Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies Ten Years After 9/11: An Anarchist Evaluation 2011.1 Ten Years After 9/11: An Introduction Michael Truscello* This issue of Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies considers the anarchist milieu in the ten years since the attacks of September 11, 2001 (hereafter “9/11”). A host of obvious questions accompany an attempt to encapsulate an event such as 9/11 and the ten years that followed, foremost among them: Why situate 9/11 as a date of exceptional importance? Does a reﬂection of this kind merely contributeto,forexample,neoconservativeattemptstoenshrine9/11 as a propagandistic tool? Memorialization often carries reactionary politics, whether intentional or not. Themostcommonreactionsto9/11canbecategorizedbroadlyas liberal,conservative,andskeptical. Liberalstendedtoseetheattacks of9/11asblowbackforwaywardUS governmentforeignpolicysince World War II. Conservative responses accepted the narrative of the 9/11 Commission Report, and framed the attacks as an expression of a “clash of civilizations” and the touchstone of a new era in world aﬀairs. Skepticsbelievedthe9/11Commissionwastoocompromised to provide an accurate account of the event, and often called for a newinvestigation. Anarchistresponses varied, butmay besummed up by the title of punk band Leftover Crack’s 2004 album: Fuck World Trade. The title actually originated in a pre-9/11 work by Choking Victim, a continuity of political analysis, however crude, *MichaelTruscelloisanassistantprofessorinEnglishandGeneralEducationatMount RoyalUniversityinCalgary,Alberta. Hispublicationshaveappearedinjournalssuch asPostmodernCulture,CulturalCritique,Aﬃnities,TechnicalCommunicationQuarterly and TEXT Technology. He discusses the nexus of technology and post-anarchism in Post-Anarchism: A Reader (2011) from Pluto Press, YouTube and the anarchist tradition in Transgression 2.0 (forthcoming) from Continuum Press, and humor and 9/11 skepticism in A Decade of Dark Humor: How Comedy, Irony, and Satire Shaped Post-9/11 Politics (2011) from University Press of Mississippi.

10 Michael Truscello I wish to explore in more detail later. Anarchists, I argue, were amongthefewradicalswhoseanalysisofhistoryandpowerwasnot transformed, directly or indirectly, by the events of 9/11; whereas many liberals and progressives either became ﬂag-waving robots in theaftermathof9/11, or employed formsof analysis that resembled the neoconservative propaganda of the epoch.1 Below I examine examples of the latter from noted intellectuals Slavoj Žižek, Jean Baudrillard and Jacques Derrida. I do not believe these intellectuals espoused neoconservative politics; however, it is striking to note how signiﬁcant features of their analyses, especially the way they framed the importance of 9/11 and the nature of future “threats,” resembled the contours of the neoconservative propaganda of the immediate post-9/11 era. Ten Years On: The Fascist Creep Continues Of course, it is impossible to ﬁt most individual responses to the attacksintosuchnarrowcategories,andnosingleresponseto9/11by anarchists deﬁnes the radical milieu. At the very least, however, the response ofthe US government(andcapitalist statesworldwide)to 9/11diminishedthecapacityofanarchistsocialmovementsthrough a barrage of draconian laws, militarization of police forces, and re- pressive new forms of technological surveillance. The apparently reinvigorated alter-globalization movements that surfaced in Seattle in1999 only had time to catch a breath ofinsurrectionary freedom before submerging once again in the post-9/11 crackdown. While North American radical movements have had few substantial suc- cesses in the past decade, recent social uprisings in Greece, North- ern Africa and the Middle East have provided radical movements worldwide with inspirational examples of truly radical responses to oppressive conditions. The disappearing resistance to a multitude of repressive apparatuses in the post-9/11 era, especially after a failed globalanti-warprotestin2003,isevenmorenoticeableinthecontext 1Someofthemostvisibleinstancesofthisphenomenoninclude: ChristopherHitchens’ reaction to 9/11 and his support of the invasion of Iraq; would-be liberal and Editor of The New Republic Peter Beinhart’s decision to support the invasion of Iraq; liberal academic, supposed human rights champion, and failed politician MichaelIgnatief, who, transformed by 9/11, became an apologist for torture and a supporter of the invasionofIraq;andfailedcomedianDennisMiller,who,inresponseto9/11,switched from snickering liberal commentator to shrill neocon guest on Fox News.

