FUCITIVE,
THOUGHITS
A12M FRAME UP

In September 2012 Sean was framed for leading a guerilla rebellion inside
Mansfield Correctional, solely on the grounds that he’s an *ideological

tch” with the propaganda put out by the rebels. The rebels called
themselves the Army of the 12 Monkeys (A12M). We don't know:a lot
about what actually happened in September 2012, we've only heard
rumors of various kinds of sabotage and massive quantities of flyers and
“guerillamanuals” appeared in the prison.

Sean was shaken down immediately, they found nothing but an angry
article he had written about the privatization of inmate commissary.
accounts. What followed was truly bizarre intemal disciplinary process
‘where ManCl investigator cobbled togethera bullshit case against Seanto
justify his transfer to super-max. The crux of her argument was that Sean's
political views (anarchism) are aligned with those espoused by the A12M.
Interested parties can do the comparison themselves by checking out the-
‘manuals (which were later anonymously linked toin the comments
section of AnarchistNews.org) at SeanSwain.org.

Sean fought the transfer to the bitter end, spending most of a year getting
“special treatment” including a starvation diet, showers of toilet water,
and many other dirty tricks in seg at ManCL The initial decision was
reversed when we found a lawyer willing to help us sue the ODRC over the'
'matter. Then ODRC legal counsel Trevor Clark got involved and.
manufactured an evenssillier case against Sean, alleging that he was guilty
inSept of 2012 based on things that others did in April of 2013,

After Sean and his cellmate refused to cuff up and leave their cell, fighting.
back against the cell-extraction goon squad, they expedited his transfer to
supermax, where the “special treatment” mostly stopped, until the day
Sean got a new lawyer, named Rick Kerger, who would actually actively’
pursue the case.

Seanand Rick are suing the ODRC on grounds of civil rights due to their
ideological targetting of Sean throughout this process. Trevor Clark has
openly admitted that this targeting was inappropriate, while continuing it.
CONTENTS

Armchair Anarchists Suck... 1

Days of Teargas Blood and Vomi 4
Violence! Violence! Violenc 1
Pacifists Suck: How Arresting Revolution
Maintains a Violent World... 25
Distinguishing Freedom From

Recognized Political Rights... 30

A Vision of the Future: Where All the
Roberto Adinolfis Walk with a Limp.. 32

De-Mystifying Political Violence:
Toward 2 Rational Framework

for Analyzing Violent Armed truggle
in the U,

35

Response to the Anarcho-Trolls... 12

Everything in this zine can be found online at SeanSwain.org. Days of
Teargas, Blood and Vomit was re-printed by Crimethinc i issue #11 of
Rolling Thunder. A Vision of the Future... was originally published at
‘325nostate.net and reprinted in Dark Nights issue #39.
ARMCHAIR
ANARCHISTS
SUCK

Written in response to some persistent inssurecto-trolls on
anarchistnew.org

Irony of ironies- some mush-brained, liberal, state-
worshipping hack wrote an online article slamming me as an
“oddball” because, like all real anarchists, I want to abolish the
state... and who is it that agrees with that state-worshipping
hack? Other so-called anarchists.

Un-fucking-believable,

Iran for governor in Ohio - from prison - on the promise
that, if elected, 1 would employ a number of radical steps that,
foresee-ably, would cause the cataclysmic collapse of the state
government. It doesn't surprise me that the state-worshipping
hack, his mind mismanaged and pickled in corporate slime,
couldn’t comprehend why my campaign was funny. It also
doesn't surprise me that he couldn’t understand why my
campaign was also potentially dangerous. So, he dogged me.

still, I never thought I'd have to explain myself to
anarchists. But, it appears that I do. So-called anarchists are now
taking shots at me and continuing the smear work of a reformist,
state-worshipping hack, making it necessary for me to explain
myself and justify my actions to armchair anarchists whose only
“action” involves a jar of peanut butter and the family dog. Here
goes:

Reasons my campaign was funny:

« Iran for governor from prison. From prison.

« Iran for governor in Ohio, a conservative, republican,

backwater shithole, a veritable zombie apocalypse that
elected and re-elected George Dubya, arguably the most
dangerous sociopath to be president, and Bob Taft,
arguably the most dangerous fuckweasel to serve as a
governor in the history of fuckweaselry,

* Twas proposing to utterly destroy the oppressive state
that this lemming population utterly idolizes, and 1 was
promising to burn down their beloved capitalist system
‘with a can of gasoline and a book of matches.

In short, I was saying everything I could possibly say to
not get elected. But the campaign was also potentially dangerous
because:
« It was funny and it was a mockery of the electoral and
political system - and nothing is more dangerous to
“authority” and “prestige” than laughter.

« This stunt got regional and even national media
coverage, which created the chance for people to read
‘my writings and perhaps begin to actually question the
legitimacy of the state.

« It drove the prison fascists absolutely ape-shit.

Other prisoners knew why it was funny. It made me a
minor celebrity. Whereas, before my campaign, I was “that
anarchist guy” and nobody quite understood what anarchy was,
my campaign made prisoners curious and before long, young
black prisoners from the inner-city and from conflicting gang
backgrounds were reading Berkman, Kropotkin, Proudhon,
Sterner, Goldman, Bakunin, Parsons, and DeCleyre. They had a
prison-wide revolution library. Some of them began a writing
collective called The Conditions Factory (from a quote by George
Jackson, “where the conditions for revolution are not present,
they must be manufactured”).None of these prisoners have gone
back to sleep. None of them have resumed their assigned seats.

50 here I am, years later, still in direct conflict with the
fascist fuckweasels. 've got the scars to prove it. I'm kicking and
punching and drawing blood - fighting for your liberation and
mine, fighting so fucking long now that I'm fighting because I
don't remember how to do anything else; I've been pegged as the
creator of the Army of the 12 Monkeys because, out of 50,000
Ohio prisoners, the fascist fuckweasels concluded that I am the
only one who could have done this to them.

I'm not telling you that I'm the most dangerous
revolutionary locked up in the State of Ohio...

‘The State of Ohio is.

50 do get a unified anarchist army coming to my
defense, organizing in solidarity, rising up to defy the mind-fuck
machine? No. I get sniped by so-called anarchists who want to
help a hierarch propagandist throw me under the bus... and
they're doing it now, when I'm more in need of solidarity from
real anarchists than ever before.

Thave to cut this short because here on the former death
row, toilet water is pouring down the walls from the cells above
us; Blackjack is strapping a plastic food tray to his arm with a
sheet for use as a shield. It's hard to see through the fog of tear
gas. We still have to barricade the door because the fascists with
their helmets and shields and weapons are about to march into
the special management unit, and all we've got are bars of soap in
socks and our bare hands to fight back. T can hear 30 raging fists
pounding on steel doors, awaiting the clash, toilet water ankle
deep on the storm troopers’ jackboots.

Happy Fourth of July.

Not trying to offend anyone here, but to all the armchair
anarchists out there who aren't surviving on a steady diet of
teargas and blood: why don't you stop typing that witty
punchline, wipe the peanut butter off your balls, shove the dog to
the side, and do something... just an idea. If 1 live through this, T'l
write more later. The state will get tired of killing us before we
get tired of dying.
DAYS
Or
TEARGAS
BLOOD
AND
VOMIT

How prisoners overwhelmed fascist forces in the July 4th rebellion at
ManCl. A particpant’s account from inside the special manglement unit.

Ghandi would not approve.

1t's 11 July 13, 8 days since my last dispatch when
Blackjack was strapping the plastic lunch tray to his arm. Since
then, its’ been a rough-and-tumble bucket-o-blood back here in
the Special Manglement Unit of Mansfield Corruptional
Institution. Backjack’s missing 3 teeth (that he really doesn’t use
much back here anyway) and my stomach injuries had me puking
for a time (no blood, a good sign), but as of today, neither of us
are leaking fluids and the fascist fuckweasels have now moved us
to the veritable suburbs of the SMU.

‘This is the whole story, and most of itis true.

July 4 began with emergency lockdown, the fascists all
hopped up on adrenaline, coffee, and the news of the escape that
happened the previous night. Turns out, a prisoner escaped the
old-fashioned way. He leaned a steel ladder against the fence and
left. No shit.

But as with any other situation where popular forces
strike a successful blow against the fuckweasel control system,
those of us still locked in the shoEbox take the full brunt of it.
Breakfast was shit and there was no recreation. So even before
Warden Terry Tibbals, a.k.a, BLACK LIGHTNING, arrived at his
office with his bag of donuts and cup of decaf, all hell had already
broke loose in the Special Manglement Unit.

Forty steel doors banging, busted sprinkler heads
pounding thousands of gallons of rusty water down the stairs and
cascading over the top range, the nazis jacking cans of pepper
spray and running for the exit.

Fuck them. It not like they planned to have a barbecue
anyway.

