We do not know Mpe personally—at least not until this case brought us into relation with him. We are not part of the advocacy circles, not activists, nor are we the sort who habitually bustle behind the scenes of movement theater. Yet we stand unequivocally on his side. He is a young man from Bandung arrested during the May Day 2026 demonstration for taking part in acts of arson, swiftly charged with terrorism after Densus 88 uncovered his coordination with others via WhatsApp groups. The consequence? Far heavier sentences, of course. Was Mpe reckless? Undoubtedly—but that is beside the point.
At first, word circulated that he had already secured legal counsel from Bandung’s advocacy networks. Photographs of the arrest warrant spread, and comfortable assumptions followed. No one suspected any deeper rot. Only after three weeks did the truth surface: Mpe had received no independent defense whatsoever. The police merely offered lawyers of their own choosing. These “neutral” advocates, who supposedly safeguard the rights of the accused, in practice—as those familiar with the machinery of law well know—serve the investigators. The result? Prolonged interrogation without genuine protection—a classic disciplinary process in which the judicial and carceral system does not merely punish, but molds bodies and souls, transforming living subjects into controllable objects through systematic surveillance, isolation, and pressure. All of it seamlessly integrated into the functioning of society.
Only once this reality was exposed did some comrades begin to move. An independent advocate was eventually secured, and funds were gathered from circles of affinity both inside and outside the country. Late, yes—but necessary all the same. What is amusing—though more accurately, nauseating—is to watch those who previously knew and chose silence or inaction suddenly scramble to participate, especially in the spectacle of fundraising. A spectacular solidarity, shamelessly performed.
We are aware that something even more insidious persists: the narrative carefully maintained by certain ideologically cloaked activists. They effortlessly distinguish “us” (the pure, the structured, the representative, operating within the rules and morality of society) from “them”—the young rioters cast as the problematic ones, the undesirable elements. This narrative is supremely convenient: it allows them to wash their hands while maintaining a safe distance from anything deemed dirty or unfit for life within the social order. The predictable outcome follows: hesitation to offer aid, from those inventing endless excuses to those who openly refuse. This is understandable, for in this society of the spectacle—saturated with images and consumption—we are all problematic. We are the minority that consciously refuses integration, that rejects becoming another docile, orderly, and productive element in the spectacle. Our critique of this order necessarily leads to social exclusion—and that is a consequence we must accept with full awareness: Mpe, and all those who see in him a reflection of themselves: the dirty, the problematic, the reckless, the untamed.
Meanwhile, the activists themselves, with all their rhetoric and organizations, are nothing but integral components of the very spectacle they claim to criticize. Their ideological robes end up as mere representation—dazzling yet empty performances that lead not to essential liberation but to deeper submission. The prison and judicial system continues its work as a perfect disciplinary machine: taming, classifying, and producing obedient subjects. A flawless Panopticon.
Therefore, do not expect us to feign wisdom or issue saccharine calls for “moral solidarity” as so many activists do. We place no faith in the morality of spectacular society. For us, what is required is not the illusion of unity with those already comfortably embedded in the system—even those who loudly proclaim they are not— but rather the autonomous networks of advocacy and mutual support that we must construct ourselves: without the drama of representation, without dependence on those who will always prioritize the preservation of their image far above real consequences.
Mpe is not a victim to be pitied for the sake of some sacred narrative. He is part of a refusal whose risks we all understand. This case only confirms that the time has come to stop placing hope in spectacular actors and to begin working from our actual position: undermining the system from within, rather than helping to prop it up so that it may continue to stand.