from Eco Revolt by Julian Langer

When does a state turn fascist? I wonder at what intensity of statism does a state turn from a non-fascist, or non-fascist-like/type of state, into a fascist/fascist-like/fascist-type state. But then again, if fascism is a certain intensity of statism, then does that mean that all states have a quality of fascism or fascist-like/type qualities? Well, my anti-statist inclination is drawn towards saying “yes” to the last question, or at least “I’d say so”. 

I’ll put this into some kind of context. Over the weekend I heard a friend speak passionately about their worries regarding the proposed Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. This friend is an activist, who has organised and been involved in protests. I have seen many of my friends who organise and are involved in protest-praxis feel affected by this bill, especially those who have been involved in Extinction Rebellion. I have also seen Kill The Bill media, trying to warn the masses of the dangers of this proposed legislation. 

When I first learnt of the bill, my first instinct was, rather than fearing it, to mock it, as a means of disempowering the political establishment. I see the pursuit of greater authoritarian measures by states to be an admission of being powerless and desired the affirmation of politicians not being able to meaningfully affect the world. Mockery seems to me to be an excellent form of psychological-warfare – one of the qualities of Pemulwuy’s rebellion against colonisers that most intensely inspired me, when I read about him, was learning of his use of mockery. I wanted to see the government humiliated, rather than feared. But, sadly and with an appreciation for why not, I have not seen this – I do still desire this response, while appreciating why individuals haven’t embraced it. 

It is really difficult to mock something that you fear. Mocking a fascist, to their face, not behind closed doors, where they can’t hear you, or offline, where you don’t have the distance to keep you feeling safe, is understandably an uncomfortable notion for many individuals. This is because fascism and fascists are violent and it is understandable why individuals don’t want to risk coming to harm. With this, I appreciate that many would find the idea of mocking the bill a horrifying notion, including many individuals I consider friends, who are feeling affected by the bill. 

Outside of a historically situated political movement and ideology, what is fascism? Is this a stupid question? Isn’t it obvious what fascism is, given how often the word is used in media? Fascism is neo-Nazis, Trump, Putin, Erdogan, Britain First and Infowars, isn’t it? I don’t think so. 

If I think about what fascism means to me today I think first and foremost about technological apparatus, weaponry, technologies of surveillance, machinery designed to coerce individuals into certain activities and actions; I think about the attempt to turn living beings into state(/death camp)-machinery, such as the police, the army, politicians, informants and many journalists; and I think of death camps/work camps, which I feel is a fair way to describe too-fucking-late-Krapitalism, given the intensity of mass death its productive narratives involve. I don’t think of policies or just what is called “far right”. Rather, I think of the physical landscape of a situation, an intensely artificial topographic experience, typified by architectural brutality and rationality. I think of political optimism, faith in the state and the belief that government, progress and “authorities” can improve the world. 

(Fascism revolts me.)

Considering those qualities that I attribute to what I’d call fascism, I notice that all of these have been part of British society, as l have experienced living amidst the colonial, industrial, architectural and agricultural wreckage that constitutes British society. I imagine that they are aspects of many of the other states that are generally described as being “democratic”, liberal, moderate and other buzzwords, for “low-intensity statism”. If all the qualities that I feel describe fascism are attributable to “low-intensity statism), this inclines me towards feeling that fascism is not really about the intensity of state measures, but rather about the physical availability of state measures, which feels pretty fucking available across states today. Perhaps it would be simpler for me to just state that I feel like fascism was already here, its just that the mask is being dropped.

So what about protest? Well, I haven’t really believed in protesting for several years. I have mostly attended protests for the past 7 years going in only with a desire to meet other protestors and potentially forge friendships, as well as occasionally as militant-badger-lover-guy. My feeling has been that, given how the “right to protest” is a government provided privilege, protesting has been assimilated, systematised, spectacularised, bought, sold and basically become a tool of state apparatus, to facilitate a feeling of rebellion, up until the point that protest becomes bothersome to other aspects of state apparatus. This is not a nice or comfortable feeling that I have had and continue to have! I feel sad for all the life potential I see wasted in appeals to systems that I see as inherently abusive, particularly when considering individuals I know and the struggles that their lives involve – this is certainly not intended as an insult aimed at the passions with which they have embodied through their activities! 

