FANTOMAS & THE ART OF TERROR

DISCLAIMER: The purpose of the following essay is not to encourage anyone to go out and commit illegal activities. The author takes no responsibility for the actions of others or how they interpret the following work. It was written from an objective point of view and takes on the arguments of the 'radical fringe' in order to fill out the dialectical equation that a 'War on Terror' has forced upon us. Given that such a war is even possible requires that there be those who are on the side of said terror. This essay goes on this assumption even though it is in the view of the author that such a division is a con designed by the power elite to create an illusion of conflict to divert from the fact that they are consolidating their power to such an extent to make any of us not afraid of our own freedom to worry greatly. It has long been part of the early American (read New England) political tradition that revolt is always an option when dealing with a tyrannous government, in fact the legitimacy of our republic depends on it. As Thomas Jefferson once said:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

“Fantomas.”
“What did you say?”
“I said: Fantomas”
“And what does that mean?”
“Nothing...Everything”
“But what is it?”
“Nobody...and yet, yes, it is somebody.”
“And what does the somebody do?”
“Spreads terror!"

So starts the first chapter of Marcel Allain and Pierre Souvestre’s literary creation: Fantomas. Published originally as a series of 32 novels starting in 1911, Fantomas tells the story of a super villain who terrorizes the French bourgeoisie during the early years of the 20th century. He is always pursued by Inspector Juve, the wily detective obsessed with his capture. The reason for his terror is unknown but it can be generally assumed by the randomness and skill involved in his violence that he is into crime for its own sake, in other words: terreur pour la terreur. What makes Fantomas unique from other penny-dreadfuls and detective thrillers of the time, all examples of low/proletarian culture, mind you, is the total elusiveness of the villain to face judgment by the law. Also, his identity in never revealed, as when he is described in the novel it is always later revealed that to be the identity of one of his recent victims whom he has also impersonated. In this sense, Fantomas takes on a supra-individual character. This why the paradox of being nothing and everything, nobody and somebody given at the beginning of the novel best describes his character. He has no base personality, one which he reverts to when he is not impersonating someone, he can only be discerned by his actions. These actions all being acts of skilled, seemingly random, creative yet brutal violence. In my essay The Terror Norm, I pointed out how the role of the terrorist is very much synonymous with that of the artist, this idea originating in Karlheinz Stockhausen’s comments on 9.11. Using this idea, we can see how Fantomas is a practitioner of the art of terror, also known as terrorism, thus he is terrorism personified. But his terrorism is not the terrorism of today, the terror of Hamas or Amerika, Al Qaeda or Israel. There are no rational, ideological justifications for Fantomas’ crimes. His actions remain totally void of any reasonable, sane or otherwise legitimate explanation, they are totally stripped of any metaphysical spooks that might clarify them and so one is left with a pure state of carnage and violence. Therefore Fantomas is the purest terrorist, for the effectiveness of terrorism lies in its ability to frighten the victim into a state where they can no longer function to protect themselves but just stare into the spectacle of their own demise. Any explanation for the terror at hand would only seek to diminish its effectiveness, for as anyone knows the unknown is what lies behind the facade of fear. Explanation, legitimation, and reason all seek to combat this power that the unknown holds in the state of fear, for once it is known (i.e. legitimized, entered into the language of reason) it follows the rules of rational discourse and its strengths and weaknesses become exposed within this certain framework, the framework of the known or legitimized. When we compare the fictional terror of Fantomas with the actual terror of certain terrorist groups we see why Fantomas’ method is more successful.

