Monday, July 31, 2006


This is a statement from one of the members of the New Right Australia New Zealand Committee and is representative of our views. It is intended to be a critique of nationalism as it exists today, particularly in America and Australia, and, despite the critical tone throughout, is intended to be constructive. Our aim in posting it here is to do something good for nationalism by making it more viable and help achieve the breakthroughs we are all striving for.

New Right Australia New Zealand Committee

I have been following the recent scandal in the American National Socialist Movement (NSM) with some interest. For those nationalists who are not in the know, it was revealed that some of the NSM's prominent members are involved in Satanism and other disgusting things. These unsavoury facts have been disclosed at, among other places, a former leading member of the NSM, Bill White, website, Bill White himself has been forced to resign (he denies that he was forced to resign and that he did it on his own accord) from the NSM and set up a splinter movement that he is currently organizing to get off the ground.

Bill White's career sums up a lot of what is the good, the bad and the ugly in today's nationalist politics. He is a very successful business man which is a rarity for Nationalists in the USA. Bill White began his political career as a left-winger, before becoming, like so many left wingers today, interested in the ideas of Third Positionism. He read Francis Parker Yockey's Imperium, and was unimpressed by it. But Julius Evola's books, particularly "Revolt against the Modern World", converted him. He used to be a writer for the internet version of Pravda, a Russian publication and he also wrote some articles for the Mathaba News Service, an alternative internet news provider with strong ties to Africa and Muslim organizations. He became, over this period, more and more anti-Semitic, and wrote a good many essays containing penetrating insights into the Jews and Zionism. He is not a trained intellectual, but still wrote some intellectually stimulating pieces of writing. His site,, at the time was one of the more professional, and enjoyable, nationalist sites on the web.

His downfall began, in my view, when he took up the ideas of Savitri Devi, a great female thinker, but one whose ideas - particularly the doctrine that Hitler is a reincarnation of Krishna or whatnot - must be taken with a grain of salt. Bill swallowed Devi-ism hook, line and sinker. He ended up joining a Nutzi movement, the National Socialist Movement (NSM) in America and soon he was wearing a homemade Stormtrooper outfit complete with a swastika armband and marching at the head of Rockwellian demonstrations against Negroes and Hispanics. His writings developed a ranting style against Jews, Negros, Communists, et. and rather pornographic attacks on anybody he didn't like.

In short, he lost the plot.

Eventually, with the revelations of the Satanism of a prominent NSM member, he snapped. He initially tried to argue that Satanism was, being an 'Aryan' and 'Pagan' doctrine, reconcilable with Devi's Esoteric Hitlerism to a certain degree. Perhaps one can reconcile the two (although I doubt it). But one thing is for sure: Satanism is not reconcilable with Hitler's National Socialism - the only real National Socialism - and would have been rejected by the German National Socialists, as filth, pure and simple, and Jewish-inspired filth at that.(In fact, if one wants to be a Satanist, and adopt a Nietzschean master-morality, one should convert to Judaism. The similarities between Judaist and Satanist ethics are many). Satanist freaks, along with the "Hollywood" skinheads, and the uniform-wearing Nutzis themselves, would have been locked up in a camp in Hitler's Germany, and not let out until they had proved themselves to be decent members of society.

The fact of the matter is, Devi's Esoteric Hitlerism is not German National Socialism, and never will be. Only because she idolized Hitler and used the symbols doesn't make her a political National Socialist, especially not a German one. Her "National Socialism" is a distortion. Or, more accurately, she has selected some of the minor, peripheral points of the doctrine and then brought them to the forefront; by doing so, she has invented a new doctrine which has only a superficial resemblance to the original. This is how Bill White, and other sincere, self-professed 'National Socialists', ended up becoming swept up in Nutzism and associated movements which have radically diverged from National Socialism, and Mussolini's Fascism. (And no American, especially in 2006, could be a National Socialist anyway; for National Socialism was a German, and to a lesser extent, Dutch, Swedish and Danish, movement relevant to a particular place (Western Europe) at a particular time (the 1930s and 1940s). The same goes for the fascist movements of Degrelle, Vidkun Quisling and the others).

Why is it, though, that a large number of nationalist movements - including the Nutzis, but not restricted to them - today attract such freakish people: Satanists, Odinists, Christian Identity-ists, Church of the Creator-ists? Why is it that some nationalists cannot accept ordinary Protestants or Catholics, or agnostics and atheists? Why are they attracted to made-up religions?

There are, in my opinion, a number of reasons. Firstly, it is a question of the class base. The fascists in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s recruited from a middle-class base, and often the lower-middle classes. Their cadre of support tended to be salary men (and women), often used to working for large organisations and not owning or running businesses themselves. They were inclined, because of this (and the fact that many of them were employed, or would have liked to have been employed, by the government), to gravitate towards socialism. Inexperience with capitalism and business made them suspicious of capitalist methods. What is more, they had suffered, as Hitler and Mussolini did, during the bust periods of capitalism. Both of these men had lived a secure existence in the army - an experience, despite all the blood and suffering of the First World War, which they had both very much enjoyed. But, after demobilisation, both fell into bitter poverty.

Today the fascist class base, with its statist and socialist inclinations, would vote Democrat in the USA, for Labour in Britain (Tony Blair, in the past, has exploited middle-class fears and insecurities, particularly on crime and juvenile delinquency, brilliantly) and for Labour in Australia.

