Guerrilla History - Fanon's Psychopolitics & Empire's Anxiety w/ Sarah Jilani

Episode Date: April 18, 2026

In this episode of Guerrilla History, we bring back our friend and comrade, Sarah Jilani (whom you will remember from our episode Subjectivity and Decolonization in the Post-Independence Novel and Film) to discuss one of our favorite topics - Fanon.  Specifically here, we are talking about two articles that Sarah wrote, the first being Fanon's psycho-politics of decolonisation, a fascinating scholarly article that came out in the Review of African Political Economy (ROAPE).  We then talk about a ROAPE blog piece that Sarah cowrote titled Fanon, Gaza and the anxieties of empire which was a response to members of the British government and diplomatic corps denigrating Fanon and even calling out Sarah by name in doing so.  A really fascinating discussion, and the articles are really great too so be sure to check them out!  Sarah Jilani is a Lecturer in English at City, University of London. She is the author of several articles on postcolonial literatures and film that have appeared in Textual Practice, Interventions, and Journal of Commonwealth Literature, amongst others, and a widely published culture journalist.  Be sure to check out her book Decolonisation in the Post-Independence Novel and Film and her show The Global Gaze. Keep up to date with Sarah by checking out her website for more of her work, and follow her on twitter @sarahjilani.   Help support the show by signing up to our patreon, where you also will get bonus content: https://www.patreon.com/guerrillahistory   

You remember Dan Van Boo? In Africa, they didn't have anything but a rank. The French had all these highly mechanized instruments of warfare. But they put some guerrilla action on. Hello and welcome to guerrilla history, the podcast that acts as a reconnaissance report of global proletarian history and aims to use the lessons of history to analyze the present. I'm one of your co-hosts, Henry Huckermacki, joined as usual by my co-host, Professor Adnan Hussein, historian and director of the School of Religion at Queen's.

University in Ontario, Canada. Hello, Adnan. How are you doing today? I'm doing really well, Henry. It's great to be with you. Nice to see you as well. It's been about a week or so since I last saw you. So, nice to see you again. And we are joined, rejoined, I should say, by a great friend of ours. But before I reintroduce this guest, I want to remind the listeners that they can help support the show and allow us to continue making episodes like this by going to patreon.com forward slash gorilla history. That's G-U-E-R-R-I-L-A history. Just as a reminder, we're 100% listener-supported. There's never any advertisements on any of these episodes.

We ensure that there's no monetization happening by these corporations on our podcast feed. So we are truly 100% listener-supported. Now, as I mentioned, we have a returning guest. We have my dear friend, Sarah Giulani. Sarah, it's really great to have you back on. Sarah's a lecture in English at City University of London. We've had her on the show before and we have plans to bring her on many more times in the future. How are you doing today, Sarah?

Thanks, Henry. I'm really well. It's great to be back. Absolutely. So we have two articles that you wrote recently for the review of African political economy. One was their journal and one was their blog. So Rope, our listeners, I'm sure are familiar with Rope. by this point. We've featured numerous pieces and contributors to rope. But you have two articles

that came out that are both related to Phon, the titles of them, and I'm going to have them linked in the show notes where the listeners are Phonan's psychopolitics of decolonization. And we also have Fanon, Gaza, and the anxieties of empire. And these are two, so these are two very different pieces. The first one is a scholarly excavation of the psychopathism. politics of Phonan. And the second is a polemical response, in part to you being personally attacked in a conservative British policy exchange report. So before we get into talking about this first piece, the psychopolitics piece, I'm wondering if you can tell us a little bit about the background of these two pieces and how you see these two modes of writing in relation

to one another, the scholarly side and then also the polemical side. and how you think that that also reflects or confirms something about Fanon's thought remaining threatening to the ruling class, which is a thread that will pick up again later on in this conversation. Thanks so much, Henry. Yeah, actually, you know, I hadn't thought about that in great depth, but as you mentioned, they do differ tonally. But to me and what I've been working on through Fanon over the years, they make complete sense together. Essentially, one is concerned with something that I believe the conservative policy report picked on, even though they may not have been aware that they had picked up on it, and it frightened them deeply. The psychopolitics of decolonization piece allowed me to expand on the theoretical work I'd been doing on Funon over the years.

and push through elements that I begun to articulate in my first book, which was interested in subjectivity and decolonization, and especially how that was represented in African and South Asian film and literature. And the article essentially asserts that Phelon's revolutionary project extends beyond material liberation to include the transformation of consciousness. And I say that by firmly situating Fanon's thought as part of Marxist theories of subject formation and anti-colonial praxis in the piece. But I am particularly interested in how Fanon there shows us, especially in black-skinned white masks, how colonialism's and imperialism structures keep producing compliant and complicit subjects. and how liberation must therefore involve dismantling the psychic effects of these structures.

And even though that sounds a little bit more theoretical than a polemical piece like the second one, it's absolutely 100% linked to it in my view because the knee-jerk reaction from the British imperialist establishment in that policy report is precisely about Phelan's power to help us demystify our own conditions and to essentially unveil imperial racial logic and how, in fact, it has perhaps to an extent, in some cases, being internalized by those around us and even discomfortingly enough, perhaps by ourselves. And that was a major threat to the writers of this policy report because I think even though they didn't put it in the same way I did, they could tell that reading Fanon transformed a lot of people in the past and continues to transform a lot of people's understanding of the sources of their oppression. And that is the beginning of political action in the world. Yeah, actually, you know, before getting into the discussion about the psychopolitics arguments that you're making and studying, I did think that in part the writers of this report, and we'll talk a lot more about your response and so forth. They were, I don't think they really read the article. I think it sounds to me that they reacted to a tweet that you made and then, what?

were right, you know, kind of outraged by that and then identified you as a writer of academic scholarship on the value of Fennon and decided that they would use that as an example. I mean, if it just remains in the world of academic journals and not disseminated and applied in public discourse and engagement, I think they can contain that. And we'll probably talk a little bit more about the politics around that and containing it. But it's the fact that you introduced it as relevant knowledge, as relevant perspective in the public sphere. And this reminds me very much that earlier in the genocide, I, you know, saw a lot of interest in Fanon. This was observed even by people on the left who expressed anxieties about the conclusions that people were drawing. about, you know, identifying with and being in solidarity with Palestinian resistance so that, you know, I remember one tweet that said, you know, we should be reading more Marx than Phenon.