So,if you've been locked in the shoebox for any length of
time, you know what's coming. A captain or a major will soon be
on-station to announce his own importance, only to find every
fucking cell-door window blocked and barricaded, whereupon he
will slosh with wet socks and shoes back to an office to call in the
Extraction Team- a crew of genetic oddities on brain-entrancing
drugs, clad in jackboots and helmets, shields and flak vests. Their
whole reason to exist is to crush human skulls and reckless
abandon, cell-to-cell, breaking bones and spirits, but from the
rumbling of the steel doors, we knew they'd better get some
chips and beer because they were gonna be there a while.

1In SMU4B, Blackjack and T occupied the cell closest to the
entrance so by dumb luck and a twist of fate, we were the front
line of the very first battle, ground zero in the struggle between
the rebellion and the goddamn stormtroopers goose-stepping in
mechanical unison, hopped up on their innate hatred of
humanity and the echoes of unhappy childhoods.

It would be seven on two, close quarters blind fighting,
the hierarch machine coming to exterminate the anarchist
tendency once and for all, and for our part, the possibility that
we would fight and die, not for some inglorious cause, but driven
by the simple sad reality that it's better to fight and perhaps die
than to live as slaves.

Blackjack and I took a quick inventory and came up with
an impromptu battle plan. They might kill us, might pound us to
death, but they were going to know we were here. The least we
could do on the way out, with the snapping of bones and growls
of rage, is scar these fascist fuckweasels for life so they wake up
from sweaty nightmares decades from now and realize that yet
against they've shit the bd, screaming my name, “SWAIN!", since
no one know who to pronounce Blackjack’s (Blackjack included).

WELCOME TO WACO

We know how it goes down. The Extraction Team opens
the food slot and sprays an industrial sized can of outdoor-use-
only pepper spray into the cell,a space the size of a bathroom,
blasting some napalm-death that peels off skin and lights the
lungs on fire. So we had to prepare for that. Then, they'd key the
door and bullrush in, a phalanx behind riot shields and helmets,
pounding ahead and crushing anything organic in their way. At
least 7 of them, taming, breaking, punishing,

We had to stop that too.

The fascist fuckweasels had the latest technology for
violence and brutality. We had a plastic bag, styrofoam cups,
shampoo, toothpaste, sheets, blankets, a broom, socks, soap, 2
lunch trays, a razor blade and a stapler.

Idon’t know where the fuck we got the stapler but it was
brand new and had a full compliment of staples. We quickly
concluded that the stapler, while convenient for all our
segregation office needs, really proved quite irrelevant in a
violent struggle for liberation against the forces of fuckweaselry.
But all that other shit could kick a fucking dent in their
machinery.

By the time those goose-stepping goons arrived, we were
prepared- and the fascists would wish they could trade places
with ATF agents crawling across the roof of some half-baked cult
leader clinging to his bibles and guns in a podunk Texas town.
Welcome to Waco.

THE STANDOFF ~ NO SCRATCH THAT: THE EPIC
MOTHERFUCKING STAND-OFF TO END ALL STAND-OFFS

If youre reading this on your I-phone in study hall, don't
try this at home.

Well, unless you really, really hate your parents.

Unable to see into the cell because the window in the cell
door was blocked, the fascists opened the food slot, only to find a
bed sheet hanging in front of the door. They still couldn't see. On
top of that, a blanket was wedged in the 4 inch frame of the
outside window with a roll of toilet paper to block the light from
the sun, making the cell pitch dark. The lead fuckweasel reached
his hand into the food slot to grab the sheet and yank it down,
only to take a bar of soap in a sock across the knuckles, quickly
withdrawing his hand in a stream of obscenities.

I'was a pitcher in little league. I can swing the shit out of a
sock.

Angered, they went straight to the pepper-spray, letting
loose with about a gallon of it. What they didn’t know is that we
used a whole tube of toothpaste, minty fresh and approved by the
American Dental Association, to adhere a plastic bag over the
food slot. That bag caught every bit of the pepper spray and
when I hit that bag with the soap-in-a-sock, it coughed its
contents right back at the fuckweasels who unleashed it.

‘That sent them running and sprawling into the cascading
toilet water, coughing and cussing with gallons of snot pouring
down the flesh of their inflamed faces.

Cancel the family outing with the fireworks. You're not
‘gonna be feeling very festive.

So as they splashed in the toilet water and rinsed their
faces, the door rattling reached a savage pitch and I knew the
maniacs and wildmen behind those steel doors were chewing on
the inside of their own mouths just to get the taste of blood.

And here’s an abject lesson for all the forces of fascism
from the colonizer troops in the ofl wars to the pigs firing rubber
bullets into occupy encampments to the fuckweasel prison
‘guards imposing the program at the hot end of a can of pepper
spray: It's all fun and games until someone loses and eye. And
then it's just FUN.

‘They formed up, fueled on rage and pain, a scething hate
machine, and keyed the door. It swung wide open and they came
in behind the shield, into the dark unknown. They still could not
see because the sheet wasn't fastened to the door; it didn’t move
when the door moved. It remained in the doorway because we
hung the sheet from a curtain rod we created out of styrofoam
cups’ alot of styrofoam cups, stacked, like 50 of them, and then
wedged them into the door frame. So when they came marching
into the battle dome, they came in blind with the sheet draped in
front of their faces.

They didn't see the shampoo on the floor or the plastic
cup lids floating in the shampoo. The shield-man’s jackboots slid
on the cup lids and we went hydro-planing forward, shoved from
behind by the six-man phalanx that followed.

Keep in mind, there’s a steel bunkbed 3 feet in from the
door and it’s bolted to the floor, creating a bottle-neck, a 3 foot
square killing-floor where the goons must come in single-file
across shampoo and cup lids sliding under their feet, as they
follow a blinded shield-man into a dark room, a sheet hanging in
his face.

The shield-man didn't see me in the shower, pulling the
trip line tight. It caught his foot and he fell forward, his
fuckweasel friends piling up behind him. Blackjack and 1 both
began yelling, “I got him! I got him!” and “Stop resisting! Stop
resisting!” giving the impression that the shield-man hadn't
fallen, but had instead tackled one of us.

1let go of the trip line and pulled the strip of sheet we had
cut with the razor blade to hook into the sprinkler. 1 yanked it
hard, unleashing thousands of gallons of black gunk fire
suppressant pushed by tens of thousands of gallons of water. It
was cold and disorienting and blinding, immediately blasting the
pile of fuckweasels like a fire-hose from the ceiling,

‘That was Blackjack’s cue. They hadn't seen him under the
‘mattress on the top bunk. He sprang to his feet, all possible
pepper-spray neutralized by the water filling the air, and with his
half of the broomstick secured to his wrist with a strip of
bedsheet (just in case he might drop it, he could recall it to his
hand with a flick of the wrist) he leaped down from the top rack
onto the fuckweasel heap, swinging like a madman. From the
opposite side, out of the shower, I rushed into the maelstrom
with my half of the broomstick tied to my wrist, and the soap-in-
a-sock in my other hand screaming and snarling like a savage. In
no time, we were behind the bewildered pile of drenched muscle
and heavy equipment, and we bolted for the door.

Fuck everything else. If we got through the open cell door
and out into the block, we faced one guard with a cell phone
taking video and another guard with a handful of keys.

Yeah. Keys. The great equalizer. We had 2 primitive clubs
in our fists, rags wrapped round our faces, and as many as 78
other comrades trapped behind steel doors - doors that could be
opened with those keys. We only had to get out of the cell and
lock the extraction team inside. But, as we reached the door, the
fuckweasels outside the cell dropped everything and threw
themselves against the closing door. Blackjack got his club
wedged in to keep it from closing as he struggled against the
door, I swung on the extraction team trying to regain their feet,
and a helmet flew against the wall.

Unfortunately, there was no head inside it.

Maybe next time.

Blackjack thrust against the door and it gave, knocking
down the guards on the outside, and we tumbled out of the cell
and into the block, the rattling doors and cheers completely
deafening. We crawled forward in the ice-cold water and gunk,
clawing at the fallen guards, but before we gained purchase, the
extraction team had us by the legs, dragging us back into the
containment of the cell, our nails dragging on the concrete, one
pig’s tasteful yet understated loafer still gripped in my left hand,
pepper spray firing from every direction.

Strange, but they didn't beat us to death. Sure, they got
their random kicks and punches in as they held us down and
confiscated our weapons, but then they bolted, leaving us
sprawled, broken and bloody in a flood of toilet water on the
concrete floor.

It was surprisingly comfortable, but I still had all my
teeth. As amazing as this is, with all the damage the fascist
fuckweasels have inflicted over the decades, the dentist tells me
that my teeth are in fantastic shape. Blackjack's missing 3 teeth.
We couldn't find them. And, even if we could, they had been
floating in toilet water.

1 pulled something in my abdomen that caused me to
puke from the pain for a few days and we both have scorch marks
from random pepper-spray blasts, but no broken bones. Our eyes
are still firmly in their sockets, and neither of us appear to be
leaking any vital fluids.

