Hot Lead is Medicine

by Texas F. Slim
ashira_collective@yahoo.com (dialogue is encouraged)

"Whereas the positionality of the worker enables the reconfiguration of civil society; the positionality of
the slave exists as a destabilizing force within civil society because civil society gains its coherence, the
very tabula raza upon which workers and industrialists struggle for hegemony, through the violence of
Black erasure. From the coherence of civil society the Black subject beckons with the incoherence of civil
war. Civil war, then, becomes that unthought but never forgotten specter waiting in the wings"
-Frank Wilderson, III,

"Don't worry man, we're gonna kill every last one these pigs." he said. And I, strung out, took it, shot it
and calmed my self for just a few more hours before the nauseating reality that the US, or rather the
motherfuckers at the buttons may never feel the kind of pain that they breath.

"One more cigarette and we'll start the rev," I think...

So this is how it really is. I hung up the phone in just the nick of time. Before I could tell him how I really
felt - before she heard me seriously contemplate murder. You see the illusion of peace no longer enchants
me and to be disillusioned is a scary and liberating thing.

I cry everyday I wake up because my sister and her friends in the 1st infantry are still alive.

It just doesn't fucking add up. Millions of Iraqis, Palestinians, Indians, South Americans, Africans, south
Asians etc...murdered by this leviathan equal what? 2000, mostly undocumented workers? Or a 1000 US
soldiers - mostly poor, like sister, or young people of color? It just doesn't fucking add up.

I hurt my self so I could know at least one American was feeling pain.

And again, I came back to reality: standing buildings, baseball games, mom's apple pie and everything
just as hunky-fucking-dory as it always was. We were in a meeting, debating where and what the green-
zone would be for the day after bombing demo, how the churchies in the bunch could be included while
people with families and lovers and desires and secret afflictions for candy and hopes about their sister's
new husband, and homes where they'd relax and talk about the days events were being murdered.

So we plotted a battle...

Knowing surely that tactics less spectacular may suffice, we plotted a battle. Knowing that we could
avoid injuries, of our friends, loved ones and people courageous enough just to say "no," those of us
skilled in the fine art of making people comfortable enough to fight for something beautiful, exploited it.
As if we actually knew what we were doing. Because fucking something had to be done. And we were
shaking like lunatics - blood boiling to the degree that sparks riots and sets fire to the accomplishments of
Great Men. We conspired with open eyes and posted bills exclaiming "Bring the War Home!" and the day
it happened, when the angels crying ceased, and the cold silence only known to widows permeated
Denver, I went out, not with chalk or spray paint. I had no sling or hammer to break niketown's windows.
I carried no pamphlets, no signs, no banners. Instead I wore a crash helmet and clenched tightly an
extendable baton. My only love affair was to be knowledge that I had blood on my hands and I wanted it
be some confused, and afraid cop. Because tonight, we weren't in the Denver I called home. We weren't at
the permitted feel-good-fest where we'd watch ourselves on the 9-o-clock news. Tonight the minority, the
out-side agitators, would be the sign holders. Tonight we were falling a little further and embracing our
rage. On the eve of March 20th 2003, we didn't march for peace.

---

I never had(?) to do what every part of my heart told me I should do, but that night I did cross over. I don't
know what the exact implication of all of this is yet, but know that night and the genuine feelings I had. I
recognize that my position of privilege allows me a lot of leeway in terms of violence - the fact that I have
a choice between acting symbolically or not proves this, but I know that I felt compelled more than
anytime in my life to act non-symbolically and manifest that through the intercourse of my baton and a
police officer's bone marrow. What does bring the war home really mean? Any why?

It confuses me because I've been in similar situations since then yet I am still talking about violence. My
sweetie-pie thinks I 'm becoming very callouseed and possibly uncompassionate and other friends and
acquaintances believe I'm unreasonably sketchy and mostly full of shit, but I don't buy either. Violence is
something we can't escape and is literally a part of life. Furthermore entering into the world of
revolutionary violence may be the most compassionate thing someone can do.