And so I responded, we should be reading Fanon now more than ever. Like, and I think that's the sentiment that is of concern across some of the Western political spectrum from right to left is he's a dangerous thinker if you actually take his work seriously. But one thing that I really appreciate about your article moving into that to pose a kind of question here is that, you know, one of my favorite parts of wretched of the earth is that chapter five on colonial, you know, mental disorders and, you know, his analysis there. And to me, it's interesting that so much of the psychoanalytic work and reading of Phenon's value has been centered principally on black skin, white masks, but has seldom integrated, you know, for a more comprehensive understanding of how he saw, you know, the psychopolitics of colonial racism. you know, and so I was interested in how you try to build a framework that actually integrated

the work, very substantial work in, you know, black-skinned white masks with this chapter five in the wretched of the earth that I think has tended not to be as salient for certain kinds of approaches and perspectives. It's phenomenal. and what you wanted to do with that. What is your sort of view of what the value of that chapter in Wretched of the Earth it's doing? I'm so glad you brought that up, Adnan, I couldn't agree more. You know, whilst I love black-skinned white masks and I do use it extensively,

I think that the by the wretched of the earth, and we know that Phelon was dictating this and he was very ill. And in a way, I think that made him a sharper thinker at this point. We see that in the wretched of the earth, he has, I think, further distilled his interest in subjectivity, embodiment, race, anti-imperialism into how do we reconstitute ourselves out of colonialism and its effects to, as he says, try to set a foot a new man. And I think the reason he pauses on this and the reason he explicitly makes this a central task of revolution is that it is the thing that will spell the total end of imperialism in perpetuity. It's in the context of this revolutionary task that we should understand, for instance, in Ratchit of the Earth, his analyses of Algerians who experienced a lot of psychic structural. after the French genocide and war and therefore behaved in ways that were harmful towards their own communities. It's in the context of this that we must understand, you know, his calls such as we must produce new men for the nation.

We must demystify and destroy the insult to mankind that exists in ourselves. these sound very existential at first. And I'm sure you can find a number of fat-on scholars who will leap at these phrases and take them from an existentialist and even depoliticizing perspective. But when I read them, I found them profoundly politicizing because how can you demystify and agitate against that which serves colonialism within your own society, except within a wider revolutionary process and movement. So I think that chapter in Wretched of the Earth helps us understand how these effects produce and reproduce subjectivities. And this is classic Marxist terrain as well in a way, right?

The production of subjectivity, the manner in which relations of production produce ways of thinking and living is at the center of much of Marxist work. Louis Al-Thuser has also unpacked that quite well. But it's nothing if not a dialectical process. So I think it's a bad faith reading that considers wretched of the earth and its attention to psychic liberation and then labels it, oh, this is merely Fanon being an existentialist.

And this is fun on telling us we should, you know, sit tight and in a peaceful manner work through our own psychic problems as individuals. He's saying the opposite of that. He is essentially saying that there is no true and lasting decolonization without at every stage of revolutionary action checking in with and transforming the very psychic. the very ways of relating to one another that we're undertaking as we are putting into to motion a considered political project of revolution. Sarah, that was a typically brilliant answer from you. But you were also just touching on the very next question that I wanted to hit on. And even though you answered this question, to some degree with this,

I do want to dive down a little bit further into it because we've had many discussions on Fanon on the show in the past. You know, listeners can go into the guerrilla history feed and just type in Fanon and they'll find that we've had numerous conversations about Fanon, including our previous episode with you as well, Sarah. But, you know, this notion that you bring up that revolutionaries must confront the insult to mankind that exists in oneself. You know, you mentioned that to many that may seem on the face of it existentialists and to others who haven't really dove into Phonon and read through the text, it may seem counterintuitive. And in the way that you described where it seems as if there's a focus on internal transformation when the enemy is external, the enemy is external. The enemy is material. The enemy is violent. So I'm wondering if we can just spend a little bit more time. As I said, you already touched on this pretty heavily, but I think that we can get a little bit deeper into this on what Fanon means by this in more concrete terms. And then also, again, just further unpacking why it's essential to his concept of liberation because it really is the core of this message that you were just discussing.

So I think that we can spend a bit more time on that here. Absolutely. I mean, in terms of concrete examples, I think we have many. from revolutionaries in the midst of anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggles in Africa, Asia, and South America. Many understood this problem of addressing the internalized effects of capital and imperialism within as part and parcel of the practical conditions of struggle and liberation. So I may not be able to get into the details of all case studies, But we've got, you know, Che Guevara's pedagogical work in Bolivia and the DRC. We've got the consciousness-raising work of the African Party for the independence of Guinea and Cape Verde under Amilkar-Kabrall.

For instance, Cabral actually, after founding that movement in that party, he did not immediately organize guerrilla war for. in the countryside. There was a 10-year focus on going around the rural areas, talking to local Guineans, and understanding their conditions, understanding the particular ways in which, for example, a layer of native compradors or chiefs were also part and parcel of their oppression, and also demonstrating to them that they were trying almost every room. with the Portuguese to try to alleviate some of their concerns. Eventually, the rural population themselves saw in many ways that all of these attempts were blocked.

Local markets set up in rural areas were destroyed by the Portuguese. Every time a small dispensary or school would be set up by Cabral and the revolutionaries, It would be, you know, destroyed and burnt down by the Portuguese. So this allowed the populace to come themselves in Cabral's understanding to the conclusion that armed struggle was necessary. What is this, if not a process of painstaking democratic consciousness raising, right? He wasn't parachuting ideas down from below, but actually creating conditions. where the populist could see that violent struggle was now the only way remaining that could help them move forward.

So I think anti-colonial actors knew that a major component of struggle would be about resisting and undoing colonialism's production of uncritical, despairing, reconciled, and domineering subjects who had internalized imperialism's imperatives. Without that, which you don't have the very practical goal of liberation achieved, because you will always have elements within a society, including a post-colonial society, that will remain conditioned by the imperatives of imperialism and will continue to try to do counter-revolutionary actions.

Yeah, this is a very important, problem and you mentioned Cabral, so it reminds me that I believe he said that the intellectuals, you know, the post-colonial intellectuals or the indigenous intellectuals that could become basically comparador intellectuals were the greatest vulnerability. You know, if they set themselves apart from, you know, people's movements. And what Fanon has clearly talking about as transformative is connecting these things in reformation of new subjectivity. And I really appreciate you centering that project because, of course, I mean, anybody, you know, should go read the conclusion of wretched of the earth. It is just absolutely like it touches

you. It is this call, which is not this existential. I mean, this, I'm so glad that you said that because, of course, people, you know, say, oh, yeah, the Sart, you know, wrote this thing. It's part of this ex-exic. They could take it in this kind of abstracted way. What he's saying is Western civilization has been sick and it has, you know, it has affected us as well as much as it has you, the colonizer, with the supremacist logic. The only way that we can really end it is, as you're saying, by reforming, not first breaking the chains, you know, of colonial imperialist governance, but then we have to change our consciousness somehow. And this vulnerability, of the intellectuals to reproduce because they don't work on really connecting how to reform

their subjectivities in light of popular sovereignty and anti-colonial movement seems to be something that we are still living with, you know, and it reminds me that there was recently published in Arabic and then there was an English translation published in Al-A-Bahar toward a revolutionary charter for comprehensive liberation that is you know al-a-san aboussita and a few others and they actually referred to amilkar cabral and the vulnerability of intellectuals and trying to combat the fact that there still is a defeatist logic a logic that still reproduces western colonial thinking in many, many ways. So I'm wondering if you could perhaps talk a little bit more about what you identified

as the mechanisms besides, of course, you break the chains, but then, like, what are some of the mechanisms that you think Fanon's work points us toward that we can build on in thinking, what is it we haven't done? What do we actually need to do to, you know, kind of develop a different subjectivity and, you know, try and finally have the human, you know, the real human. That's what he's saying. It's, you know, we need a, we need a human being. We need to be human beings. Absolutely. I mean, also, I do realize, you know, subjectivity can be a very abstract word. So, you know, I also thought, you know, I could possibly clarify that a little bit more in that, you know, for example, M.A. Says there calls this kind of this kind of subject or interiority. Those who have a cunningly instilled, quote, how colonialism cunningly instilled a fear that, quote, taught people to have an inferiority complex, to tremor.