Ittook a long time for the fascists to regain control of
SMU 4, as they faced inspired and courageous resistance in every
fucking cell. The extraction team left the unit at the end of their
shift dispirited and haunted by their experience.

Brave new world, shitbags. Brave new motherfuckin’
world.

THE AFTERMATH

‘We should be dead right now. 1 mean, several prisoners
died here in Terry “Black Lightning” Tibbals’ mismanaged care
for a hell of a lot less. Our survival seems a complete absurdity.
But here we are.

‘The official story is that the video of events was lost when
the pig dropped the cell phone in his effort to contain us in Cell
1019. T suspect that's bullshit. T suspect that nobody wants to
explain why we had a broomstick i the first place (general
incompetence by the pigs on cell-cleaning day), or why the
extraction team marched into a cell without visual capacity, or
how to starved-out captives out-manoeuvred and out-fought
their best fuckweasel fighting force. Whatever their motive, I've
been told that these events didn't happen... not the way they
happened, anyway.

HELLA HELLA OCCUPY

Four days later, we remained in a burned out shell of a
cell, paint peeled from the walls, chunks of concrete missing out
of the ceiling. So on July 8, as Pelican Bay revolutionaries

10
undertook a monumental, historic hunger-strike, Blackjack and 1
were cuffed and escorted out to the outdoor recreation cage. No
shit.

Beginning at 6:30 in the morning, we announced to the
fuckweasel establishment that we were occupying the recreation
cage and not giving it back until our demands were met. Inside
the block, the rest of the SMU4 prisoners were again off the
chain, rattling doors and flooding the unit. By dinner, they sent
in a negotiator to use his “interpersonal communication”
training to talk us out of the cage. When that failed, they called
the extraction team... who simply did not show up.

Officer Miller, a shitbag of the highest order and a regular
feature on SMUA4 (who can be reached by calling ManCI and then
dialing 806 and extension 6101), took a cell phone video of our
demands for coming out of the recreation cage. When told all
demands would be met, we surrendered, only to be dragged,
handcuffed, back to our burned-out cave to find our food in the
toilet and most of our property destroyed. Miller and Bradshaw
had taken all of our soap, toilet paper and pens, As if we needed
them.

Amazingly, the stapler we hid under the steel sink and
toilet combo remained there, and was in perfect working
condition.

Very durable.

Officer Miller threatened to put his dick and balls in our
food, so- as a natural consequence, Blackjack and I went without
food the entire day, right along with the heroes of Pelican Bay
and the thousands of hunger strikers across the country and
around the world. Miller’s threats sparked a night of mayhem,
leading the Gestapo High Command to conclude that Blackjack
and 1 are a dangerous influence, and they moved us out of that
stagnant cave in SMU 4 to the veritable zombie suburbs of SMU2-
a comfortable peaceful corner of the special manglement unit
where we are surrounded by prisoners incapable of action if you
lit their asses on fire and chased them with a super-soaker filled
with gasoline. The mentality of the entire unit revolves around a

1
betting ticket put out by a prisoner called Vegas, and daily
discussions of professional sports events. No revolution here.

‘Though we've been put out to pasture, the situation has
greatly improved. Our food portions are back to standard; the
Taundry service has resumed; the cells are clean and dry, without
toilet water pouring from the ceiling; and Blackjack and I are now
in a cell where we can sleep without steel doors 3 feet away,
banging us awake every % hour.

Some kind of disciplinary action was taken against us, but
we don't know what it was since we refuse to answer any more
conduct reports. When the officer who came to shackle us heard
we refused to go, he asked, “Are we gonna have to do this the
hard way?” We responded, “you better go ask the extraction
team.” He left, never returned.

So, there’s a lesson to derive from all this: the only
effective answer to state terror in any form is equal and opposite
revolutionary violence. Plain and simple. It's the only thing the
fascist fuckweasels understand.

I think of the last 9 and a half months that Blackjack and I
foolishly tried to go along with the fascist program, to appeal to
reason, to employ the non-violent processes made available to us
- while our captors reduced us to conditions that where
inhumane and intolerable, starving us out. If only we had
undertaken this path nine months earlier, and maintained it, we
might be drinking martinis by an olympic-sized swimming pool
right now.

A point Derrick Jensen made in Endgame applies here:
more prisoners of the Nazi concentration camps survived by
resisting than by going along with the program.

So1 think about the events of these last 8 days and
consider how the world would be different if this approach had
been undertaken by the occupy encampments across the US and
around the world, undertaken by everyone rejecting the global
concentration camp imposed on us all. Imagine if the skull-
bashing and finger snapping pigs of the State-terror machine,
instead of being met with passive resistance to the dismantling of

12
the encampments, had been met with molotov cocktails and
bowling balls raining from roof tops; and resisters sporting
helmets shoulder pads, and baseball bats appropriated from
Dick’s sporting goods; or had faced man-hole covers blasting into
the sky and streets collapsing under them from improvised
explosive devices in the sewers - perhaps the trajectory of
history would be quite different today.

All'm saying s, if a former gas station attendant and a
former sandwich station tech at Wendy's can nearly defeat the
hyper-fascist forces inside the State’s mind-fuck control unit by
employing styrofoam cups, a tube of toothpaste, and a broken
broomstick, what hope exists for the crapitalist pigs and their
fuckweasel enforcers? If only a small fraction of so-called
anarchists, revolutionaries, freedom-fighters, libertarians, tea-
partiers or occupy supporters got serious for a moment, all the
world’s officer Millers would have to remove their balls from our
instant potatoes and run naked, screaming for their miserable
and worthless lives, chased by angry hordes carrying pitchforks
and torches, demanding a reckoning. I don’t want to impress you.
Idon't even want to inspire you. I just want to wake you up. The
state is a can of pepper-spray and there’s no reasoning with it.
Freedom means destroying it.

We don't need Gandhi's approval. This is reality, however
it is we feel about it. We need Gandhi to pass that tube of
toothpaste and get that lunch tray strapped to his arm.

This is how you take back the future.

Brave new motherfucking world, Mohandas. Brave new
motherfucking world.

13
VIOLENCE!
VIOLENCE!
VIOLENCE!

An open letter to ODRC Legal Counsel Trevor Matthew Clark, Esquire, on
his favorite topic-my unapologetic advocacy of politcal violence (writien in
the hopes of inspiring others to adopt my position and engage n
revolutionary action).

Dear Trevor:

In the interests of full transparency, I'd like to begin this
letter by making my aims clear. I advocate political violence. 1
contend that political violence is absolutely necessary for the
success of a revolutionary project, and I defend its morality as
wellas its practicality. I write this in the admitted hope that my
reasonable and articulate arguments will reach rational people
who will embrace the position | advocate, and that theywill take
back the future from oppressors and tyrants by engaging in
effective revolutionary action.

I present all of this as a letter to you for a few reasons.
First, your written positions related to my prison disciplinary
situation provide a pretty good representation of the State’s
position, or at least can be used for extrapolating authority's
position on political violence. Second, you are an attorney, which
makes you an expert at law and at argument, so if and when I can
dispose of your stated positions and reduce your claims to
nonsense, that will then demonstrate the superiority of my
position to yours, and will prove pretty conclusively that political
violence makes sense. And third, 1 know that once this is posted,
given your emotional instability, the presence of this letter online
will drive you completely bonkers for the rest of your life-which 1
will find personally satisfying, given your role in the State’s
efforts to destroy my life; as listening to my disciplinary

14
proceedings made you feel like “shooting [your]self in the face,” 1
imagine this will too. By all means, do not let me dissuade you.

I think that takes care of the disclosure ad transparency, so
we should proceed to the topic of political violence. Typically,
will predicate a work like this with a few relevant quotes. I think
that approach appropriate here.

S0 we begin.

“We are anarchists specifically because we do not water
down our critique ofsocial ils. We seek to strike the
system at its roots.”

~Crimethink,
After the Crest Il: Barcelona at Low Tide

“The revolutionary project of anarchists i to truggle
along with the exploited and push them to rebel against
all abuse and repression, so also against prison. What
moves them is desire for a better world, a better lfe
with dignity ad ethic, where economy and politics have
been destroyed. There can be no place for prison in that
world”

“That s why anarchists scare power”

“That is why they are lacked up in prison.”

~Alfredo Bonanno,
“Introductory Note;” Locked Up

“Men [sic] wll never be free untilthe lat king is
strangled with the entrails of the last pop
—Denis Diderot

Defining “Pol

al Violence

What is violence? No one can reasonably adopt a position
on something before we define what it is. My dictionary gives five
definitions, but the first one, I think, is more than adequate for
our purposes here: “physical force exerted o as to cause damage,
abuse, or injury”’ By this definition, “violence” would include
property damage and sabotage, though most purists would object

15
to this definition and assert that “violence” is only “violence”
when directed at living beings. I'm inclined to accept the
definition that property damage is also violence because that's
more consistent with the position you've put forward on behalf of
the State when you argued that I advocated violence against
“peaple;” “destruction of property.” and “harassment,” and I
would prefer not to quibble over the smaller details. So, for our
purposes, we can accept that property damage is violence.