Most well intentioned radicals can believe this and even talk about the necessity for armed struggle at
some time in the far future. Yet no one really asserts that violence is not only necessary in certain
situations, but that it is imperative to revolutionary struggle. This may be because what passes as
"radicalism" (and anarchist politics) is defined by it's most visible contingent: a predominately white-
privileged 18 to 20-something movement more concerned with changing its life-style or confronting
vague and abstract concepts than changing The World* (or destroying it). That is to say, this may be
because white radicals in the US are still thinking in terms of activism and not actual revolutionary
struggle (...and I'm no different.) This is not to say that struggling on a social level or deconstructing
socially, relationships of domination (anti-white supremacy, antipatriarchy/transgendered-feminism,
ablism...etc) are not as well imperative, but it is to say that a revolution that "sets out to change the order
of the world" - or destroy it - "is obviously a program of complete disorder...and is always a violent
phenomenon."

---

What puzzles me about coming to these conclusions is I now question how effective my past actions have
been. Yet I am almost always trying to help create a situation at demonstrations where less-symbolic
action such as property destruction can happen while knowing that the most effective things would
probably get us all killed or imprisoned for quite a while. In fact the most effective things we could do at
a demonstration may not even fit into the current understanding of what a "demonstration" is. Is that
because of my privilege? Probably, and in more ways than one.

It's constantly asserted that radical white boys just want adventure and that's why they do that whole black
bloc thing. As someone who has identified at time and probably gets read as a radical white boy, I can tell
you, because of having privilege materially and knowing that those materials are at the expense of others,
that is to say my place in hierarchy creates and maintains the material conditions of others. That the next
easy conclusion to make is that the destruction of my privilege and others oppression is at the destruction
of my/1st world materialism. Thus riot, as revolutionary struggle - as the most valued deed of the white
radical is the easiest, most accessible and at the some time, most elementary and incorrect analysis to
have. My critique, however, is not of the riot as an event, or even the riot as a trajectory of the white
radical, but rather the non-violence and symbolism of the white radicals riot. Or rather the riot serving the
white radical's illusion of nonviolence and a non-violent revolution.

That is to say when I think of "riot," I imagine massive property destruction, unruly crowds, and possibly
fires. I also conjure images, at first Seattle, Genoa and Quebec and later LA in 92 and Cincinnati in 01,
but I don't envision bloodshed. I don't envision seizing buildings or weapons. I think of it as a party as
well as attack but I don't think of it as a possible strategic advance. This is very ironic considering the
magnitude of the LA and Cincinnati riots and the fact that most riots do imply bloodshed, looting and
actual violent pandemonium, as opposed to the ritualistic anti capitalist summit demonstration I
mentioned above.

I think this is because of the white (radical)'s relationship with violence. That is to say, violence is not part
of the white body's direct experience. Granted, structural violence sometimes manifested in physical
brutality does shape the experience of many white wimmin, queers, and poor folk, but it is at the exact
point of this violence that, from here on shapes the experience and develops an ontology of Other. It is not
assumed.

The status of whiteness, even growing up poor, and coming out queer in this here-and-now, has allowed
me to enjoy the privilege of not having to think about violence as any method of survival or violence as
any consequence to survival methods I may employ. Instead violence is an abstract event, that when
sanctioned by the state (i.e. war, police, and at times fascist terror groups) is positive event, and most
every other occasion is negative and something that should threaten me, and my material wealth. This
abstract violence can also be used as another mechanism to maintain white supremacy though it's implied
threats. That is to say, the illustration or encounter of violence not only threatens my well-being and
material conditions but also my identity to my material conditions (i.e. the benefits of my white privilege
and whiteness.) For the white, non-sanctioned violence is a scandal.

---

I don't think the question for white radicals is one of violence or nonviolence nor would I assert that the
more violent, the more revolutionary. Instead the question was and still must be framed as a choice
between radical reform and activism or collective revolutionary struggle - Between the Oppostional Role
of civil society or it's reconcilable antagonism and destruction.

It seems apparant that the only way an actual revolutionary struggle can be conceived is through a politics
of survival. Whether you read Marx, Fanon, or J.Sakai. If you, like so many have been drawn into the
allure of Crimethinc's post-situationism and lifestyle (change) politics. Or if you are down with a critique
of civilization as a whole. Conditions necessitate change. Or more importantly, conditions of survival.