kneel, despair, and behave like flunkies. You know, I mean, that is, I think that's a very clear picture where we get an understanding of how, why, why this type is so dangerous to colonialism, right? Because there's a constant reference towards the West, towards imperial power, as the savior, as the goal. and even where that may not be explicit, there is still a learned notion through observing the colonial master that becoming free equals becoming master over others.

So even if you may not have colonial subjects who are trembling in servility and despair, you will still most certainly have colonial subjects who have observed the power relations in the colony, work out in a way that seems to confirm that you are more human when you are more like the master. And so when I say transforming subjectivities, I mean very concrete things. Rejecting colonialism's notion that there are some human beings that are more human than others, something we have seen in the horrendous media rhetoric around Gaza and the way Palestinians

have been treated and called animals in animalistic terms. So refusing that fallacy, refusing also to allow imperialism to discipline the imagination of the world, to discipline the boundaries of social imagination, right? And by that I mean imperialism to discipline. tells you the way to go up in the world, the way to be free is to be a master with a whip in your hand. Now, how can you enact a program of revolutionary change if deep down you believe that the result of that revolutionary change must be different masters with different whips in their hands, right? So that transformation of subjectivity is essentially refusing the disciplining of social imagination that imperialism does to you by telling you, you know, there is no egalitarian way of organizing society, that some people are always going to remain historically behind, that there are natural hierarchies between the genders and the races. So all of this propaganda that not only colonized people, but also working. class people in the imperial core are fed are things that are related to to transforming subjectivity.

Yeah, Sarah, you always are touching on the next questions that I have planned. I'm pretty sure this happened in our first conversation as well. Like, I had a long list of 10 or 12 questions, and you always manage to talk about them just before I come in. But that's okay. I really love that. Like, I feel like I have some sympathico with you. But I know that Adnan had mentioned Sart and the preface to the Ratchet of the Earth. And I know the last time that we had referenced this preface to Ratchet of the Earth, I didn't have my copy of it in my apartment. I had it in my office.

But today I have my copy. So I know that this is only audio medium for the listeners, but I can still share this same story again for those who will find it interesting. So the copy that I have here of Wretched of the Earth is either 1963 or 1966, and I say either for a very specific reason. The condition is not great of it. All of what Fanon had put into here is here. However, the funny thing for me, and one of the reasons why I really love this edition of this book, or the specific copy of this book, is that if I go and open to the first page, the first page has, the biography of Franz Fanon.

And then what you would notice is the next 22 pages are missing, which is basically the entire preface. And I don't know if it, and the rest of the pages are all present. But about 80% of Sart's preface is just gone from this copy. Now, I really am curious if those pages just happen to fall out, you know, the cosmic, the cosmic energy decided that Sart's preface needed to be excised from this, or whether the previous owner of this book decided that Sart's preface had to be excised from this. It's not the full preface. There are a couple of pages at the end of it that are still here, but 80, 85% of the

preface is just gone, like completely missing, and the rest of the pages are in here without being loose at all. And obviously, listeners, I'm not the original owner of this copy. I am much younger than 1963 or 1966, which were the first couple of printings that Grove Press put out. But anyway, just wanted to show that because I always find this copy hilarious because the book, I mean, it's not in terrible condition. It's not in great condition either. But just the preface is gone and everything else is fine on the inside, which is very, I think a very telling thing either way, whether it's the cosm-

I like the idea of somebody ripping the whole thing out in Rewksman. rage. Yeah, yeah. You know, when I first, when I first looked at it, I picked it up naturally. And then I looked in and I was thinking the preface is gone. I wonder if that was. And my first thought is just that the cosmos decided that this couldn't be, that this preface had to be away. And then only later did it hit me that, well, you know, a much more likely explanation is that somebody probably did just rip the pages out in rage, but they're perfectly excised. You wouldn't even know other than the number of pages just being strange. It jumps from zero to 23.

But Henry, this is basically Josie Fenon's work, basically. She basically said, don't print, you know, for this next edition, don't print the SART, you know, after 1967 when he came out in Grubor, right, of Israel's war that established the occupation, you know, of the West Bank in Gaza. and she said he's not one of us, right? So, I mean, that's, I think somebody may have like heard about that and taken it out. I'm thinking that that's probably the case.

I've come around to that logic. Now, the interesting thing, and this is the particularly interesting thing, I got this copy years ago, but to the best of my recollection, I got it here in Russia, which would make that story even more interesting in terms of how and why the, those pages would have been removed. But in any case, this isn't, this episode is not just storytelling hour about old books that I have. I do have questions for you, Sarah. So related, again, to the previous points that you were making, you draw a sharp distinction between Fanon's project and what you call today's capitalist sci professions that aim to reconcile

people to their oppression. So a couple of questions here. What would a phenomenon, and therapeutic practice look like in our neocolonial present? Is that even possible within clinical settings? Would it have to happen entirely within movements? And then you also, to kind of shift outside of the narrow confines of that question, you also write about Phenon's rejection of Hegelian recognition. The colonize must stop seeking validation from the master and instead orient towards somewhere and something else, as you described in your last answer. This is a really beautiful, but also a difficult concept. And I think that we should also talk about this a bit. What does that somewhere else look like in practice? How do movements,

and this is the connection here is the movement side. How do movements cultivate this orientation? So I know that those are two kind of disparate questions, but I'm hoping we can tie them together. They're nicely linked. I'll try to take them one by one, but hopefully link them together. So with the, what could a Phanonian psychiatric practice look like today? I mean, he has, you know, reams of notes on his own practice, but perhaps a simple but clear way of discussing this could be to me to look at two locations of where he sees psychic transformations happen in daily life. One is a quote that I really love from Wretched of the Earth, which talks about, you know, if in the new nation state, the building of a bridge doesn't change people's consciousness. We might as well not build that bridge and continue crossing that river on a boat. So to me, that even though it seems very simple, that is actually Fanon saying that the location of understanding the sources of your repression,

and imagining beyond the boundaries of imperialism is in organized collective action that builds the society you want. This isn't anything huge. He makes sure that he says, you know, the nation and the people are not in the flags and the halls and the urban centers of the new nation state,

but it is in the, what he calls, the judicious and enlightened tasks of men and women, coming together and co-deciding, you know, how they're going to change society for the better, from the means, from the methods of production through to education through to infrastructure, like bridges, what's necessary, what's not, what should it look like. So on the one hand, I think that if Fanon, you know, were to guide us today, he would say there is, there is psychic change that cannot be addressed individually in a clinical setting.

and that is you've got to get out there and you've got to live an active and political life with others towards a goal that you have, a liberatory goal that you have. On the other hand, though, he does have some interesting examples of what he says he would do or tries to do in clinical settings.