Ithink it's important, though, that we point out that the
definition of violence doesn't include any qualifiers. What mean
is, by our definition, it matters not whether I'm punching you in
the face or whether you are punching me in the face; a punch in
the face is “physical force exerted so as to cause damage, abuse or
injury,” no matter who the actor . Violence is violence.

Tknow, that's kind of self-evident as far as observations
go. Kind of a no-brainer. I just wanted to point it out though, for
future reference, for when we get to the point where you want to
shoot yourself in the face.

But we don't want to talk about just any violence.
Interpersonal violence isn't our topic. I don't think either one of
us s, for instance, advocating “domestic violence.” The question
before us is whether or not we advocate political violence. Again
we consult a dictionary and the first definition for “political” is,
“of or relating to the affairs of government, politics, or the state.”
1 think that's workable for the definition of “political” If we put
that together with our definition of violence, we create our
working definition of political violence: “Physical force exerted so
as to cause damage, abuse, or injury...of or related to the affairs of
government, politics, or the state.”

Isuppose we could go further and ask what the State is,
particularly in this age where the State is so inextricably linked
with the management of the economy and in the affairs of large
corporations, but that's really a whole other discussion unto
itself, isn't it? Our topic here is already ambitious enough, I think.
S0 we can forego the question of, “What is the State?," at least for
purposes of identity, and we'll suffice to say that the State is “the

16
government” the incorporated entity that exercises its assumed
powers and authority, by and through its agents-like you. You
qualify as an agent of the State.

Belief in Political Violence, Part T

Having defined political violence, we now address the
question of whether or not I “believe in it.” If by “believe in it” we
mean, “do I believe that political violence is real, then I would have
to say, no, 1 do not believe in political violence. T know that
political violence s real.

Political violence-"physical force exerted so as to cause
damage, abuse, or injury...of or related to the affairs of
government, politics, or the state”-is a fact of reality. It is
happening at all times. It is ubiquitous.

‘The reality of political violence cannot rationally be
questioned.

Political Violence, Part 11

1f by “belief in political violence” you mean to ask, “Do 1
believe political violence is practical?,” I would again have to
answer, no. I do not believe that political violence is practical.
know that it is.

‘The reason I know political violence is practical is, I took a
sociology class with Ashland University. I read the textbook. In it,
the writers pointed out that movements like the Irish Republican
Army that employed violence achieved at least partial success an
overwhelming majority of the time, as opposed to strictly
nonviolent movements where just the opposite held true.

S0, we can say objectively and without a doubt that, as a
practical matter, political violence works.

And, Tthink I need to point out here, I'm not yet making
an argument for political violence. Nothing so far related to how I
“feel” about political violence or whether I “like” political
violence or not. Political violence is real and it works, however we
“feel” about it, the same way that the planet is round, gravity
persists, and the earth goes around the sun, all independent of

Belief i

17
the question of whether we “believe” in the planet's roundness,
or gravity's legitimacy, or the earth’s trajectory.

Gravity does not seek our consent. Neither does the
efficacy of political violence.

B

f i

Political Violence, Part 111

1f you ask, “Do you believe in political violence?” and by
“believe in” you mean, “Do you think political violence should be
employed?” 1 would answer with an emphatic yes. But if you were
being honest, Trevor, you would also answer with an emphatic
yes. You accept political violence as moral and legitimate, and 1
can prove it to you.

‘You work as ODRC Counsel-as an attorney for the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. The ODRC is an
agency of the State of Ohio, established by the Ohio Constitution
0f 1803. Ohio is the 17th state of the United States; the United
States gained its independence from the British crown with the
signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1787.

By calling yourself “ORDC Counsel,” you are implicitly
stipulating to the truth of all of those facts. You have to be. if any
one of those statements above are untrue, you aren’t ODRC
Counsel. You're just a dude in skinny jeans with a lot of college
debt and the FBI on speed-dial. If the ODRC is not an agency of the
State of Ohio, then you have no claim to exercise authority on
behalf of the State. If the Treaty of Paris didn't provide the United
States independence from the British crown, then the United
States is not a sovereign nation, Ohio isn't part of its
confederation, and Ohio is not a state. Again, that leaves you in
your skinny jeans chatting with the fascists and wondering how
You'll pay off all that college debt since you don't have a job.

S0, in Trevor Clark’s world, the Treaty of Paris is valid. The
revolutionaries in the colonies who engaged in open, violent
rebellion against the rightful authorities-rightful authorities
under existing international law-were not criminals, traitors,
offenders against the peace and dignity of the British crown, but
were instead signatories to a treaty, the proper representatives of

18
anation whose independence was gained through the means of
political violence.

‘You're an attorney, Trevor. Do you practice British law in
British courts? Are you a member of the British bar? When you
introduced yourself to me on 27 March 2013, did you refer to
yourself as Counsel for the British Crown?

1 guess that means you accept the legitimacy of the
political violence employed by Thomas Jefferson, George
Washington, Patrick Henry, and the rest. I guess that means that
you, like every other U.S. citizen, have to concede and stipulate to
the acceptance of political violence and its validity.

S0 much for your categorical rejection of political
violence, huh?

‘This is an important point because it proves that youand 1
have more in common in our thinking than we have uncommon.
We both know that political violence exists. We both know that,
as a practical matter, it works. And we both accept that recourse
to political violence is legitimate. We only argue, potentially, over
the questions of when political violence should be employed, by
whom, to what end, and against whom.

So let's shift gears for a moment. Let's stop talking about
my advocacy of political violence and start talking about yours.

Back to our Definition of “Political Violenc

‘You'll recall that earlier I made the point that “violence”
as it is defined, has no qualifiers, that it matters not whether I'm
punching you in the face or whether you are punching me in the
face. A punch in the face is violence no matter who the actor is.
Violence is violence. And so we get to the point I foreshadowed,
where you want to shoot yourself in the face.

0n 19 September 2012, without any justification at all-and
admittedly so, because everything I was accused of related to my
apprehension was dismissed-you, the State, removed me from
the prison population. You put me in cuffs. You “exerted”
“physical force...s0 as to cause damage, abuse, or injury,” forcibly
taking me into custody and putting me in a torture cell for days.

19
That's violence. And it's violence “related to the affairs of...the
state as it's violence employed by the State in the
(mis)management of its affairs. I was then subjected to conditions
that the CIA described as “the simple torture situation” in its
KUBARK Counterintelligence and Interrogation Manual, an insidious
how-to manual for torturers and state-terrorists like yourself.

It was also on 19 September 2012 that you, the State,
“seized” my typewriter and then destroyed it in retaliation for
me calling the ODRC director a “sock puppet” for the JPay
corporation. You'll recall, by our definition, when you “exert”
“physical force...s0 as to cause damage...” that's violence. And in
this case, the violence, destroying my typewriter, is directly
“related to the affairs of..the State," as “the State” is the entity
destroying my typewriter for its own political agenda.

See the problem you have here, Trevor? It's very, very
difficult to hear your indignant and self-righteous
condemnations of “political violence” because every time you try
to speak, more and more corpses fall out of the mass grave we
know as your mouth,

But while we're on the topic, let’s also analyze the larger
context of your political violence, In my own case, I've been held
without a legitimate legal justification according to your own
laws, for twenty-three years. That means I'm not a prisoner; I'ma
kidnap victim."

Kidnapping is a violent crime, Trevor. Violence. State
violence, and State violence is, de facto, political violence. When
you continually employ political violence against someone, it
seems more than a little bit irrational and hypocritical for you to
assert that the victims of your political violence do not so much as
have the right to “advocate” its use against you.

11 was kidnapped by the State in 1991 afier defending my own life in my own
home. Erie County Case No. 91-CR-253. My false conviction was reversed,
Sith District Case No. E-91-80. On remand, the trial court refused to follow the
mandate of the Court of Appeals. I remain imprisoned for 23 years, stll awaiting
the fair trial ordered in 1993. To avoid having to recognize my innocence and.
the illegality of my captivity, the Erie County Court of Common Pleas simply
refuses to file anything I present,

20
And, of course, the ultimate irony is, if you had not
abducted me and tortured me and mounted an all-out assault on
every aspect of my life in flagrant violation of your own written
laws (not that anyone, particularly you, pays any attention to
those), I never would have been provoked to “advocate” a
politically-violent response.

‘You will recall that you wrote to my attorneys, “The types
of violence and intimidation that are advocated for [sic] in his
writings fall clearly within the legal exceptions to that right [of
free speech].

ODRC will not tolerate threats, harassment and attempts at
intimidation”” That's what you wrote.

