CRACKPOTS #63: SUBMISSION (Patreon)

Even more remarkable than instances of posturing, and equally indisputable, is the fact that a significant number of soldiers in combat elect not even to fire over the enemy’s head, but instead do not fire at all. In this respect their actions very much resemble the actions of those members of the animal kingdom who “submit” passively to the aggression and determination of their opponent rather than fleeing, fighting, or posturing.

Dave Grossman On Killing

When six wheezing psychopaths pile up on top of you, their plate carriers sloshing across HGH titties, AR mags jingling, truckstop camo masks pulled tight across clitoral noses and fatty cheeks, and they’re screaming at you because they hate you—what does “not resisting” look like? You’re pushed and tugged in multiple directions because one of these assholes is grabbing your legs, another is smashing a giant mace can into the top of your skull and two others are fucking around crazily with your arms. Resisting arrest! What a silly charge. When someone is pounding their balled-up fist into the side of your head, and your head and body are jerking around from the impacts making it more difficult for one of the other subhumans molesting you to get a pair of handcuffs around your wrists, is that resistance? 

Resistance is often an individual act, usually unplanned, perhaps prepared for. For example: Filming an ICE officer and standing still when, at the urgent commands in his voice and upon seeing his hand slide towards his mace or his gun, you want to cease all activity and MOVE. What does it mean if you get the upper hand in that situation? It’s to continue engaging in lawful (or harmless—I don’t mean that insultingly) behavior. For him success in that situation is beating your brains out onto the sidewalk and then showing the video to his pig friends back at the hotel. The asymmetry of the outcomes is obvious. For you, all engagements are rear-guard actions. 

There is no revolutionary party capable of defending its members or organizing broad working class formations. There is no nation or bloc of nations that serves as a revolutionary pole, no Marxist headquarters that sends out agents to aid workers in the class war. The class war itself has changed quite a bit since it was first assessed; it hasn’t resembled anything like a traditional war in 80 years. It's more akin to a tyrannical and effective occupation, with groups or individuals fighting small, losing battles oftentimes within organs (unions, NGOs, etc) that themselves are aligned with the bourgeois to greater or lesser extents. Almost all terrain is enemy terrain.

In instances like Minneapolis, where the situation grows acute, we see cross-class formations made up mostly of the middle and working strata that are, from what I understand, at least semi-structured. It’s good for people to at least be exposed to some level of organization rather than engaging with politics at the level of total spontaneity. While spontaneity can teach the need for organization via its absence---like learning loyalty from a wayward parent--- being organized can teach you about discipline, about what ideas work and why, and about the necessity of strategy and tactics; in short, organization can teach you the difference between empiricism and dogmatism. Even shorter: between theory and practice. But what are our theories and what is our practice?

Generally, left-wing organizing has two main tendencies in the USA: an aboveground, legalist tendency and a semi-underground illegalist one. The two very rarely, and never officially, overlap. The legalist tendency is exemplified in PSL, DSA, FRSO, and a motley assortment of other organizations of varying---though usually minuscule---size. These groups are often registered with the state in one way or another, collect dues, keep membership lists, run candidates and to a lesser and greater extent have internal and external structures. Some of these groups profess to be revolutionary, while others (particularly DSA) contain opposing tendencies, some of which claim to be revolutionary and others that are strictly reformist.

On the level of pure theory the most disparate views and tendencies are able to co-exist peacefully, antagonisms are only expressed in the form of discussions which can be contained within the framework of one and the same organisation without disrupting it. But no sooner are these same questions given organisational form than they turn out to be sharply opposed and even incompatible.

Lukacs Towards a Methodology of the Problem of Organization

(I’ve had this essay on the brain a lot recently, perhaps because I’ve felt somewhat muddled and frustrated—I talk a bit about that here) 

One sees these sharply opposed or incompatible views more clearly in an organization like the DSA, which contains both self-professed revolutionary and reformist elements within it, i.e. everything from Maoists to unreconstructed Berniecrats. It's possible to meet someone who believes in the complete and total abolition of the prison, police system, and borders (which Engels identifies as two of the distinguishing characteristics of the state in The Origins of Family, Private Property & the State) but, at the same time, also agitates for expanding the Supreme Court! This admixture of maximum and minimum is plainly incoherent. But I have a feeling we all hold some version of these contradictions within us in some form or another. I haven’t met anybody who’s totally immune to incoherence. 