I believe in Retchet of the Earth, he says that he had a an African, a black African patient who would say that he kept dreaming that he would enter a room full of white men and upon looking down on his body and his hands would realize that he too is white in this dream. And Fanon says something like, all I can do is make him conscious of the conditions in his material surroundings. that he has internalized in order to result in a subconscious scene like this.

So he's not saying, you know, this is a great example of, you know, how colonialism destroys self-regard, or I'm going to have to work through him and talk to him about race and racism and self-racial hatred. He simply says my job there would be to, um, as a tricky word, but make the patient conscious of the conditions in their life that may have led to such a scene in their subconscious. So the conversation that are in a clinical setting may be more practical, such as about the patient's work life conditions. Perhaps they have a white overseer. Perhaps they live in colonial conditions where they see that whiteness equals power. perhaps they have found themselves denied some material right due to their skin color.

So Fanon's more interested in making their patient aware of their material surroundings using their unconscious as a stepping stone. So in answer to the first question, perhaps if Fanon were to be with us today, he would say these are two locations of psychic work. One is, does have a clinical setting, but the other is merely people, participating in collective action in the world to reshape their own conditions. The second question about the Hegelian idea is something I bring up because I think it links to essentially Fanon's call to try to set a foot a new man. He has talked throughout

Rretched and Black-Skin White Mazz and a lot of his rights. writings and essays that have come together in the, and toward the African Revolution as well, that achieving subject status within the colonial order, which is an order that renders most of us objects, is not the starting point of anti-colonial struggle. So he has, he mentions many, many times that a so-called healthy, psychic fit with these conditions,

as in changing yourself to a point where the master recognizes you as human is a sick situation, right? It is far from a healthy fit. So whilst the Hegelian dialectic can feel a little theoretical and can get a little confusing, essentially what I see in Fanon's reading of this is simply saying, why on earth would I settle for mutual recognition with the master when the slave's so-called creative activity has shown them to be an historical agent? Why on earth wouldn't I partake in more activity in the world

in order to change that world instead of simply be satisfied with recognition from the master? So I find it a very hopeful place actually. Some intellectuals have said, you know, oh, this is a very despairing place. They often point to the phrase, you know, there is only one destiny for the black man and it is white. Fanon's saying that in the context of in this colonial world, if the goal is to strive to get the master to recognize your humanity, then the only way he's going to do that is if you make yourself white or as white as possible. You know, and so it's not a despairing position. It's actually, I think, you know, just like he uses Marx, he finds that point from Hegel interesting, but he's not wedded to it. He's a lot more interested in what is the result of the so-called slave in that dialectic being in a dialectical becoming with the material world. What about if the oppressed, take the material world as the thing that shapes both what they are and what they want the future to be and completely abandon the project of trying to get the green light from the master. And just a note on that, it seems abstract, but a concrete example, for instance,

is how a lot of post-colonial nations after independence sought things like membership in the League of Nations and later the UN and sought to enter, you know, NATO, sought to, you know, capitulate to or accepted IMF and World Bank strictures, all for, you know, participating in the imperial structure of things. So that's a great example of still living for the recognition of the master, right, rather than doing this leap that Phenon suggests. And of course, compradors themselves are also great examples of this as well. And we'll talk about how compradors engage with Fanon a little bit later and how compradors have engaged with you, Sarah.

But Adnan, I'm going to turn it over to you for now. I just wanted to make that point a little bit of foreshadowing for later on in the conversation. Well, yeah, I mean, I think one thing I just wanted to pick up about that is really an interesting. reading that is very kind of valuable, I think. You know, like I'm just processing the way you've put it now. It really comes home to me about really the Comprador intellectuals are actually striving to fit within this colonial system as post-colonial intellectuals. That's maybe why he recommends, I was just looking at a passage that this made me think of. In the that section 5 towards the end where he draws some conclusions and analysis from the case studies that he's been telling us about and discussing, you know, he says that the duty of the colonized subject who has not yet arrived at a political consciousness, i.e., you know, they've not yet begun combating in anti-colonial struggle and resistance, or a decision to reject the oppressor.

like they haven't arrived quite at that consciousness yet. But that it is to have the slightest effort literally dragged out of him. This is where non-cooperation or at least minimal cooperation clearly materializes. He's saying there's already still a zone of struggle in a way. And that is in the natural inclination, you know, if you know that there's nothing for you in this system. I mean, and even if you, you know, find a way to try and make yourself white, you know, the colonizer, the master, like in the end, you really are not going to be treated. And this is what, of course, these Gulf, you know, states are recognizing is that despite all the money they've spent and everything that they've done to try and inhabit somewhere in the system and buy their way into whiteness or the kind of elite class of the West or something. Like in the end, you know, those missile batteries and bases are not there for you.

You know, they don't value you in the same way. So, you know, even if you do that, they kind of already recognize. That's not a realistic possibility. So the point is, is don't labor within their system to be, have your value be extracted. And, you know, because it still reproduces those structures, even if you're trying to, escape the conditions, there isn't an individual escape by ascending, you know, and trying to be the exception and be exceptional. That actually does real damage to you. There's no real, and there's no real solution there. And I just liked that point of like, you know, don't work for the man, basically,

is what he's saying. I love that phrase because, you know, it brings us back to, as you say, none, the fact that the demands of empire haven't changed. It will demand your labor and your resources, you know. And as you said, you know, Gulf countries, a lot of, a lot of countries are seeking to appease imperial powers seem to be laboring under the delusion that if they simply behave or appear white enough. And by that, I obviously don't mean simply, you know, personal behaviors and individual habits, but buying in completely into the imperial priorities and worldview, that somehow the core be-all and end-all of empire itself will change, which is ludicrous. It hasn't changed for hundreds of years, and its goal has been to extract labor

and to occupy land and to extract resources. Having foreign missile bases in your own country and having no say over how they are used and whether you can dismantle them is a fantastic example of a combination of all three. Land that's been occupied, your local labor that's been engaged in dangerous work on this land, and resources in your own country, oil, be pouring into this piece of land that is ostensibly actually the United States. Literally, it, in jurisdiction, it isn't actually even in your country. Yeah, so, I mean, this is just reminding me that there has been invented a whole lot of, you know, people who, you know, even people who I talk to colleagues, academics, or, you know, whatever, I mean, unless they're of a certain cast of mind, they think, you know, guerrilla history, what we try and do here, the fact that we're always talking about these 60s and 70s liberation struggles.

