‡ :: ▽ DJ BITCHCRAFT ▽ :: ‡

We might do well to ask whether, from an afropessimist point of view, insurrectional anarchism, queer theory and communization theory remain “humanist negations of the Human’? If so, is this necessarily so? My hypothesis is this: to the extent that they can escape this, it is in the direction of a thought of self-abolition. That is, to the extent that struggles actively refuse to validate, affirm, or strengthen the forms of subjectivity presently produced under capitalism, white supremacy and cis-sexist patriarchy, these struggles can be potentially aligned with—or at least, less likely to stomp all over—the possibility of Black liberation. Self-abolition therefore constitutes the only possible horizon for a non-Black struggle that does not reinforce anti-Blackness. This leads to what we might characterize as a negative identity politics.

That we find ourselves fighting a common enemy does not mean that we have a common experience of that enemy, nor does it preclude the possibility that we may actually stand in antagonistic relations to one another at another level. We must therefore reject any model of solidarity premised on reciprocal recognition, on empathy, sympathy or charity, or on the assumption of common interests.

who got a pdf of “BLOODLUST: a feminist journal against civilization“ or knows where i can get one? it’s real tough to find a lot of the older texts and zines that didn’t make it to theanarchistlibrary ever since zinelibrary fell through :(

A second and related approach to privilege is especially endemic within the Left. Diverse numbers of individuals are clustered into social groupings such as “Black,” “woman” “White,” etc. Their experiences and viewpoints are then homogenized to point that a given individual from either within or outside that social grouping will speak and theorize for “them.” For example, in a discussion I had about racial politics in the U.S., a White person once told me, “It’s time for us to listen to them” (implying Black people). I answered: Which ‘them’? Condoleeza Rice? Barack Obama? Do these people speak for the Black ‘community’ or experience? This Leftist move of essentializing an entire group of people into a ‘them’ is a directly authoritarian move. Just because one identifies (or is socially viewed) as female, queer, disabled, black, or anarchist does not make one’s viewpoint inherently similar or even worth listening to, or acting upon. Nor does it mean that one person ever speaks for an entire group or community. Not to mention, this move obviates the question of what connects these social groups besides shared victimhood, which does not necessarily equate to shared struggle.

The CCTV cameras are almost always pointed at the register, because more than anyone else, companies fear their employees.

The practical rejection of capital entails the abolition of one’s previous mode of life, and this self-negation always appears as suicidal. But it is only suicidal from the standpoint of capital, not from the perspective of human beings actively creating their lives for the first time.