"Life is Struggle"
Friday, February 24, 2006
The metapolitical rebirth of Europe
by Pierre Krebs
The most prolific ideologue of Germany's New Right (Neue Rechte) is Pierre Krebs. Armed with a clutch of French and German qualifications ranging from law and Scandinavian philology to journalism, he has edited a magazine of metapolitics, written numerous books on the issues in which literature, philosophy and politics meet, and devoted his publicistic and editorial energies to creating the premises for a cultural revolution. This involves the rejection of egalitarianism for differentiation, Judeo-Christianity for Indo-Europeanism, Enlightenment humanism for organic humanism, and pluralism and racial mixing (`Panmixie') for the right of peoples to have a separate identity. In 1980 he founded the Thule Seminar to help bring about a all-encompassing European rebirth. In this passage he articulates the theme of `right-wing Gramscianism' - the idea that metapolitical cultural transformation is the precondition for political transformation - of the European New Right.
An Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, was the first to understand that the state is not confined to a political apparatus. In fact he established that the political apparatus runs parallel to the so-called civil apparatus. In other words, each political apparatus is reinforced by a civil consensus, the psychological support of the masses. This psychological support expresses itself through a consensus on the level of culture, world-view and ethos. In order to exists at all, political power is thus dependent on a cultural power diffused within the masses. On the basis of this analysis Gramsci understood why Marxists could not take over power in bourgeois democracies: they did not have cultural power. To be precise, it is impossible to overthrow a political apparatus without previously having gained control of cultural power. The assent of the people must be won first: their ideas, ethos, ways of thinking, the value-system, art, education have to be worked on and modified. Only when people feel the need for change as a self-evident necessity will the existing political power, now detached from the general consensus, start crumbling and be overthrown. Metapolitics can be seen as the revolutionary war fought out on the level of world-views, ways of thinking and culture.
It is precisely the metapolitical level which is our starting point. We want to take over the laboratories of thinking. Hence our task is to oppose the egalitarian ethos and egalitarian socio-economic thinking with a world-view based on differentiation: this means an ethic and a socio-economic theory which respects the right to be different. We want to create the system of values and attitudes necessary for gaining control of cultural power.
Our strategy is dictated neither by the immediate contingencies of reality nor the superficial upheavals of political life. We are not interested in political factions but in attitudes to life. Commentators will carry on writing irrelevant articles categorizing us under `New Right' but also under `left-wing'. Such terms are pathetic and leave us cold, for neither the right nor the left are our concern. It is only basic attitudes to life which people have that interest us. And all those who are aware of the American as well as of the Soviet danger, who realize the absolute necessity of the cultural rebirth of Europe as the harbinger of its political wakening, who feel rooted in a people and a destiny, are our friends and allies, irrespective of their political and ideological views. What motivates us and what we are striving for does cannot be accommodated within the activities of a political party, but - and we insist on this point - solely within the framework of a metapolitical, exclusively cultural project. A programme which sets out once again to make us conscious of our identity through awakening the memory of our future, as it were. In this way we aim to prepare the ground for what is to come.
We have defined our programme as the total rebirth of Europe. We have also established the strategy for realizing this project: metapolitics and cultural war. We still have to consider the basis and material framework within which this programme can be carried out: the Thule Seminar, a New School of European culture.
The tragedy of the contemporary world is the tragedy of disloyalty: the uprooting of every culture, estrangement from our true natures, the atomization of man, the levelling of values, the uniformity of life. A critical and exhaustive engagement with modern knowledge - from philosophy to ethology, from anthropology to sociology, from the natural sciences to history and educational theory - if carried out with the appropriate intellectual rigour and sound empirical methodology, can only contribute to throwing light on the general confusion of the world. It is with such fundamental considerations that the Thule-Seminar is concerned. Open to the intellectual and spiritual life of our age, yet critical of all ideological dogmas, its research is based on a sense of commitment to western culture. The Thule-Seminar is concerned with clarifying the basic questions at the heart of the movement of ideas, with redefining the key cultural concepts and the discovery of new alternatives to the core problems of the age. The Thule-Seminar proclaims a European Europe which must become aware of its identity and its destiny.
[Die europäische Wiedergeburt [The European rebirth] (Grabert, Tübingen, 1982) 82-6, 89.]
by Pierre Krebs
The most prolific ideologue of Germany's New Right (Neue Rechte) is Pierre Krebs. Armed with a clutch of French and German qualifications ranging from law and Scandinavian philology to journalism, he has edited a magazine of metapolitics, written numerous books on the issues in which literature, philosophy and politics meet, and devoted his publicistic and editorial energies to creating the premises for a cultural revolution. This involves the rejection of egalitarianism for differentiation, Judeo-Christianity for Indo-Europeanism, Enlightenment humanism for organic humanism, and pluralism and racial mixing (`Panmixie') for the right of peoples to have a separate identity. In 1980 he founded the Thule Seminar to help bring about a all-encompassing European rebirth. In this passage he articulates the theme of `right-wing Gramscianism' - the idea that metapolitical cultural transformation is the precondition for political transformation - of the European New Right.
An Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci, was the first to understand that the state is not confined to a political apparatus. In fact he established that the political apparatus runs parallel to the so-called civil apparatus. In other words, each political apparatus is reinforced by a civil consensus, the psychological support of the masses. This psychological support expresses itself through a consensus on the level of culture, world-view and ethos. In order to exists at all, political power is thus dependent on a cultural power diffused within the masses. On the basis of this analysis Gramsci understood why Marxists could not take over power in bourgeois democracies: they did not have cultural power. To be precise, it is impossible to overthrow a political apparatus without previously having gained control of cultural power. The assent of the people must be won first: their ideas, ethos, ways of thinking, the value-system, art, education have to be worked on and modified. Only when people feel the need for change as a self-evident necessity will the existing political power, now detached from the general consensus, start crumbling and be overthrown. Metapolitics can be seen as the revolutionary war fought out on the level of world-views, ways of thinking and culture.
It is precisely the metapolitical level which is our starting point. We want to take over the laboratories of thinking. Hence our task is to oppose the egalitarian ethos and egalitarian socio-economic thinking with a world-view based on differentiation: this means an ethic and a socio-economic theory which respects the right to be different. We want to create the system of values and attitudes necessary for gaining control of cultural power.
Our strategy is dictated neither by the immediate contingencies of reality nor the superficial upheavals of political life. We are not interested in political factions but in attitudes to life. Commentators will carry on writing irrelevant articles categorizing us under `New Right' but also under `left-wing'. Such terms are pathetic and leave us cold, for neither the right nor the left are our concern. It is only basic attitudes to life which people have that interest us. And all those who are aware of the American as well as of the Soviet danger, who realize the absolute necessity of the cultural rebirth of Europe as the harbinger of its political wakening, who feel rooted in a people and a destiny, are our friends and allies, irrespective of their political and ideological views. What motivates us and what we are striving for does cannot be accommodated within the activities of a political party, but - and we insist on this point - solely within the framework of a metapolitical, exclusively cultural project. A programme which sets out once again to make us conscious of our identity through awakening the memory of our future, as it were. In this way we aim to prepare the ground for what is to come.