Ten Years After 9/11: An Introduction 11 of ﬂourishing state and capitalist criminality in the past decade. Considerjustasamplingofpost-9/11realities,mostintheUnited States alone: the imperialist invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, com- bined with war crimes in countries such as Yemen, Pakistan and Libya, in a “war on terror” that has now cost well over 225,000 lives and $4 trillion, now approaching the ﬁnancial cost of World War II (Isenberg, 2011); the largest private sector theft of public money in history,anestimated$16trillion,duringtheso-calledﬁnancialcrisis of2007to2010(Webster,2011),followedbyanaggressive“austerity” pushthattargetsthepoorandpeopleofcolour;thelargestillegaldo- mesticwiretappingprograminhistory;theescalationofwidespread torture; stolen elections; the conﬁrmation by scientists that we are now living in the sixth mass extinction event in the history of the planet; the largest corporate environmental disaster in US history, the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico; an income disparity gap between richandeveryoneelseaslargeasitwasduringtheGreatDepression; thecreationofHomelandSecurity andamassivelyintegratedand technologically sophisticated police state apparatus (expertly and regularly described by Tom Burghardt at http://antifascist-calling .blogspot.com/); the ongoing mass slaughter of non-human species; health care fraud upwards of $400 billion every year, and over 50 million uninsured Americans; and the list goes on, punctuated and sustainedbystructuralracism,ableismandsexism. Andyet,atleast it seems, most Americans are still waiting to feel the cold, unforgiv- ing surface of rock bottom. September 11, 1609 Thepropagandapushthatfollowed9/11transformedmanyAmer- ican faux progressives into what NYC hip-hop artist Sage Francis called “makeshift patriots.” Even people of profoundly oppressed communitiesjoinedinthemedia-sponsoredorgyofjingoism. Under suchconditionsanarchistformsofresistancebecomemorediﬃcult to espouse publicly, and yet they are obviously as relevant as ever. I am particularly struck by the way 9/11 seemed to narrow the scope of radical possibilities, to truncate the radical imagination, even in very subtle ways. Consider, for example, the invocation of another “9/11,” the CIA- sponsoredcoupinChileinSeptember1973,inwhichamilitaryjunta replacedthedemocraticallyelectedgovernmentofSalvadorAllende.

12 Michael Truscello Certainly, a CIA-backed coup d’état is an appalling injustice, and the horrors of Augusto Pinochet are well documented. However, this example of the “other 9/11” remains an example of one form of State being replaced by a more repressive form of State. For anarchists, the “other 9/11” might be September 11, 1609, the day on which Henry Hudson sailed into the upper bay of the river that now carries his name. Hudson’s arrival marked the establishment of whateventuallybecameManhattanIsland, muchto thechagrin of its inhabitants. The hijackers who piloted into the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001 used the Hudson River as a guide for their suicidal mission. But this other 9/11, the arrival of Henry Hudson, matters,Ithink,for adiﬀerentreason. The9/11 of 1609 marked the imposition of a State on a stateless society, and the eventual nexus of early modern capitalism. The World Trade Center towers in Manhattan stood, quiteliterally, on the multilayered foundation ofthe city’scolo- nial past and sedimented legacy of social and racial inequality. With the exception of a few historic landmarks, the visible tracesof[Manhattan’s]colonialhistoryofviolentconquest,ap- propriation of Native American lands, and black slavery were buriedbeneaththecity’sinfrastructureduringtherapidconur- bationandconstructionboomsoftheIndustrialRevolutionand subsequent economic transformations. (Foote, 2004, p. 3) Hudson’s legacy,the colonial history of Manhattan, exempliﬁes thesustained,structuralformsofoppressionoftenoverlookedasour gaze moves from one modern capitalist crisis to the next. The 9/11 of Henry Hudson is notable for becoming the nexus of state-capi- talist assemblages in the early modern era, the deep time of human atrocity. Many progressives referenced US imperialism in the post- WWII era, whentryingtoﬁt9/11intoanhistoricalcontext; however, this historiography carries the potential inference that there was a golden age in which the US state was a benevolent force, instead of the recognition that all State forms have always been sources of oppression. WeshouldtalkaboutHenryHudson’s9/11instead,asa moment in the broader march of racist, statist colonialism. Thelma Wills Foote notes: During the early modern era of European expansion and the emergence of the capitalist world system, Manhattan Island