The golden era of terrorism against the bourgeoisie, the state and the system began sometime in the early 1960s when various extreme leftist groups from around the world, Japanese Red Army, Baader-Meinhof and Action Directe for example, as well some on the right (Armed Revolutionary Nuclei) took up arms and the organizational structure of autonomous cells. This coincided with the publishing of Carlos Marighella’s Minimanual of the Urban Guerrilla as well as the Cuban revolution which was brought about by way of a foco, or small band of armed guerrillas. The tactic of these revolutionary groups was to create terror by way of bombings, assassinations and kidnappings. Targets were sometimes very precise, like the assassination of Aldo Moro by the Red Brigades, but often discriminate, for example, the Japanese Red Army’s spree killings in Lod Airport. Sometimes specific members of the military industrial state were targets and other times it was the infrastructure of the system, this being exemplified by the Red Army Faction’s burning of a department store. Like Fantomas, the acts were carried out to spread terror among the bourgeoisie and their representatives in government. The attacks were designed to give the impression as coming from anywhere. A terrorist attack is never predicted, it just happens, out of the mundane comes sudden terror. The perpetrators of these attacks obviously wanted to remain hidden from the public eye so they adopted the persona of the urban guerrilla cell, which was somewhere between a small band of revolutionaries and a secret society that dispensed justice to those whom they viewed broke certain laws, much like a modern Holy Vehm. The actual size of the groups was always uncertain and cause for media speculation. The groups in question would always want to let on that their numbers were much higher than was true. The working class public, who while not participators in the violence were often called upon to do so by the more explicitly communist of these groupings, the Red Brigades in particular. If not actually called upon to participate in the terror, it was alleged by these groups that the terror was being perpetrated on their behalf. Therefore the terror was not against the actual public, though it often took on that form. With this we actually get the idea of liberation through terror. While these groups believed they were waging a war with the state, they did not wish for it to escalate to the level of a modern war between nations. They knew that they were greatly outnumbered for that to work. Therefore they wished to wage a secret war, or a war on an esoteric plane. In other words, war behind the guise of peacetime, as opposed to wartime when the whole nation is involved. In the Cuban Revolution, the rebels had the hills of the Sierra Maestra to hide and organize attacks, they had a place that was free from the constraints of the Batista regime. The modern terrorist groups don’t have this, so the individuals involved have to adopt two different personas within society: one is the average law abiding citizen, the other the insurrectionary. This is very similar to Fantomas’ adoption of identities. This war that the terrorists were waging was, as previously mentioned, during peacetime, or normal public life by most standards. In other words, ‘everyday life.’ This war is waged on an unseen level, for the most part, which is only seen through the eyes of the media outlets with stories of attacks and arrests. The perpetrators seen on television are not known to the general public and there is no easy way of identifying them as members of these shadowy terrorist groups supposedly responsible for certain acts of violence. This secret war is waged on a plane above the public. Despite the lip service paid to the masses, they are the last ones involved in this phenomenon. Instead we have the state battling the terrorists, who are identified more by bombings, assassinations and a shadowy group persona than any concrete personality as say a leader of nation would be in a war between nation states. In this sense, the role of the terrorist in relation to the public is either like a secret society or a group of individuals who have taken it upon themselves to separate from the herd of conforming masses and wage a secret war against the state. With the latter we have the presupposition that the individuals in question posses a morality that is either higher or at least on par with that of the state to be able to pass judgment on them and kill their members. This is the origin of the Holy Vehm comparison made earlier.

The persona of the terrorist is group is very important when analyzing this phenomenon.The persona of the terrorist is group is very important when analyzing this phenomenon. Though the terrorist persona is always a group persona, it always speaks as if it were an individual. In other words a collective individual. When the first attacks of a terrorist group occur, very little is known about the group responsible and the greatest terror is being utilized. On 9.11 what terrified people most about the act who werenÂ’t witness to the actual act and only saw it via a televised medium was the fact that the perpetrators were unknown. Once more facts were brought in as to who was responsible for the situation, the threat became less threatening. Now Al Qaeda is at best a ubiquitous soundbite used by the media to get viewers. This is where the superiority of Fantomas’ methodology lies when compared with that of the modern terrorist group. The terrorist act is an irrational act. It upsets the daily monotony of everyday life in a democratic capitalist society, which is, by its own definition, a rational society. This irrationality, the randomness, the senselessness of a terrorist act is what gives it its power. The terrorist group follows this and so in this respect is in the tradition of Fantomas. Where the terrorist group differs is in the use of a communique. This is also where the terrorist group begins its road towards fatalism.