We can say that the men and women of the lower-middle class in America, Britain or any Western country today tend to deport themselves with a modicum of decency and professionalism; they could not work as typists, civil servants, architects, etc, otherwise. They need to conform socially in order to keep their jobs: it is a case of professional necessity. Their income would be endangered if they were to dress freakishly with a SS Uniform or publicly espouse Satanism or Christian Identity. One cannot say the same, however, for the average Nutzi, or “Hollywood” skinhead, or indeed many of the nationalists I myself have met. They are lumpenproletarians; the NSM's followers, who appear to have stepped off the set from a Jerry Springer show, come from that class.

Bill White may boast that all the NSM members he knows 'have jobs', but jobs at what? Chicken pluckers? Fruit pickers? Shelf stackers? The American labour market always has jobs, but it is a question of how low, in terms of class and income, one wants to go. (Many lumpenproletarian in Australia or Europe do not have this option, and are more often than not forced to live on welfare). Because one has no career to speak of, merely a service-level job in a chicken factory or supermarket, one can afford to march up and down in a homemade Stormtrooper uniform, or espouse Christian Identity. What does one have to lose? Nothing!

Another trait of the lumpenproletarian, and, admittedly, the working-classes, is a lack of educational, or at least, intellectual, attainment. When one of them encounters a unified system which explains how the world is what it is - whether it be Satanism or Christian Identity or Communism - they are immediately overwhelmed. They are not accustomed to thinking outside of themselves and their narrow preoccupations. What is more, they do not have the training or the discernment to see through the fallacies of Communism, for example, or see Satanism for the fourth-rate pseudo-philosophy that it is.

Ironically, Bill White is always denouncing left-wing activists as being more or less of the same mentality. To him, the average anarchist or communist, especially the anti-racist type, lives off welfare or off his parent's money. They are unable to accomplish much in life, and not uncoincidentally, have little personal wealth; so they engage in nihilistic, pointless activity, and adhere to Judaised left-wing doctrines which claim to be the champions of the poor end of the community. (This tallies with my own experience of the anti-racist Left, with the exception that in Australia, university education is normally free and students are subsidised by the government for a short period of time). Some of the left-wingers may come from good middle-class families; but the lifestyle encourages a certain lumpenprole-ism. And they are just as intellectually vulnerable as your average chicken-plucker, and so tend to swallow Marx, Chomskyism and the other Jewish creeds whole.

So we have two sides which are remarkably similar: on one, the Far Right (for want of a better term); on the other, the Far Left. Both of them have a disproportionate appeal to drop-outs, the Far Left taking in middle-class drop-outs, the Far Right the working-class drop-outs. The dropping-out in question is to the lumpenproletarian level. That is, they are falling, a few rungs in the ladder, to the lowest possible class.

It is this isolation from reality, from mainstream life (eg, participation in everyday politics, and participation in the labour force) which breeds a certain underground mentality in the Far Right in particular. Which explains why its members are attracted to what Julius Evola would classify as 'subterranean' or 'ghetto' cults, cults such as Satanism, Heathenism and the like - that is, religions which appeal to those on the fringes of civilised life, to what the Hindus call the untouchable caste.

So how is nationalism to be saved from the Bill Whites, the World Churches of the Creators and the rest? The answer is obvious enough: nationalists must recruit from the middle-classes, not from the lumpen. Nationalism, if it found its electoral base in the middle-classes (especially the lower middle-classes) would more closely resemble the historical Italian Fascism and German National Socialism than Bill White's Nutzism.

The original Fascism and National Socialism were socialist, and Left, movements. The goal of them was to maintain the economic position of the middle-classes who had been ruined by a succession of economic catastrophes since the First World War. In that respect, they were not much different from the mainstream Australian conservative agrarian party, the Nationals, who exist to redistribute taxpayer's money to the rural class (or, for that matter, the farming lobbyists in the EU, France in particular). In both France and Australia, farmers are increasingly unable to make a decent living or at least live in the style they became accustomed to. How much of that is due to inefficiency or to bad luck is difficult to determine.

In any case, the farmers certainly feel entitled (out of a sense of 'social justice') to government remuneration. The same is to be said of the German middle-classes in the 1920s and 1930s, who perhaps were rather indifferent to the Jewish question but understood instinctively that Adolf Hitler was one of them and that his party was acting in their class interest. (It must not be forgotten, either, that failed farmers formed a large part of Hitler's constituency. Again, the farmers wanted socialism, and got it: the National Socialist government, among other things, wiped out their debts).

But here is the paradox. I have castigated the Nutzis, and the Far Left, for attracting misfits, dropouts, losers and fringe dwellers. But National Socialism and Italian Fascism attracted the same sort of people. We all know that Hitler, Mussolini, Goering, Goebbels and the rest experienced great hardship in their younger days; this fact is often used to explain their bitterness, their sense of deprivation, their radicalism and their cynicism. But socialism gave them someone to blame for their troubles: the Jews, the capitalists, the irresponsible parliamentary democrats, the Freemasons. If they had been inculcated with a sense of responsibility for their own failures, and taught not to blame them on other people, the world would never have seen fascism.

In other words, one could say that both fascism and certain elements of today's nationalism the fascists appeal to the less evolved sides of the human character. There is no reason why such a socialism as Hitler's and Mussolini's cannot win over the middle-classes of today's Germany and Italy, or for that matter America and Australia. Socialism is still going strong in 2006. But whether or not socialism is good for nationalism, or, for that matter, the West itself, is another matter entirely.