We have defined our programme as the total rebirth of Europe. We have also established the strategy for realizing this project: metapolitics and cultural war. We still have to consider the basis and material framework within which this programme can be carried out: the Thule Seminar, a New School of European culture.
The tragedy of the contemporary world is the tragedy of disloyalty: the uprooting of every culture, estrangement from our true natures, the atomization of man, the levelling of values, the uniformity of life. A critical and exhaustive engagement with modern knowledge - from philosophy to ethology, from anthropology to sociology, from the natural sciences to history and educational theory - if carried out with the appropriate intellectual rigour and sound empirical methodology, can only contribute to throwing light on the general confusion of the world. It is with such fundamental considerations that the Thule-Seminar is concerned. Open to the intellectual and spiritual life of our age, yet critical of all ideological dogmas, its research is based on a sense of commitment to western culture. The Thule-Seminar is concerned with clarifying the basic questions at the heart of the movement of ideas, with redefining the key cultural concepts and the discovery of new alternatives to the core problems of the age. The Thule-Seminar proclaims a European Europe which must become aware of its identity and its destiny.
[Die europäische Wiedergeburt [The European rebirth] (Grabert, Tübingen, 1982) 82-6, 89.]
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Racial Nationalism-Right Or Left?
By Ian McKinney
Within the present political spectrum of right and left where do we find the philosophy of Racial Nationalism? To right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh all the way to the John Birch Society, Racial Nationalism (RN) is socialist, leftist, collectivist, and a derivative of Marxism. To Marxists and liberals, it is fascist, extreme right, or a tool of corporate interests. So, are any of these descriptions really accurate? The answer is no.
Much of the confusion exists because most people have been indoctrinated with the idea that any political philosophy or movement must invariably fit into one of two categories: right and left. And, today those categories are roughly defined as right-being conservative and left-being liberal. The reason why RN does not really fit into either category is that both conservativism and liberalism view the world in mostly economic terms.
To put it in simplistic terms, the fundamental premise of the right is capitalism and the left Marxism, whereas RN has its foundation in biology and treats economics as an important, but secondary issue.
The fact is that RN has no predefined economic philosophy. Economics are viewed primarily as to how the racial well-being of the people is affected. In short, RN rejects both the conservative model of unrestrained capitalism and the massive state-control of Marxism.
To illustrate this point, we can look at how conservatives and liberals view the environmental issue. To the conservatives, preserving the environment is seen mostly in how environmental laws affect business. Ideally, to them all environmental laws should be eliminated, since they invariably increase the cost of doing business. Industrial plants, for example, are no longer allowed to dump untreated wastes into the nearest river and spew toxic smoke into the air.
Conservatives connect the unrestricted polluting of the past with economic growth. Of course, they avoid thinking about the fact that that economic growth came at great cost to both the land and our people. In many areas of America, the effects of pollution caused decades ago by industry are just now beginning to diminish. There remain many streams polluted by mines which closed a generation ago and which still consequently can't support aquatic life. The generation of today are also burdened with the tremendous cost of cleaning-up thousands of waste dumps all over the country. Of course, we have had millions of industrial workers and their children over the years who suffered the effects caused by polluted and dangerous work environments.
So how does the left see the environmental issue? Their patented answer is massive state regulation, resulting in thousands of burdensome laws which do, to a large degree, stifle economic growth. But is their concern really the well-being of the people? Part of their motivation is inspired by Marxism's hatred of free enterprise and wealth, but by burdening business with a myriad of restrictions they actually harm the people by unnecessarily hindering the nation's economics, and thus foster greater dependance on government. Also the left sees any unequal distribution of wealth as unfair and enacts laws and policies to take money from one group and give it to another.
Fundamentally, this fits the Marxist economic theory economic equality and state regulation of the economy. However, another factor that underlines a significant element of leftist thought is demonstrated by their more extreme "animal rights" faction: the placing of human well-being below that of animals. To the extreme "animal rights" activists, people are an aberration of Nature, a danger to all other life, and the enemies of the Earth. To their minds, the world would be a better place if all people simply vanished.
So how would an RN government differ on the environmental issue? A large part of the problem would be prevented by the RN philosophy itself, since man would be viewed as an intrinsic member of the natural world; a manifestation of Nature.
RN stands in diametric opposition to the position of the conservatives which holds that man is master of the world and all land and animals are subjected to any individual's arbitrary will. RN also opposes the extreme leftist position that man is the destroyer of Nature and separate from the natural world.
The positions of both the right and the left are paradoxically based upon the anti-Nature view found in the Semetic religions of Judaism and Christianity that separates man from the rest of Nature. RN rejects this alien position. (FNF NOTE- Author obviously failed to see that True Christianity differs entirely from this Judaised version he makes reference to. With that we disagree obviously..)
RN recognizes personal responsibility and the desire of persons to have as much economic independence as possible. Thus it has no desire to destroy the free enterprise economic system, and we accept the unequal distribution of wealth as a fact of life. However, as was stated earlier, RN places the well-being of the people above that of economics; Economics is treated merely as a tool for the advancement of the racial community and not an end in itself. Thus, dangerous pollution and worker exploitation would be necessarily restricted, not from a desire to increase state control, but for the protection of the environment that is necessary for healthy living. We also recognize the danger posed by the ultra-wealthy and corporations who are able to manipulate government policy for their own selfish purposes, which in many cases are destructive: NAFTA, GATT, and lobbying for the free flow of cheap foreign labor; all of which undermines the wages of average working Americans.
Another issue, which separates conservatives and liberals from RN, is immigration. For decades we have experienced unprecedented levels of immigration. Also, this immigration is vastly different from that of the past: nearly all immigrants are non-white. Even with poll after poll showing that the overwhelming majority of Americans want immigration dramatically reduced, or eliminated all-together, the Federal Government makes merely ineffective efforts to control immigration -- regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats are in power. Here we have liberals and conservatives is seeming agreement that massive immigration should continue: liberals envision a world of no national borders, of "fairness" and "equality." Conservatives, usually restrict their discussion to illegal immigration and merely want all immigrants, regardless of race, to become citizens. Even in the case of those opposing immigration, we see the whole thing reduced to economic discussions: whether the immigrants are a burden or asset to the economy; each side trotting out their studies and statistics to buttress their respective position.
How would a RN government view immigration? First, and without question, immigration would be tightly restricted to those of our race. The borders would be scrupulously guarded and any non-white illegal immigrant would be promptly repatriated to his homeland. Even citizenship for White immigrants would only be granted with regard to our needs. Again, the prime consideration would be what's best for our respective racial community. Of course, the RN position is anathema to that of the vast majority of conservatives and nearly all liberals, since they have no racial considerations at all, only economic ones. All this is not to say that a RN society would ban non-white tourists, diplomats, or even visitors, but instead that non-whites would never obtain citizenship, participate in our political process, and would have no influence in our media, educational system, and culture.