On the other hand one sees the illegalist groups, which are somewhat harder to quantify. By their nature they are ad-hoc and their generation is semi-spontaneous. While the politics of the participants can range from generic progressivism to anarchism to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, most of their organizational structures have the imprimatur of the anarchist movement or sometimes the radical 1960s/70s revolutionary groups that came out of the New Left. These groups tend to spring up around events: the Stop Cop City movement in Atlanta, the dismal Seattle CHAZ (BLM),  the US version of Palestine Action (Gaza). Illegalists tend towards the more romantic actions, and sometimes have spectacular results; however, there is a tendency towards adventurism and ultra-leftism that may result in minor successes or brave showdowns but (and if I'm wrong, mea culpa!) won't build in a meaningful way towards the overthrow of the capitalist class by the organized working class (and, to be fair, many of the participants eschew that sort of straightforward Marxism anyways).

Often, these groups can describe what they want after a revolution, but nobody has an actionable theory of how to achieve revolution. A theory is worth something if it’s tested; if not, it remains a purely intellectual enterprise. 

So lacking an actionable revolutionary theory, so-called revolutionary people end up lapsing into a few different tendencies: Acting on ethical impulses that generally align with their political values (the most commonly encountered) , smug abstainment with a political veneer (big on social media), entering a moralizing psychosis (we saw a lot of this during the "woke era", still popular). Many other left-wingers are totally insane, for whom politics are just another expression of a troubled mind. Radical phrasemongers, or even better radical phrasemongers who engage in reformist actions, are also quite common. What a sorry bunch, me included.

Think of it: Do you think the socialists you know are capable of running your city? A country? The world? Mao quite famously said “A revolution is not a dinner party”---do you think they could run a dinner party?

—

An ICE agent could walk up to you, draw his pistol, shove it into your mouth and pull the trigger and the PIGS will say: FAFO. They will clap like idiot children and the cop will waddle off to his boat and Asian wife.

In Chicago last October, a Border Patrol officer exited his vehicle and fired seven rounds at a woman who was tailing him. Five bullets entered the woman, who, by some miracle, survived. The case against the woman was thrown out—in part because the CBP officer sent text messages bragging about his hit rate to his pig coworkers. One can imagine them laughing; she fucked around and boy did she find out!

FUCK AROUND AND FIND OUT! If “You Can Just Do Things” was the slogan for the beginning part of Trump II—and it was— “Fuck Around and Find Out” is, without question, the phrase which dangles like a wiener over the second year of his second term. 

His people are, of course, themselves fucking around right now. In fact, they’re fucking around on you. And why shouldn’t they? What are you gonna do about it? 

Talk as tough as you want—mutter to yourself about how someday they’ll get theirs, post a stupid meme of that Marx quote about not making excuses for the terror—the reality is that 99.99% of these ICE pigs will be fine. They’ll die at home with their LG TVs. 

Hopefully, though, you die sooner than that, if only for the edification of the FAFO set. After all, they think it’s funny when you die; they want more of you to die so they can laugh some more. Why not bring some more joy into the world? They want you to be raped: FAFO, you’re pro-crime, after all, you probably played stupid games and won stupid prizes, you’re a woman in a liberal city who probably voted for a liberal DA. If a crackhead stabs you it doesn’t matter how you voted or what you look like or what your thoughts or ideas or dreams are: You are an enemy, in enemy territory. You fucked around and found out.

FAFO is pure MAGA speak: Corny, tough-sounding, vulgar. It conjures up colorful sleeve tattoos, Grunt Style shirt nipples visible, waistband holster covered by a gut that looms like a BBL over the waistband of stretch jeans. FAFO! The perfect phrase for those engorged on a fatty diet of right-wing TV or brain destroying short form video. Fuck around and find out. Disobey me and we’ll smoke you. I doubt many of these people can even tell you why they feel this way. But in its way it’s a perfect phrase for the modern right. It is a permission to commit violence, a sort of frontier justice. It is, in a way, permission for atrocity. 