We, the members of the New Right Australia New Zealand, do not want nationalism to be bourgeois, ossified and reactionary, like Le Pen's or De Villiers'; at the same time, we should not be aiming at people who are naturally going to be attracted to a socialism - that is, the failures in life who are going to attribute their own deprivation to mysterious Jewish and capitalist conspiracies. This is not to take a soft, pro-Jewish line: it is merely to examine our own motives for thinking as we do and considering what is in progressive nationalism's best interest.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

The Evils of Miscegenation

by Thomas Fairweather

A lot of people probably do not understand the word miscegenation. Basically it means race-mixing or racial-mixed marriages. "Miscegenation" comes from the Latin miscere, "to mix" and genus, "race".[1] It is something which most people in today’s society do not even raise an eyebrow about. But only a few decades ago in the United States of America miscegenation was illegal. In fact, even an American President by the name of Warren G. Harding was totally against the idea of miscegenation and had mentioned it in a speech that he did. As this is an opinion piece I will give my own views on the issues. Personally I find miscegenation to be abhorrent, something that deluded liberal-minded people do who only see them selves plainly as being “human-beings” rather than humans of a particular race/ethnic group. They do understand their heritage and background that has remained pure for countless generations only to be diluted and spoilt by an act of so-called love or lust. Now this does not just count for ONLY Whites being pure but for people of all backgrounds, whether they are Asian, African, or Arab etc. As noted by Dr. Lundborg ‘a general mixture would certainly result for the whole of mankind in a fateful downfall of the highest culture races and all their achievements.’ [2] Meaning all our unique and amazing cultures that each country has would be ruined eventually over time because of miscegenation. In Australia I feel that this is a major issue which is being ignored by people who seem to accept miscegenation as a “normal” occurrence. The true European heritage of most White Australians is being deteriorated through the frequency of miscegenation in recent times.

Of course, you will always hear the bleating of the usual liberal rhetoric that there is no such thing as miscegenation and that we are all human. Yet they also continue to say that they promote diversity. But the question can we be so sure of their agenda? If they promote diversity yet also promote miscegenation do they not realise that this will eventually cause the world to all become the same mixed “coffee-coloured” people. How is that supposed to be promoting diversity?! Quite a contradictory view don’t you think?

As noted in the National Vanguard ‘of course, miscegenation is not a natural occurrence. Evolution would have been impossible if every evolutionary experiment had been short-circuited by cross-breeding. Nature's urge toward higher and more complex life forms has demanded that subspecies remain genetically isolated until all possibility of genetic admixture has been removed. Even though such isolation of the various human subspecies from one another has not been of sufficient length to ensure the impossibility of genetic admixture, it has ensured the existence of deep-seated psychological barriers which, under natural conditions, prevent miscegenation.’ [3] This explains how before advancements in technology to travel all around the world people of different races where separated geographically over thousands of years and developed uniquely having their own way of adapting to the environment they lived in, whether it is different shaped eyes, darker shades of skin, etc.

An African American by the name of Emanuel McLittle explains that ‘all living things express a genetic mandate to remain separate. Be it tree, dog, molecule, atom or apples. This fact does not imply a kind of prejudice in the fingers of nature. Instead it speaks to a creative wisdom working to preserve each element, kind, species and race as it was originally created--forming a universe where an unnumbered variety cooperate in the shaping of a beautiful whole. I argue that a similar mandate exists for humans, but unlike the pine tree, a blade of grass, or the great white shark, we can ignore this mandate.’ [4] This of course does not mean that we should ignore our differences but rather celebrate them. People should be proud of their racial/ethnic heritage and not be ashamed of it. They should also not seek to ruin their heritage by committing miscegenation without realising the consequences.

Emanuel McLittle also notes that ‘interracial marriage is often born of a disdain for oneself and an unconscious drive to erase oneself via the next generation. I would venture a guess that many of those who engage in race mixing are running on the legs of buried anger and frustration, from a helpless, painful childhood where their first mates, their parents, failed them. Growing up with a fractured identity of their own, they are often driven by a false notion that they can leave behind one ugly world by merging into another.’ [5] This is quite an interesting view because it discusses how often it is people who do not have happy and fulfilled lives that commit miscegenation. Often, it is Liberalism and covert Marxist ideologies in Western societies that has brought about this downfall. James Buchanan believes that ‘unfortunately decades of Marxist propaganda claiming that the only racial difference is “skin colour” has convinced the cowardly and the foolish to support race-mixing. This brings up the question “How stupid are liberals?” Do they really believe that millions of their fellow Whites oppose race-mixing based solely on something as trivial as skin colour?’ [6] This points out that there are still people out there who do not understand that race is MORE than just about skin colour. It is about cultural, psychological, physiological differences that humans have. Just like we understand that there are different breeds of dogs such as Dobermans, Chihuahuas, Corgis etc which have their own unique characteristics there are also different breeds or races of human beings.