This is just, you know, it's that romantic. That era is over. Those kinds of struggles aren't possible. We're constantly being told that we have to find ways. We can't do the same thing. We have to find different ways to resist if they're even acknowledging there is a space of resistance. It definitely is not like anti-colonial movements that try and take up arms and so on. And one of the problems. is the temptation has been to read Fanon, because he does talk about subjectivity, kind of getting back to that point from the beginning, it has been an opportunity for people to explore dimensions of what we could call defeatist accommodation to the world that is outside of our sovereignty. So, you know, this is really, we have to also be intellectual sovereigns. We have to be sovereign. And I think you had a very interesting kind of phrase in this article that you were talking about that in contrast to the kind of sci, you know, techniques of the sci professions that we might say also academic psychoanalytic interpretations and so on is that, you know, you need to have kind of meant, you know, psychic sovereignty. Imagine the psychic sovereignty, right?

And you're in the context of the psychic sovereignty of the colonized individual. But if we were to be decolonized, that is, we have to have psychic sovereignty. Absolutely. And it's the beginning of action as well, right? How can one have a program of action if they cannot exercise their imagination in order to see what may lie on the other side of that revolutionary action? And the empire and its media apparatus is extremely good at constraining the possibilities of these horizons, right? And, you know, as you said, those who say the 60s and 70s were these utopians, 50s, a utopian moments that have nothing else to teach us. You know, we could equally argue back.

Well, doesn't your defeatism actually say something about what has been taught? us, perhaps, in the 90s and 2000s and 2010s, about what kind of world, you know, is possible. I find memes hilarious and very, very revealing. And I recently came across one where someone has a photo of Francis Fukuyama and they've commented underneath, Francis Hulp, history won't stop happening. You know. And that's precisely it, right? despite all the constraining of our imagination, all the propaganda that we face every day about what is possible, what kind of society is possible, all the things we hear about human nature being fundamentally racist or greedy or whatever.

You know, all of that, well, history is still happening. And, you know, and that is that is all historically specific tactics, not universal truths. Yes, indeed. I mean, that's such an important point to raise. And it reminds that, you know, like, when did colonialism end? Like, you know, I mean, we're Marxist-oriented thinkers. And if you also add the phenonian component, really what, you know, we invented phrases and frameworks of neocolonialism and, you know, multipolarity or, you know, people have found these for globalization. And, you know, we've found. these other ways, basically to escape saying, colonialism is still here even if they aren't directly occupying. And of course, we're seeing that they have directly occupied a lot of places in ways that have been hidden and included or, you know, not fully realized. But, you know, even so, even if you just, you know, this is like the liberal bourgeois revolution, like, okay, now you have democracy, but you haven't changed the social conditions or the consciousness. You are not, you know,

really liberated. This is only a step. Unfortunately, it's also a step that produces its own kinds of false consciousness and subjectivities that are so difficult to undo. And that's why this analysis of the, you know, psychodynamics is also so crucial and important because it's easier to say, yes, we're still, you know, suffering under conditions of extraction and exploitation, you know, that has metamorphosed maybe and organized itself in different ways, but it's much less easy for us to see that our consciousness hasn't transformed and that, in fact, we're subject to a lot of disinformation, psychological, and framing of our subjectivities in ways that produce what you were talking about, passivity, you know, apathy, defeatism,

and these sorts of things. Well, I'd like to follow up on this. talking about defeatism and as Sarah mentioned at the beginning of her previous answer, you know, this blocking off that insight into what the beginning of action or the program of action would be. Also, I think that there has to be an understanding that when we've, we talked about the pseudoscientific claims that Phelon critiqued in colonial psychiatry of, as you mentioned in your article, African simplicity, Arab criminality,

those tropes still exist today, very much so, and they've also been reformulated in many ways, including, I think, the pathologization of resistance itself. That, of course, was something that always existed, but today also we still have this colonial apparatus that is still attempting wholeheartedly to pathologize resistance in itself without any analysis of what the resistance is to. And that also brings us then, I think, Sarah, to your second article very well on, again, Fanon, Gaza and the anxieties of Empire. When there is an attempt to utilize Fanon in this way that goes beyond defeatism and looks for a hopeful plan of action or program of action, how resistance can look, should look, and what we need to do within movements of.

resistance against Empire. That is the moment when the curators of Empire come out of the woodwork and attack Fanon by name and attack people who are analysts of Fanon by name, including yourself. So with that being said, anything that you would like to add on the points that Adnan and I had been making, Sarah, feel free to go ahead. But then also, can you take us into what spurred? I know we teased it at the very beginning of the episode, but what spurred the second article that you wrote and that we're going to be talking about from here on? Thanks, Henry. Yeah, before I get into the second article, just to agree with all Adnan said and point to how I've also found the phrase global South utilized in ways that are pulling us away. from understanding the long-standing connections between colonial and post-colonial oppressions as well.

You know, that's, I think, something I've written on separately in a platform called Art Review magazine, where I proposed, you know, it's not perfect, but I proposed something like the neocolonized world would be a much more, you know, accurate phrase because a direction in which a lot of kind of left-leaning thought has gone is encapsulated with the rather depoliticized, non-specific notion of the global South, where we are celebrating global southern artists, celebrating global southern filmmakers, you know, thinking about global southern voices.

And all I can think of is, do you mean, like, people from, you know, like Gabon or, you know, or the UAE, like, to, you know, completely different, you know, economically different places. And it flattens the existing differences that are a result of imperialism, of, you know, to use global south. So I just, yeah, wanted to say, yeah, it was not a perfect suggestion. And there's other forms like, you know, periphery, semi-periphery core formulations.

But I think Global South is another kind of depoliticizing move. and word that is being hammered into our heads, you know, as a, as a, as some sort of description. To move on now to the second article. So the context to this is actually really funny, Henry, because I was put in this, in this, I was singled out in this footnote with like the likes of Marx, Peter Hudus, David Marion. And I was like, oh my goodness, this is such an honor. But it was a very strange, biting kind of footnote where they, where John Jenkins or John Jenkins points out that, you know, I apparently tweeted, and I did, I tweeted two years ago in support of how Samir Amin worked on the economics of decolonization and praised Amin's work on the ground as an economy. minister and his attempts at delinking as an example of what we need to see more of when we talk about decolonization. And we're seeing instead a little too much talk on the cultural aspects of decolonization only.

So it was a very tame tweet that was just like, love Samiramine, go and read him, great on the economics of decolonization. and they said basically irony died that, an Oxbridge-educated scholar, i.e. me, is promoting, you know, a thinker like Marx, who is Western, whilst also claiming to be a fanonian and anti-colonial. There's no coherence to half of this. Can you also just add, and sorry to jump in, Sarah, but can you also discuss a little bit about who the author is? We haven't really introduced him. And also there is a forward written on that piece by another person. And I mentioned Comprador's earlier.

So I think that we should also introduce the writer of the forward of that article. Sure. Yes, that's really useful, especially as I'm conscious, there are listeners outside of the UK. So the author is a conservative MP called Sir John Jenkins. He does have a knighthood. And he was a former special, I think he was a former British diplomat. And he served in Libya in 2011 as special representative. And then Sir Jenkins later served as ambassador.

to the pro-Western regime of the National Transitional Council in Libya. And this was installed after the U.S. and Britain led the NATO intervention that in many ways, we could say hijacked the Libyan people's revolt that year. So not a compradour, I would say this is a figure who is imperial establishment rather than trying to, you know, appease the establishment. This is an establishment figure. And they wrote a report called Security, called After Gaza Fanon and his Acolytes, already implying that, you know, we should read Fanon as some sort of mindless cult leader

and anybody who praises his work is merely an acolyte rather than a critical thinker themselves. This report was supported and forwarded by the current leader of the UK's Conservative Party, Kami Badenok MP. She is a British-born conservative MP of Nigerian descent, and she has spoken out in Parliament over the years against the teaching of empire, the British Empire, in schools and British curricula. She's spoken out against the repatriation of objects from the British Museum. She regularly speaks out against any reports or sociological findings done by non-profits here in the UK with regards to gaps in attainment of young people along racial lines. So she is a British Nigerian Combrador, essentially, who is a fantastic spokesperson at the moment. for the conservative British establishment. Yeah, this is just so interesting

that they have identified the need for a report about Fennell at this time. I think it goes back to what we were saying of the obvious relevance, you know, after October 7th of Fennault, how important he was to many people's critical consciousness and solidarity with Palestine and framing of the meaning and understanding of settler colonial violence in ways to understand and support

resistance in all its forms. And though there was also a recent biography that came out, Adam Schatz's biography of Phenon that elicited from him, you know, I think what happened is that immediately his biography became totally obsolete. It had been public. just a few months before, I think, and it became completely obsolete in this, because it was an attempt to reframe Phenon away from his radical revolutionary resistance and anti-colonial heritage and potential legacy, and immediately became relevant. So people like that were intervening to try and put forward responses to the adoption of a Phenonian theory to the situation. and what it shows is how relevant and invaluable phenon is.

But I think what was interesting is also, they also recognize that this is a crucial and critical moment because of the Gaza genocide as well for the empire. And that's what you're pointing out, I think, in this piece, which is why her contribution emphasizes something that, you know, has nothing to do with like a very specific account and understanding of Fanon's ideas, but has all to do with its reception and application to contemporary conditions. So she says, quote, the slogan, Globalize the Intifada is often dressed up as solidarity with the oppressed.

Yet at its core, it channels the same Fanonian logic that violent uprising is not just inevitable, but virtuous. And then you point out later as we cannot allow our universities to remain blind to all of this. You know, like maybe they don't know what they're saying, but this is really terrible what they're saying. Oh, you know, I've been teaching fun on for 10 years, but I had no idea. Well, you know, this cuts to the heart of a conversation that we had before we hit record as well on the state of imperial academia. and this is not a new thing, but this report is also an attempt to police what can be thought and said in British universities. You know, Adnan just had this quote that he read out from Badenok.

Sarah, we talked off the record before, but maybe we can get you on the record about it as well. You know, you're an academic working in this environment. How has the, like I said, this isn't a new phenomenon that the British Empire in particular. and imperial institutions, academic institutions more generally, police what is thought and what is said at them. But I'm curious also how the climate has changed since October 7, 2023. How do you navigate teaching Fanon, writing about Palestine, when the institutions are under this kind of pressure where the leader of the conservative party, you know, historically one of the two big parties in the UK is calling out the academic institutions for tolerating people like you,

speaking on people like Fanon, Samiraman, Marx. Absolutely. And in addition to them, I just had a week, two weeks ago, where we worked on Mahmoud Darwish and his poetry with my third years and delved into Palestinian history and key themes of exile and resistance in his poetry as well. I try my best to incorporate these into my classroom, but there are things that I've had to be wary of. For instance, I tend to try to bring up any close reading or focused activities on these names or with these texts

within my seminar hour because my lectures are actually captured. and recorded and put online for the, well, for anyone, including the senior management to watch. And so one thing I've been cautious about is trying to keep those discussions in the private seminar environment as much as possible. But, I mean, even when you asked your question, Henry, you know, perhaps sharing this is in itself an answer. I immediately begun thinking, right, how much can I say on this podcast, you know? And I can, I'm very fortunate in that I am, you know, not, this job is not the be all and end all of my life in that as a dual citizen. You know, gosh, worse comes to worse. I can head out, head over to Istanbul and try my luck in a completely different job sector and environment over there.

I'm not wedded to the UK and I'm certainly not wedded to academia as somebody who is both within, you know, freelance journalism and in radio broadcasting as well. But even so, I do, I did have to think twice. In terms of, you know, things that have really shocked me since October 7th on campus has been the calling of the Metropolitan Police onto campus in response to a piece. student protest where several of our students identified a tenured faculty member as somebody who was not only, had not only formerly served in the IDF, but also frequently expressed pride in this and discussed this past with pride in teaching environments in the university during the last two years. So they had a peaceful protest calling on the university to consider whether this individual should be teaching what we have, which is a predominantly British-born Muslim student population at city. It wasn't a personal vendetta.

It wasn't a smear campaign. It was merely a set of peaceful placards, really. and what was striking was that the university called not campus security, but the actual London metropolitan police onto campus. These are 18-year-olds. It was an incredibly frightening moment for them. It was incredibly intimidating. They are from demographics that are already heavily policed in London. So this is what the neoliberal university is now. I think the masks are off. And, you know, other things that have been pushed through include as staff, we must now run past senior management. Any guest speakers we wish to invite.

We used to be able to just invite anyone for our research panels, you know, our industry activities. And now we need to fill out a form and they need to be pre-approved. Typical tactics of surveillance and repression, essentially. Well, it's, you know, picking up on that, it's clear that the reason why they're making this clear link is because they're connecting Fanon to the Gaza situation to student activism on it. So the Gaza encampments. And so they want to identify, you know, techniques to head this off. Because in point of fact, actually, despite maybe the best efforts of some people, who, you know, have turned decolonizing, you know, approaches and methods into very abstract and politically inert, you know, forms of complex academies, you know, in point of fact, just reading Phenon and having introduced students to it, just talking about settler colonialism as a structure has really prepared many students to recognize and understand their world better and to take action. And that's what they're so concerned about is that, you know, even our universities are, you know, producing, you know, scholarship and teaching that makes students political and recognize the, you know, problem of colonialism is still persisting in our world.

So I think that's clearly why it would be of interest to conservative leader. and for social policy. But there was one other thing that came up in your article's account of this report that gets back to something Henry said about how they want to pathologize resistance itself. And that is where this connects and overlaps with a kind of Islamophobia. So trying to characterize Phenon as, somehow anti-Semitic Islamist extremism. That seems to be something where the connections and the leaps expose

that kind of network and association of ideas motivating, you know, this concern with, you know, Phelan as a thinker. I wonder if maybe you can elaborate a little bit on how they try and make that connection and anything you observe about what's, at stake there. Absolutely. And, you know, I would just preface what I'm about to say with, I highly doubt that these two figures, Jenkins and Batonaut read Ratchet of the Earth cover to cover before they

read this report, right? Ironically, having moved through the kind of spaces they were raised in, I did my masters at Oxford and my PhD at Cambridge, I can, I saw a lot of pretend intellectualism that relies on learning certain discursive tricks without actually doing the reading and the thinking, the hard work, particularly amongst a class of students that I certainly wasn't a part of in these highly classed spaces. So just to say also, I really. don't think that I think we should engage them and I did in this article but I also think that this shouldn't distract anybody interested in Fanon and liberation in thinking and working with

his work rather than being too caught up in entering a kind of tit for tat with politicians who ultimately are making these talking points because they seek to to increase their political profile and, you know, potential kind of voter base. So I also think, you know, we should demystify these people. I'm not impressed by this report. And, you know, I countered it, but also some of their arguments don't even make sense. So I wanted to use the counter as a chance to actually say that if these people and what they represent frames Fanon as a radicalizing influence. influence, then essentially this is to be welcomed. Because they have betrayed how anxious they are about the potential of

the potential consciousness raising effects of reading Fanon. The report treats Fanon like a kind of cancer to be contained. Somebody who exalts in violence raises a kind of nice. religious vengeance to the pinnacle, which is a complete misreading Fanon. As you said, Adnan, anybody who even skims through Chapter 5, for instance, of Wretched of the Earth encounters many examples written by the psychiatrist Fanon of what happens objectively in anti-colonial conditions of struggle. So I think that the British establishment's insistence on branding Fanon as dangerous, radical, tells us he poses a threat to the prevailing order of Zionism, white supremacy, and capitalism.

And second, we need him now, you know, more than ever. If he's being caricaturized as a nihilistic advocate of violence, then to me, or, you know, if you did a little bit of close reading, you know, close reading, you know, close reading, It's a telling admission that, you know, they fear actually what his true purpose is, which is certainly not to incite people to mindless violence, but to actually situate violence within its temporary but vital role in anti-colonial struggle. And that's the bit they're terrified of. They're terrified of people understanding that playing nicely nicely and asking, for the colonizer to recognize your humanity in one thousand and one different nonviolent ways

will eventually reach an endpoint. That's what they do not wish to be known because then people, and especially intellectuals, can remain in an endless loop of words and performances and pleas and conscious and awareness-raising campaigns. and none of this trickles down to an oppressed people and actually changes their conditions for the better. You know, you mentioned the discursive techniques of the pseudo-intellectual defenders of empire and the conservative defenders of empire in particular. And in this case, it was used against Fanon, again, kind of nonsensically.

It reminds me also of, and it just melts my brain, just remembering that this, happened. Jordan Peterson versus Slavoy, Zhech discussing Marx. And listeners, I'm sure know that I am no fan of Jejerk, but Jordan Peterson was so

hilariously unprepared for that debate. I mean, say what you will about Jejjjerk. I know that we have a lot of listeners that like Jejjjjek. I'm not, you know, saying that there's no merit in Zijek. But, you know, Zijik does know Marx. He

has read Marx. In that debate, it was just blindingly clear that Peterson's only engagement with Marx was about the first third of the Communist Manifesto. And that was it because he would even raise points. Marx didn't think about this. And it was like, actually he did. It was in the second half of the book that you're holding in your hand, which was the Communist Manifesto, which is the only thing that he engaged with by Marx. You think that. that, again, you're a professor. I know that it's not his academic field of study, but it is the field in which he is a public intellectual these days. If you're going to have a public debate against a philosopher who is rooted in his own way within the Marxist tradition, that you might

want to at least have finished the small book that Marx had co-written, even if you're not going to engage with his broader Uvois, since there is just too much to read, if you're going to try to do Marx's collected works. At least finish the book that you started. It's a short one. You can do it, Jordan. But this is just something that's indicative of the defenders of empire, which is that as you said, Sarah, they take this pseudo-intellectual stance where they have trained discursive techniques rather than the ability to actually analyze and come up with analytical arguments against what is present. They have to come up with these rhetorical techniques that simply try to discount the figure entirely rather than engaging

with the ideas. So yeah, that Jordan Peterson, Slavois-Jewzek, unfortunately, came back to my mind and it just drives me crazy that that exists. But, you know, you did mention, Sarah, about how we have to take this opportunity where Fanon is gaining popularity to the point where the defenders of empire are attacking him by name, this person who died, you know, 63 years ago. That's a long time ago. But we also have to mention, and you mention, that Phenon's contexts, Martinique, France, Algeria were different in that, and I'm quoting you here, colonialism, blackness, racialization, and their intersecting structures did not, do not look the same everywhere. So how do we avoid what could be a trap of treating Fanon as a universal template to be applied mechanically?

What does it mean to think with Fanon rather than simply applying him wherever our listeners happen to be situated? I think we find that answer, you know, in Fanon's own kind of rigorous materialism in many ways, it's you know I think the the defenders of imperialism demonize Fanon not because he actually makes one single cookie cutter argument and declares the path for all forms of violent struggle but actually because he shows us how to demystify its workings in any concrete condition that we find ourselves in in other times and other places. And then the motions or the thought processes and the action processes we can go through to become actors in those conditions. So I think the fear they have here is that Fanon doesn't actually provide us a blueprint for a revolution, but he provides us a methodology, which is frightening particularly because of its lasting relevance. And, you know, it's not just me saying this. they say it by, as you say, continuing to write reports attacking this person who died in 1961. You know, clearly there is something to his writings that is about a methodology of critique and analysis applicable to multiple conditions across times rather than merely his own moments.

And that is precisely why they have raised his ghost in this way. way in in 2025, which is when the report came out. His words on violence are not prescriptive. And that also makes them, I think, relevant to thinking on Gaza today. You know, he sees violence as a diagnostic category, not a destination. He insists the colonized no matter what circumstances, they don't just fall mindlessly in. to violence. But they're formed by a world maintained by colonial violence. And so they decide upon a political response. What a lot of conservative, you know, you know, perspectives or pro-empiratives read is instead some sort of ethical ideal, right? And that's what the report claims that Fanon is presenting us violence as a timeless ethical ideal. When he paints,

mistakenly throughout multiple books, resurfaces the idea of violence in different times and different places and looks at their different effects. In the famous first chapter on violence or concerning violence of Retched of the Earth, we have him describing that for the colonized violence is not an end but a passage. It's a brief one. It's often a necessary one. And it's often a traumatic one. And what comes next is the rebuilding of a just society or building of a just society. And then he'll have chapters, you know, like the mental disorders and colonial war chapter, where we again mention violence, where he again mentions violence and discusses violent individuals and case studies and then comes at it from a different perspective, showing how, for example,

the violent structure of colonial life and the colonial city begets behaviors in the oppressed that are psychically damaging to themselves and to one another. So just from those two examples, we have two discussions of violence in two different contexts where he highlights two different facets to it. But what remains the same is understanding that essentially it's a part of the material. It's what materially colonization produces. Violence is an inevitable effect and tool of colonial spatial and human organization. And therefore, it manifests, it bubbles up at different times in different ways.

So it's method rather than blueprint, I think. And just in conclusion then, Sarah, we're at the end of our time. Unfortunately, I know Adnan has to run, but I do have one small question for you. So the policy exchange report that we were discussing within the context of your second article today, it names you, it mocks you, it tries to intimidate you, and yet you respond by publishing a piece that turns their anxiety into evidence for Fanon's continued relevance. what would you say to other scholars and activists who find themselves targeted by similar attacks, be that from think tanks, the media, or their very own institutions?

I mean, I can't advise anything that would cost anyone's a price that they are unable to pay. but I do think that where they find that they are not able to speak out on public forums about these topics, the classroom really is a place that remains incredibly vital and relevant. And as I mentioned, there are often pockets of interaction with students in person on campus that are not under surveillance. I would advise them to make the most of these pockets of opportunity and make sure that they can bring up these names. and these ideas with young people, wherever they feel able to. But also in the bigger picture of things, you know, the master won't love you. The institution won't love you back.

So also, whilst I can't tell anyone to burn all of their bridges and take risks that may possibly endanger their loved ones or all of their livelihood, I do think many intellectuals today are also held back by reasons beyond their material comfort. You know, they are in a position where they can easily transition to another sector, where they have a partner who is also, you know, able to pay the mortgage. And yet they choose to remain silent. In those cases, you know, I would say that actually I don't have, I don't have a lot of sympathy in those cases where you are actually materially.

secure. You are perhaps a citizen and don't have, you know, precarity around your immigration status in your workplace. And yet you remain to utterly silent. On that note, I would just say, you know, whatever you do, the institution won't love you back. And, you know, you can stay as silent as the grave and nod and bow and acquiesce. And they may turn around one day and terminate your contract anyway. So, you know, there's a bigger picture here. So for those who are materially more secure, you know, I would say, you know, think about, you know, whether you are being loyal to an entity that will really be loyal to you back. And for those of us who are already committed to having these discussions, you know, do you make the most of student one-to-one

opportunities where the neoliberal academy has not yet quite managed to survey every single interaction we have? Again, listeners, our guest was Sarah Jelani, Sarah, it was so lovely to have you back on the show. You know, I adore your work. It's great to be able to see you and to talk about the work that you're doing, and I'm hoping that it's been too long since the last time we had you on. Let's definitely try to make sure that it's not this long again before you come back. So can you tell the listeners where they can find more of your work

and perhaps also remind them of your first book, which we had a discussion of on the show previously. The adoration goes both ways. Keep up the incredible work you both do. And I get so excited whenever I see a new guerrilla history episode come up on my feed. So anyone can find me on while YouTube is a great place to go because I am on the channel called The Global Gaze, where I turn some of this stuff into accessible. 10-minute videos with a particular focus on film literature and the arts in relation to issues of decolonization.

And my first book is available from Edinburgh University Press. It just came out at the much more affordable point of 19 pounds in paperback, and that is called subjectivity and decolonization in the post-independence novel and films. So it touches upon a lot of these things we've been talking about around subjectivity and psychopolitics. But I hope the book gives them an even clearer look by using film and literature to approach some of these ideas. Yeah, absolutely love that book and love that conversation that we had about it. And I'm glad that the book is out at a more affordable price point now, although I will note Edinburgh University Press does not ship to Russia. so sad me. I still can't get a physical coffee, at least now. But, you know, I'll get you to visit here sometimes, Sarah, and I'll have you bring a copy in your suitcase. I've got one saved for you.

Oh, I love to hear that. Adnan, can you tell the listeners how they can find you and your other excellent show? Yeah, I just first want to thank Sarah so much for coming back and sharing her wonderful insights and work. And I didn't know about your work on the global gaze. So I've just looked up on the page and I see some really great things that I might be, I would recommend to anyone, but I might even use in classes for as like resources for short kind of things that are connected to what we're talking about. So this is great work that you're doing. So everyone go check out global gaze. And I just want to say on that last, you know, point that, you know, Henry's question and your response that, you know, we're all in very different positions and

locations, but there are always ways we can be contributing in this information war, in anti-imperialist struggle, in all kinds of ways. This is as much a Cy war, and that's what your work and talking about Fanon's consciousness, you know, questions about consciousness and subjectivity is so important, and we can be working on that. contributing to that wherever we are. So let's make sure to do that, read the article, and get some tips on, you know, some of the insights he had on that. And I would just say that also I would recommend a recent conversation that I had with Lara Shihai and Dr. Gassan Aboussita about this document that he was co-author to that was published in Arabic. I referred to it earlier toward a revolutionary

charter for comprehensive liberation. And it kind of picks up on many of the themes that we were discussing about anti-colonial thinking scholarship and connecting it to popular struggle. So that's another resource that's apposite, you know, connected to this discussion. You can find that on the Adnan Hussein show YouTube channel, and it's also available as an audio podcast. So go check that out. And you can support those endeavors and benefit from learning with a lot of compatible work, but also some things on, you know, kind of Muslim religious tradition. So I have a series that I just want to mention to people who might be interested in it on

the 99 names that I do with a colleague and friend, Mark Apple, Dr. Mark Apple, bomb and we're putting out an episode today here, sort of a Ramadan end episode. And also we've been doing with this war that's taking place, you know, a series pretty regularly called Iran versus the Epstein Empire. It's a live stream with friends from resistances fertile.

And so do check that out. All that stuff is available on the channel. Yeah, of course. definitely recommend the Global Gaze and the Adnan Hussein show. As for me, listeners, I'm pretty hard to find these days, but you can follow me on Twitter at Huck 1995, although I've not been on in about a year. More importantly, though, you can help support guerrilla history and allow us to continue making episodes like this by going to patreon.com forward slash guerrilla history. That's G-U-E-R-R-I-L-A history. And just another reminder that we're 100% listener-supported. So

Those of you who join us on our Patreon do really ensure that the show can continue. With that being said, then listeners. And until next time, solidarity.