Ten Years After 9/11: An Introduction 13 became a crossroads for the articulation of the ideal and mater- ial relations of colonial domination that produced relationally constituted and diﬀerentially valued racialized subjects — for example,civilizedandsavage,colonizerandcolonized,enslaver and enslaved, black and white. (Foote, 2004, p. 7) Four hundred years later Manhattan remains a “crossroads” for global capitalism, now as the primary nexus of ﬁnance capital. The longevity of capitalism is staggering. When the Towers imploded onSeptember11,2001,theconcretizationofamurderouscolonialist legacy landed on the bedrock of modern capitalism: “in the shadow ofthetwintowersofNewYorkCity’sWorldTradeCentertheskele- tal remains of an estimated 20,000 enslaved laborers were buried undernearly25feetoflandﬁll,stretchingacrossroughlysixacresof prime Manhattan real estate” (Wills, 2004, p. 8). The ﬁrst invasionof ManhattanIsland,in1609,wasa9/11manytimesthemonstrosityof September 11, 2001, as is the case anywhere a capitalist state lands on a self-governing people: BythetimeEuropeanexplorersreachedManhattan,thatisland- peninsulahadsupportedtheself-suﬃcientlifeoftheWappinger for at least 500 years. . . When the European explorer Henry Hudson ﬁrst laid eyes on Manhattan, he did not discover a va- cantlandbutinsteadobservedawoodedlandscape,interrupted by Wappinger housing compounds, burnt clearings, cornﬁelds, canoeembarkments,andancientburialsites. (Wills,2004,p.23) The colonial invasion of what is now Manhattan Island was, of course, only part of the Native American Genocide, and only part of the wider global capitalist expansion; however, we should never forget — indeed, anarchists are among the few who continue to re- member — what the French Annales School study of history calls the longue durée, the deep time of historical structures. While pro- pagandists tried to convince us that “everything changed” on 9/11 — anabsurdconﬂationofhistoricaltime—victimsofcontinuingracist colonialismknewotherwise. So, whilethisjournalissuemarksan historical milestone of ten years since 9/11, it does so largely as a counter-narrative to the inevitable onslaught of jingoistic prattle that will accompany the anniversary.

14 Michael Truscello The Forgetful Memory of 9/11 Thepopularslogan“Wewillneverforget,”whichwaswrittenand repeated all over the United States in the wake of 9/11, was typical of the ways in which 9/11 was overdetermined by cultural excesses both progressive and propagandist, popular and idiosyncratic. Ob- viously, forgetting takes place. Maybe more important with regard to 9/11, who is this “we” in the popular sentiment? And will 9/11 be remembered in the same way by each of “us”? The other 9/11, HenryHudson’sarrival,hasbeenforgottenbymost,andevenwhen remembered it serves a variety of purposes in the present. In terms ofcommemoratingthe9/11of2001,however,Iwouldaddathirdcat- egory: thatwhichwasneverremembered,letalonerememberedand then forgotten, and which continues to haunt the retrieved knowl- edge. MichaelBernard-Donalscallsthis“forgetfulmemory”: “Rather than see the relation between history and memory as that between whathappenedandwhatcanberetrievedofthoseevents,weshould see it as a relation between what has been retrieved and what is lost to that retrieval and yet which haunts it incessantly” (Bernard-Don- als, 2009, p. 161). Forgetful memory is akin to Blanchot’s disaster: “forgetfulness without memory, the motionless retreat of what has not been treated — the immemorial, perhaps” (quoted in Bernard- Donals, 2009, p. 161). 9/11 has often been treated as an event not subject to forgetful memory, not susceptible to that which is lost but continues to haunt, largely because, as we are so often told, it was the most recorded event in history. Not only was it ﬁlmed by news videographers and amateurs with cell phone cameras, it was also archived on the Internet for repeated retrieval. The apparent omnipresenceofrecordingtechnologyandavailabilityofthataudio- visualrecordonlinehasmagniﬁedtheontologicalcleavagebetween the certainty with which some people ascribe to the oﬃcial narra- tive of 9/11 and the certainty with which others invoke alternative scenarios or broadly deﬁned skepticism (often dismissively referred to as “conspiracy theories”). Thereisnowe,andthememoriesof9/11arehauntedbyanomaly. Maybe these haunted echoes of ambiguity, once collected into a nar- rativecoherence,resemblethetalltalesofconspiracytheorizing,but, then, maybe the epistemological problem lies in the narrativization of these echoes and not the echoes themselves? And yet, still more troubling in my view, forms of 9/11 skepticism that do not — be-