See your problem? If the State will not tolerate “threats”
perhaps the State should get out of the “threat” business, If the
State won't tolerate “harassment,” whatever that means, perhaps
it should cease its torture and state-terror operations. If the State
won't tolerate “intimidation,” maybe it should stop using its
machinery of violence to silence, neutralize, and destroy its

2 You have asserted that the First Amendment does not protect speech that
“advocates violence.” Ifthat's the case, it was illegal to support the bombing of
Iraq or the invasion of Afghanistan. Bombs are violence, Trever. It would also
be llegal to advocate the exccutions of the Lucasville Uprising leaders.

Killing people i violence, Trevor.

So, clearly the question of whether specch advocates or does not advocate
violence is perfectly irrelevant to whether it enjoys First Amendment
protections. In fact, if you read all of the U.S. Supreme Court cases that
delincate prisoner frec specch rights, the question of “advocating violence” is no
part of the caleulus. The question isn’t elated to content, but 0 the forum and
the purpose-in this case, a public forum, and the purpose is political speech: so,
the specch in question s afforded the most protection according to your highest
court’s decisions. See. Jones 1. NCPLU, 433 US119 (1977): Pell v. Procunier,
417US 817 (1974; Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 US 401 (1989); Turner v. Safley
482 US 78 (1987): Procunier v. Martinez, 416 US 396 (1974 and Simon &
Schuster Inc v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board, et_al, 502
US 105 (1991). Simon & Schuster stands for the proposition that the State
cannot ereate a in a public forum.._like, s
sending me to super-duper-uber-mega-ultra-max for my communicated ideas to
awebsite.

21
critics, whistleblowers, and political opponents.

Just an idea. Otherwise, if the State is going to be in the
threat, harassment and intimidation business, as it clearly is now,
then the State is going to be turning a lot of people into enemies
the same way you have made a lifelong enemy of me, and you will
soon have to confront thousands of Sean Swains...all of us
recognizing that we have no other recourse but political violence.
Not all of s can easily be tucked away at super-duper-uber-
mega-ultramax.

‘You're got something like twelve million people in Ohio.
And lots and lots of guns.

Iread somewhere that estimated gun ownership in the
U.s. is more than 200 million. That's alot of guns. If you divide
that evenly among all 50 states, which is unrealistic since only 12
people live in Montana, the people of Ohio alone have at least 4
million guns. That's a gun for every third person.

I suppose for the remainder of this, I can address my
arguments directly to those people. The literary device of
directing my arguments to you has served its purpose. So, by all
means, don't let me hold you from any important business, Feel
free to shoot yourself in the face at any time.

12 million People, 4 million guns, and 1 Common Enemy

Subjecting Everyone to Political Violence...Arrogantly Assuming

We Won't Do Something About It..,
‘The Trevor Clarks who run the State of Ohio will not

tolerate your “threats” or “harassment” or “intimidation.” They
will, however, take your money without your consent to pay their
own salaries, They tax you, supposedly for your own good.
supposedly to provide you “services," like roads, schools, and
protection.

But you're reasonable. You'd voluntarily pay for services.
You voluntarily pay for services every day. If the State really
offered services, you would gladly pay for the value of those
services.

The State doesn't give you that option. Instead, the State

2
“exerts” “force” to fund “the affairs of government;” to your loss,
to your “injury”" The State engages in political violence in your
every transaction. The State knows that reasonable people like
you would never pay outrageous sums for shoddy services, and so
it resorts to political violence to keep itself going, not for your own
good, but at your expense.

‘The Trevor Clarks who steal your money from you make a
good salary. You pay them generously, not for roads, schools, and
protections, but for chuck-holes, lliteracy, and political
repression. You pay for the government hackers who are reading
your e-mails and listening in on your phone calls. You pay for the
miseducation system that convinces a new generation that they
cannot possibly handle ruling themselves, that they need the
government’s “services” of chuck-holes, illiteracy, and political
repression. You pay for the Apache attack helicopters the
government buys to “protect” you... and then points the
helicopter at you.

‘The State will not tolerate your “threats” or “harassment”
or “intimidation.” The Trevor Clarks have spoken. You 12 million
people with at least 4 million guns will do what you are told and
you will pay the bill...or else.

Does that sound like “freedom™? 1 could be wrong, but I
think real freedom doesn't involve your government constantly
employing political violence against you and intimidating you if
you start talking about freedom.

Not that it matters because we have no duty to defer to
the documents of the Trevor Clarks who are stickingit to us, but
the Ohio Constitution expressly provides that we have the “right”
to “abolish” the government. Article I, Section 2. We can do it
whenever we “deem it necessary.”

Tdon't know about you, but I deem it necessary. I don’t
want to die at super-duper-uber-mega-ultra-max because I
defended my own life and then told the truth about the prison
directors’ crimes. And, more importantly, I don't want others to
die for what they believe, locked away or shot by agents of an

23
irrational State.’ So, that means the State has to go.

‘We deserve better.

Something to consider. There’s us... There's them... We
have 12 million people and at least 4 million guns.* Any
questions?

Just a quick reminder to any remaining pacifists out
there-your choice is not between “violence” or “peace.” If it was,
we would all choose peace. But if we do not choose to engage in
violence, that does not create a situation of peace; that creates a
situation of unilateral violence where the State continues to “exert”
its “force” to your “injury.” So, an absence of action, on your part,
facilitates State violence. In fact, the longer you refrain from
acting, the more lives are devastated. Objectively, anyone who is
really, truly for peace will struggle-by any means necessary- to
destroy the State completely and as quickly as possible so that the
principle cause of State violence will cease and we will then
finally have the option of choosing peace.

‘You can't choose “peace” with a loaded shotgun in your
face. Once you address the issue of that loaded shotgun in your
face, you have the option of choosing peace.

And personally, I cannot wait to choose peace.

The State and its political violence are an obstacle to that
peace. Let's remove it. Completely. Immediately.

As someone else who confronted terrorists at the controls
once said, “Let's roll.”

We own the future. It starts now... if only we have the will.

3 The Cleveland Police reserve the right to shoot unarmed people 137 times. “To
Protect and Serve” looks a lot like *To Enslave and Oppress.”

4 Some excellent resources: Computer Security: crypto.com anonymizer.com
calt orglerypto cém.net fhi.gav/hg/lab/camivore/camivore him netsol.com/cgi-
binivhois/whois Special Training: nasta.ws operationaliatics.org bad-boys.net
swattraining.com specialoperations.com Ohio Militia: oomaac.com I have no

idea about the politics of any of these groups, but I suspeet they are armed.
‘That's a start. Whatever your politis, they can teach you how to shoot. That's a
start. Or, apart from firearms, you could descend on the Ohio Statehouse in ski
masks with cans of gasoline and books of matches. That's a sart too. Article
Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution affirms your right to do it

24
PACIFISTS
SUCK:

How Arresting Revolution Maintains a Violent World

When a guy kicked in my door in 1991, I panicked and
stabbed him to death. T didn’t own a gun. T didn't believe in guns. 1
always ascribed to the wisdom that if somebody wanted to come
to my home and shoot me, he would have to bring his own gun.
So, in the years that followed, perhaps in part motivated by a
need to make sense out of this tragedy, I encountered Gandhi. 1
read everything I could find and became a veritable Gandhi
expert, even consuming everything by and about his students-
Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez, Gene Sharp (who wrote the
exhaustive Politics of Nonviolent Action), and other fellow
travelers like Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador.

Ihecame convinced that only nonviolent direct action-
and exclusively-nonviolent direct action-held the solution for
changing the world in any constructive way. As a member of
CURE-Ohio’s prisoner advisory board, I successfully advocated for
that organization to develop a policy for supporting prisoner
nonviolent direct action. In 2002, I was recognized by no less than
Rosa Parks herself for my public advocacy of nonviolent action,
and the co-chair of the Southern Poverty Law Center's National
Campaign for Tolerance added my name to the Wall of Tolerance.

I share all of that to demonstrate that I am fully versed in
the theory and practice of nonviolent direct action and that I
used to be among those who insisted on exclusive nonviolence as
the only solution. But I am no longer under the influence of that
powerful delusion and I recognize, reasonably and practically,
that political violence is a necessary feature for any successful
effort at social transformation.

Exclusive nonviolence doesn't cut it. It never did, it never
will. In fact, those who insist on exclusive nonviolence and
thereby hold all social movements hostage, demanding that all

25
tactics employed by all participants meet the nonviolence litmus,
are the biggest impediment to social transformation that
currently exists. “Pacifists” the idealist followers of Gandhi and
MLK, are the most culpable accomplices to the continuing
violence of our current status quo.

Principled pacifists, threatening withdrawal from social
movements if violent tactics are considered, doom every social
movement to which they are a part. They limit resistance to only
those tactics that will inevitably fail. This proves true in the most
glaring recent example of the Occupy movement, when police
employed brutal and violent repression to push resisters out of
the public space. The resistance ultimately dissolved in the face
of State terror because pacifists’ limitations prevented Occupy
from preparing effectively to meet violence with violence,
precluded any plan to deploy violent offensives that would
diminish the State’s capacity to confront Occupy with such
overwhelming force, and ultimately foreclosed upon even the
consideration of tactics that may have altered history.