“Okay Julian, if protesting, as aboveground activism, isn’t an option then obviously activists need to turn to underground activities, obviously” – this is an exaggerated version of the kind of response I have received when bringing up my criticisms of protesting and I largely disagree. I don’t feel like turning to the paranoiaist world of, largely urbanite-subterraneanist, “underground activism” is desirable. From this realm of paranoiac-politics all I see is state-empowerment, individuals who are so full of fear towards Leviathan that much of their lives is dedicated to avoiding its gaze. That this ultimately empowers state apparatus is apparent from examples such as how Ted Kaczynski’s “underground activism” basically surmounted to nothing more than facilitating opportunity for the state to improve its machinery. 

The way I navigate this culture and live out my rebellion/activism, or at least how I describe “it”, is non-localisable localism, which I am becoming increasingly inclined towards trying to encourage/seduce other individuals into embracing. Non-localisable localism is comparable to the idea of “hiding in plain sight”, in as much as it is entirely open, but largely untraceable and hard to see if you’re not very close to me, while being (basically) entirely open. Save for anti-cull activities and writings, my non-localisable localist activities are rarely ever publicised, largely because they don’t need to be – I don’t need these activities to be affirmed or rejected by others. This requires no organising, organisation or Organisation, largely because it is an individualist form of praxis – not being seen will undoubtedly be disagreeable to collectivist ideologues, whose ideology requires massification, which requires the mass seeing the mass, in order to know it is a mass (because the mass is constantly unsure of its own existence, as political/ideological identity/existential crisis). One of the more beautiful aspects of this approach to rebellion/activism is that it immediately deals with both issues regarding the distinction between macro and micro political systems. 

I am by no means suggesting that “my praxis is the answer to this bill”, as that would be ridiculously arrogant of me to suggest. I am appalled at the individuals who hide behind the names of organisations, claiming to know what “we” (whatever the fuck “we” means) need to do – generally its “organise”, “demonstrate” and/or “revolution”, or other activist cliches. There are so many unknowns and really I am largely encouraging individuals to embrace the unknown and becoming-unknowable – I would encourage anyone to read the zine-essay Unknowable: Against an Indigenous Anarchist Theory by Klee Benally [1], as it speaks to a very similar perspective, and is excellent reading! My inclination is largely not to trust answers, systems and those who preach them. My desire to encourage becoming non-localisable/unknowable doesn’t come from any optimistic belief in being able to “fix this”, but rather a pessimistic feeling of care, with a desire to not only “survive this” but to “survive this with individuals who I find beautiful”. 

This world, this life, is a difficult place to navigate. To deny this feels dishonest. With the mask being thrown off, it feels dishonest to deny that statism is fascistic, or at least fascist-like. With this recognised, perhaps it is madness to suggest mockery as a response to this Leviathan, with the laughter this mockery inspires being akin to a mode of paradoxical laughter. Perhaps it is an inappropriate affect, given the context, but equally perhaps inappropriateness is entirely appropriate! More than any notion of propriety, I want to laugh! I want to laugh and point and mock and feel the wonderful feeling of laughing fill my body and course through all that I am. Being free to laugh affirms my ontologically primal freedom, that no state could ever hope to take away from me, without killing me. Radical-sardonicism, where the tragedy is a comedy and you cry while laughing, appeals to me, not just as gallows humour, as I have no intention of being executed, but as absurdist rebellion and revolt. 

“Know Knock”

“Who’s there?”

“Boris Johnson”

“Boris Johnson who?”

“Boris Johnson the fucking prime minister, now let me the fuck in because Extinction Rebellion are standing outside some buildings and I’m terrified of liberal pacifist hippies!”

Notes

[1] https://www.indigenousaction.org/unknowable-against-an-indigenous-anarchist-theory-zine/?fbclid=IwAR038Ya-xJFhNAJpmzHgGkYL6k-DLoK8S4wkj9ag1aWOjeQ8l27Mze3uJ7E

Add new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
m
6
@
e
d
#
p
f
Enter the code without spaces.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.