Ten Years After 9/11: An Introduction 15 cause they cannot — provide coherent alternative scenarios stitched from the strands of an oﬃcial story that unravels here and there are tossed aside as epistemologically illegitimate. We are not allowed to be agnostic in the post-9/11 era. And so we are haunted by 9/11, but not always because of what happened, and not because of the history told based on what happened, but because of the excess of theevent. AccordingtoBernard-DonalsinhisLevinasianaccount oftheevent,“theoccurrenceofeventsbeginsinterminablytorecede intoaninaccessiblepastattheverymomentofoccurrence,whilethe event’s passage into language — into any knowledge that we might formulateofthe occurrence — makesof theoccurrencesomething (narrative, testimony, history) other than the event” (2009, p. 3). Unlikemostevents, 9/11, thoughit isamassively complexassem- blage of social ﬁelds, was framed by the voices of the State from the beginningas an eventthatwas both accessible and known. Before any investigation took place, before journalists had time to collect testimonies, before oral histories were released to the public, before a civilian trial of suspects was a possibility, President Bush stood beforetheUnitedNationsonNovember10,2001andwarned,“Letus nevertolerateoutrageousconspiracytheoriesconcerningtheattacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty” (Bush, 2001). In fact, television commentators were assigning blame for the attacks before the fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania. Within days of 9/11, various neoconservative pundits took to the airwaves alleging Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Within weeks they said Iraq was responsible for the anthrax attacks, too. Years later, we found out the anthrax attacks came from within the US military-industrial complex. Žižek, Baudrillard, Derrida: Closet Neocons? Academics sought and replicated the responses to 9/11 from cele- bratedintellectualssuchasSlavojŽižek,JeanBaudrillardandJacques Derrida. Žižek characterized “the collapse of the WTC towers as the climactic conclusion of twentieth-century art’s ‘passion for the Real’ — the ‘terrorists’ themselves did not do it primarily to provoke real material damage, but for the spectacular eﬀect of it” (Žižek, 2002,

16 Michael Truscello p. 11).2 In essence, he argued, the spectacle of 9/11 “shattered our reality,” or at least “the symbolic coordinates” that structure reality for us (p. 16). However, the focus of Žižek’s essay, in keeping with a discussion in continental philosophy of the previous decade, is whether 9/11 constitutes an “event”: What if, precisely, nothing epochal happened on September 11? What if — as the massive display of American patriotism seemstodemonstrate—theshatteringexperienceofSeptember 11 ultimately served as a device which enabled the hegemonic American ideology to ‘go back to its basics’, to reassert its ba- sic ideological co-ordinates against the antiglobalist and other critical temptations? (pp. 46–47) Tenyearslater,wecansaywithconﬁdencethatindeedthisiswhat happened: whatever actually happened that day, andespeciallyin light of the US government’s response, 9/11 was not an historical break, but rather a continuation and escalation of the same legacy that put thousands of slave corpses under the shadow of the Twin Towers. Thus,Žižek’sassessmentof9/11managestoframetheevent as both a “climactic conclusion” and a deadly continuation. The same apparent paradox surfaces in Baudrillard and Derrida. Žižek alsospeculatesthatthefuture“issomethingmuchmoreuncanny” than the spectacular airborne assault of 9/11: “the spectre of an ‘immaterial’ war where the attack is invisible — viruses, poisons whichcanbeanywhereandnowhere”(pp.36–37). Thisprojectionis congruent with the neoconservative propaganda of the immediate post-9/11 era, ﬁlled with nightmares of bioterrorism and invisible armies that constitute an “existential threat.” This aspect of Žižek’s analysis is also visible in Baudrillard and Derrida. Jean Baudrillard was less equivocal about the eventness of 9/11: 2Žižek ascribes an intention to the attacks of 9/11, even though when he published theseremarksnoonehadtakencreditfortheattacksorarticulatedanintention. Žižek later acknowledges this fact:“. . .not only are ‘terrorists’ themselves no longer eager to claim responsibility for their acts (even the notorious al-Qaeda did not explicitly appropriate the September 11 attacks, not to mention the mystery about the origins of the anthrax letters); ‘antiterrorist’ state measures themselves are clouded in a shroud of secrecy. . .” (p. 37). It is curious how many critics of the capitalist state were untroubled by the absence of anyone taking credit for the attacks — indeed, Bin Laden actually stated three times he had nothing to do with 9/11 — and how quickly thesecriticsassumedtheUS government’snarrativetobetrueenoughtoproceedwith lengthy dissertations on the subject of 9/11.