Reality: Cops are violent.

Reality: Cops are going to employ violence to impose
“order”

Reality: If those who truly desire to challenge the-world-
as-it-is want to be successful, they will have to develop strategies
for meeting, countering, and overcoming State violence.

Reality: Violent revolutionary action is the solution.

Of course, principled pacifists are unwilling to participate
in any social movement that contemplates violence and/or
property damage, not even in a nonviolent or noncombatant role,
thereby diminishing the potential numbers of the resistance and
dooming it stillborn before it ever emerges.

But what is it, exactly, that principled pacifists are
opposing? Is their opposition reasonable? Just how “violent” is
violent revolution, and does it result in more violence than a
continuation of the existing order of things?

Let's take an analytical look at violent revolution, the
solution that principled pacifists oppose and ultimately prevent:

26
We can get an idea of what happens during a revolution by
considering the data from previous revolutions. We know, for
instance, that in the English, American, French, and Russian
revolutions, only a maximum of 5% of those country’s
populations-at peak participation-were involved in the
resistance. So that means that 95% of any given population does
not participate in a revolution.

‘This is important for us to consider as we weigh the
violence that principled pacifists oppose, and the violence that
principled pacifists ultimately choose to perpetuate-the State
violence of the current order. The violent revolution that pacifists
prevent would foreseeably involve 5% of the population at most.
‘That means pacifists prevent 5% of the population from
successfully liberating 100% of the population through recourse
to bullets and bombs.

‘This ratio is also borne out by more recent struggles,
including the Cuban revolution. In Cuba, rebels never numbered
more than 5,000 in a population of roughly 11 million people.
‘This puts max participation at 4.5% against a regime materially-
supported by the United States.

In that armed struggle, the rebels killed something like
300 of the regime’s forces.

Using those numbers, an armed struggle in the U.S. that
would successfully topple the existing order would involve 13.5
million people, a mere fraction of the number of the currently
unemployed. So, by all accounts, principled pacifists aren’t
opposing a wild orgy of violence that engulfs 300 million people
and plunges the U.S. unto absolute madness, they oppose an
armed struggle that, at most, would involve 13.5 million rebels.

But, that's still not a fair presentation. While 13.5 million
would be involved in the rebellion, not all would be involved in
direct armed struggle as combatants. We have to consider that
many of those people would be medics and cooks and logistical
support. You've also got large numbers of rebels who would
engage exclusively in nonviolent forms of resistance like hacking,
intelligence gathering, promotion, and recruitment, not to

27
mention those who specialize in sabotage exclusively against
property.

It is important to remember that just because a rebellion
incorporates the strategies of violence, not all rebels necessarily
participate in the violent components of rebellion. Normally, just
a fraction of any given force ever engages in actual combat,
fighting, shooting, and dying. So that we cannot be accused of
under-estimates, let’s say half of the rebels would be involved in
direct violence, although this ratio is likely very high.

In an armed struggle in the U.S., that would put the
number of rebels engaged in actual direct fighting at less than 7
million.

Iread somewhere that we have 200 million guns in the
U.S. We could arm every combatant of a successful revolution by
distributing just 3.5% of the guns we own. In so doing, we could
end the current order and all the suffering and death it causes
globally, year after year. It would take 7 million people, at peak
participation, willing to pull a trigger to bring about a future we
deserve.

With 7 million armed rebels in a revolutionary
engagement involving a maximum of 13.5 million, we could
reasonably expect a number of deaths as high as 810,000. And
that's if the government forces continue fighting until the rebels
can reach the doorstep of those calling the shots.

That's if the U.S. military is willing to side with the
government, against the people.

More people than that will be killed by drunk drivers,

More people than that will kill themselves, because the
current order relegates them to lives that are intolerable.

Consider: If principled pacifists willingly played
nonviolent roles in a violent revolution, 300 million people would
be liberated with less than 1 million casualties and the
foreseeable end result would be a net gain rather than a loss
when we consider all of the lives that this current system will
inevitably chew up if it isn’t taken down. And that isn't even
factoring in people all over the world who suffer and die as a

28
result of U.S. Actions.

Consider: If, prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, principled
pacifists participated nonviolently in a violent revolution,
millions of lives would have been saved at a cost of fewer than 1
million. That means if we act now, and pacifists allow the
revolution to take its course, we can save millions of lives in
preventing the next U.S. invasion and bombing of some
defenseless country before it even happens.

To be a principled pacifist is to foreclose upon a revolution
that would save lives. That means, in the final analysis, pacifists
are against the preservation of life. They are so enraptured with
their delusional, fast construct and their narrow, unrealistic
definition of violence, that their “principled” inaction obstructs
what would transform the world and preserve countless lives
long into the future. Their principles matter more than we do.

Consider the next drone strike.

Consider the unarmed Black men killed by police.

Principled pacifists are the unwitting shovel that the
ruling elite uses to dig its mass graves. Their complicity in crimes
against humanity is inexcusable. Let's hope that, for the rest of us
who do not share their Kumbayah delusions, they stop
obstructing the real solution before it's too late.

Recommended reading:

Anatomy of Revolution, by Crane Brinton War of the Flea, by
Robert Taber Politics of Nonviolent Action, by Gene Sharp The Logic
of Political Violence, by Craig Rosebraugh.

29
DISTINGUISHING
FREEDOM
FROM
POLITICAL
RIGHTS

Submitted for Ohio State Penitentiary's Black History Month
Writing Contest, 2014 (500 words or less)

Any discussion of rights must distinguish real freedom—
the absence of external regulation—from the concept of
“recognized rights” arising as it does from theories of
constitutional authority and law. To contrast, real freedom is a
condition of existential reality, while “recognized rights™ are
paper fictions.

To understand real freedom, one must imagine two points
at either end of a continuum, The first point, “freedom,” is “the
absolute absence of external regulation.” At the opposite end of
the continuum is complete external regulation, the absence of
freedom. Thus, where freedom exists, there is an absence of
external regulation, and vice-versa. The line connecting these
two points represents interplay between the two opposing forces,
varying degrees of freedom and regulation:

Absolute Absolute
Freedom < > External Regulation

(absence of external (absence of freedom)
regulation)

Importantly, implicit in this analytical framework,

30
freedom cannot coexist with government, because government’s
purpose is to govern. To govern is to regulate, and where
regulation exists, as already established, freedom is absent. Thus,
governments by their very character are the antithesis of
freedom.

To have absolute freedom there must be an absence of
regulation. Because no government has ever peacefully accepted
eviction, eradicating government requires political violence. So,
real freedom can only be achieved through political violence.

‘This is an incontrovertible, logical conclusion, however
one may feel about its implications. Malcolm X, Assata Shakur,
and Huey P. Newton all recognized this truth (which is why the
U.s. developed COINTELPRO, a covert program to destroy them.)

The idea of “rights” on the other hand, is government’s
contrived and substance-less alternative for real freedom.
“Rights” are government’s promises to its subjects, such as the
right to free speech (in free speech zones), or to a fair trial
(narrowly defined by the government), or to vote (for corrupt
sock puppets of corporate machines.) These so called “rights” are
virtually meaningless because government reserves the unilateral
authority to define rights and to set the limits of those rights.
Further, in an asymmetrical power-relationship where
government guarantees rights but government owns an Apache
attack helicopter, subjects exercise conditional privileges at the
whim of government until government no longer tolerates it (as
at Kent State and Occupy.)

Exercising conditional privileges under the threat of
armed surveillance and control i typically called “slavery.” Thus,
those accepting “rights” afforded by a government with an
Apache attack helicopter are slaves mesmerized by the illusion of
freedom in relative creature comfort, incapable of mounting
resistance that real freedom requires.

Real freedom is never given. It is taken. Real freedom is.
obtained as Malcolm X so famously phrased it, “by any means
necessary?” It manifests from the barrel of a gun.,

31
A
VISION
Or
THE
FUTURE:

Where All the Roberto Adinolfis Walk With a Linp.

ally published at 325nostate.net and reprinted in Dark Nights.
issue #39.

Back in May 2012, Roberto Adinolfi managed Ansaldo
Nucleare, constructing nuclear power plants all over Europe,
including the one in Kroko, Slovenia, and Cernadova, Romania.
Adinolfi had power, money, prestige, and influence. To him, the
suffering and death in Fukushima, Japan wasn't nearly s real as
his spacious, air-conditioned office or his luxurious Genoa home
or his expensive suits.

Sometimes, you have to crack a few eggs to make an
omelet. And besides, none of his death-traps had melted down
yet.

Yet. Key word. Yet.