In the preceding, we have looked at just a couple of areas where the right and the left are in disagreement, but nonetheless use the economic model as the basis of their respective positions. Now, let's look at a couple of areas where the right and left agree with each other while being in opposition to RN. First and foremost is their agreement with interracial marriage, racial mixing, and integration. In this case, we find their agreement based not so much on economics, but in the false doctrine of racial equality. This is especially interesting when we consider that racial equality is a Marxist philosophy, and that only a couple of decades ago conservatives were largely united in opposition to it. That has all changed, not because of any new facts, but because of politically correct fashion.
But, again, with regard to conservatism, we find that its economic philosophical premise never really had a racial imperative - despite the claims by the left. Granted, there were what we consider defenders of our race among various conservative factions of the past, but it was simply impossible for the old conservatives to defend our people against the liberal onslaught using their economics-based orthodoxy.
Obviously, a RN state would have no difficulty here. For example, interracial marriage would be a felony. At the very least, persons engaging in this unnatural activity would be deported or jailed. Of course, today, many trendy persons would see that as unfair and an undo restriction on personal freedom, but it should be remembered that interracial marriage was a crime in America until recent decades and very few White people considered this any great loss of freedom. It was simply understood and accepted as the natural moral paradigm.
Probably, someone will ask "Just what does RN have against interracial marriage?" This question, more than anything, exposes the vast difference between RN and the materialist oriented philosophies of liberalism and conservatism. As was stated earlier, RN is based upon a recognition of Nature.
Even a cursory study of the Natural world shows the underlying force which exists in all life: speciation, competition, and advancement. Since the beginning of time, all life has been dividing into different and more complex forms. We see a diversification process everywhere in plants and animals; each sub-species developing special skills and adaptations which differentiate it from its common ancestors. From the first single-cell animal to humans, life has been following this process. Interracial marriage represents a de-evolution, and a reversal of Nature's universal plan.
RN holds that the desire to associate and mate with persons of one's own race is natural and instinctual. Even today, with interracial dating being glamourized and encouraged in the schools and media, and a host of deliberate government programs aimed at promoting racial integration, we still find the overwhelming majority of both Blacks and Whites selecting mates of their own race for marriage.
Nonetheless, we do find a small, but increasing number of interracial couplings. However, it should surprise no one that if integration programs and the encouragement of interracial marriage were eliminated and replaced with the same effort directed towards racial integrity, interracial marriage would decline rapidly.
Only within a homogenous society where people have a sense of community, history, and group solidarity can advancement really occur. This is something that Whites in America had, more or less, until recent years. We had confidence in ourselves, our nation, our cultural heritage, and our race. We believed we were the best. Now, of course, a non-white person reading this will probably take exception, but I hope they can bear in mind that these assumptions were based upon our own standards. This is much like any school, sports team, or military unit, believes that their respective group is the best and works to improve themselves. As a consequence, competition encouraged and standards are constantly being raised. Of course, their competitors also think themselves superior, but, obviously, not everyone can actually be the best.
Nonetheless, it remains a basic human trait to think one's group to be better than another. So, we have two natural human characteristics: racial affinity and the need to think of their group as being better than the others. RN accepts this and tries to channel these tendencies for the betterment of the society. Both conservatism and liberalism ignore, or worse, create conditions where these tendencies cause much conflict: multi-racialism, multi-culturalism, and heterogeneous populations.
The economic/materialist philosophies of the conservatives and the liberals have brought us the problems we face today. We find social conditions constantly deteriorating. Only by replacing the present attitudes with ones based upon normal morality and Nature can we ever have hope for the future.
By Ian McKinney
Within the present political spectrum of right and left where do we find the philosophy of Racial Nationalism? To right-wingers like Rush Limbaugh all the way to the John Birch Society, Racial Nationalism (RN) is socialist, leftist, collectivist, and a derivative of Marxism. To Marxists and liberals, it is fascist, extreme right, or a tool of corporate interests. So, are any of these descriptions really accurate? The answer is no.
Much of the confusion exists because most people have been indoctrinated with the idea that any political philosophy or movement must invariably fit into one of two categories: right and left. And, today those categories are roughly defined as right-being conservative and left-being liberal. The reason why RN does not really fit into either category is that both conservativism and liberalism view the world in mostly economic terms.
To put it in simplistic terms, the fundamental premise of the right is capitalism and the left Marxism, whereas RN has its foundation in biology and treats economics as an important, but secondary issue.
The fact is that RN has no predefined economic philosophy. Economics are viewed primarily as to how the racial well-being of the people is affected. In short, RN rejects both the conservative model of unrestrained capitalism and the massive state-control of Marxism.
To illustrate this point, we can look at how conservatives and liberals view the environmental issue. To the conservatives, preserving the environment is seen mostly in how environmental laws affect business. Ideally, to them all environmental laws should be eliminated, since they invariably increase the cost of doing business. Industrial plants, for example, are no longer allowed to dump untreated wastes into the nearest river and spew toxic smoke into the air.
Conservatives connect the unrestricted polluting of the past with economic growth. Of course, they avoid thinking about the fact that that economic growth came at great cost to both the land and our people. In many areas of America, the effects of pollution caused decades ago by industry are just now beginning to diminish. There remain many streams polluted by mines which closed a generation ago and which still consequently can't support aquatic life. The generation of today are also burdened with the tremendous cost of cleaning-up thousands of waste dumps all over the country. Of course, we have had millions of industrial workers and their children over the years who suffered the effects caused by polluted and dangerous work environments.
So how does the left see the environmental issue? Their patented answer is massive state regulation, resulting in thousands of burdensome laws which do, to a large degree, stifle economic growth. But is their concern really the well-being of the people? Part of their motivation is inspired by Marxism's hatred of free enterprise and wealth, but by burdening business with a myriad of restrictions they actually harm the people by unnecessarily hindering the nation's economics, and thus foster greater dependance on government. Also the left sees any unequal distribution of wealth as unfair and enacts laws and policies to take money from one group and give it to another.
Fundamentally, this fits the Marxist economic theory economic equality and state regulation of the economy. However, another factor that underlines a significant element of leftist thought is demonstrated by their more extreme "animal rights" faction: the placing of human well-being below that of animals. To the extreme "animal rights" activists, people are an aberration of Nature, a danger to all other life, and the enemies of the Earth. To their minds, the world would be a better place if all people simply vanished.
So how would an RN government differ on the environmental issue? A large part of the problem would be prevented by the RN philosophy itself, since man would be viewed as an intrinsic member of the natural world; a manifestation of Nature.
RN stands in diametric opposition to the position of the conservatives which holds that man is master of the world and all land and animals are subjected to any individual's arbitrary will. RN also opposes the extreme leftist position that man is the destroyer of Nature and separate from the natural world.