In one of the videos showing the murder of Alex Pretti, I noticed one of the cops clapping. It seems reflexive; he’s doing it as the second round of shots are fired into Pretti. I’ve seen many reactions to gunfire in my life. Some people cringe, some close their eyes and draw in on themselves, others transform into beings of incredible bravery and panache. Still others get hard-ons. The ICE agent clapped. Make of it what you will.

 Pro-government commenters lie and say Alex Pretti reached for his gun; they may eventually drop this, but the cannier among them are no doubt reassured that the necessity to veil their crimes with lies is fast decreasing. The fact is, it's good the libtard had his head blown off because our political enemies need to die. That is what FAFO means: You fucked around by fighting with us, and you find out that was wrong by ending up dead or in jail.

Of course, the Federal Government has always wanted some people dead. After all, the purpose of bourgeois government is to provide both the illusion of a neutral mediator in class conflict and the reality of an organ for the domination of the owning class and the dispossessed. Naturally that necessitates smoking some people. That number has always included a select group or groups of Americans. What strikes me as different in this instance is the enormous number of American citizens the Federal Government seeks to annihilate or subdue in some form or another.

I’m willing to believe that elements within the Federal Government, centered around Stephen Miller, are trying to provoke some kind of dullish civil war. I'm not sold that they can succeed, if the system or the shocktroops are too ossified and dull to carry it out. The strategy appears to involve sending large amounts of quickly recruited agents from a hastily restructured political police into a number of cities—they had a list of 500, cut down to 30—run by the administrations enemies under the cover of immigration enforcement. The agents then make some arrests of immigrants but the underlying, plainly obvious reality is that they are there to provoke everybody. This is the reasoning behind the stupid Call of Duty raids, the chest-beating press conferences, the barbarity of the agents. And provocation, in this case, means beating, arresting, or killing those who oppose them. When Alex Pretti was shot over and over again by the agents who were moments prior smashing a big ass can of mace directly into his head, we were in fact witnessing the intended result of this so-called “immigration enforcement”. It is nothing less than uncontrolled, unaccountable banditry unleashed by the state on enemy populations under a state of exception in the name of law and order.

They are clear in this. Whether this is a prevailing sentiment within the administration—and part of me somewhat doubts it is—or not, at this point I think I’m swayed by the argument that certain influential elements are intent on either inciting or starting a civil war.

 Civil war is actually somewhat of a misnomer here. What the government might actually want are large-scale police actions against enemy populations; in this way the civil war would resemble its international counterpart (another strange outcome of this globalized era…) so we’re seeing something that more resembles the occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq than, say, the Battle of Fallujah (and yes—obviously the level of violence here is fractional compared to there). And in mirroring ordinary war one also sees the resemblance of the class war, where only one side shows up to fight the battle with anything like an army. 

If there's a civil war, what are the sides? Obviously, the government and various national agencies, namely ICE, but with support from a weakened FBI, ATF, and DEA, with support from the DoJ and Pentagon. This is led by Donald Trump and, importantly, Miller. I've already identified liberals as the dominant force on one side. This includes certain state level and national politicians as well as those who are aligned with them. It also includes those who are perceived to be in line with them; this includes, most likely, you, but also everyone from immigrants (with or without papers) to George Soros to the New York Times. I’m not sure how far they’ll go with the Antifa Domestic Terror bullshit– I assume that framework will be reasserted at some point. Obviously, the Rockefeller Foundation is not funding black bloc groups, but the government will likely pursue bail funds and any type of NGO that could be seen as supportive to street-level activist groups. It remains to be seen how generous their framing is and how energetic their prosecutors are.

All told, we have the misfortune of having our side drawn up by our enemies, and we are forced to exist, somewhat, within an enemy framework. 

The vision that some people have of a civil war---organized armies duking it out, engaging in large-scale deployments---seems fantastical and silly. Could you really imagine that any Marine battalion would defect to a blue State government or, even more absurdly, to the “people”, in the event that US troops were ordered to attack Americans in America? It beggars belief. But most rebellions that blossom into civil wars have as the nucleus of the rebel army some elements of the regular army that defect with arms and structure intact. 

