people are already in self-organised struggles against the State, Capitalism, and all other forms of oppression.

Comments or angry rants are welcome, so long as it helps move forward the struggle.

For the constant self-organised direct action of all oppressed people against the State, capitalism and all forms of hierarchy.

For Anarchy, now and always.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Military Coup is not a Revolution

Watching this shit about Egypt blows my mind:

“The black colour represents the people of the nile, the white represents the purity of the youth and the red represents the peoples sacrifice, and the eagle represents the military, safeguard of the nation” the Coptic Pope of Egypt says, explaining the flag to the people. He speaks just minutes after one of the leading Sunni Muslim clerics also gave his thumbs up to the military coup that has taken place today

Religion justifying undemocratic government? Yep.

People on the streets are going nuts. Popular hysteria stirred up by nationalistic politicians? Yep.

There are people on the streets who are anti-military as well as being anti-Morsi. But do they have any guns? Al Jazeera is not telling me that.

So they probably don’t. This is a military coup, not a revolution. The army were the ones who got rid of Mubarak. They are the ones with the real power. “Power comes from the barrell of a gun” as a very powerful man with a whole lot of guns once said.

The military say they have a roadmap towards democracy. I have heard this before somewhere…. Iraq? Afghanistan? EVERYWHERE

The Israeli’s used to say they had a roadmap to peace. Even they gave up pretending after a while.

The revolution is not over in Egypt. People are gonna keep being pissed off until the authoritarian political system comes to an end, which will only be if a system of government based on military power comes to an end.

“Revolutionaries” setting off fireworks and cheering on the military as they suspend a constitution makes me sick, even if it was a stupid, Islamist constitution. “We have no rights! Hooray!”.

So now the Islamists are gonna be all like “fuck you! we like our stupid constitution! how dare you!” and you would have to feel sorry for them if they wern’t such a bunch of sexist nutters.

Solidarity with anti-authoritarian, anti-militarist Egyptians. There are loads of them and they deserve a real revolution, not to get thrown in jail by a military police claiming to represent them.

That’s all i can say right now. Lots of people are probably gonna die tonight. Think about them, not the fireworks

Staterape and Statehate

The police spy on radical activist groups in the UK and their undercover agents actively try to pursue sexual relationships with activists in order to make their cover more believable.

Undercover agents have done things like this for decades, if not centuries. Yet we still find it shocking when the truth comes out about a particular incident.

This is because people have been deceived into having sex, so they can not be said to have given their full consent. I call it Staterape.

Would any radical activist consent to having a policeman’s cock inside them? Perhaps. People have all kinds of weird fetishes. But the vast majority of us would not.

This is because we hate the police. Hate is a strong word, which is why I am using it. Hate is an emotional response. It is not something you have a choice about. You can not reason yourself out of something you never reasoned yourself into.

We have no choice but to hate the police because they systematically target us, intimidate us, spy on us, try to have sex with us through deception, use violence against us, lie about us, try and get us locked up for years, inflict psychological and physical trauma on us in thousands of ways. If we did not hate them, we would not be human. Statehate

Even if someone went into radical activism not feeling any hatred towards police, they will pretty soon develop this hatred as they see first hand just what it is like. Inevitably activists become friends with one another, and seeing your friends hurt makes you hate the people that hurt them, just as being hurt yourself makes you hate the person that hurt you.

Some people might say “forgive and forget”, “an eye for an eye and we shall all be blind” and various other spiritual sounding phrases. This is all very well, but as I said before, hatred is emotional, not rational. When you tell yourself over and over again to calm down you simply drown out one emotion and try to smother it with another. You are not actually being rational, you are just trying to manipulate your own emotions.

This is not healthy. What you are doing is repressing your emotions rather than working through them. If you hate someone you should try and talk to them about it. Hopefully they will feel sorry for hurting you and try to make amends. If this does not happen, maybe you will hate them even more.

In that case you might try and taking some more extreme action such as blocking them out of your life, or something slightly more malicious like saying a cutting remark, stealing or breaking something they love, or even being physically violent towards them.

When it comes to the police, or the State more generally, these options are not usually open to us. We can not talk to the State and get it to say sorry, because it takes years of sitting in inquiries, talking to journalists and organising campaigns just to even get them to admit they did something wrong, usually in cold diplomatic language, and they usually don’t give anything to their victims to make up for it.

We can not ignore the State, because it governs the entire territory we live in. It puts up posters all over town telling us not to break all of its laws, and CCTV cameras to make us feel like it is watching us all the time. It’s police officers drive around in cars with flashing lights and sirens that hurt our ears. How are we supposed to ignore that?

Saying a cutting remark to the State just feels like a waste of breath. Smashing its windows or stealing small souvenirs from it rarely seems worth the risk of getting caught.