Ten Years After 9/11: An Introduction 17 9/11, he wrote, might be “the absolute event, the ‘mother’ of all events, the pure event uniting within itself all the events that have nevertakenplace”(Baudrillard, 2003, pp. 3–4). “Thewholeplayof history and power is disrupted by this event,” he continued, “but so, too, are the conditions of analysis” (p. 4). And similar to Žižek’s proclamation that “American got what it fantasized about” (Žižek, 2002, p. 16), Baudrillard argued that “we can say that they did it, but we wished for it” (Baudrillard, 2003, p. 5). Both celebrated intellectu- als posited that an attack on the order of 9/11 was inevitable for a systemofsuchglobalizeddominance. “Terrorism,”wroteBaudrillard, “is the act that restores an irreducible singularity to the heart of a system of generalized exchange” (p. 9). The “spirit of terrorism,” for Baudrillard, lies in the “symbolic and sacriﬁcial” death (on 9/11); “that is to say, the absolute, irrevocable event” (Baudrillard, 2003, pp. 16–17). This “sacriﬁcial” suicide has “resuscitated both images and events” (p. 27). OneproblemwithBaudrillard’sassessmentof9/11ishisrepeated insistence that 9/11 was a “unique and unforeseeable event,” which “corresponded to a precedence of the event over all interpretative models” (p. 34). He calls the “collapse” of the World Trade Center towers“unimaginable”(p. 28). These assessmentsarecategorically false, since multiple news sources and a host of government reports showthattheeventsof9/11wereanticipatedandevenwargamedby the US military (Floum, 2011). Substantial evidence exists to suggest multiple intelligence agencies, investors, and elements of the US governmenthadsomekindofforeknowledgeofthe9/11attacks(see my contribution to this issue). Baudrillard’s characterization of 9/11 thus mimics a form of neoconservative propaganda (that 9/11 could not have been anticipated or prevented, that it changed everything, etc.). It is interesting to observe with the hindsight of a decade how notable intellectuals such as Baudrillard treated skepticism of the oﬃcial 9/11 narrative in the immediate aftermath of the event. Bau- drillard writes, playfully, “[a] small step, then, to imagine that if terrorismdidnotexist,thesystemwouldhaveinventedit. Andwhy not, then, see the September 11 attacks as a CIA stunt?” (pp. 53–54). He actually gives considerable space to this hypothesis, but not to legitimizeit. Hecallsthe theoriesof“an internalterroristplot”the “most eccentric,” a “thesis so unreal that it deserves to be taken into account, just as every exceptional event deserves to be doubted: we always have in us a demand for both a radical event and for a total