But if I am already surviving, how can this politics resonate? And if I have privilege, what then, is my
interest in change that would alter if not eradicate my privilege?

I think the above questions are essentially a summary of the white radical's internal conflict and often
inform the downward spiral to reform or acceptance of privilege (i.e. burnout.) if survival always implies
violence, then a politics of survival - as a revolutionary politics has a violent imperative. The white
radical consciousness can not handle this, and it is for the very reasons I mentioned above.

Albeit, their authoritarianism, The Black Panther Party for self-defence (BPP) was quite possibly the most
effective revolutionary organization in the US in modern history. They understood survival and
manifested it to the point in their "Survival Program." BPP was a popular movement because they
resonated with black people and did everything that Power (read: white hegemony) would not do for
black folk (free breakfast, clothes drives, STD checks, and work) as well as defended themselves against
spectacular and everyday gratuitous violence of Power with armed police-watching patrols and the Black
Libertation Army. Along with similar phenomena in the Black and Brown Power and national-liberation
movements, they posed a serious threat to white-capitalist hegemony (and US imperialism.) These
movements called for support from white radicalism, yet this, of course never fully materialized, and I
still get paid $6 to sell my labor (and get to write essays on whiteness...)

The impending socialist revolution of the 60s/70s was snuffed not merely because of COINTELPRO nor
the fact that only a handful of white radicals attempted a conversation about the possibility of snuffing at
all, but rather, the inability of the white radical consciousness to think in terms of survival; organizing
under that assumption and build (white, anti-white) communities of revolutionary struggle.

This unfortunately still happens today. At almost every conference or sketchy discussion I've attended, the
dialogue of revolutionary violence transpires. We talk about armed cop-watch patrols, materials and
tactics necessary at demonstrations to transform them and about just how vulnerable the US infrastructure
(power, communication, military...etc) is to destabilizing attacks. But of course, talk is cheap. It was then
and it still is now. It's the reason cop-watch will stay non-violent. Demonstrations will continue to be
ineffective, and no one will take out the power grid. More importantly, it's the reason that the foundation
it takes to commit these deeds (and not be repressed into oblivion): genuine revolutionary communities
won't even be addressed. The reason - the problem, is privilege.

---

The system of (power and) privilege is incredibly efficient. It makes a discussion about authentic
revolutionary struggle almost impossible for white folks to have in a meaningful way. As I mentioned
earlier why would any privileged person want to destroy their privilege? This should, sadly, come as no
surprise. According to J. Sakai the white working class - or service class - is less defined by it's class
consciousness and more by it's identity with a Settler Nation (of all white folk on this continent.)
considering even just modern history of white radicalism (60s/70s) through the present) this still seems
true. Still I find my self unable to acquiesce to Sakai completely. There have been the John Browns of
history and if anything else, I would like to elaborate on their humble tradition (of anti-white deeds.)
Furthermore the transition from imperial capitalism to neoliberalism (global capitalism) has created a new
dialectic in power and privilege. Contrary to the last 60-70 years of US history, black brown, and white
bodies are beginning to (again) live in similar material conditions. This has in no way contradicted the
system of privilege nor made non-white bodies any-less magnets for bullets. However it has made a
discussion about survival and class-consciousness more probable. For example, there is a connection
between crack being accessible and the optimal drug of poor people of color's neighborhoods and meth
(or coke or heroin) being that of service class whites. Furthermore, alcoholism is a phenomena that
penetrates the race line and permeates class. These shared experiences are no coincidence and offer the
possibility of collaboration among working and service class peoples of color and service class whites.
Understanding the nonessentialism of these ontology of Others, this is for the subversive anti-white, a
point of departure to elaborate on.

Often times we talk about what 'radicalized' us, which is usually an event or experience where we
became aware of contradictions in society in a profound way. I think that this perception of 'radicalization'
is limited if it is not a personal experience. If conditions of survival necessitate change (and mandate
revolution) then the potential to be an agent in revolutionary struggle may be necessitated by an
experience that forces one to conceptualize survival. Solidarity, alignment, and collaboration may be
possible only when we (read: people with privilege) can recognize and name our own oppression and then
be elaborated by folk with less privilege and different experiences. Acts of collective revolt can be
discovered in the space and time - seized through a departure within civil society, to experiment with
freedom.