It must be realised that acts of miscegenation will ruin thousands of years of racial/ethnic heritage not just for White people but for every race. Michael J. Polignano argues that a ‘race's unique genetic identity will be maintained only as long as it remains genetically separate and exclusive, breeding within itself and not breeding with other races. Miscegenation undoes this. Thus it destroys millennia of racial evolution. The genes are not lost, per se, just as no paint molecules are lost when different colors of paint are mixed. But it would take millennia to re-isolate gene types that can be spread out among a miscegenated population in just one generation of crossbreeding’. [7] In many ways it could even be seen as a form of subtle genocide where one race or a number of races are eventually destroyed by “breeding” out the characteristics of a particular race and amalgamating them with a number of others. This is particular harmful to people of European heritage because of their non-dominant genes. For example, if a woman from Norway with blonde hair and blue eyes and white skin miscegenated with an African man from Sudan with dark brown hair and brown eyes and black skin then if they produce a child it will have the dominant genes of dark brown hair and brown eyes and black or possibly brown skin. For any people who want to partake in miscegenation they must realise that their child will bare almost no resemblance to them whatsoever because of the unfortunate fact or their non dominant genes. That is why it is important not only for White people but for people of all races to keep their racial uniqueness by discouraging miscegenation.

Of course there will always be critics out there who question the agenda of those that are against miscegenation. But those people who believe that miscegenation does not exist or believe in racial equality often have a hidden agenda themselves. They too can be quite delusional in relation to this issue or have a vested interest in supporting miscegenation because they participate in it themselves or a creation from it. They will not or do not see the consequences of miscegenation. Michael J. Polignano argues that ‘it is ironic that miscegenation is promoted by the very people who make a cult of diversity, because in the long run miscegenation completely destroys racial diversity. In the short run, of course, miscegenation does increase diversity by filling the world with a colorful array of mongrels. But in the long run, as pure racial types disappear and mongrels mix with mongrels, this diversity will give way to a brown uniformity. Thus the only way to maintain racial diversity over the long term is to avoid miscegenation’. [8] Just like people need to be aware of the consequences of an “un-wanted” pregnancy they also need to understand the consequences of committing miscegenation. The must realise that their children will possibly have a racial identity crisis as they grow older.

A study in Majority rights shows that there are also health consequences in race-mixing as ‘it is irresponsible for any scientific organization to pretend that race mixing has no adverse health effects and it is obviously inappropriate to portray race mixing as desirable or virtuous’. [9] This relates to the fact that there should not be any assumptions drawn that miscegenation will make racially-mixed humans better and healthier than those who are not when in fact it may possibly be the opposite effect. Eric Thomson says “we often hear people justify race-mixing and other forms of degenerative self-indulgence as being "a person's own business" - as if to say that it is not our business what sort of society we live in, no matter how bad sociopaths wish to make it’. [10] This can be related to morals and values and how mono-racial parents need to lovingly encourage the view onto their children that they should prefer to “stick with their own kind” as there is nothing wrong or racist with doing that. In fact, if you were to ask a Chinese person or an Indian person whom they would like to marry and raise a family with then almost all of the time they would say they prefer somebody the same. People need to get out of their heads this notion of if you stay with your own kind that is it somehow “racist” as this is a fallacy created by liberals.

Eric Thomson also notes that ‘Unlike the killing of members of one race by another race, a historic practice now deemed to be a crime, the mixing of races kills not one, but every race which engages in it. Race-mixing is therefore the worst example of genocide. Scoffers airily dismiss this statement as nonsense because the offspring of race-mixing are capable of breathing, eating, prattling, and reproducing. In other words, race-mixing produces 'live' victims instead of dead ones, but this ignores not only the quality of life, it denies man's place and his role in the universe, his responsibility to his fellow men and to his posterity. Modern-day liberals are very much concerned with the quality of life rather than the quantity of those who are technically alive because their bodily functions are intact. They advocate euthanasia and abortion because these practices 'make life better', regardless of their illogical inconsistency when it comes to capital punishment’ [11] Now this could allegedly be described as a “extremist” view but it just goes to show the hypocritical ideology of liberals and how they believe individualism far outweighs collectivism without realising that there should be a fine balance of both. Why should not one but two races lose their heritage and identity because of miscegenation and the liberal argument that if you say you are against miscegenation you will be labelled a racist or bigot? President Tubman of Liberia argued that “we are opposed to integration. It is a bad thing and we condemn it. Why should we destroy our identity? We love our black skins and we are proud of our heritage. Our country is open to all people of African descent’ [12] If the leader of European country was so bold as to say the such a thing as keeping the racial heritage of their country pure there would be absolute outrage by liberals with comparisons to the Third Reich! Can we not see the blatant double-standards that liberals have in regards to not just questioning miscegenation but any issue in relation to race? There must be people who are not afraid to stand up and say that they are proud of their racial heritage and believe that miscegenation does more harm than good in the long run. Unfortunately we live in a society where people live in fear of being labelled something deemed negative and do not have the strength of character to ignore these labels.

