A Reintroduction and Some Thoughts on Terrorism, Language and Context, and Strategy
by Brandon Baxter #57972-060
Since our arrest in 2012 I have maintained a near radio silence public profile despite regular and sincere encouragement to share my thoughts and ideas through mediums such as this. This was done intentionally as I had, until this point, maintained a glimmer of hope that I’d be able to fight my case in court. Today I received notice that my latest efforts to appeal my conviction were shut down by the court.
There still remains a few avenues of recourse, but the prospects of a bright horizon, in those regards, are abysmal. Therefore, no longer will I be concerned with what I think and say being misconstrued and used against me in a court of law.
I’ll begin by sharing that I do not accept the United States’ designation of myself or any other dissident as a terrorist. In fact, I do not recognize the right to designate anyone as a terrorist as a right possessed by the United States, which is itself a terrorist State and member of the largest terrorist alliance on the globe—NATO. By the United States’ own definition of terrorism, that any act or threat that can be construed as violent which is calculated to influence or retaliate (or support such actions) against a government, every so-called “police action” and act of war perpetrated by the United States is an act of terrorism.
But simply because the United States’ acts of violence are by their own definition terrorism does not mean that I accept their definition. I definitely do not accept the United States’ notion that it has a right to define words, especially since when it chooses to do so it has a tendency to define words arbitrarily and in contradiction to popularly understood meaning in order to suit its own agenda. Murder, for instance, is a crime, so according to United States it is not murder when a police officer murders an unarmed child; or when a remote drone pilot murders unarmed non-combatants. In these sorts of cases innocent people are killed, not murdered, because if they were murdered it would undermine the United States’ use of terrorism to maintain its power.
You see, when we accept their control of language how can we ever hope to truly establish our own narrative: they control the context.
With this in mind, I am proposing a definition of terrorism for you to ponder and encourage you to put it in to common use. Terrorism is: the systemic use of terror intended to coerce a certain behavior. Basically, any act that can be construed as carrying the meaning, “do this…” or “don’t do that…or else,” is terrorism.
Within this context we can begin to see more clearly that the existence of the State is itself an act of terrorism. The State exists through the systemic use and threat of force and prisons to coerce compliance to a never ending list of laws and regulations crafted to keep and expand the power of those who have it. The existence of a military is an implied threat to all sovereigns to not interfere with United States interests, whether political or economic, and is an act of terrorism. The existence of prisons is an implied threat against the powerless that they better comply with dictates of power, or else be taken away from everyone they love to be thrown in a dangerous environment where they will be dehumanized, brutalized, and have to defend themselves from other people under the same circumstances for years at a time, and is an act of terrorism. The existence of the police is an implied threat to everyone within their territorial jurisdiction, a constant reminder that at any moment they can be killed (but not murdered) with impunity or sent to prison on fabricated charges, and is an act of terrorism. Within this context we can give teeth to the narrative of those without power.
Next, I denounce the modern incarnation of terrorism as either a revolutionary or liberatory strategy in our postmodern era. As a strategy, what modern terrorism has achieved is a tightening grip of power in the hands of the security state with no tangible benefit to revolutionary movements. While some proponents of this strategy might argue that the growth of the security state was the intended consequence of modern terrorism campaigns and a significant burden upon the United States economy totalling hundred of billions of dollars in security costs, which are in large part to blame for the economic decline of the United States as an empire, such arguments still fail to take into account that the United States Federal Reserve has been printing money backed by nothing (except debt) since 1933. When they print money from thin air, what meaning does an economy have to those in power—when power is the only real currency with any real value?
What I mean by the modern incarnation of terrorism within the context as a revolutionary strategy is acts or threats of violence against non-combatants with the intent to draw State forces into protracted conflict in order to drain their economy. Violence targeted against non-combatants is simply unconscionable, especially when the non-combatants have no relationship to the State aside from, maybe, citizenship. But more to the point, modern terrorism is ineffectual as a revolutionary strategy and serves only to further consolidate power into fewer and fewer hands.
A few side notes on definitions: property is not violence unless it affirmatively impedes the ability to maintain life (i.e., the Israeli military bulldozing Palestinian homes or burning people’s food supply are acts of violence. Sabotaging mining equipment or burning a flag are not.), and sabotage is not terrorism within a revolutionary context. It may be worthwhile to note that the strategic intent of terrorism is to terrorize, typically a state, and thereby attack their economy indirectly. On the other hand, direct action, which is calculated to exact direct results, seeks to affect change directly, not through fear or terror, and is therefore not terrorism. To be fair, certain forms of violently executed direct action can be fairly construed as acts of war. I would neither condone nor oppose such direct action, though at this point I would consider it unwise, and would ultimately prefer they be avoided, but cautiously accept that they might, at some point, be a necessity.
Finally, I’d like to promote building egalitarian infrastructure based on anarchist horizontalism as the liberatory strategy pragmatically appropriate for our time. So many of the ongoing projects have so much potential to create their own power if only they would take themselves more seriously and think in terms of breaking community dependence on State and incorporated institutions instead of partaking in symbolic acts and demonstrations. I have a lot of ideas I intend to share and invite discussion on in the near future.
For those of you already laying this foundation, I give you my most sincere gratitude and wishes for further progress.
Expect to hear from me more often.
Feel free to write me with comments. I appreciate hate mail, too, if you got beef. You can find an up-to-date mailing address at [ * ].
Love & Rage,
Brandon Baxter
2 January 2016
[ * ]
Brandon Baxter
ID Number: #57972-060
Mailing Address: USP Atwater, PO Box 019001, Atwater, CA 95301 (USA)
Birthdate: April 27, 1992
Any of the Cleveland 4 could be transferred to a different prison without notice. Please check www.cleveland4solidarity.org/support-4 before sending your letters for the most current information.