The positions of both the right and the left are paradoxically based upon the anti-Nature view found in the Semetic religions of Judaism and Christianity that separates man from the rest of Nature. RN rejects this alien position. (FNF NOTE- Author obviously failed to see that True Christianity differs entirely from this Judaised version he makes reference to. With that we disagree obviously..)
RN recognizes personal responsibility and the desire of persons to have as much economic independence as possible. Thus it has no desire to destroy the free enterprise economic system, and we accept the unequal distribution of wealth as a fact of life. However, as was stated earlier, RN places the well-being of the people above that of economics; Economics is treated merely as a tool for the advancement of the racial community and not an end in itself. Thus, dangerous pollution and worker exploitation would be necessarily restricted, not from a desire to increase state control, but for the protection of the environment that is necessary for healthy living. We also recognize the danger posed by the ultra-wealthy and corporations who are able to manipulate government policy for their own selfish purposes, which in many cases are destructive: NAFTA, GATT, and lobbying for the free flow of cheap foreign labor; all of which undermines the wages of average working Americans.
Another issue, which separates conservatives and liberals from RN, is immigration. For decades we have experienced unprecedented levels of immigration. Also, this immigration is vastly different from that of the past: nearly all immigrants are non-white. Even with poll after poll showing that the overwhelming majority of Americans want immigration dramatically reduced, or eliminated all-together, the Federal Government makes merely ineffective efforts to control immigration -- regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats are in power. Here we have liberals and conservatives is seeming agreement that massive immigration should continue: liberals envision a world of no national borders, of "fairness" and "equality." Conservatives, usually restrict their discussion to illegal immigration and merely want all immigrants, regardless of race, to become citizens. Even in the case of those opposing immigration, we see the whole thing reduced to economic discussions: whether the immigrants are a burden or asset to the economy; each side trotting out their studies and statistics to buttress their respective position.
How would a RN government view immigration? First, and without question, immigration would be tightly restricted to those of our race. The borders would be scrupulously guarded and any non-white illegal immigrant would be promptly repatriated to his homeland. Even citizenship for White immigrants would only be granted with regard to our needs. Again, the prime consideration would be what's best for our respective racial community. Of course, the RN position is anathema to that of the vast majority of conservatives and nearly all liberals, since they have no racial considerations at all, only economic ones. All this is not to say that a RN society would ban non-white tourists, diplomats, or even visitors, but instead that non-whites would never obtain citizenship, participate in our political process, and would have no influence in our media, educational system, and culture.
In the preceding, we have looked at just a couple of areas where the right and the left are in disagreement, but nonetheless use the economic model as the basis of their respective positions. Now, let's look at a couple of areas where the right and left agree with each other while being in opposition to RN. First and foremost is their agreement with interracial marriage, racial mixing, and integration. In this case, we find their agreement based not so much on economics, but in the false doctrine of racial equality. This is especially interesting when we consider that racial equality is a Marxist philosophy, and that only a couple of decades ago conservatives were largely united in opposition to it. That has all changed, not because of any new facts, but because of politically correct fashion.
But, again, with regard to conservatism, we find that its economic philosophical premise never really had a racial imperative - despite the claims by the left. Granted, there were what we consider defenders of our race among various conservative factions of the past, but it was simply impossible for the old conservatives to defend our people against the liberal onslaught using their economics-based orthodoxy.
Obviously, a RN state would have no difficulty here. For example, interracial marriage would be a felony. At the very least, persons engaging in this unnatural activity would be deported or jailed. Of course, today, many trendy persons would see that as unfair and an undo restriction on personal freedom, but it should be remembered that interracial marriage was a crime in America until recent decades and very few White people considered this any great loss of freedom. It was simply understood and accepted as the natural moral paradigm.
Probably, someone will ask "Just what does RN have against interracial marriage?" This question, more than anything, exposes the vast difference between RN and the materialist oriented philosophies of liberalism and conservatism. As was stated earlier, RN is based upon a recognition of Nature.
Even a cursory study of the Natural world shows the underlying force which exists in all life: speciation, competition, and advancement. Since the beginning of time, all life has been dividing into different and more complex forms. We see a diversification process everywhere in plants and animals; each sub-species developing special skills and adaptations which differentiate it from its common ancestors. From the first single-cell animal to humans, life has been following this process. Interracial marriage represents a de-evolution, and a reversal of Nature's universal plan.
RN holds that the desire to associate and mate with persons of one's own race is natural and instinctual. Even today, with interracial dating being glamourized and encouraged in the schools and media, and a host of deliberate government programs aimed at promoting racial integration, we still find the overwhelming majority of both Blacks and Whites selecting mates of their own race for marriage.
Nonetheless, we do find a small, but increasing number of interracial couplings. However, it should surprise no one that if integration programs and the encouragement of interracial marriage were eliminated and replaced with the same effort directed towards racial integrity, interracial marriage would decline rapidly.
Only within a homogenous society where people have a sense of community, history, and group solidarity can advancement really occur. This is something that Whites in America had, more or less, until recent years. We had confidence in ourselves, our nation, our cultural heritage, and our race. We believed we were the best. Now, of course, a non-white person reading this will probably take exception, but I hope they can bear in mind that these assumptions were based upon our own standards. This is much like any school, sports team, or military unit, believes that their respective group is the best and works to improve themselves. As a consequence, competition encouraged and standards are constantly being raised. Of course, their competitors also think themselves superior, but, obviously, not everyone can actually be the best.
Nonetheless, it remains a basic human trait to think one's group to be better than another. So, we have two natural human characteristics: racial affinity and the need to think of their group as being better than the others. RN accepts this and tries to channel these tendencies for the betterment of the society. Both conservatism and liberalism ignore, or worse, create conditions where these tendencies cause much conflict: multi-racialism, multi-culturalism, and heterogeneous populations.
The economic/materialist philosophies of the conservatives and the liberals have brought us the problems we face today. We find social conditions constantly deteriorating. Only by replacing the present attitudes with ones based upon normal morality and Nature can we ever have hope for the future.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
To see all the cartoons, please visit Tim Blair's website:
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/media_told/
Secularist Stupidity & Religious Wars
By Patrick J. Buchanan2-9-6
"What hypocrisy. When it comes to what Germans are most sensitive about, Hitler and the Holocaust, they are ruthless censors. British historian David Irving has spent three months in a Viennese prison awaiting trial on Feb. 20 for speeches he made 15 years ago in Austria. Skeptics and deniers of the Holocaust are prosecuted, fined and imprisoned in Europe with the enthusiastic endorsement of the European press."
That demagogues and agitators are exploiting those cartoons of Mohammed to advance a war of civilizations and expel Europeans from the Middle East seems undeniable.
But that does not excuse the paralyzing stupidity of that Danish paper in running those cartoons or the arrogant irresponsibility of European newspapers in plastering those cartoons all over their front pages.
The storm first broke last September, when Jyllands-Posten published 12 caricatures of Mohammed, including a lampoon of the Prophet with a terrorist bomb as a turban. In the Islamic faith, any depiction of the face of Mohammed is forbidden.
The Danish paper knew this. It published the cartoons to protest "the rejection of modern, secular society" by Muslims. The cartoons were thus a defiant provocation. And they succeeded.
The Middle East responded with a boycott of Danish foods and goods. But when, in the name of press solidarity, Le Soir and Le Monde in Paris, El Pais in Madrid and Die Welt in Berlin republished the cartoons on page one, Islam exploded. For this was an in-your-face declaration by the secularist media of the European Union that it will exercise its right to insult any God, any Prophet, any faith, whenever it so chooses.
"Enough lessons from these reactionary bigots," said Serge Faubert, editor of Le Soir. "Just because the Quran bans images of Mohammed doesn't mean non-Muslims have to submit to this."
Faubert, however, is not a Danish soldier in the Shi'ite sector of Iraq. Innocents will pay the price of his heroism.
The U.S. State Department seemed to empathize with Muslim rage, stating that "inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is unacceptable." But, within hours, State had retreated to neutral ground: "While we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view."
As of today the Danish consulate in Beirut has been burned, Danish embassies have been stormed, and Danes are fleeing the Middle East. Europeans are getting out of the West Bank, Gaza and Beirut, where mobs are attacking embassies and Christian churches.
Islamic countries have recalled ambassadors from Copenhagen. People have been injured and property destroyed in mob assaults as far away as Indonesia. Relations between the West and the Islamic world have been dealt another rupturing blow.
And for what? What was the purpose of this juvenile idiocy by the Europress? Is this what freedom of the press is all about the freedom to insult the faith of a billion people and start a religious war?
Can Europeans be that ignorant of the power of the press to inflame when Bismarck's editing of just a few words in the Ems telegram ignited the Franco-Prussian war? Did Europeans learn nothing from the Salman Rushdie episode? Or the firestorm that gripped the Islamic world when Christian ministers in the United States called Mohammed a "terrorist"?
European governments are wringing their hands over the rage and violence unleashed, but they seem paralyzed. What is the matter? Why cannot they denounce press irresponsibility while defending press freedom? Even friends of the West like Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey have denounced these cartoons as insults to Islamic values and deeply damaging to Western interests.
British Foreign Minister Jack Straw deplored republication of the cartoons as "insensitive ... disrespectful ... wrong." But German Interior Minister Wolfgang Shauble haughtily dissented, "Here, in Europe, governments have nothing to say about which publisher publishes what."
What hypocrisy. When it comes to what Germans are most sensitive about, Hitler and the Holocaust, they are ruthless censors. British historian David Irving has spent three months in a Viennese prison awaiting trial on Feb. 20 for speeches he made 15 years ago in Austria. Skeptics and deniers of the Holocaust are prosecuted, fined and imprisoned in Europe with the enthusiastic endorsement of the European press.
Nor are we all that different. Sen. Trent Lott was ousted as majority leader for a birthday-party compliment to 100-year-old Strom Thurmond. Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker was almost lynched for saying he considers New York a social pigsty. There were demands that Rocker undergo psychiatric counseling.
We have "speech codes" in colleges and "hate crimes" laws to protect minorities from abusive remarks. But newspapers that hail these codes throw a blanket of "artistic freedom" over scatological art that degrades religious symbols from putting a figure of Christ in a jar of urine to a "painting" of the Virgin Mary surrounded by female genitalia and elephant dung that hung in a Brooklyn museum.
What has happened in Europe is that the secular press, which loves to mock the beliefs and symbols of religious faith, has now insulted a deadly serious religion that answers insults with action.
Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and A Republic Not An Empire.
Taken from www.rense.com
By Patrick J. Buchanan2-9-6
"What hypocrisy. When it comes to what Germans are most sensitive about, Hitler and the Holocaust, they are ruthless censors. British historian David Irving has spent three months in a Viennese prison awaiting trial on Feb. 20 for speeches he made 15 years ago in Austria. Skeptics and deniers of the Holocaust are prosecuted, fined and imprisoned in Europe with the enthusiastic endorsement of the European press."
That demagogues and agitators are exploiting those cartoons of Mohammed to advance a war of civilizations and expel Europeans from the Middle East seems undeniable.
But that does not excuse the paralyzing stupidity of that Danish paper in running those cartoons or the arrogant irresponsibility of European newspapers in plastering those cartoons all over their front pages.
The storm first broke last September, when Jyllands-Posten published 12 caricatures of Mohammed, including a lampoon of the Prophet with a terrorist bomb as a turban. In the Islamic faith, any depiction of the face of Mohammed is forbidden.
The Danish paper knew this. It published the cartoons to protest "the rejection of modern, secular society" by Muslims. The cartoons were thus a defiant provocation. And they succeeded.
The Middle East responded with a boycott of Danish foods and goods. But when, in the name of press solidarity, Le Soir and Le Monde in Paris, El Pais in Madrid and Die Welt in Berlin republished the cartoons on page one, Islam exploded. For this was an in-your-face declaration by the secularist media of the European Union that it will exercise its right to insult any God, any Prophet, any faith, whenever it so chooses.
"Enough lessons from these reactionary bigots," said Serge Faubert, editor of Le Soir. "Just because the Quran bans images of Mohammed doesn't mean non-Muslims have to submit to this."
Faubert, however, is not a Danish soldier in the Shi'ite sector of Iraq. Innocents will pay the price of his heroism.
The U.S. State Department seemed to empathize with Muslim rage, stating that "inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is unacceptable." But, within hours, State had retreated to neutral ground: "While we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images, we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to express points of view."
As of today the Danish consulate in Beirut has been burned, Danish embassies have been stormed, and Danes are fleeing the Middle East. Europeans are getting out of the West Bank, Gaza and Beirut, where mobs are attacking embassies and Christian churches.
Islamic countries have recalled ambassadors from Copenhagen. People have been injured and property destroyed in mob assaults as far away as Indonesia. Relations between the West and the Islamic world have been dealt another rupturing blow.
And for what? What was the purpose of this juvenile idiocy by the Europress? Is this what freedom of the press is all about the freedom to insult the faith of a billion people and start a religious war?
Can Europeans be that ignorant of the power of the press to inflame when Bismarck's editing of just a few words in the Ems telegram ignited the Franco-Prussian war? Did Europeans learn nothing from the Salman Rushdie episode? Or the firestorm that gripped the Islamic world when Christian ministers in the United States called Mohammed a "terrorist"?
European governments are wringing their hands over the rage and violence unleashed, but they seem paralyzed. What is the matter? Why cannot they denounce press irresponsibility while defending press freedom? Even friends of the West like Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey have denounced these cartoons as insults to Islamic values and deeply damaging to Western interests.
British Foreign Minister Jack Straw deplored republication of the cartoons as "insensitive ... disrespectful ... wrong." But German Interior Minister Wolfgang Shauble haughtily dissented, "Here, in Europe, governments have nothing to say about which publisher publishes what."
What hypocrisy. When it comes to what Germans are most sensitive about, Hitler and the Holocaust, they are ruthless censors. British historian David Irving has spent three months in a Viennese prison awaiting trial on Feb. 20 for speeches he made 15 years ago in Austria. Skeptics and deniers of the Holocaust are prosecuted, fined and imprisoned in Europe with the enthusiastic endorsement of the European press.
Nor are we all that different. Sen. Trent Lott was ousted as majority leader for a birthday-party compliment to 100-year-old Strom Thurmond. Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker was almost lynched for saying he considers New York a social pigsty. There were demands that Rocker undergo psychiatric counseling.
We have "speech codes" in colleges and "hate crimes" laws to protect minorities from abusive remarks. But newspapers that hail these codes throw a blanket of "artistic freedom" over scatological art that degrades religious symbols from putting a figure of Christ in a jar of urine to a "painting" of the Virgin Mary surrounded by female genitalia and elephant dung that hung in a Brooklyn museum.
What has happened in Europe is that the secular press, which loves to mock the beliefs and symbols of religious faith, has now insulted a deadly serious religion that answers insults with action.
Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and A Republic Not An Empire.
Taken from www.rense.com
Monday, February 06, 2006
"To disregard the national bond of human groups and to establish a political system contradictory to social reality sets up a temporary structure which will be destroyed by the movement of the social factor of those groups, i.e. the national movement of each nation."
"All the states which are composed of several nationalisms for various reasons - whether of religious, economics, military power or of man-made ideologies - will be torn up by the national conflict until each nationalism is independent, i.e. the social factor will inevitably triumph over the political factor."- Muammar al-Qathafi, THE GREEN BOOK.
Attack the System
By KEITH PRESTON
The USA is presently degenerating into full-blown tyranny. The present regime has every intention of expanding the current war for imperial consolidation into as many countries as possible. Public opinion be damned. If public opinion gets to be too inconvenient for the System, martial law will simply be declared. Plans for that were drawn up a long time ago. If you are of draft age, or a little older than the present draft age, then plan on getting a notice ordering you to one or another military training facility. If you don't go, plan on going to federal prison for a long, long time. The present day Republican Party is a fascist party in everything but name and the Republicans control every branch of the federal government and a majority of the state governments. The alleged opposition party, the Democrats, are a collection of crooks, wimps and airheads. They will likely go the way of the Whigs very soon and good riddance.
The USA is a full-blown police state. America leads the world in per capita incarceration rates and is second only to China in its execution rates. In czarsist Russia, there were five thousand policemen in a nation of 180 million. Just the LAPD or the NYPD match that on their own. Because of modern technology, the state now has surveillance powers the tyrants of antiquity could only dream of. The System is currently attempting to put the final nails in the coffin of the Bill of Rights by eliminating habeas corpus and legitimizing torture. The USA is a dying nation. The dollar is shrinking, wages are gradually being sunk to Third World level. It's the nineteenth century all over again. The USA is the world's leading debtor nation in terms of public debt, corporate debt, trade debt and consumer debt. Eventually all those creditors out there are going to call in all of that debt and the US economy will resemble that of Argentina.
Where are the anarchists? Where are all those folks who used to go out and raise hell whenever the WTO or IMF came to town? If there's ever going to be an anarchist revolution in this country, now is the time to get moving. I've been an anarchist for twenty years. Let me tell you about all of the mistakes I've made along the way so you won't repeat them. If you aspire to be an anarchist revolutionary in the 21st century, then listen up.
First of all, forget about the Left. I started out on the Left twenty years ago as an antiwar activist. Historically, the Left was the party of class struggle and we should thank them for it. Without the historic labor Left, you would still be working sixteen hour days for $2 an hour. If the present day Establishment gets their way, you will be again. Today, however, the Left is a joke, concerned only about bourgeoise identity politics and whatever intellectual fad that happens to be in style this season. If you don't believe me, by all means trying working with the modern Left. Sit in on some of their meetings and listen to all of the drivel about male domination and homophobia and listen to all of the middle-class white kids trying to pretend like they're black militants and you'll soon see what I mean. It might be more productive to sit in the studio audience of the latest episode of the Jerry Springer Show.
Second, forget about fantasies about revolution by "the workers". I was in the labor movement for a few years. I did strike support work with a number of different unions. It was all anyone could do to get "the workers" to show up for picket duty, much less carry out a "revolution". The workers are concerned only with their own bread and butter, not revolution, and they never were. Even in the historic labor movement, anarchists and other hard-core radicals were always in the minority.
Third, if you're an anarchist, chances are you're probably a white person. Forget about trying to set yourself up as a self-appointed guardian or savior of the black race. If you want to support one or another black cause, then look to actual black leaders who organize actual black people and ask what you can do to help. Chances are they'll probably tell you to mind your own business and stay out of their way. If you want to advance the cause of anarchism in the minority communities, probably the best groups to reach out to would be the black and Hispanic gangs. Be careful if you do this, it's extremely dangerous, but many of these groups views themselves as independent nations at war with the US government. This is precisely the kind of mindset we should seek to cultivate. Over the years, the population groups that I have found to be the easiest to convert to sympathizers for the anarchist struggle have been members of the urban lumpenproletariat (i.e, street kids, the homeless, criminals, ex-convicts, drug users and sellers, prostitutes, mental patients, the pettiest of the petty bourgeoise, the most lumpen of the lumpenproles). Now, these people are typically not very stable, so most of them aren't leadership material, but they make for essential periphery (informants, scouts, middlemen, etc.) But be careful and keep your eyes open. There are a lot of double agents among these groups. If they'll inform for you, they may be informing for the other side as well.
Fourth, look at your own life circumstances and figure out what you can do to most contribute to the struggle against the State given your age, income, occupation, location, skills, etc. If you have a job "within the system", if you're a public school teacher or college professor, social worker, police officer or EMT or firefighter, petty bureaucrat, physician, lawyer, or soldier there's a lot you can do right where you are to fight the System. Figure out what it is. Identify others in your field who are potential recruits to our Cause and form a cell. But don't blow your cover. If you're in the System, it's a good idea to generally hide your radical views. Publicly become a neoconservative or neoliberal if you need to. Work your way into leadership positions. If you're in the military, work to become a platoon commander. If you're a cop, work yourself into a position to influence department policy. If you're in the school system, propagandize when you can, otherwise look for students with that special spark. If you're in the social services or any other bureaucracy, work to spread our message to your "clients". Work to nullify and weaken the System where you are and when you can.
Fifth, forget about so-called "protest demonstrations". They're useless. I haven't been to one since 1991 and I'm not going back. Ours is not a movement for the masses at present. Before we can have followers, we have to have leaders. Forget about membership organizations period. These are just havens for losers who want to belong to something. Most of these groups waste time fighting with each other for control of the group. Instead, form a cell of 3 to 5 people whom you trust completely (and no, not someone you met at a rally or in your political science class or over the internet). These should be people you've known for years and whom you know to be solid. If you don't know any people like this, then just be a "lone wolf".
Sixth, beware of anyone that proposes anything illegal. Effective warriors don't attempt to recruit people they barely know into risky activities. Go along with these people and next time you see them they'll be testifying against you in court. Avoid getting near contraband. It is the height of foolishness to be a public political dissident and simultaneously be involved in illegal activity (drug dealing, holding hot shit, illegal weapons, etc.) You don't need illegal weapons. Make sure your firearms have all the required permits, etc. Otherwise, keep them far out of sight. All you need are run of the mill semi-automatic handguns, high-powered hunting rifles with a good scope (good for sniping) and ordinary shotguns (sawed off as low as possible these will take limbs off, but don't do the sawing until the shooting begins-remember Randy Weaver). Don't even bother with trying to procure shit like grenades, land mines or mortars unless you're already in the military or some other capacity where this might be more feasible. If you're already a convicted felon, stay away from firearms altogether. Get a good knife and learn how to use it.
Seventh, give yourself a good political education. Learn how the System actually works. Study economics. Study history. Study tactical works like those of Machiavelli or Sun-Tzu. Study military science. Study leading military thinkers and guerrilla warfare tacticians. Study how the Vietcong won the war for Vietnamese independence. Be informed. Follow both the alternative press and the international press (from all ideological perspectives).
Eighth, look for allies where you can find them. Forget about irrelevant cultural or ideological differences. Chances are you will find just as many people with whom you can connect on the Right as on the Left. Treat your politics as war and not as religion. Put practical politics over high theory. And always remember, an enemy of an enemy is a friend, at least in the short-term. Don't waste time arguing about where you disagree. Focus on where you agree.Ninth, adopt an attitude that reflects martial spirit. This is war. Treat it like war. If you need role models, look to the Islamic resistance fighters or to rebel fighters in Latin America. Both of these put North American radicals to shame. Forget all of the utopian nonsense you've heard about "non-violence". The enemy certainly isn't going to practice non-violence.
Lastly, have some coherent ideas about what you actually want to achieve. Most so-called anarchists couldn't give an intelligible definition of anarchism to save their lives. Here's my suggestion: Let's work to build a common revolutionary movement to eradicate the US government and replace it with decentralized, regional federations of voluntary communities organized by sovereign individuals. Leave all of the other details (economics, culture, ideology, technology, crime, dispute resolution, community-organizing, propaganda, defense, education, specific tactical or strategic considerations, etc.) to the local community, village, town, neighborhood or municipal district. These will vary considerably from place to place. There are plenty of people from plenty of backgrounds with plenty of ideological labels whose ideas are reasonably compatible with this outlook.
Do not ever be swayed by System propaganda or appeals to emotionalism or sentimentalism. Case in point: after September 11, I don't know how many people in various radical or resistance movements I heard say something like, "Well, I don't like the US government or its polices but......". Get over it. The 3000 killed in the 9-11 mess are a drop in the bucket compared to the 300,000 the US incinerated at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, the millions killed in Southeast Asia and various counterinsurgency campaigns or the tens of thousands killed in the present war in Iraq. The present regime in Washington, D.C. is the Enemy. End of discussion. We must view that regime as the equivalent of an enemy occupational regime, as an enemy military force or simply as an enemy gang with whom we are battling for "turf". As long as the regime stands we will be under their boot. They hate people like us and don't want us in their Empire. It's a question of US or Them.
It's good that there's a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's good that the regime has plans for attacking Iran and Syria. It's good that the economy's going down the tubes. It's good that crime and social unraveling are on the rise. It's good that more people are losing faith in the System. All of this has to happen in order for the Enemy to lose control. Political disintegration works in our favor. If you're an anarchist and you're serious about revolution, plan on becoming a guerrilla fighter a la Nester Makhno at some point in your future. Start preparing yourself now for when that day comes. Follow the resistance currently going on in Iraq. What can you learn from the Iraqi resistance? If the System Pigs in Washington, D.C. can be beaten in the streets of Baghdad or in the mountains of Afghanistan, then they can be beaten in the streets of Atlanta or the Appalachian mountains.
http://www.attackthesystem.com
By KEITH PRESTON
The USA is presently degenerating into full-blown tyranny. The present regime has every intention of expanding the current war for imperial consolidation into as many countries as possible. Public opinion be damned. If public opinion gets to be too inconvenient for the System, martial law will simply be declared. Plans for that were drawn up a long time ago. If you are of draft age, or a little older than the present draft age, then plan on getting a notice ordering you to one or another military training facility. If you don't go, plan on going to federal prison for a long, long time. The present day Republican Party is a fascist party in everything but name and the Republicans control every branch of the federal government and a majority of the state governments. The alleged opposition party, the Democrats, are a collection of crooks, wimps and airheads. They will likely go the way of the Whigs very soon and good riddance.
The USA is a full-blown police state. America leads the world in per capita incarceration rates and is second only to China in its execution rates. In czarsist Russia, there were five thousand policemen in a nation of 180 million. Just the LAPD or the NYPD match that on their own. Because of modern technology, the state now has surveillance powers the tyrants of antiquity could only dream of. The System is currently attempting to put the final nails in the coffin of the Bill of Rights by eliminating habeas corpus and legitimizing torture. The USA is a dying nation. The dollar is shrinking, wages are gradually being sunk to Third World level. It's the nineteenth century all over again. The USA is the world's leading debtor nation in terms of public debt, corporate debt, trade debt and consumer debt. Eventually all those creditors out there are going to call in all of that debt and the US economy will resemble that of Argentina.
Where are the anarchists? Where are all those folks who used to go out and raise hell whenever the WTO or IMF came to town? If there's ever going to be an anarchist revolution in this country, now is the time to get moving. I've been an anarchist for twenty years. Let me tell you about all of the mistakes I've made along the way so you won't repeat them. If you aspire to be an anarchist revolutionary in the 21st century, then listen up.
First of all, forget about the Left. I started out on the Left twenty years ago as an antiwar activist. Historically, the Left was the party of class struggle and we should thank them for it. Without the historic labor Left, you would still be working sixteen hour days for $2 an hour. If the present day Establishment gets their way, you will be again. Today, however, the Left is a joke, concerned only about bourgeoise identity politics and whatever intellectual fad that happens to be in style this season. If you don't believe me, by all means trying working with the modern Left. Sit in on some of their meetings and listen to all of the drivel about male domination and homophobia and listen to all of the middle-class white kids trying to pretend like they're black militants and you'll soon see what I mean. It might be more productive to sit in the studio audience of the latest episode of the Jerry Springer Show.
Second, forget about fantasies about revolution by "the workers". I was in the labor movement for a few years. I did strike support work with a number of different unions. It was all anyone could do to get "the workers" to show up for picket duty, much less carry out a "revolution". The workers are concerned only with their own bread and butter, not revolution, and they never were. Even in the historic labor movement, anarchists and other hard-core radicals were always in the minority.
Third, if you're an anarchist, chances are you're probably a white person. Forget about trying to set yourself up as a self-appointed guardian or savior of the black race. If you want to support one or another black cause, then look to actual black leaders who organize actual black people and ask what you can do to help. Chances are they'll probably tell you to mind your own business and stay out of their way. If you want to advance the cause of anarchism in the minority communities, probably the best groups to reach out to would be the black and Hispanic gangs. Be careful if you do this, it's extremely dangerous, but many of these groups views themselves as independent nations at war with the US government. This is precisely the kind of mindset we should seek to cultivate. Over the years, the population groups that I have found to be the easiest to convert to sympathizers for the anarchist struggle have been members of the urban lumpenproletariat (i.e, street kids, the homeless, criminals, ex-convicts, drug users and sellers, prostitutes, mental patients, the pettiest of the petty bourgeoise, the most lumpen of the lumpenproles). Now, these people are typically not very stable, so most of them aren't leadership material, but they make for essential periphery (informants, scouts, middlemen, etc.) But be careful and keep your eyes open. There are a lot of double agents among these groups. If they'll inform for you, they may be informing for the other side as well.
Fourth, look at your own life circumstances and figure out what you can do to most contribute to the struggle against the State given your age, income, occupation, location, skills, etc. If you have a job "within the system", if you're a public school teacher or college professor, social worker, police officer or EMT or firefighter, petty bureaucrat, physician, lawyer, or soldier there's a lot you can do right where you are to fight the System. Figure out what it is. Identify others in your field who are potential recruits to our Cause and form a cell. But don't blow your cover. If you're in the System, it's a good idea to generally hide your radical views. Publicly become a neoconservative or neoliberal if you need to. Work your way into leadership positions. If you're in the military, work to become a platoon commander. If you're a cop, work yourself into a position to influence department policy. If you're in the school system, propagandize when you can, otherwise look for students with that special spark. If you're in the social services or any other bureaucracy, work to spread our message to your "clients". Work to nullify and weaken the System where you are and when you can.
Fifth, forget about so-called "protest demonstrations". They're useless. I haven't been to one since 1991 and I'm not going back. Ours is not a movement for the masses at present. Before we can have followers, we have to have leaders. Forget about membership organizations period. These are just havens for losers who want to belong to something. Most of these groups waste time fighting with each other for control of the group. Instead, form a cell of 3 to 5 people whom you trust completely (and no, not someone you met at a rally or in your political science class or over the internet). These should be people you've known for years and whom you know to be solid. If you don't know any people like this, then just be a "lone wolf".
Sixth, beware of anyone that proposes anything illegal. Effective warriors don't attempt to recruit people they barely know into risky activities. Go along with these people and next time you see them they'll be testifying against you in court. Avoid getting near contraband. It is the height of foolishness to be a public political dissident and simultaneously be involved in illegal activity (drug dealing, holding hot shit, illegal weapons, etc.) You don't need illegal weapons. Make sure your firearms have all the required permits, etc. Otherwise, keep them far out of sight. All you need are run of the mill semi-automatic handguns, high-powered hunting rifles with a good scope (good for sniping) and ordinary shotguns (sawed off as low as possible these will take limbs off, but don't do the sawing until the shooting begins-remember Randy Weaver). Don't even bother with trying to procure shit like grenades, land mines or mortars unless you're already in the military or some other capacity where this might be more feasible. If you're already a convicted felon, stay away from firearms altogether. Get a good knife and learn how to use it.
Seventh, give yourself a good political education. Learn how the System actually works. Study economics. Study history. Study tactical works like those of Machiavelli or Sun-Tzu. Study military science. Study leading military thinkers and guerrilla warfare tacticians. Study how the Vietcong won the war for Vietnamese independence. Be informed. Follow both the alternative press and the international press (from all ideological perspectives).
Eighth, look for allies where you can find them. Forget about irrelevant cultural or ideological differences. Chances are you will find just as many people with whom you can connect on the Right as on the Left. Treat your politics as war and not as religion. Put practical politics over high theory. And always remember, an enemy of an enemy is a friend, at least in the short-term. Don't waste time arguing about where you disagree. Focus on where you agree.Ninth, adopt an attitude that reflects martial spirit. This is war. Treat it like war. If you need role models, look to the Islamic resistance fighters or to rebel fighters in Latin America. Both of these put North American radicals to shame. Forget all of the utopian nonsense you've heard about "non-violence". The enemy certainly isn't going to practice non-violence.
Lastly, have some coherent ideas about what you actually want to achieve. Most so-called anarchists couldn't give an intelligible definition of anarchism to save their lives. Here's my suggestion: Let's work to build a common revolutionary movement to eradicate the US government and replace it with decentralized, regional federations of voluntary communities organized by sovereign individuals. Leave all of the other details (economics, culture, ideology, technology, crime, dispute resolution, community-organizing, propaganda, defense, education, specific tactical or strategic considerations, etc.) to the local community, village, town, neighborhood or municipal district. These will vary considerably from place to place. There are plenty of people from plenty of backgrounds with plenty of ideological labels whose ideas are reasonably compatible with this outlook.
Do not ever be swayed by System propaganda or appeals to emotionalism or sentimentalism. Case in point: after September 11, I don't know how many people in various radical or resistance movements I heard say something like, "Well, I don't like the US government or its polices but......". Get over it. The 3000 killed in the 9-11 mess are a drop in the bucket compared to the 300,000 the US incinerated at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, the millions killed in Southeast Asia and various counterinsurgency campaigns or the tens of thousands killed in the present war in Iraq. The present regime in Washington, D.C. is the Enemy. End of discussion. We must view that regime as the equivalent of an enemy occupational regime, as an enemy military force or simply as an enemy gang with whom we are battling for "turf". As long as the regime stands we will be under their boot. They hate people like us and don't want us in their Empire. It's a question of US or Them.
It's good that there's a war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's good that the regime has plans for attacking Iran and Syria. It's good that the economy's going down the tubes. It's good that crime and social unraveling are on the rise. It's good that more people are losing faith in the System. All of this has to happen in order for the Enemy to lose control. Political disintegration works in our favor. If you're an anarchist and you're serious about revolution, plan on becoming a guerrilla fighter a la Nester Makhno at some point in your future. Start preparing yourself now for when that day comes. Follow the resistance currently going on in Iraq. What can you learn from the Iraqi resistance? If the System Pigs in Washington, D.C. can be beaten in the streets of Baghdad or in the mountains of Afghanistan, then they can be beaten in the streets of Atlanta or the Appalachian mountains.
http://www.attackthesystem.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)