Another issue that needs to be taken into account is how confusing and tragic it must be for those people who are themselves racially mixed and often have problems at school. A CNN report found ‘for example, students who described their race as both black and white reported more difficulties than those who considered themselves solely black or solely white.’ [13] It’s hard to imagine what it would be like for a child which does not really know where they belong. Most upsetting would be if they were the victim of being ostracized because of the fact that they may not be considered “black enough” or “white enough” for the other children, which would lead to frustration and disillusionment for that child. ‘The most common explanation for the high-risk status is the struggle with identity formation, leading to lack of self-esteem, social isolation and problems of family dynamics in biracial households,’ said Professor Udry of maternal and child health at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, as noted in the CNN report. [14] This shows why miscegenation is a selfish act by the parents of a racially-mixed child. They have no sense of belonging to either race. They are confused and do not know if they are of one ethnic/racial group or the other. Ernest Porterfield explains ‘in addition, these children are faced with problems that tend to produce reactions of guilt, insecurity, anxiety, and emotional instability. Biracial children would like to identify with both parents but find themselves torn between the loyalty they owe each parent. Since they cannot identity with both parents, the child feels resentment towards one or both parents.’ [15] All of these hardships that are created for racially-mixed children could have been avoided if the parents did not commit miscegenation in the first place. Often teenagers may have enough problems knowing where they belong or what they want to do with their lives without having the even more obvious and confusing problem of not understanding what racial/ethnic group they are supposed to be part of.

Miscegenation is an issue that people of all races need to be aware of. Especially if they value their racial heritage and identity and wish to see it continue into the future. Part of being human is our diversity and racial difference is part of that we need to hold dear to our heritage and not forsake it by being blind to the fact that we do all look different. Matthew Nuenke explains that ‘opposition to miscegenation is often lamented as racist, and yet there is sound evolutionary evidence that people like to associate and eventually marry others who are more like themselves. Blacks are more comfortable with Blacks, Jews are more comfortable with Jews, and Asians with other Asians.’ [16] Historical evidence would also show this to be true and how miscegenation is not really a common thing. Of course the arguments by those opposed to this view continue to use liberal propaganda emphasizing the fallacy that race is a cultural “construct” when in fact it is a lot deeper than that. Anybody to think that our differences are only “skin-deep” is surely quite shallow in their understanding of human nature. Andrew Ryan and Peter J. White claim that it is ‘patterns of racial and ethnic prejudice, of in-group loyalty and out-group suspicion, have served an effective evolutionary purpose over the long history of primate and human biological evolution, both in enhancing the competitiveness of the individual breeding population and also in preserving the uniqueness of its distinctive genetic heritage by discouraging interbreeding with the members of disparate sub-species. The evolutionary message is clear. Human groups which lose their internal sense of identity and cohesion in respect to other groups eventually cease to exist as discrete realities.’ [17] This is relevant to the topic of miscegenation because it makes a point that prejudice while often noted as being a bad thing can also be quite beneficial for helping to keep alive the uniqueness of all races. The many different races give us a diverse construct of what it means to be human, whereas miscegenation would only make us bland and all the same with no variety in our physical differences in the long run. Seriously, how boring would it be if in the future we all looked a like?

To sum up, I personally think that miscegenation is something that has been forced onto people especially in Western Countries because of liberalism. It basically comes down to morals and values and people need to realise that if ANY race wants their children to at least have some vague resemblance to them then they need to “stick with their own kind”. Heritage and background should be basic requirements taken into account when thinking about having children and for those people who are responsible enough should understand that it is not a decision that should be taken lightly. Especially, as a lot of us who live in Western countries seem to be part of such a hedonistic, shallow and consumerist society. Mass immigration has also played its part in making the act of miscegenation more prevalent than before and it up to both genders to realise that their ethnic/racial background should always be an important factor in their decision. Basically miscegenation is insidiously evil as it promotes the slow but eventual genocide of all races. I will now leave you with a poem by Rudyard Kipling, one of Britain’s finest poets, in relation to how he was against race-mixing (miscegenation).


The stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk -
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The stranger within my gate,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control -
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the gods of his far off land,
Shall repossess his blood.

This was my father's belief,
And this is also mine;
Let the corn be all of one sheaf -
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our childrens' teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

-Rudyard Kipling, Nobel Prize for Literature. (1865 - 1936)[18]


Tuesday, July 18, 2006

A Revolutionary Klansman

An Interview with John Baumgardner

Please tell us a bit about your background and what led you to join the Klan?

I joined the Ku Klux Klan in 1984. It was one stop in my search for truth. I have always been a radical. In the late 1960's I became associated, through a friend, with members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) . The SDS was a college campus-based Maoist sect that was heavily influenced by the communist Progressive Labor Party. I was not a member of SDS but I consumed most of their literature and immersed myself in their philosophy, particularly in opposition to the war in Vietnam.

Believing there was no solution to be found in the middle of the road, and not finding the answers I was looking for in the radical left, I began to migrate toward the right. As fate would have it, my interest in history was channeled into an organization called the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV). This was about 1982. Through that association I met a race-conscious Christian minister who showed me the connection between political thought and the Bible. The SCV is a historical society and I soon became discouraged with their lack of political activism. I started attending my minister friend's church and looking for a new outlet for my radical views. Many of the old- time SCV members talked favorably of the Reconstruction Era Klan and the seed was planted in my mind. I began looking for the Klan. It took me about a year to find it. After joining the Invisible Empire I gained access to a wealth of information about the enemies of our race and way of life.

I became immersed in the Klan, giving it all my time and energy. Soon I was placed in charge of the state of Florida and we began to grow. Always maintaining a revolutionary consciousness, I began to attract people of like mind. We became the most active Klan in the country. The Florida Klan was known for taking. unusual positions and addressing odd issues. We made it a point to never do what was expected of us.

After the fall of the Invisible Empire in 1993 the membership diversified and joined with other Klans to form a cartel. Today there are 22 different Klans in Florida and we remain a very active state.