18 Michael Truscello deception” (p. 77). Baudrillard does not discount these theories so muchashedeclarestheminconsequential: “Ifitweretoturnoutthat such a mystiﬁcation were possible, if the event were entirely faked up. . . Evenifallthiswerethedoingofsomecliqueofextremistsor military men, it would still be the sign (as in the Oklahoma bomb- ing) of a self-destructive internal violence, of a society’s obscure predisposition to contribute to its own doom. . .” (pp. 78–79). “The conspiracy theory,” he concludes, “merely adds a somewhat burlesque episode to this situation of mental destabilization. Hence theurgentneedtocombatthiscreepingnegationismand,atallcosts, safeguard a reality that is now kept alive on a drip” (p. 81). From wherever the attacks originated, Baudrillard assumes, the symbolic signiﬁcance would be the same: proof of a global system wishingforitsown demise. Thisisa dubiousconclusion. Ifitwere revealed that the 9/11 attacks were inspired or aided by elements within the US government or intelligence factions among its allies, for example, this would have a devastating impact on the existing mythology of American patriotism. The eﬀect of his statements on the academic Left, then, is to legitimize the absence of their con- cern for ambiguities, omissions, and demonstrable lies in the oﬃcial 9/11 narrative. Baudrillard contributed to a form of quietism that enveloped the topic of “9/11” immediately after it occurred, even if much of his analysis of the event remains valid. Jacques Derrida also debated whether 9/11 constituted “an event,” anevent“thattrulymarks,thattrulymakesitsmark,asingularand, astheysayhere[inNewYorkCity],‘unprecedented’event”(Derrida, 2003, p. 86). “A major event,” he wrote, “should be so unforeseeable and irruptive that it disturbs even the horizon of the concept or essence on the basis of which we believe we recognize an event as such,” a concept very similar to Baudrillard’s contention that 9/11 changedthegroundsofanalysis(p.90). Onthiscriterion,onceagain, 9/11 is not an event, because it was foreseeable, it was imaginable, by many. Derrida’s conclusion, however, resists the certainty of Baudrillard: Werewetoacceptthisminimaldeﬁnitionoftheevent,minimal but double and paradoxical, could we aﬃrm that “September 11” constituted an event without precedent? An unforeseeable event? A singular event through and through? Nothing is less certain. (Derrida, 2003, p. 91)

Ten Years After 9/11: An Introduction 19 Derrida argues, “what is terrible about ‘September 11,’ what re- mains ‘inﬁnite’ in this wound, is that we do not know what it is and so do not know how to describe, identify, or even name it” (p. 94). German sociologist Ulrich Beck concluded the same thing in 2002: “No one has yet oﬀered a satisfying answer to the simple question of what really happened [on 9/11]” (p. 39). We ritually repeat the moniker “9/11,” but it only acts as a placeholder for this thing we have yet to understand. Despite this clear statement of uncertainty, however, Derrida then proceeds to develop an elaborate theory of the meaning of 9/11. DerridaconvergeswithŽižekandBaudrillardwhenheintroduces the concept of “autoimmunitary process,” or a “strange behavior where a living being, in a quasi-suicidal fashion, ‘itself’ works to destroyitsownprotection,to immunizeitselfagainst its‘own’im- munity” (p. 94). All three celebrated intellectuals, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, declared the attacks and the US government re- sponse a kind of internalized sabotage of America, of Empire. That is, the topography of their collective responses to 9/11 reveals a conceptualization homologous with the liberal narrative of “blow- back,” with the basic sentiment that America got what it deserved, and, worse, that America got what it desired. Byreducingtheattackstoapsychoanalytictrope(Derrida’s“quasi- suicidal” process, Žižek’s fantasy, or Baudrillard’s “wish”), these in- tellectuals could both have something to say about 9/11, and admit that not enough is known about 9/11 to say something about it. It is worth recalling that even the compromised 9/11 Commission did not publish its report until 2004. The intellectuals in question were developing their grand pronouncements about 9/11 based on a nar- rative released by the US government/military almost immediately following the attacks. The intervening years have revealed signiﬁ- cant holes in that account. My point here is not to aﬃrm every so-called conspiracy theory around, but instead to direct our atten- tionandconsideration to the immediateaftermathof 9/11 and the forms of analysis it produced (from,in this case, prominent public intellectuals who are expected to remain above the fray enough to provide a perspective of the event not informed by the same rush to judgment exhibited by, for example, the US government, which invaded Afghanistan not even one month after 9/11). Like Žižek and Baudrillard, Derrida also (perhaps unconsciously) inscribes the neocon vision of the future as a world deﬁned by invis- ible threats. According to Derrida, however, the future threat is a

20 Michael Truscello product of a trauma to come: “We are talking about a trauma, and thus an event, whose temporality proceeds neither from the now that is present nor from the present that is past but from an im-pre- sentable to come (à venir)” (p. 97). At times, Derrida sounds like a French Donald Rumsfeld being poorly translated: “Traumatism is produced by the future, by the to come, by the threat of the worst to come, rather than by an aggression that is ‘over and done with’” (p. 97). As with the other noted intellectuals, Derrida appears to invoke the preferred neocon fear fable of the “existential threat”: . . .what is thus put at risk by this terrifying autoimmunitary logic is nothing less than the existence of the world, of the worldwideitself. Thereisnolongeranylimittothisthreatthat atoncelooksforitsantecedentsoritsresourcesinthelonghis- toryoftheColdWarandyetappearsinﬁnitelymoredangerous, frightening, terrifying than the Cold War. (pp. 98–99) In other words, the trauma of this event is a product of the future, and it is a future that “bears on its body the terrible sign of what might or perhaps will take place, which will be worse than anything that has ever taken place” (p. 97; italics in original). But 9/11 only appeared that way — only appeared to anticipate an unimaginable catastrophe—tothegeneralAmericanpublicbecauseofacorporate media hell-bent for war, a corporate oligarchy hell-bent for oil, a mediaspectaclethatincludedaninterruptionofscheduledtelevision programming for weeks, a series of anthrax attacks that, we now know, came from within the US military-industrial complex, and centuries of racist colonial narratives that prepared the American public for yet another war against non-white people. Derrida,likeŽižekandBaudrillard,wasrespondingtotheclimate of fear and jingoism in America immediately following 9/11, and he, like most on the Left, did not have either the capacity or the couragetoarticulateanarrativeotherthantheonemostliberalswere developing at the time, and this narrative was largely sympathetic to nationalist mythology (and continued to be for years, as liberals arguedovertherightcountrytoinvade—Afghanistan,theysaid,not Iraq,insteadofneither),evenifinthedetailsthisnarrativeappeared to confront nationalist mythology. By conceding that 9/11 was an unimaginableeventortheendofanera, andbyconceptualizingthe future as an unfolding of invisible menace, these intellectuals and broad portions of the Left conceded the imaginary ground on which

Ten Years After 9/11: An Introduction 21 the neoconservative faction created its world of “existential” threats and “noble” lies. Once the grand narrative of the post-9/11 era (yes, eventheterm“post-9/11era”)wasconstructedinthehoursafterthe Twin Towers were attacked, even the most erudite commentators found themselves tracing its ideological contours. The Post-9/11 Revolutionary Process It is diﬃcult to produce a critique of State forms when the State form resides so deep within our being, and I certainly do not mean to castigate the great minds of Žižek, Baudrillard, and Derrida for whatIthinkwasalapseinanalysisquitecommonacrosstheLeftin the immediateaftermathof9/11. Deleuze and Guattari understood thisinternalizedenemyasakindofmicrofascism,a“cancerousbody rather than a totalitarian organism” (Deleuze and Guattari, 2004, p. 236). Baudrillard, similarly, recognized “terror” as something “al- readypresenteverywhere,ininstitutionalviolence,bothmentaland physical, in homeopathic doses” (Baudrillard, 2002, p. 59), a very anarchisticsentimentforsure. Eventhoughthe“post-9/11”moment has passed and the era was successfully deﬁned by the most ran- corous of ideologues, perhaps a reﬂection such as this journal issue canoﬀeruscontemplationsuitableforconditioningtheinternalized forms of State terror that each of us must confront. ContemporaryAmericaexistswithinthemostcomprehensiveand sophisticatedpropagandamatrixinhumanhistory,whichmakesthe intellectual cancersof psychological warfare, public relations, adver- tising and State propaganda more diﬃcult to detect, and certainly more diﬃcult to confront. As the Tikkun collective describes the current situation: Historical conﬂict no longer opposes two massive molar heaps, two classes — the exploited and the exploiters, the dominant andthedominated, managersandworkers—amongwhich,in eachindividualcase,onecoulddiﬀerentiate. Thefrontlineno longer cuts through the middle of society; it now runs through the middle of each of us, between what makes us a citizen, our predicates, and all the rest. It is thus in each of us that war is being waged between imperial socialization and that which already eludes it. A revolutionary process can be set in motion from any point of the biopolitical fabric, from any singular

