The (so-called) anti-authoritarian nebula plunges into confusion, denunciation and insults

The real opponents of the current totalitarianism — anarcho-ecologists, naturists, decreasers, anti-industrialists — have for some time now been violently attacked and « trolled » on asocial networks, a sign that a calm confrontation of ideas is becoming difficult, if not impossible. And the attacks come not from the right, but from the left. As Pier Paolo Pasolini predicted just before his death in 1975, a neo-Stalinist form of « anti-fascist fascism » is rampant today, both on the Web - and on the Internet. with sites claiming to be « libertarian » (sic) - and IRL(In Real Life) when organic intellectuals are « cancelled » (i. e. censored, prevented from speaking publicly), sometimes even physically assaulted, so that the masters of this world have nothing to worry about when it comes to their stranglehold on brains. The left has abandoned its traditional role as a critical counter-power, which is necessary for democratic life; out of resentment, it attacks not its capitalist (?) enemies, but free spirits who don’t give up their outspokenness (the parrhesia of the ancient Greeks) and are at fault for not reciting the progressive catechism.

Translator Annie Gouilleux is one of them. She reacts below to an inflammatory article posted recently, « Le naufrage réactionnaire du mouvement anti-industriel » (The reactionary shipwreck of the anti-industrial movement), in which she is implicated, as are all her friends in the movement. His point is, however, a general one, as examples of this « antifa » literature, as intellectually lazy as it is insulting, abound. 

I use the term « nebulous » to refer to the authors (and/or authors?) of the pamphlet entitled Le naufrage réactionnaire du mouvement anti-industriel (The reactionary shipwreck of the anti-industrial movement ), who courageously hide behind the anonymity afforded them by Mars-Info while hurling ad hominem accusations. All those who are accused of « playing into the hands of » or, worse still, « colluding with » the far right, sign what they write. This is also my case. I’m being challenged as Paul Kingsnorth’s translator (it would be utopian to believe that they’ve read Lewis Mumford or Maria Mies), precisely because I sign my translations. I’d like to add that I only translate texts that I find interesting — or that my friends, also challenged here, find interesting — and/or useful in the « war of ideas » that is, or should be, our best weapon if debate were possible.

Nebulae are confusing, and this one is particularly so. I’ve tried to draw up a (non-exhaustive) list of their confusions:

• Anyone who speaks out against Islamism, which is not a religion (Islam) but a deadly ideology, becomes an Islamophobe. And « at the same time », as the Other says, they would also be accused of racism. On what basis? A mystery! Our detractors hate religions and believers, since they call anyone who admits to belonging to a church a fascist. Are they blinded by their irreducible faith in innovative Progress?
• Which brings us to the second problem, the shameless bad faith posed by this text and which is the counterpart of prudent anonymity, namely that our accusers don’t bother with evidence, accurate, untruncated and context-sensitive quotations or citations of their sources. This makes most of their bold assertions unverifiable, unless you spend your life and nights on the Internet. My friends (notably Pièces et main d’oeuvre and the folks at La Lenteur) take the trouble to scrupulously cite their sources and demonstrate their theses, because they still know how to read and don’t just « capture » shreds of thought in the Cloud. As Paul Cudenec says, our detractors pretend to be unaware of how the Internet works, where anything can be copied, plagiarized and distorted, and where anyone can appropriate a piece of content or a pseudonym.
• Speaking of this marvellous user-friendly tool, what can we say about Globenet, which wouldn’t exist without the people it hosts, and which has just fired PMO on the grounds of a text several years old whose content suddenly seemed to displease them? Or were they pressured, like La maison de l’écologie in Lyon, to ban the participation of Floraisons’ feminists? (In 2014, I witnessed the violent blocking of the debate with Alexandre Escudero).
• Another confusion: if the far right says the earth is round, should I immediately retort that it’s flat, lest I be accused of colluding with them?
• I’m a woman, and an old one at that. The cause of women is of the utmost importance to me, and in my opinion it’s inseparable from that of men. And on this subject, the confusion is at its height. The feminism to which I adhere fights against patriarchal capitalism, which invisibilizes us and denies our bodies, as well as our reproductive work, in favor of commodified productive labor. This productive work depends on the reproductive work that makes it possible. Everything that creates and/or sustains life is reproductive work. We don’t necessarily want to be relieved of them by others, by machines, or by biotechnologies. We believe that reproductive social work should be shared by all. We demand that the integrity of our bodies be respected. Biotechnology exploits and reifies us. What we refuse is to disappear, to erase ourselves and become « people with uteruses », and other silly periphrases in order not to offend the sensibilities of « trans women » and « pregnant men ». We’re not the ones writing « Death to TERFs » on the walls. And men would also do well to worry about their programmed disappearance, because with the onslaught of porn available in a few clicks from an early age, what teenage girl wants to become a woman? Perhaps that’s why he wanted to become a man. Or his rejection of sexuality. It’s a far cry from the conquests of the 1970s. And what about those « trans women » who compete unfairly in women-only sporting events? Saying that doesn’t make us anti-feminist. It’s exactly the opposite.

Of course, we can’t escape the accusation ofessentialism, the ultimate intellectual crime (make do with your dictionaries). Accuse someone of anything (preferably in the zeitgeist), throw it all over the Web. Even if the person’s supposed « guilt » is later proven wrong, there will still be something left to ruin them. Who’s using unspeakable methods here?

I personally like this quote:  » We don’t defend nature, we are nature defending itself. « Which presupposes, it seems to me, the existence of a nature.

Annie Gouilleux