You lead a radical faction of the Klan called the Black Knights. How did you develop such a revolutionary philosophy considering that the Klan has been known to be quite reactionary at times (anti-union activities in the 1930's, for example)?

First of all, let me make it clear that I do not lead the Black Knights. The Florida Black Knights have no officers or leaders. We have applied Louis Beam's theory of leaderless resistance in our own way. Each associate is a leader in his own right. We are not an organization in any traditional sense of the word. We are an ad hoc collective of Klan expatriates, many of whom have been rejected from other Klans. I was banished from the Empire even after I had resigned. James Farrands, the Empire's Imperial Wizard, told me I was too revolutionary for the Klan. I now wear that label as a badge of honor.

I brought my revolutionary philosophy with me to the Klan and simply applied it to this struggle. It's true that the Klan has been reactionary and some Klans continue to be, but the whole truth about the Klan is not widely known. The Klan in the 1920s was involved, in some parts of the country, with pro-union activities. For example, in Williamson County, Illinois back in 1922, a mixed-race crowd of union coal miners attacked strike-breakers killing 20 of them. This incident was called the Herrin Massacre. Within two years, Herrin and the rest of Williamson County backed one of the nation's strongest local Klan organizations. Many in the 1920s and 30s shared joint Klan-union membership. The United Auto Workers, the Southern Tenant Farmers Union, and Akron rubber workers were all examples of unions with Klan support.

The Klan has historically tried to organize colored divisions. Klan leaders met with Marcus Mosiah Garvey and gave a monetary gift to Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam. The Socialist Party and the Klan formed a 1924 alliance in Milwaukee to elect John Kleist, a socialist and a klansman, to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Klan has at times appealed to militant workers.

I believe to be reactionary is fatal to our goals and I constantly preach against it. I encourage the study of left-wing and right-wing movements. I say we should take what we can from every source.

You are known for your willingness to work with black nationalist groups. Please give us an outline of your history with such groups.

It was back in 1985 when I first met Osiris Akkebala, Chief Elder of the Pan-Afrikan International Movement (PAIN). Chief Akkebala hosted a radio show in an all-black community where we had a scheduled demonstration. PAIN follows a Garvian philosophy, and understanding that Marcus Garvey had met with the Klan in the 1920s, Chief Osiris approached me for a private meeting. We hit it off well and have been good friends ever since.

Sometime in 1990 we began holding joint demonstrations--the Klan in their robes and the Africans in their dashikis. Needless to say it sparked quite a backlash. Many klansmen were angry at me for even considering such a thing. In my view it was a match inspired by God. Why should we have a problem with black men who are strict racial separatists and want to establish a homeland on the continent of Africa? I have even publicly endorsed the payment of reparations to blacks but only for the purpose of repatriation back to Africa.

I believe that all people have a right to self-determination, a right to choose their own government, and their own religion. Clearly, blacks in America have not had those opportunities. As Minister Louis Farrakhan said: "If we can't get along together, then we need to separate."
I'm a revolutionary white separatist, not a white supremacist. I don't feel superior to any man because of the color of my skin but I understand that the Aryan people (making up only about eight percent of the world population) must have a separate land uninfluenced by other races or by the criminal government that occupies Washington D.C. I'm not naive enough to believe we can get it without a very bloody struggle.

More recently, I have established a working relationship with a faction of the Nation of Islam. We have held several meetings with representatives of the Nation and I am learning from them. They have a great deal of truth. Although I am a Christian and don't agree with every teaching of Islam or the Nation, I do respect them and their faith.

Other than the black separatists, what other movements have you reached out to or had talks with. Have you met with any leftists?

We have attempted to reach out to other diverse movements. While I have not succeeded in pulling a meeting together with left wingers, I have participated in long discussions with them at demonstrations. In these discussions, they have admitted we have some common ground.
Stetson Kennedy, the famous anti-klan activist, author, and historian has corresponded with me and we have talked on the phone. Although I don't agree with everything he stands for I respect him as a fellow activist. I believe he feels the same about me. You see, I'm not threatened by other philosophies and movements that oppose me. I believe the better cause will win in the end and so I respect anyone who gives 100 percent to their cause. I don't respect people who waiver on their beliefs or are frightened to stand up for anything. In that regard I have even met with homosexual activists.

I certainly don't agree with the queer lifestyle but as it turns out, even queers have some common ground with the Klan. They hate the government as well. They approached me about it and requested a meeting. All I can say is when blacks and queers are willing to look past our differences, sit down with the Klan and acknowledge common ground against the government, then the government is in deep shit.

In your publication, the Florida Interklan Report, you speak respectfully of Islam. Do you see Islam as a potential ally in the coming revolution?

Yes. Without question I can see the potential there. I am working with white separatists in Europe who are outreaching to Islam there. We are trying to form a worldwide web against Zionism. We are making some progress.

I think out relationship should be carefully approached because the masses, whether they be Christian or Muslim, are generally reactionary. While our leaders and leaders in other movements may understand the alliance, the majority of people on both sides will not understand. It will take time to develop a degree of trust on both sides but I think what we are trying to do scares the hell out of the Zionist-backed forces of the world, including the United States government.

