<div>


<p>
  *** Thesis 1: Up until this point critiques of activism have tended to focus upon the characteristics of activists that we find reprehensible.
 </p>

<p>
  *** Thesis 2: Activism constructs a symbolic terrain of engagement in a conceptual space, one defined by a politics of complaint fused with an injunction to act against problems defined in a completely despatialized way.
 </p>

<p>
  *** Thesis 3: It is this formation that has led us to our current impasse, where attempts to transcend activism replicate the same formation but through actions of greater magnitude.
 </p>

<p>
  *** Thesis 4: To overcome the impasse is not a question of moving past complaint into other forms of symbolic action against despatialized enemies, but of defining the enemy in an immediate and material sense.
 </p>

<p>
  *** Thesis 5: To define the enemy in an immediate and material sense means moving beyond hatred or rejection into a posture of hostility, or an immediate antagonism, in this case hostility in relation to policing.
 </p>

<p>
  *** Thesis 6: This move into hostility requires a reattachment of action to the space and time of the act, the immediate and material tactical terrain formed by conflict.
 </p>

<p>
  *** Thesis 7: The reattachment of action to the immediate and material separates the question of strategy/fighting from the question of why we fight, from the terrain understood conceptually.
 </p>

<p>
  *** Thesis 8: This realignment is the move from activism to insurgency.
 </p>

<p>
  *** Thesis 9: Insurgency is not something that can be defined in itself, except as an immediate and material engagement of hostility toward an immediate enemy within a context of warfare.
 </p>


</div>