22 Michael Truscello situation, by exposing, even breaking, the line of ﬂight that traverses. (Tikkun, 2011, pp. 12–13) In that context, the purpose of this issue — which reﬂects on events and ideas of the past decade such as torture and the law, the Green Scare, State terrorism, and race and labour radicalization — is to expose those lines of ﬂight that may in some way be traced to September 11, 2001, but in no way should end there. Ifthereisareasontohavehopeinthepost-9/11era,itisbecauseof thewidespreadrecognition,articulatedbyDavidGraeberandothers, that the revolutionary processes that exist are informed primarily by anarchist principles. In addition, the study of anarchist history and theory is enjoying a rebirth (see recent anthologies such as: Amster et al., 2009; Jun and Wahl, 2009; Rousselle and Evren, 2011). The acceleration of fascist creep that followed the events of 9/11 createdanewgenerationof anarchists, aphenomenonakin to the “Foucault paradox,” in which hegemonic and counter-hegemonic discourses emerge simultaneously and in reciprocal relation to each other (Lyon, 1993, p. 672). While anarchists are right to be gripped byasenseofurgencyinthe current crisisofcapitalism, they should also remember that this is a crisis centuries in the making.

Ten Years After 9/11: An Introduction 23 References Amster,R., DeLeon, A., Fernandez,L.A., Nocella, A.J., and D.Shan- non, eds. Contemporary Anarchist Studies: An Introductory Anthol- ogy of Anarchy in the Academy. New York: Routledge, 2009. Baudrillard, J. The Spirit of Terrorism: New Edition. Chris Turner, trans. New York: Verso Press USA, 2003. Beck, U. “The terroristthreat: World risksocietyrevisited.”Theory, Culture & Society, 19.4 (2002): 39–55. Bernard-Donals, M. Forgetful Memory: Representation and Remem- brance in the Wake of the Holocaust. New York: SUNY Press, 2009. Bush, George W. “Statement by H.E. Mr. George W. Bush at the 56th Session of the United Nations General Assembly.” Novem- ber10, 2001. Availableonline: http://www.un.org/webcast/ga/56 /statements/011110usaE.htm. Deleuze, G. and F. Guattari. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004. Derrida,J.PhilosophyinaTimeofTerror: DialogueswithJürgenHaber- mas and Jacques Derrida. G. Borradori, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Floum,A.“AlQaedaFlyingPlanesIntoTheWorldTradeCenterand Pentagon Was Foreseeable.” George Washington’s Blog, June 15, 2011. Available online: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011 /06/al-qaeda-ﬂying-planes-into-world-trade.html. Foote, T.W. Black and White Manhattan: The History of Racial Forma- tion in Colonial New York City. Oxford UP, 2004. Isenberg, D. “225,000 Dead and $4 Trillion Spent on Iraq and Afghanistan — That’s Now the Conservative Estimate.” Alternet, July 19, 2011. Available online: http://www.alternet.org/story /151706/. Jun, N., and S. Wahl, eds. New Perspectives on Anarchism. Indiana: Lexington Books, 2009. Lyon, D. “An Electronic Panopticon? A Sociological Critique of Surveillance Theory.” The Sociological Review (1993): 653–78. Rousselle, D., and S. Evren, eds. Post-Anarchism: A Reader. London: Pluto Press, 2011.

24 Michael Truscello Webster, S. “Audit: Fed gave $16 trillion inemergencyloans.” Raw- Story,July 21, 2011. Availableonline: http://www.rawstory.com /rs/2011/07/21/audit-fed-gave-16-trillion-in-emergency-loans/. Žižek, S. Welcome to the Desert of the Real. New York: Verso Press USA, 2002.