Some people question how, if we are all separatists, we can stand together in peace and on common ground. well the various separatists don't have a problem with each other, it's the rest of the world with the problem. When we stand together and point a collective finger at the governments of the world, and the international financial interests, and expose them, and attack them as one, there is power in that. I will align with almost anyone who truly understands who the real enemy is but I will not bend my principles or beliefs to do it.

We are going to witness a worldwide revolution and if we are strong enough we can come out of it with power and a place of our own, if God is with us. Without God however, we are sure to become the enemy's footstool. We must be committed to militant Christian action. The time for talk is over.

What do you think of the Unabomber?

How did that question get in here? Well, I haven't read his manifesto so all I have is a media perspective, which is usually inaccurate.. However, I think the case in general defines some points totally unrelated to Theodore Kaczynski's anti-technology sentiments.

First of all we see that Bob Marley's words ring true when he sings "only your friend knows your secret, so only he could reveal it". It's usually those close to you who give you up.

This case also points to the hypocrisy of the government and clearly shows how the media is a tool of the government. The Unabomber killed a handful of people to make a political statement and he is held up as Satan incarnate. The government spent millions to find him (if they have indeed found him). If we truly place things in perspective, the Unabomber is a very small problem.

The U.S. government murders thousands of people every year in covert operations and terrorist activities around the world. This government brings crack cocaine into the country to finance foreign revolutions and distributes it in the major cities to break down families and maintain a sort of repressed anarchy in the land. In short, government, through its tool the media, uses these "high profile" cases to divert attention away from their own criminal activities.
I really don't care about the Unabomber. I think we should stay focused on the real problems we are facing.

Many observers--secular and religious--feel that the year 2000, the new millennium, will usher in an age of chaos and revolution. Do you believe the millennium holds special relevance for your struggle?

I certainly hope the millennium ushers in an age of chaos and revolution because I understand that these things must occur before the cleansing can come. We are living in an age of chaos right now but many are shielded from its effects. As time goes by the chaos will certainly begin to hit home for many who are currently unaffected. This, in turn, may bring about revolution on a grand scale. My friend, Bruce Pierce, says the worse things get the better they look for us. I concur. And so we don't stand in the way of race-mixing, homosexuality, or the hedonistic direction society has taken. Bring it on.

Our enemies definitely place great significance in the dawn of the new millennium. Because they do, I must also hold it up as a significant event. I'm not sure that I would come to the same conclusion on my own however. There is a new age on the horizon and if we do the right thing, it may well be our age to shine.

Though this interview was conducted with Mr. Baumgardner almost 4 years ago, the truths and ideas contained within it are still more then just 'valid', they are a way forward for all those who care about their culture and folks best interests. Few are they who are brave enough to admit the truths and step beyond the "right/left" mentallity regardless of others reactions.

Taken from Folk and Faith

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

The Future of the Idea of 1968

Declaration of the Deutsche Kolleg (

1. The idea which forms the basis of past events has a future if, on the one hand, its Being appeared in the past and manifested itself as an action-thought (i.e. as idea) and if, on the other hand, it is perceived in the present only as a bundle of deeds in which substantial and unsubstantial matters cannot be distinguished. The events of 1968 and their evaluation are characterised to this day by their being considered as opposites of positive and negative, where a third view does not seem to exist. The German uprising of 1968 had sufficient grounds which need to be explored if it is to be understood.

2. The magnitude of a historical Being can be seen in the intensity with which its appearance influences posterity. The denunciation campaign against participants of the uprising of 1968 in the government of the FRG, is a multiply reflected appearance which, owing to the fact that the Being of an idea appears in the appearance, hits the right people, namely the traitors of the 1968 idea: the chieftains of the Spontaneous Anarchists ("Spontis") who lack all theories and the Communist dogmatists of the 1970s. The 70s were the decade of the social-democratic Communist counter-revolution; this was then inherited by the capitalistic reaction of the 1980s.

3. According to its historical Being, the German `68 was the second uprising against an occupying power since the 17th of June 1953. In accordance with the principle cuius regio eius oeconomia, the occupying powers imposed their obsolete systems of economy, politics and conviction (under violation of the Peoples' right) onto their respective zones of occupation. The student uprising of 1968 in West Berlin and West Germany, against America and capitalism, was led by Central German students with the help of young academic fellow travellers of the West Zone (who often reproached their fathers of having been fellow travellers in the Third Reich as well as in Adenauer's FRG).

4. According to Klaus Mehnert, 1968 was the first world revolution in history. It was undertaken by the youth of the industrial states against capitalism's monetary rule, against its American-Israeli stronghold and for the Realm of Freedom. It was a successful seizure of verbal power, whose words in future first need to be understood by the German People, and then by the other Peoples of the world; otherwise, they will be unable to proceed to the seizure of power and to finally seize possession of their own countries. If, however, they become enabled to seize power, then the Fourth Age of Power will be initiated in the great Peoples of the world by the Fourth German Reich, where the Spirit rules and money, which ruled in the Third Age of Power, will be broken. The Realm of Freedom began with the world revolution of 1968 insofar as it was the victorious seizure of verbal power which will lead to the future seizure of power and possession of the Spirit as the Fourth Age of Power. But the meaning has yet to be correctly grasped, the words which have been heard yet need to be properly understood.