It doesn’t really care about windows or small bits of office furniture anyway. It doesn’t care about anything except making money for its creditors.

Using violence against agents of the State is also far easier said than done. The main reason they spy on us after all is because they know we hate them so much that lots of us would like to see them dead. The politicians protect themselves with armed police, who themselves are protected by body armour.

You could probably kill some low-level bureaucrat, but what would be the point really? If in the moment you felt such a maddening hateful bloodrush that it actually felt good to do so, then that moment would quickly fade as within minutes you found yourself either shot in the head or knocked down onto the floor and dragged away to be tortured.

So the hatred grows and grows with no way of realising it. Some of us go insane under the pressure and are locked up in prisons they pretend are medical centres, stuffing us with drugs that State bureaucrats have been bribed to prescribe us by the multinational corporations that produce these drugs.

Others among the ranks of the radical movements decide to cut out the middle men and just fill our own bloodstreams with drugs we at least get to choose, but choice is limited to whatever the black market connections we have as individuals can offer. Horse tranquilisers are a popular one amongst political radicals, as they disassociate us from the seemingly intolerable reality we are faced with.

The rest of us try to get by day to day, channelling our hatred into small, useful, constructive acts. Making flyers, sending emails, organising little demonstrations, talking to people on the streets, putting on benefit gigs or film showings. Just keeping our movements going, holding the few active people still left together. But it’s always hard not to lapse into complete despair, have hateful and angry moments, or sometimes get completely wrecked on alcohol or other drugs.

Oh what a threat to the State we are. No wonder Staterape is so widespread. If it wasn’t the western imperialist superstructure would surely fall tomorrow. Good old boys in blue.

What happened in Woolwich is not Terrorism and anyone who says it is in an imperialist propagandist

In my last post “The West supports Islamic Terrorism When It Suits It’s Geopolitical Interests” i argued for abandonment of the term “terrorism” and use of the term “War Criminal” instead.

Last week in Woolwich a self-declared Muslim anti-Imperialist soldier killed an imperialist British soldier. That’s what happens when two armies are at war. Their soldiers try to kill each other.

No civilians were killed or even injured. No prisoners of war were taken and tortured. In short, no War Crimes were committed.

The men who killed the soldier were shot by British police. They were not armed with guns, only machetes. So they were shot by police for no reason. If the police are now considered soldiers, then it could be considered part of the war. But as far as i know they still do not officially consider themselves soldiers.

The mainstream press, including the so-called “liberal” newspapers like the Guardian, have all used the word “Terrorist” to describe what happened, as have the British Government. The attacks have been used by White Supremacist groups like the English Defense League and the British National Party as an excuse to attack Muslim immigrants in the UK even more. Islamophobic attacks have reportedly increased ten-fold in the wake of the Woolwich incident.

If, as some believe, these Fascist-inspired groups are really controlled by covert agents of the State for use as paramilitary forces, they are certainly doing their job well. If, as even more people believe, the mainstream media are effectively mouthpieces for the Imperialist ruling class, then they are also doing this job extremely well right now.

The ruling class know that if white, “British” working class people ever realised they had a common cause with colonial subjects of other ethnicity in uniting to fight for a better standard of living for all, the entire political order in the UK would be gravely threatened. With no underclass of migrant labourers to exploit, profits would surely go down. That’s what this is all about.

Many ruling class people themselves are not even particularly racist, as can be evidenced from the fact that there are so many non-White people on the UK Rich List, which came out last month. They do, however, have a direct economic interest in keeping wages down for the general population.

Keeping the provision of free public services by the state low helps drive down average wages, as desperate people are likely to work for less. Using immigration controls to create a criminalised underclass of migrant workers also keeps average wages down, because if legal citizens can use the pressure of trades unions and other campaign groups to force the state to set a minimum wage, this minimum wage will not apply to workers in the “illegal” economy.

If people of all national identities living in the UK could unite to form a working class movement fighting for an increased standard of living for all, it would also have repercussions all over the world. The majority of migrant workers send back part of their wages to their families in other countries, so if their wages were higher, their families, communities and even whole societies would also benefit.

But the imperialist ruling class don’t want that. They want the people of poor countries to remain poor, and the people of richer countries to remain as poor as possible as well. They want to keep us divided and consumed with ethnic, national, racial and religious hatred against one another.

Their propagandists will stoop to any level of double-standards and hyperbole to carry out this task. Do they ever describe the soldier who was killed in Woolwich as a terrorist? Why not? He was part of an organisation, the British Army, guilty of War Crimes all over the world. He himself served in Afghanistan in an operation in which civilians are routinely killed and prisoners of war routinely tortured by the Western Imperialist forces. How is he less of a terrorist than the man who killed him?