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 greenzone 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 whiteprivileged 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, countereconomics, 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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful