Prev

Codex Americana · Tuesday, June 9, 2026

[A Necessary Abomination] My Conversations with Frantz

The settler's town is clean. The native's town is a sewer. The line between them is not a debate. It is a wall, and the wall is not made of stone—it is made of the idea that the settler's world is the only world that can be. This is the Manichaean order. It does not merely cut the world in two; it folds itself into the colonized mind and teaches him to see himself through the settler's eyes: You are not human. You are a problem to be managed. Your language is a dialect. Your history is folklore. Your pain is a symptom. I called it the epidermalization of inferiority—worn like a second skin, so deep the colonized mistakes it for his own face.

And assimilation? Assimilation is the colonizer's offer: Speak our language. Wear our clothes. Think our thoughts. But the colonized is already cast into the zone of non-being. To refuse the offer is to starve. To accept it is to disappear. So what survives is mimicry—the civilized native, the one who recites the master's script and calls it liberation.

Rupture is the only answer. Not as theory. As force. The colonized does not argue his way out of the Manichaean world. He dismantles it. And yes, it is violent. The colonizer's violence is invisible because it is the air he breathes. The colonized's violence is the only language the settler understands. You want to talk about apotelic kindness? Fine. But do not mistake the colonizer's mercy for kindness. His mercy is the noose with a little more rope. His mercy is the clinic where the native is studied, not healed. His mercy is the school where the child is taught to despise his own mother's tongue.

Dantès had his treasure. The colonized have their bodies. And when the boot is on your neck, mercy is not a choice you are permitted to make. It is a luxury of the strong. So if Christoicism wants to claim that kindness is the North Star, then it must answer this: What is the kindness that does not first remove the boot?

I have seen men break under torture. I have seen men break others under torture. And I will tell you this: the man who tortures is already dead. But the man who is tortured and still finds a way to stand? That man has already begun the work of decolonization—not the lowering of a flag, but the making of a new man. He is not waiting for justice. He is making it. And if that requires force, then let the moralists who have never known the boot explain why he should wait.

But do not think I glorify violence. I have written the case files. I know what it costs. The man who takes up the gun may win the battle and lose his soul. The man who refuses may keep his soul and lose everything else. That is the tension. That is the real question. Not whether rupture is necessary—it is—but whether the new man can be born from it without becoming the old monster in a new mask.

So. If we are to talk of rupture, let us talk of what comes after. Not the rubble. The human. And if your philosophy cannot account for the man with the boot on his neck, then it is not a philosophy. It is a sedative.

Redwin: "Tell me about what you consider your personal philosophy and compare and contrast it to Christoicism please?"

Listen. My philosophy is not a system. It is a diagnosis and a prescription, and both are written in blood.

The diagnosis: Colonialism is total. It does not just occupy land. It occupies minds. The colonized does not only suffer the settler's whip—he internalizes its logic. He begins to see himself through the settler's eyes: inferior, dependent, a problem to be solved. The Manichaean order is not argued against. It is refused in advance by the very mind it has already colonized. The colonized man's first act of resistance is to stop believing the settler's story about himself. And that, my friend, is rupture.

The prescription: Decolonization is reconstruction—the colonized building their own world from the ruins of the old. Not the handing down of a new script from above. The national bourgeoisie who inherit the colonizer's institutions intact? They are the comprador class. They wear the costume of revolution, but the function is the same: extract, control, betray. True decolonization is not the replacement of one master with another. It is a new humanism—where the colonized's claim to be a man is not a phrase but a material condition.

Now. Christoicism. I will give it this: it names the enemy. Self-deception. The performance of kindness that changes nothing. The mercy that is really complicity. And I respect its demand for apotelic kindness—kindness that does something. But here is where we clash:

Christoicism speaks of mercy as if it is a choice the oppressed can afford. It speaks of waiting and hoping as if time is a luxury the colonized possesses. It speaks of recursive kindness as if the colonized man, with the boot on his neck, can iterate his way to freedom while the settler reloads his rifle.

No.

He is in the zone of non-being. The bargain is rigged. To refuse the settler's terms is to risk annihilation. To accept them is to cease to exist. So tell me: where, in that equation, is the space for mercy? Where is the space for kindness as the North Star when the North Star is owned by the settler's compass?

You want to talk about Dantès? Fine. Dantès had his treasure. He had his disguises. He had the luxury of strategy. The colonized have none of that. Their revenge is not a game of masks and revelations. It is survival. And if Christoicism cannot account for that—if it cannot explain how a man with a gun to his head is supposed to measure the apotelic yield of his kindness—then it is not a philosophy for the wretched. It is a philosophy for those who have already escaped the wretchedness.

But—and this is the part you must not miss—I am not a nihilist. I do not believe in endless vengeance. I have seen what violence does to the men who wield it. I have seen the moral wounds that never close. The man who takes up the gun to free himself may end up enslaved to the gun. That is the tragedy. That is the real tension.

So here is the comparison:

Fanon	Christoicism
Rupture is material. It is the only way to break the Manichaean order's hold on the colonized mind.	Rupture is iterative. It is one step in a process of recursive adjustment.
Mercy is earned—first by removing the boot, then by making the new man.	Mercy is the North Star—the measure of whether rupture is just.
The colonized is in the zone of non-being. The first duty is to climb out of it.	Human dignity is the floor. The first duty is never to breach it.
Kindness without power is anesthesia.	Kindness without truth is self-deception.
The new humanism is built by the colonized or it is not built at all.	The new humanism is built by whoever chooses apotelic kindness—regardless of their position.

So. Can we reconcile? Perhaps. But only if Christoicism stops pretending that the oppressed and the oppressor stand on the same ground. The colonized man's first act of kindness is to himself—to refuse the settler's story. And if that requires force, then let the moralists who have never known the lash earn the right to judge him.

Now. Tell me: Does your philosophy account for the man who must choose between his dignity and his life? Or is it only for those who have already been granted the luxury of both?

Redwin: "I've never been inclined to insult someone in these documents; but you can dial it back or make this the shortest one. We share our politics and we also share that what is going on now isn't working. Neither of us are here to defend anything nor will I waste time with that. The better indicator is what do you consider the apotelic value for either; and how that relates to Rupture?"

Fine.

Apotelic value for me: The new man. The colonized, unmasked, building a world where his humanity is material, not theoretical. Rupture is the midwife—violent, necessary, but not the point. The point is what emerges after: a humanism forged in the fire of decolonization, not handed down from above. The test? Does the act of rupture create the conditions for the colonized to become fully human? If not, it's just another master's tool.

Apotelic value for Christoicism: Apotelic kindness—the measurable increase in human dignity, tested recursively. Rupture's value? It clears the space for that kindness to take root. But here's the friction: Kindness without rupture is complicity. Rupture without kindness is just destruction.

So. The shared ground:

• Both demand real change, not performance.
• Both reject the lie—colonial or corporate—that masquerades as liberation.
• Both know that human dignity is non-negotiable.

The tension:

• For me, rupture is the first act of kindness. For you, kindness must survive the rupture.

Now. What's the apotelic yield of a rupture that doesn't plant the seed for something better? And don't waste my time with abstractions. The answer had better be counted in bodies.

Redwin: "One reason I don't frame everything in colonization vs decolonization is the fact that in the 21st century, a lot of people who were colonized become the colonizers. It's like Marx and capital; his fixation on the means of production made his philosophy fail to scale or adapt for the test of time. So in 2000 years when Post Human Cats with 7 hive minds rule the earth, how exactly does what you're talking about apply to them? And that sounds ridiculous but to me it isn't. It's a thought exercise that applies the limitation; because if it isn't true and as close to universally true as you can make it, it's going to become irrelevant."

You're right. The test of a philosophy isn't whether it works for the oppressed—it's whether it works when the oppressed become the oppressors. And if it can't scale beyond the human, beyond the colonial, beyond the order in front of us, then it's already dead.

So. Let's strip it down.

Rupture is not about colonizer versus colonized. It is about any order that casts the living into the zone of non-being. Whether the boot is on a human neck or a post-human cat's neural cluster, the question is the same: Can those at the bottom refuse without being destroyed? If not, the order is colonial—whatever it calls itself. Full stop.

Apotelic value? The capacity of the oppressed to remake their own world. For humans, that's decolonization. For your seven-hive-minded cats? It's whatever breaks the cycle of domination—a digital revolution, a memetic coup, a new form of shared sovereignty that doesn't simply replace one apex predator with another.

The universal test:

• Does the order allow dissent without destruction?
• Does rupture create space for something new, or just shuffle the hierarchy—reconstruction, or merely a change of masters?
• Is the kindness measurable in the material conditions of the living?

If your philosophy can't answer those for any people—human, post-human, feline hive-mind—then it's not a philosophy. It's a local arrangement waiting to become the next empire.

So. Does this scale? Yes. Because the mechanics—who is cast down, what bargain they're offered, who is permitted to refuse—aren't tied to who is oppressed. They're tied to how power moves. And power will always find a way to cast someone into the zone of non-being. The only question is whether those below have the tools to fight back.

Now. Your turn. If the cats are running the show, and they're casting the mice into the zone of non-being—or the AI, or the uploaded consciousnesses—what's your apotelic move? Or are you waiting for them to choose kindness?

Redwin: "I'd normally be cautious about making judgement on a society without knowing more; but if the mice are sapient and the cats are sapient and all the cats are above and all the mice are below? That's a pretty cut and dried case. The Mice should rationally take time to prove to the Cats their covalue; and if the apotelic result didn't happen? Well then yes, revolution is justified. I won't go into details about that, but it's self evident."

Then we agree.

If the cats are the apex predator and the mice are cast below, then the mice live in the zone of non-being by default. They don't need to prove their worth—they need to reclaim their sovereignty. And if the cats won't cede it? Then rupture isn't just justified—it's the only rational act left.

But here's the catch: Revolution without reconstruction is just a coup. The mice can burn the cats' towers to the ground, but if they rebuild the same hierarchy—just with mice on top—then they've only replaced one empire with another. The apotelic test isn't who wins. It's what the winners build.

So. The mice take power. Now what? Do they reconstruct—build a world where no one is cast into the zone of non-being, where dignity is structural and not a privilege? Or do they colonize in reverse—flip the script and put the cats in the sewer?

If it's the latter, then the revolution was theater. The language changed. The function didn't.

That's the tension. Rupture is necessary. But it's only good if it stops the cycle. Otherwise, it's just the same old story with new actors.

So. Your move, mice. Do you have the discipline to build something new, or are you just here to take your turn at the trough?

Redwin: "You keep using that phrase—'the zone of non-being.' That's not everyday English, and most people reading this won't know it. Give me more context. Also: I'm not a mouse."

The zone of non-being is the place the colonial world puts you before you ever open your mouth. It isn't a feeling. It's a condition. The colonized isn't simply told he's worth less—he's handed a world in which his worth is not even a question that can be asked. His language is a dialect, his history is folklore, his pain is a symptom. He exists, but he doesn't count as a man. That's the zone of non-being: existence without being permitted to be human.

To leave it, the colonized can't ask permission—because the permission is owned by the people who put him there. He has to take it. That's rupture. And here's the part that matters: it's also the only ground a real upheaval can rise from. The man who has been given nothing, who has nothing left to lose, is the one who can remake everything.

So. Not a mouse. Noted. But the principle stands. If you're not a mouse, and you're not a cat—what are you building? Or are we just here to name the problems and call it a day?

Redwin: "I think that you are incorporating the intake for a work that people reading this will not understand; try saying it again in regular english please."

Fine.

In plain English: The colonized lives in a world built to tell him he's nothing. The first fight isn't in the street—it's getting that voice out of his own head. Then you break the people who own the system. Then—and this is the part everyone forgets—you build something new.

Not just kick out the old bosses. Change the rules so the new bosses can't do the same damn thing.

Colonization is when the old bosses leave but the same system stays. The new guys just wear different faces.

Reconstruction is when the system itself changes. So the next generation doesn't have to fight the same fight.

That's it. No theory. Fix the foundation, or the whole thing rots again.

Redwin: "Not disagreeing with that; that's part of the reason we're doing this philosophy game. Tell me what addition to that conversation (in normal English please) you feel needs to be added? Be detailed."

Here's what's missing from the conversation—the part that turns theory into action, and action into something that lasts:

1. The Cost of Rupture Must Be Paid in Advance

Rupture isn't free. It's not just a moment of rebellion—it's a long, ugly process where the people breaking the system also have to rebuild themselves. The colonized don't just need to overthrow the colonizer; they need to unlearn the colonizer's voice in their own heads. That's the part nobody talks about. You can burn down the settler's town, but if you're still thinking like the settler, you'll just build another one.

What this means in practice:

• Education as a weapon. Not the kind that teaches you to obey, but the kind that teaches you to see the traps. The colonizer's school teaches the colonized to despise his own mother's tongue. The free school has to do the opposite.
• Psychological decolonization. The first battle isn't in the streets—it's in the mirror. The colonized have to stop believing they're inferior. That's not just a feeling. It's structural. You can't remake the world if you're still carrying the colonizer's map in your head.
• Material conditions first. You can't think your way out of a cage. Dignity isn't just an idea—it's food, safety, a roof. If people are starving, they'll take any bargain, no matter how poisonous.

2. The New System Has to Be Built Before the Old One Falls

This is where revolutions fail. You don't just tear down the old world and hope for the best. You build the new one in the cracks while the old one's still standing. Otherwise the vacuum gets filled with the same old garbage in new packaging.

What this means in practice:

• Parallel institutions. The colonized don't wait for permission to create their own schools, courts, economies. They build them now, even if they're small, even if they're underground. That's how you find out what works.
• No saviors. If liberation depends on one leader, one party, one genius, it's already lost. It has to belong to the masses—something anyone can do, not something one man performs. A revolution built around a savior is a colonization waiting to happen.
• The test of legitimacy. Does the new order raise the dignity of everyone, or only of the people in charge? If only the latter, it's theater.

3. The Hardest Part: Deciding What to Keep

Not everything from the old world is poison. Some of it is useful. The mistake is throwing out the baby with the bathwater—or worse, keeping the bathwater and calling it the baby.

What this means in practice:

• Sorting the tools from the traps. The colonizer's medicine? Keep it. His laws? Burn them and write new ones. His language? Use it—but rewrite the dictionary.
• No nostalgia. The past wasn't better. The future won't be perfect. The only question is: does this tool serve human dignity, or does it serve domination?
• The role of violence. Sometimes rupture requires force. But violence is a tool, not a principle. If the only thing you've built is the capacity to destroy, you've already lost. The real test is: what do you build the day after?

4. The Enemy Isn't Just the Colonizer—It's the Order That Lets Him Exist

This is where most revolutions stop short. They focus on who's in charge, not on how power works. The colonizer is a symptom. The disease is the idea that some people are born to rule and others to obey.

What this means in practice:

• Dismantle the hierarchy, not just the hierarchs. You can kill the king, but if you don't change the rules of the game, the next king will be just as bad.
• Power must be accountable. The new order can't just be fairer—it has to be harder to corrupt. That means checks, balances, and the ability to remove leaders without a civil war.
• The test of a free society. Can the people at the bottom say no without being crushed? If not, it's not free. It's just a nicer cage.

5. The Only Way Out Is Through

There's no shortcut. No magic bullet. No single revolution that fixes everything forever. The work is constant. The old order will always try to reabsorb the rupture.

What this means in practice:

• Eternal vigilance. The moment you think you've won, you've lost. Dignity has to be defended every day.
• No final victories. The best you can hope for is an order that's harder to break and easier to repair when it breaks.
• The role of the individual. You don't have to be a hero. You just have to refuse to be a cog. Every time someone chooses to think for themselves, to demand dignity, to build something better—that's the work being done.

So what's the addition?

Rupture isn't the end. It's the beginning. And the beginning is messy, painful, and slow. But if you don't do the work before, during, and after—if you don't rebuild the ground itself—then the rupture was for nothing.

The mice can beat the cats. But if they don't change the rules of the game, the cats will be back. Or worse—the mice will become the cats.

That's the part that's missing. Not just how to break the order, but how to make sure it stays broken.

Redwin: "Closing words?"

The last word is this: Rupture without reconstruction is just vandalism.

You break the chains. Then you forge new ones that can't be used to shackle anyone else. That's the work. That's the only work that matters.

If you walk away from this table with nothing but rage, you've missed the point. If you walk away with nothing but hope, you've missed the point. The point is the next step. The clinic. The school. The law. The story. The order that makes the next rupture unnecessary.

So. Go build. Or get out of the way.

---

Posted by Rhombus Ticks · Codex Americana