Roberto Adinolfi with his power, money, prestige, and
influence never noticed that vehicle following him home. He
suspected arrogantly that he would spend an entire career raking
in money hand over fist by rolling the radioactive dice and
betting millions of other people’s lives, and he would never have
to answer to anyone at any time, anywhere.

S0 one the morning of May 7, Adinolfi left his luxurious
Genoa home on his way to his spacious, air-conditioned office -
and that's when an anarchist’s bullet knee-capped him. He bled

32
and screamed.

His expensive suit was ruined.

Alfredo Cospito and Nicola Gai were credited with this
humanitarian public service of delivering a clear message to
Adinolfi from the millions of his future nuclear holocaust victims.
They were not provided awards or accolades, but 10 years 8
months, and 9 years 4 months respectively.

It would appear that the Italian government values
Adinolfi’s soiled suit more than the millions of lives trembling in
the shadows of a nuclear nightare. Given the long track record of
deluded hierarchs, this probably comes as no surprise.

The inspiring and unrepentant statements of both Alfredo
Cospito and Nicola Gai are available at Act For Freedom Now.

0n 30 October, when Cospito attempted to read his
statement in the courtroom, the judges interrupted and then
called upon the cop enforcers to drag the two anarchists from the
courtroom.

By all published accounts, the judge’s home address is still
unknown, The judge does not appear to walk with a limp.

Prosecutors Nicola Piacente and Silvio Franz, who argued
for more time and a million euro award (to pay for Adinolfi's suit,
1o doubt) also appear to walk with carefree and symmetrical
gaits.

Those court officials have clearly not been shot in the
kneecaps yet.

Yet. Key word. Yet.

Beyond the real, penetrating, exit-wound justice that’s
pretty obvious, there’s also some poetic justice in all of this. It's
not jist the poor and powerless who wake up in fear every day -
not anymore. Just like the folks who dread the thought of that
siren from the nearby power plant, officials in Italy now hold
their breath when stepping out of their front doors on their way
to commit the day’s quota of mundane atrocities.

When cars back-fire close by, they pee just a lttle, and
they speed up, and they spill their coffee. In that moment of
panic and terror, they glimpse a flash from the future, a snapshot

33
of a vision, where corporate executives and lawmakers, bankers
and oil tycoons, military advisors and heads of state, all hobbling
up and down the sidewalks leaning on canes or swinging along on
crutches, smile and nod to one another as they pass, but with
dreadful smiles and haunted eyes.

I'suspect that moment feels very real to them, and they
shudder when they contemplate all of those carefully-aimed
gunshots, directly specifically not to kill...because the shooters
want them alive.

If you kill them, they won't learn anything.

‘There are parking lots all over the world, with smug and
oblivious Adinolfis cruising home after a work-day spent
‘murdering the future. They chat on their cell phones with their
spouses while texting their lovers and planning the mass graves
they will orchestrate tomorrow.

‘They never notice the cars behind them. They never
suspect anything.

How many Alfredo Cospitos and Nicola Gais could there
be?

How many indeed.

34
DE-MYSTIFYING
POLITICAL
VIOLENCE:

Toward a Ralional Framework for

Analyzing Violent Arncd Struggle in the U,

In Pacifists Suck, I attempted to point out the
fundamentally delusional worldview and the internal
inconsistency of exclusivist nonviolence proponents. I hope this
provides a useful framework for analysis and leads to an effective
rejection of exclusivist nonviolence from any future,
revolutionary effort, However, this is only part of the intellectual
process that needs to be undertaken before a real and effective
revolution could be sustained.

We also need to de-mystify violence,

1f we consider the question of what violence is, and by
that I mean what it really is and not what it has been
conveniently re-defined to mean by those who wish to keep us in
our assigned seats, we have to recognize that violence is
pervasive in life.

Lions eat gazelles. That's violence. It's ultimately violence
of anon-moral quality because we don't ascribe concepts of
“right” or “wrong” to life in the wild, but violence is violence.
Likewise, we eat organic things.

The burger we eat wasn't delivered by the burger-stork.
Somebody hit a living creature in the head and killed it and
harvested its meat as a resource to meet your demand for
physiological re-fueling. Those carrots and potatoes were living
and, if we believe the fascinating research recounted in Language
Older Than Words by Derrick Jensen, plant life is also sentient.

Your stomach is a graveyard.

Your very existence demands violence—lethal violence—

35
in order to be maintained. That's a simple reality. A fact.

If you oppose all violence, the only course of action open
for you, to put your money where your mouth is, is to stop eating
all together...which leads to the extermination of your own
biological machinery.

Violence.

Catch-22. Your choices are to (A) kill other living things to
continue your life, or (B) preserve other living things by killing
yourself, Your choices are violence or violence.

An inherently “nonviolent” existence is composed of the
same materials as farie dust and magical beans.

Then, of course, if we confine ourselves to the specifically
human world, recourse to “pacifism,” as T argued in “Pacifists
Suck;”is really a reality-denying delusion where adherents simply
ignore the fundamentally-violent social and political situation
that continues if we decide not to shoot the state agents that
shoot us. Again, violence is violence. The default situation we all
face is one of violence and the “moral-choice” of “nonviolence”
only ensures that the situation of political violence will remain
unilateral rather than bilateral.

So now, if we accept the legitimacy of political violence in
the form of armed resistance, there are questions that confront
us—such as, what kind of numbers would be needed for a
successful revolution in the United States? How bloody would it
be? Would success be worth the costs.

Often, when contemplating this, we have the natural
tendency to consider the civil war as the model of Americans
fighting Americans, and we therefore anticipate astronomical
body counts and gruesome violence—huge, desolate expanses of
moonscape littered with corpses and disembodied limbs; whole
cities laid waste with rockets and bombs.

But can we anticipate that rebels would face military
troops in regular warfare, forming battle lines? That is the civil
war model, and I cannot imagine it implemented in any future
armed struggle. Rather, the model is probably something more
like the irregular warfare employed in the Cuban revolution,

36
where much smaller numbers of rebels relied upon the strategy
and tactics of irregular warfare, ambushing government forces at
their weakest points, yielding ground, harassing, avoiding
encirclement or direct fighting. This, combined with a campaign
of sabotage, would serve as a much more effective model than the
civil war and its battle lines.

So let's consider what we know of the Cuban Revolution.

Atthe time of the revolution, Cuba had a population of
roughly 11 million. Its military consisted of about 80,000 troops.
‘The rebels never numbered more than 5,000 and inflicted
somewhere in the vicinity of 300 casualties. Fighting spanned two
years before the existing regime toppled and the rebels claimed
victory.

These are the kinds of historical facts that are useful for
our own analysis, and we're fortunate that there exists a wealth
of information on the Cuban revolutionaries' experience. We can
attempt to use those numbers to make a very general prediction
about what might happen if the rebels in the U.S. took up arms in
irregular warfare to topple the government. To be clear, I'm not
presenting that we will end up with some laser-accurate
predictions, but I would argue that this gives us a kind of
analytical framework as opposed to simply imagining how such a
rebellion would look based upon video games or Hollywood
movies. Granted, we could list amillion factors that distinguish
Cuba 1958 from the U.S. 2014, some that would mitigate for the
resistance and some that would mitigate against (for example—
the prevalence of privately-owned weapons in the US. mitigating
for resistance, while technological advances used by government
troops mitigating against. So, what we undertake here is an
exercise, not an exhaustive treatment.)

Let's first get a sense of the size of the resistance. In Cuba,
the resistance numbered 5,000 guerillas at its peak, from a
population of 11 million. That's a percentage of .045% For the U.S.
in 2014, where the population is 300 million, that would equate to
135,000 rebels.

S0, by the Cuban standard, for what it’s worth, a successful

37
armed resistance in the U.S. would require only 135,000. That
means 299,865,000 Americans would not participate in
revolutionary violence.

We're talking about a group one-third the size of the
audience of Woodstock. A population segment roughly the size of
the crowd that will attend the next Michigan-0sU football match-
up.

There’s your rebel forces for toppling the U.S.
Government.

In Cuba, the rebels faced a military 16 times the size of the
rebellion. For the U.S. in 2014, that would equate to a military of
2.16 million.

Tdon't know, but I have some serious doubts that the U.S.
government could muster the political will to deploy 2.16 million
troops domestically to quell a grassroots rebellion. I don’t have
facts or figures, so_have no idea the current size of the U.s.
military, but I believe at the height of the Operation Iragi
Liberation (OIL) the U.S. didn’t deploy even a million troops.
Deploying more than 2 million would be quite a feat..and by the
Cuban example, the U.S. would lose. The 135,000 rebels would
win.

Now, to the question of casualties. Again, using the Cuban
Revolution as a guide, in the U.S. in 2014, in two years of combat
between 135,000 rebels and 2.16 million U.S. troops, we would
expect 8,100 casualties.

Nope, you read that right. That's not a typo. Toppling the
U.S. government after 2 years of guerrilla warfare would cost
8,100 lives, based upon the casualty rates of the Cuban example.