The terrorists hold the power of fear over their enemies, in this case the bourgeoisie, by the random irrationality of violence. With the communiqu, the terrorist is explaining the violence, giving it reason. This is to destroy the power of terrorizing violence. It also works to legitimize itself in the discourse of its enemies: modern bourgeois rational society. Fantomas does not try to explain his actions. From what the reader can gather from them is that he is motivated by self interest, simply by the fact that he also steals money and jewels, but this still doesn’t tell much of anything other than he is human. After all, who isn’t motivated by self interest? In this sense, Fantomas is an egoist, more Max Stirner than Mao. Above all causes, motivated only by self interest. Fantomas maintains the irrationality of terror and thus he epitomizes the power of terror. The terrorist group uses the communiqu to explain its actions to the bourgeoisie, as if to return the explanation their enemy gave them. To define yourself, describe your reasons for waging war in the language of your enemy is to commit suicide. For one, this gives a sense as to the demographics of the group involved in the assumed terror. The state has been infiltrating the radical fringes for years to understand the workings of the methodologies and ideologies of potential revolutionaries. Groups like the ADL and the SPLC actively aim to identify certain groups as ‘extremist’ to have them branded as such in public discourse. Both previously mentioned organizations consider groups as disparate as black nationalists, white separatists and anarchists as ‘extremist.’ They also publicize the language and symbols of these groups in an effort to create the illusion of decoding their supposed esoteric and sinister purpose. Many terrorism research centers are not so subtle government agencies which seek to publicize the demographics of these radical fringes prone to terrorism. Whenever the communiqué of a terrorist group is released, the language, symbols and craft associated with it are all fodder for extreme scrutiny by the state. By identifying itself by a cause or causes, the terrorist group is giving up much of its anonymity. Leftist projects are usually student oriented or somehow related to radical academia, while rightist projects are generally more lower class. While there are always exceptions to these rules, the fact remains that the state has pulled one over on the radical fringe by staying ahead of its game. Any communication with the enemy in a secret war, which is waged on an esoteric and media plane, is a defeat for the one wishing to remain anonymous or behind the radar. The state holds a monopoly on both these planes, it remains all encompassing in consensus reality with all the facets of modern society but it also maintains itself behind the scenes with its espionage and secret actions. There are very, very few people in this world who could actively tell any one of us what really goes on behind the corridors of the power elite to its fullest extent. To do so almost seems impossible when considering the actual ubiquity of the state. Therefore the state should not know anything about its enemy. There is also the phenomenon of state agents conducting terrorist actions during these secret wars in an attempt to discredit the purpose of the terrorist group. This has been well documented, especially in the case of the ‘strategy of tension’ during of the Years of Lead in 1970s Italy. There also exists debriefed CIA documents which detail plans for state sponsored terrorism, which included hijacking planes, in order to drum up support for an attack on Cuba. This was known as Operation Northwoods. By doing this, the state disrupts the ‘point’ of the terror of the terrorist group. They can disprove their communiqués or, even better, ignore them since they rely on the media to disseminate them. What this tells us is that the strategy of justifying terror through discourse is a losing battle. Reasonable discourse with its need for definition is part in parcel with the rules of the system. This is why the irrationality of Fantomas succeeds. Nothing is known about Fantomas and that is where his mystique and power lies.

The methodology of Fantomas has most in common with the tactic of leaderless resistance. This strategy was developed by Col. Ulius Louis Amoss in the early 1960s, around the same time as Marighella’s Minimanual was published, and details the forming of independent cells of only a few members who will carry out actions, both violent and nonviolent, against a more powerful enemy, such as a government. The cells are not connected to any others and do not follow any leader or chain of vertical command. This ensures that the cell is fairly secure from state infiltration or capture if another cell is discovered. This methodology has been used by both reactionaries and revolutionaries in the service of a variety of causes. Despite the success that this strategy has shown it still behind that of the fictional character Fantomas. A sub sect of leaderless resistance, known as lone wolf terrorism is closer to that of Fantomas in that it can sometimes reject the cell structure as a whole and rely solely on the actions of an individual. However, what all these methodologies lack is an explicit rejection of the communiqué or contact with the bourgeoisie through its various mediums, such as the media, and a full fledged embrace of the irrationality and randomness of terror. This does not mean that groups should just embrace random violence, but rather they should learn to have a wider selection of enemies and reject the specialization of a certain cause. In other words, Zionists could be the target one day, developers the next, then yuppies, police, globalists, ect. The attacks need not be fatal or even physically violent. Kidnappings, assassinations and bombings have all been done before and with few exceptions they have hardly helped matters. The German film The Edukators features young radicals who terrorize the bourgeoisie by breaking into their houses, rearrange the furniture then leave notes that say ‘Your days of plenty are numbered.’ No force is needed to back up this threat, the randomness of the break-ins work to destroy the sense of comfort the ruling class believes it always has. Here the power of fear is the only coercive force being used. A lack of explanation leaves the victims suspecting madmen, those full of unreason. Destruction to property spares the ‘preciousness of human life’ and sends a pretty clear message. Those who torched unfinished housing developments from the Southwest to Salem had the right idea. This forced polemicization also makes pretty clear who our enemies are and who are our friends. After all, who would get upset if a lot full of Hummers just went up?

How the future revolutionaries decide to organize themselves will only be known as time passes. However given the ubiquity of the state and strength of their powers at the moment, the radical fringe may want to consider reading some fin de siecle pulp thrillers.