The pamphlet was a bit long-winded. It was written by one of these anarchist types who want to prove that they could be university professors if they felt like it. He is imagining a cadre of university professors tearing his bullshit pamphlet up, and he wants to make sure that whatever grounds they have for tearing it up, it will damned well not be because the thing isn’t smart and awesomely argued on their terms. Which is worse than nonsense. If it is a pamphlet about anarchism or setting fires it should be practical.
I will give you a breakdown of some of the material.
The pamphlet had an introduction. The introduction said that all over the United States, the lower class is fed up with being used. Okay.
Next, it said that the response to that is: people forming groups, syndicates, with the intention of burning down property. What cannot be shared should be destroyed. That’s what he says. The organization of these groups varies from place to place, but it really doesn’t matter how the organization is handled, or even if there is any, because the whole thing is just people burning things, so you don’t need an organization in the first place.
As far as I can tell, the clubs are just there to be clubs, same as any club ever. You get to be around like-minded people and have a nice time.
Then he gets into how even children are joining in to this mayhem, and there are Arson Clubs in high schools. He quotes the record of one boy who was in elementary school. Apparently he burned down a train station in Ohio.
I found some of this doubtful, because I had never heard of any of it, and wouldn’t I have? But then he addresses that, too, by saying much of it is suppressed.
So, that’s the introduction. The first chapter is a history of arson, and talks about how it is mostly on the record in terms of insurance. People burn things to get money for the things that were burned. Then they pretend there was more there than was there and get money for the things that weren’t even there to begin with! He talks about how people even existed once called insurance adjusters who would flock to burning buildings (in the 1920s) to offer their services. They would interact with the insurance company for you and juice up your claim, and for that they would take a percentage. Talk about living off your wits—what creeps. Not that it matters to take money from insurance companies.
The next chapter is about the ethics of arson. It points out that arson is a crime for which you can be murdered by the state. Or executed, as they like to put it. You burn something big down and if someone is inside and they die then you die. I think that is the logic.
In the past people who wanted to destroy property, like the Weathermen, for instance, tried to make sure no one was there. This is a kind of ethical version. The new way, he says, is a new ethic. What is it?
It is: the manner of exertion of the will of the ruling class is such that they do not appear responsible for the vast cruelties they inflict. Each wealthy person can cruise about seemingly innocent, despite in fact being a linchpin in a system that demoralizes and brutalizes the majority of living people. Yet when someone battles back, that person acts as part of a small machinery—the machinery of his/ her individual action—and thus appears guilty. The rich, on the basis of their larger machinery of violent action, can disconnect themselves from the violence of their class warfare. The poor cannot—since they must be their own mechanisms for action.
On the basis of this, he says, we need a new morality. That morality is, if you are a person who owns a great number of things, if you are a person who uses the reins of power to manipulate others, then you forfeit your right to be treated like a person (that is, you are intrinsically connected to the murder you have impersonally done—and will be treated the way the state treats murderers).
There will be two classes of people: those who act in a small, meager way, or a small, meager, compassionate way, and those who live off them. The latter do not get to have the consideration that has historically been afforded to human beings under human moral law.
The crucial thing about this morality is that it enables poor people to more easily burn the machinery of the rich—as they don’t have to worry about the rich people being inside the buildings that they burn. That in turn makes it safer for the poor to strike back, as they don’t have to adopt extravagant measures of safety.
There is a section about arson in which you intend to not be caught, and then there is a section about arson in which you do intend to be caught. Why would you want to be caught? He says this is one of the best ways to broadcast our methods and our rationale to other people, although presumably the media will prevent such a thing from happening, for the most part.
PAMPHLET two
I thought about this, and about the pamphlet that I would write. Mine would be more like:
HOW TO SET A FIRE AND WHY
And it would say all kinds of wonderful stuff about the joys of setting fires. There is definitely a lot to say about that. It would also present a more compelling moral argument. I think I could do that. Maybe there would even be inspiring verses about setting fires that people could memorize. If the technique parts—how to set a fire—were in verse, then people could memorize them more easily, and then they wouldn’t forget, even under duress!
I made a note to work on my own fire pamphlet, since I found this one to be lacking. Still, there was plenty in it that I didn’t know.
PAMPHLET three
The pamphlet got to the good part eventually, which was a breakdown of methods.
As I mentioned, those methods could be divided into two categories, concealed methods and bald methods. The concealed methods attempt to use only things that are present in the place of conflagration in order to burn the place of conflagration. That way no one can say how it happened. The bald methods use other materials in order to ensure a successful fire (it is by no means easy to set fire to a building). Those materials will often be discovered after the fact, and the arson will be discovered.
Having arson discovered is not so bad for us. We, the arsonists, are not trying to get money from insurance companies. In fact, the more arson that is discovered, the more we can feel the growth of our fraternity (this is what he says).
I say he, but really the pamphlet could as easily have been written by a woman. Certainly, the name on it is a man’s name. But, a woman could well choose to write the pamphlet under a pseudonym. I’m sure men would prefer to read an arson pamphlet by a man.
Anyway, I am fed up with telling you about this arson pamphlet. I will just stick in my own pamphlet a bit later on. You have that to look forward to.
INVITATION
When I got home from my expedition, my aunt said that someone had called for me. I prefer to be the one to answer calls like that, because then it seems like I have an actual phone, rather than a home telephone. I think my aunt is the only person in the world who still has a home telephone. Anyway—Lana called to invite me to a party. My aunt said she was real cordial on the phone. I said, Lana is a vicious slut. My aunt said she would never have known.