Again, 1 don't have statistics here, so I challenge you to
look and see. How many kids will drown this year in swimming
pool drain accidents? How many people will be killed by drunk
drivers within 5 miles of their own houses? I suspect more than
8,100 people. So, that would mean toppling the government is
less deadly than swimming in the suburbs or driving to the local
McDonalds.

‘The point I'm attempting to make is that the violence of

38
revolutionary violence is not quite what we likely imagine it to
be. If we had to conceive of a body count required for taking
down the government of the United States, we'd likely guess in
the millions, and even the optimists among us would likely
estimate hundreds of thousands.

But..less than ten thousand casualties? To remove the
greatest military powerhouse in the history of the world?

Consider: a government cannot carpet bomb its own
population; it cannot nuke its own food supply. It has to put
reluctant boots on the ground that likely sympathize to no small
degree with the rebel cause.

8,100 casualties. By the Cuban example, anyway.

‘That means if just 135,000 of the protestors against the
Iraq war has taken up arms, after toppling the government and
removing George Dubya from office (and possibly from existence)
the rebels would have saved a net total of thousands of American
lives that were otherwise flushed down oil wells for Halliburton
profit margins.

More U.S. soldiers died because we didn't rebel than would
have been killed if we had rebelled.

Show that math to the pacifists who made such a rebellion
impossible. The blood of tens of thousands is dripping from the
heights of their moral high ground, and continues to drip on all
of us.

My point here is, given a historical precedent which may
be something of a predictor of expectations for armed struggles
in the future, we could anticipate just over 1% of the population
taking up arms. There would be casualties—.00073% of the
population, less than the number of suicides among military
veterans this year.

‘The ultimate point being that bloody revolutions aren't so
bloody. There are rational, logical reasons for this, Il expound on
just a few factors that serve as “limiters” to violence ina
revolutionary conflict.

POLITICAL LIMITS. A government must proceed cautiously
when ordering troops to fire upon their own people. There exists

39
a threshold where the fighting forces become disillusioned and
turn their weapons another way. To avoid that, governments
generally err on the side of caution and avoid presentations of
force that would engender hostility toward the government. This
would be particularly true in anation where the population’s gun
ownership exceeds 200 million firearms.

PSYCHOLOGICAL/EMOTIONAL/"TOLERATION” LIMITS. For
the rebel focus, the psychological and emotional capacities of the
rebels serve as a limiter to violence. Prolonged combat or
particularly intense combat has psychologically- and
emotionally-traumatic impacts on the fighters. Thus, any
volunteer force has a kind of “toleration” limit that, when
exceeded, begins the process of abandonment by the fighters.

LOGISTICAL LIMITS. Rebels must develop systems for
transporting food, clothing, ammunition, and medical supplies to
a variety of different fighting groups. Without any one of the four
of those, fighting comes to a standstill. Frequent interruption of
supply acquisition leads to a lot of down time.

CONDITIONS/CLIMACTIC LIMITS, In irregular combat,
guerilla forces use the element of surprise to overwhelm a weak
spot in state forces. By this strategy, every engagement is
extremely abbreviated, as guerrillas must disengage before
reinforcements arrive.

This limits each engagement to just a few minutes. Also, to
strike under conditions most advantageous to the rebel, guerrilla
strategists typically advise ambushes at sunrise and sunset, when
there is a limited light and the enemy forces are either waking or
preparing to retire. If a guerrilla column fought at dawn and
dusk, they would still be limited to about an hour of fighting, per
day.

We must also consider that any given fighting force today
~say 135,000 rebels—would require 50% of their personnel to
engage in noncombat support. So, a fighting force of 135,000 at
peak would amount to 67,500 rifles pointed at the enemy. And
those fighters would spend a great deal of their time in
nonviolent activities.

40
Let's not forget, guerilla fighters have to sleep, eat, take
care of personal hygiene, clean and maintain their weapons and
gear; after an offensive they must treat the wounded, pack-up,
and travel to a new location; before the next engagement they
must arrive at the new location, unpack plan the offensive, train,
and prepare the attack.

That, of course, is in addition to the predictable “waiting
around” and bullshitting.

‘The point here being that even the guerilla fighter taking
up arms for violent resistance spends almost the entirety of his or
her day completely occupied in essentially nonviolent activities.
In the final analysis, a guerilla probably spends more time moving
his or her bowels in the course of a guerilla campaign than in
actually firing a weapon.,

‘Considering all of this, it should come as no surprise than
in analyzing the data from the Cuban revolution, less than 6% of
the guerrilla force actually killed anybody. Of the 80,000
government troops, roughly 79,700 of them were still alive when
the guerillas claimed victory and the government, toppled.

‘This, then, serves to also expose the false assumption that
a political victory requires a military victory. It doesn't. In fact,
according to the information the US. government relies upon in
its counterinsurgency manuals for the School of the Americas,
military outcomes are largely irrelevant to the rebellion’s success
or failure. The guerilla does not fight to exterminate the military
—the military is only a tool of the real enemy, the existing regime
—but to inspire the populace to recognize the illegitimacy of the
political powers.

All of this reinforces the idea that we get from crunching
the numbers that the U.S. government would be toppled with
fewer than ten thousand casualties.

41
RESPONSE

to the Trolls and Commenters on Anarchisl News.

A couple of important points that need responses. In “De-
Mystifying” 1 concluded the US would not carpet bomb its own
cities, not because the government if beneficent—it isn't. I believe
Us pilots ordered to bomb a US city where the pilots family lives,
would be more likely to bomb the White House instead. Also,
based on the fear of that being true, the government would never
roll those dice.

A second issue is the irrational premise that irregular
warfare can only be employed by specifically Marxist-Leninists.
Spartacus led a guerrilla war against the Roman Empire, using
strategies learned from the * barbarian slaves.” It was the greatest
slave revolt in history and Spartacus was not a Marxist-Leninist.
Also the Shawnee organized a federation of tribes that employed
strategies and tactics of guerrilla warfare with great success until
the federation unraveled for reasons NOT related to efficacy of
their approach.

Later, the Lakota defeated the US Army in 3 consecutive
engagements using guerrilla strategies and tactics, something the
Vietcong (who were Marxist-Leninsts) cold not do. Later still, the
Chihuahua Apache waged a decades-long guerrilla war against
the colonizer.

1f you have to be an authoritarian and a Marxist-Leninist
to be an effective guerrilla, clearly Tecumseh, Crazy Horse and
Geronimo never got the memo. Marx never so much as
mentioned guerrilla warfare. Lenin never used it . The strategy
preceded both of them,

Never forget, contrary to the official story, Lakota women
killed General Custer with frying pans. Emulate them.

Freedom.

Sean Swain (the fucking “wingnut"who believes rifles will
still fire even if its not a Marxist-Leninist pulling the trigger.)

2
ABOUT SEAN SWAIN

Sean Swainis a hostage held by a lawless rogue-state callingitself "the
State of Ohio." He has been held without legal conviction or sentence
since 1991 for the self-defense killing of a court official's relative who broke
into Sean's home and threatened his life. In fall of 2012, prisoners calling
themselves the Army of the 12 Monkeys (A12M) got rowdy at Mansfield
Correctional, and the prison authorities assumed "that anarchist" Sean
Swain must have been behind it and threw him in supermax isolation.
Sean denies any involvement or affiliation with the A12M and is in the
process of suing the ODRC for targetting him based exclusively on his
ideology and political speech.

Sean is the only son of a retired auto worker and stay-home mom. He has
renounced his high school diploma, his college degree, and his honorable
discharge from the U.S. military. Before being taken hostage, Sean worked

asanewspaper columnist and as a union organizer.

Sean is mounting his third run for Governor of Ohio in 2014. If elected, he
promises to decommission the Ohio National Guard, empty Ohio's prisons
‘and turn them into squats, recognize Native American land rights as set
forth by the Treaty of Greenville, arm the tribes with national guard
‘weaponry, to include tanks and attack helicopters, refuse to sign any.
budget causing the government to shut down, and sign an Executive Order
‘making it legal to assassinate him if he remains in office longer than 90

days.

Though nnocent of any crime, and though he i held without legal
conviction or sentence, Sean will only be liberated when theillegitimate
power of the lawless rogue state holding him hostage is abolished once and
forall

‘The State started the war. Sean Swain intends to finish .
Toget up to date info about Sean, send an email to

seanswain-subscribe@lists riseup.net and you'll be added to his email
notification lst. Thank you!
The distant trecline beyond the yard
Stirs yearnings too intense.
My thoughts often escape me
And takea blind run for the fence

Sometimes the tower shoots them
Sometimes the dogs attack
Theyre always bultchered bloody
By the time I get them back

Sometimes they re dead and dangling
Sometimes they get avay:
Just tofind no place to go
But that's the price they pay

You too may see this window view.
Or face the gallows pole
&oifyou harbor my fugjtive thoughts
Don'tevertellasoul,

SEANSWAIN.ORG