 Much more realistically is that we’ll see large-scale federal deployments with the stated intention to fight trafficking or bust immigrants but the B-Line intention will be to kill, maim, arrest and surveil as many enemies of our government as possible. They might be impeded by legal means. I sincerely doubt the National Guard will shoot an agent who shoots a protestor, no matter the state (if anything, they'll join in!).

What does victory look like for them? I'm not sure if any of them even really believe in it---I think many of these people are motivated by psychotic revenge---but I'm not sure they care, as long as their enemies are punished. There are any number of dystopic visions available for the choosing. I think in some way they just wants a world that resembles the X For You Page.

Indulging in this a little further, what does victory for “us” look like? Trump and his cronies locked up? ICE agents prosecuted in mass trials? Under Newsom? Pritzker? Let's indulge further (everybody else is!), and think fantastically: Some kind of successful hard or soft coup if Trump tries to stay in office for a third term? Who knows!

Whoever wins, we lose. I won't pretend that there aren't degrees of losing, and that I wouldn't enjoy seeing certain criminals carted off to prison. But how degraded is the revolutionary when he sighs with pleasure at the return of a muscular liberalism! Regardless, the future is barreling towards us: Unprecedented levels of social and technological control over society, increasing at an exponential rate, power undreamt of by even the most insane Roman emperors or tyrannical satraps. None of this bodes particularly well for an ailing liberalism. The Right Wing embodies the new epoch.  Little good that does those of us opposed to them. The liberals—and the left that so often tails them—are stuck in the past. The liberals, I believe due to their proximity to power, will wise up. I'm not so sure about the rest of us.

Well---won’t somebody do something! Will Minneapolis PD arrest the man who shot Alex Pretti? Will his piggish accomplices—some of whom appear to have also taken shots at Pretti, turning him into a corpse—be arrested? Not impossible, but I wouldn’t count on it. Look at who offers leadership. The oafish Walz, who resigned over a viral video. The slimy Frey. Frey will get on TV and Walz will get on TV and beseech Trump (who has opened a federal investigation into them and other Minnesota politicians) to stop. Is that leadership? What are they leading us towards?

More of this idiocy. More swirls of insanity. More exploitation. More events on the news. More of all this shit. Who wants more of this? Do we really want a future where, what, Kalshi proceeds unmolested by the violence of Miller's thugs? A nation of tweaked out homicidal iPad kids? Who would tolerate this? The futures on offer, from either side, are repulsive.

You’d be surprised. The People have proven themselves extraordinarily tolerant of all sorts of intolerable things. Those who lead are the leaders on offer; people can’t follow phantoms or your own good intentions. 

Perhaps the current radical parties or formations contain in them a nucleus of a solution.  Certainly I remain a believer in the party-form. But we seem to be locked into a mechanical repetition of past practices which resulted not just in failure, but in endless retreat.

Like Jews or Christians, we await an amazing messiah, meanwhile we devolve into into alienated ritual and theological fratricide. Some left wingers count on a crisis, as if the organization capable of taking advantage of such a thing will spontaneously appear. I know that historical circumstances have made nearly impossible the redevelopment of working class organs capable of fighting for their emancipation as a class. I wish I knew the way to change that. I have ideas. I have tried some of them. But I’ll be honest: I don’t know. I cannot see the path ahead clearly.

What I can see is a savage future based wholly around revenge; I can even see being attracted to that. I have hate within me, real hatred. I hate these men. I despise everything about them. But that kind of hate is useless. It clouds my vision. I don’t want to be content with them losing, I don’t want to be in a place where I am merely happy with them being punished by others. I want them to lose to the cause I believe in, and I want them to lose so terribly, so permanently, that I won’t care about punishment or revenge.

I’m a tolerant man. I am world-historically tolerant. I find this situation, these people, this future, totally intolerable.

The single most effective and mechanically easiest way to inflict significant damage on a human being with one’s hand is to punch a thumb through his eye and on into the brain, subsequently stirring the intruding digit around inside the skull, cocking it off toward the side, and forcefully pulling the eye and other matter out with the thumb.

Dave Grossman On Killing

BB