I would like to respond to the article, “I Protest Your Protest” by Bret Callentine. I am a student of astrophysics, classical guitar performance, and history of science at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. I also pursue interests in radical political theory, cultural studies, and continental philosophy. I graduated Lakewood High School in 2004 and I am here for the summer. I think it is important that a voice be heard in this paper from what Mr. Callentine may consider to be on the ‘other’ side of his own position.

I will start by addressing Mr. Callentine’s comment about a 9/11 conspiracy theory. He states that such theories “fall well outside the lines of reason” and describes the 9/11 event as “one of the most critically reviewed events in U.S. history.” However, he provides no arguments or support for these claims. That is, he dismisses these theories as absurd, but does not explain with any concrete evidence why they are absurd. From my perspective, however, it is irrelevant whether or not the Bush administration had a hand in the 9/11 attacks because the issue redirects attention to a critique of the Bush administration that could more fruitfully be directed towards a deeper understanding of the power relations that structure (post)modern industrialized society as a whole. That is, Bush or Obama (Coke or Pepsi, McDonalds or Burger King, etc.), the general configuration of politico-economic power remains intact: there is still the de facto law that a person must have millions of dollars or the help of millionaires even to consider a presidential campaign. This is something I learned in government class in high school. Mr. Callentine even acknowledges this lack of empowerment in a jibe about a Lakewood youth:

“Yeah, I can see the headlines now…’Congress selects unknown Lakewood, Ohio youth to head 9/11 investigative team – unlimited subpoena powers authorized.’”

It is much more shocking to me that people simply accept the denial of the average Jane’s political power, in a supposedly democratic society, than it is that an average Jane would express her potential to gather and mobilize the resources needed to conduct an investigation. Even without the de facto economic prerequisite for political campaigning, the nature of the United States government (and any representative ‘democracy’) demands that a small group have more political power than the rest of the people.

Secondly, I would like to address the concepts of ‘focus’, ‘organization’, and ‘ring leader’. My first impulse is to address these using the resources of anarchist thought, but anarchist thought often comes across as abrasive, immature, or even worse, physically harmful to others (if implemented). To avoid the endless cycle of bantering that may arise there, I’ll instead turn to one of anarchism’s academic cousins: post-structuralism. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, there began to emerge racial problems within the women’s rights movement: all of the leaders were white women. As I understand the problem, it became apparent that women of color were oppressed within the very organization that was to free them from oppression. In other words, the rigid boundaries and leadership structure that partly defined these activist groups – or, the mutual exclusivity and hierarchical organization of liberal, feminist, black, queer, environmental, authoritarian socialist, and even some anarchist groups – became a major issue in the radical milieu. The ‘solution’ that emerged on the ground – complex and diverse horizontal networking rather than fragmented vertical group organization -- paralleled the emergence of post-structuralist theory in the academy. Some ideas included: critiques of normalizing tendencies (or as Mr. Callentine would have it: ‘nicely assembled’, ‘clean cut’), power as a complex web of relationships (Michel Foucault), a critique of gender as identity (Judith Butler), a critique of desire as lack (Deleuze and Guattari), the dangers of simulation (Baudrillard, Virilio; the Matrix, anyone?), and more. Getting back to the point, Foucault once described fascism as the desire to be led. Lyotard questioned the notion of a singular historical ‘meta-narrative.’ Derrida introduced deconstruction to purposefully obscure ‘focus’ and the authoritarian reign of Enlightenment rationality over all other forms of thought. And anarchist thinkers like Bakunin had begun locating the hypocrisy of most forms of libratory organization and representation even during Marx’s lifetime. Thus, ‘focus’ (agenda, party line, etc.), ‘organization’, and ‘ring leader’ are usually not of divine relevance in any political movement influenced by post-structuralism and/or anarchism. Of course there is room for organization but only as it emerges or dissolves from below. The worldwide anti-globalization movement is an excellent example. It is “a movement of one no and many yes’s,” as Zapatista Subcommondante Marcos has described it.

Finally, Mr. Callentine’s statement about ‘extreme liberals’…I assume he’s referring to the radical community which has mostly gotten past the reductive two sided coin of liberal-conservative. For those who believe that disorder (which is NOT the absence of all order) necessarily leads to chaos, and justify it with a singular competitive human nature inaugurated by Charles Darwin, Google ‘Kropotkin.’ Observe the unpredictable beauty of fractals, or check out www.wikipedia.org or the Linux operating system, which continue to run non-hierarchically by volunteers because of the impulse for ‘mutual aid.’ Or think about the picnics you share, the communal spaces you have, think about your dinner parties with friends, or the people who hang around the Phoenix coffee shop. Sure Kropotkin’s work on ‘mutual aid’ is not widely known…but that just reminds me of a sign posted throughout Lakewood High School’s classrooms: ‘what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular.’ Moreover, for those who look down upon anarchism and radical politics as immature and idiotic, don’t forget: Noam Chomsky arguably one the most important minds of the 20th Century for revolutionizing the field of linguistics; Albert Einstein, socialist; Leo Tolstoy, author of Russian masterpieces War and Peace and Anna Karenina; The IWW or Wobblies, who brought you the 8 hour work day; Bertrand Russell, great analytical philosopher and mathematician of the 20th Century; Murray Bookchin, founder of the field of human ecology; Emma Goldman, early fighter for women’s rights; Howard Zinn, historian and author of People’s History of the United States; The Catholic Workers; The work of William Gibson, science fiction author considered to have started the subgenre of ‘cyberpunk’ and coiner of the term ‘cyberspace’; The Situationist Internationale; John Cage, probably the most important American composer of the 20th Century; Paul Virilio, preeminent French critical theorist; The punk rock movement; Abbie Hoffman and the Yippies; Sal Restivo, probably the most important sociologist of mathematics and editor of Science, Technology, and Society: and Encyclopedia (and expert weight lifter); Cleveland Food Not Bombs, serving free food to the hungry downtown every week, no religious strings attached; Critical Mass, promoting bicycling as a sustainable alternative to driving; The early American Indian Movement; Jesus Christ, perhaps? And the list goes on…and yes, there are many valid criticisms to be made of anarchism and other theories of grassroots action…why not help make them better, or synthesize them with something else, or best of all devise your own grassroots praxis?

In terms of Mr. Callentine’s curriculum, I very much appreciate his “Science 205: Fluid Theory as Relates to the Dynamics of Mobs.” I’ve thought about this one quite a bit myself, and the beautiful people I know demand more than fluid dynamics. No, the people I know are charged particles, so this is a plasma. I’m talking complex motions, not just the electrons, but the ions. We’re playing on intersecting fields, so there must be electric and magnetic fields. Yes, I’m talking about magnetohydrodynamics and Alfven waves. And don’t forget thermal and radiative effects. Sorry to disappoint, but this movement is not about the motion of water through boring pipelines, it is not about the motion of people through bureaucratic processes and obsolete party politics. This movement is nothing else but the luminous material of a galactic jet.

That all being said, thank you Mr. Callentine for your excellent practical suggestions/Cases in Points. I hope I haven’t insulted you, of course it’s all in good fun!

Peace and Love, Alex