What radicalized me, forced me to conceptualize my survival and recognize that I am oppressed and
exploited was my experience in alcoholism/addiction and recovery. When I started going to programs it
became abundantly clear that there were corporations - an entire business made from addicting people to
poison. Even killing them. When I heard about sweatshops and 'globalization' it was really easy to see a
connection there. Corporations, businessmen, the rich, all make money off of harming people (the earth,
and non-human animals.) The last conclusion I made through alcoholism/addiction was more personal
and haunting. The proto-community we were all a part of was not homogenous and we weren't all rich
kids relapsed, they continued being able to afford their coke habit if they don't get caught. Whereas, poor
folk relapse, go to jail, OD and die or commit suicide. I lost three close friends from my entering the
programs at age fourteen till when I was around eighteen. I recognized my self as part of the latter
positionality, and saw similar experiences with addiciton/alcoholism through-out all of my family. I got
mad. I got class-jealousy. I got class-hatred. I got the kind of mad some people call class-war.

--

For the privileged body that can conceptualize survival, there is a self interest in change that would
eradicate privilege. Why? Because it would be a part my liberation from capitalism.

My struggle against capitalism - to be forced to sell my labor to survive, alienation, loss of dignity, using
chemicals as escapism and going to bed hungry sometimes, is elaborated by the founder of the Denver
Crips. Who, after getting out of jail started working at a starbucks down the street from my house. We
both work in service cafes, but to elaborate on our shared experience, he (and all people with darker skin
in the US,) not me, is a magnet for bullets. To further elaborate on our experiences with capitalism and
oppression we might bring up Lucia, who constantly lives in fear of international sex-slavery and who
picked the coffee beans that both starbucks and my independent coffee shop sell.

If I can make this link as a white (queer, genderqueer with male privilege) service class worker, then my
struggle against capitalism is also a struggle against white-supremacy and against neoliberalism and
patriarchy/gender (and probably all forms of oppression.) If it is my survival that informs this conclusion,
then I am able to imagine a radical politics that elaborates on my survival and struggle. Moreover, I may
be able to conceptualize a praxis of revolt, in white and in collaboration with non-white arenas, that spills
out of the container of my experience, and dreams and acts the impossible. But like we said, talk (and
essay-writing) is cheap.

---

"In this;immense task of urgent demolition'we must find joy, immediately."

-Anon

I don't have the answer...but.

I see all oppression as an intertwined web of hierarchies, with no root or head that can be simply attacked
or lopped off. Instead, the social relationships, civilized order and physical manifestations that make up
everything we perceive as the world, must be thoroughly deconstructed and completely and mercilessly
annihilated. Our task must be total. We must cultivate a liberatory social relationships and joyful negation
informed by our own experiences that force us to conceptualize survival. Our atomization and alienation
must stop by seeking out other individuals (agents of revolution as defined above); building formal and
informal organizations that serve not only as community but as a mechanism for our survival. We need a
praxis of revolt that settles for nothing short of a new collective survival here-and-now and consequent
collective liberation for all. Through inter-generational, radical labor organizing (outside and perhaps
against the unions), rent strikes, political squats and land occupations, food distribution, re-learning wild
skills, anti-addiction programs, radical media, home schooling networks, childcare programs, counter-
economics, riots-bombings and revolutionary/insurgent violence (to name a few specifics,) we will
survive and the world, recognized in it's totality - domination culture will end.

"Insurrection does not come up with the answers on its own, that is true. It only starts asking questions.
So the point is not whether to act gradually or adventuristically. The point is whether to act or merely
dream of acting."

-Anon

Further suggested reading:

Bonanno, Alfredo. Armed Joy

Anon. At Daggers Drawn
Jensen, Derrick. The Culture of Make Believe
Ignatiev, Noel. How the Irish Became White
Clafia, Patrick. Speaking Sex to Power
Muscio, Inga. Cunt: A declaration of independence
Autobiography of a blue-eyed devil.
Zerzan, John. Elements of Refusal
Bauman, Zygmunt. Modernity and the Holocaust