5. The struggle for the inner meaning of 1968, which has been fought for decades and which has currently broken out again, is a struggle for the continuation of the capitalistic economic system and for parliamentarianism as the political form in which money rules the world. The ideological defenders of monetary rule try to obscure the sense of `68 to the best of their abilities, and attempt to falsely attribute the counter-revolution of the 70s as well as the Americanisms of the sympathising youth of the Western Zone to the revolutionaries of `68. The ideological safeguarding of the capitalist rule of money is dependant on the success of this intensive propaganda of obscuring the meaning of 1968. If this smokescreen is torn down, then the seizure of verbal power of `68 will become virulent again, and the immediate task of breaking capitalism, i.e. the rule of money, will again be clear to the developed Peoples of the world. The situation will become dangerous and problematic for the powers in the background, who direct the destiny of the world through the streams of capital which they steer. For when the priority of the self-economies of the Peoples over the market economy is re-established after the next world crisis, the market on the whole, and as such also the capital market, will be put back into the marginal position to which it belongs.

6. The true, i.e. world-revolutionary, `68 begins in April 1965 with Rudi Dutschke determining the fixed-point of the strategy. Determined as this fixed-point, which was to be the starting point of the strategy, was the ultimate goal of the technological process which even then was clearly recognisable, and today is obvious: the "tendency of total unemployment" (R. Dutschke, Geschichte ist machbar, ed. Miermeister, Berlin 1980, p. 32) with simultaneous unemployed production. With this, the disappearance of the working class was presupposed. In developed countries, the revolution could now no longer be burdened onto the industrial workers. The tasks of the revolution had to be assumed by those who had the confidence to do so.

7. In such a situation, the ruling class is for the first time in world history no longer ordained to be the one which is fed by the masses, but on the contrary, the rulers have to feed the ruled. Rule now has a different meaning and content. Suppression no longer serves the privation of added value. Intellectual life itself is drowned in the sea of stupidities. Maintenance of power has now become the single focus of the rulers. Abstract power, however, is the self-abolition of the rule which has become abstract and has thus lost all its significance. The relationship between the rulers and the ruled has dialectically completely changed, and it is in this sense that the theoreticians of `68 always spoke of the end of the rule of man over (other) men, of self-determination and also of democracy qua self-determination of the Peoples as well as each individual person. For each person to be able to lead a self-determined life within his respectively self-determined People, was, is and always will be the ideal of all who feel committed to the idea of 1968.

8. In those days this Dutschkistic strategy was boldest utopia, which today is understood by many intelligent people. Due to the technical-industrial and scientific revolutions of the past decades Dutschkism has become even more comprehensible. It will determine all programmes and strategies of the twenty-first century. In all these strategies the rational organisation of the Realm of Necessity and as such the material provision of each People will only be the preliminary task, the organisation and structuring of the Realm of Freedom, however, will be the main task.

9. The International Vietnam Congress which was organised by the SDS (Socialist German Students' Union) in February 1968 at the Technical University in West Berlin, was world historically the first internationale of the national revolutionaries. Our solidarity was with the Vietnamese revolution, the Vietnamese war for reunification, i.e. with a national revolution and not with conservativist, liberalist, socialist or other revolutions of a certain class. The categorical imperative that followed from this was quite rightly: "It is the duty of a revolutionary, to make the revolution happen!" We ourselves were the German revolutionaries, and the Communist students harvested derision whenever they drew our attention to the workers or even to trade union work.

10. It was against this national revolutionary principle of `68 that the social-democratic Communist counter-revolution arose in the 70s. In an ever reactionary fashion and with the double blade of reform and revolution, they posited the working class as the subject of history. It was confirmed in this by the farseeing powers of the conservatives and liberals, who in the revival of the class-struggle scheme sensed the chance for a revitalisation of their class rule, which indeed came about in the 1980s.

11. The counter-revolution of the 70s created the scene of the "Spontis" as a movement comprised out of the ruins of the losers, i.e. the hotchpotch of those fellow travellers of the Western Zone who were part of `68, but failed to return from this revolutionary awakening into the normality of the FRG. The national revolutionary line of the original `68 was maintained and continued to be persecuted in the successor organisations of the SDS. The Waffen-SDS (Red Army Fraction) took up the armed struggle and despite all tactical misjudgements and judicial mistakes, also hit legitimate targets of any national struggle of liberation. This manifested itself in assassinations of military personnel of the occupying power, in attacks against German collaborators and in the murder of a person who had betrayed the national revolutionary volksgemeinschaft to the interests of a class.

12. A further exponent of the national revolutionary line of the 70s was the Theory-SDS which continued to follow the theoretical programme of 1968 and brought it to a close in the mid 1980s. The national right-wing was then increasingly influenced by the original `68 movement with anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism from 1985 onwards, due to an alliance which had still been prepared by Dutschke. From 1990 onwards, the anti-capitalist moment increased as a result of the influx of Central German youths, who impressively defended themselves against the racially alien substitute occupiers in the folk-uprisings of Hoyerswerda and Rostock-Lichtenhagen. In the first half of the 90s the Theory-SDS introduced a programme and a theory to the awakening German national movement, which is based on the perfected theory of `68. The Theory-SDS reconstituted itself as the Deutsches Kolleg, as an educational institution of the national liberation movement of the Germans, which merged theory and terror – the weapon of theory and the theory of the weapon – in the year 2000. Both in its negative presupposition – the struggle of national liberation against the occupying power of monetary rule – as well as in its positive perspective – the organisation of the Realm of Freedom –, the idea of `68 contains an instruction of procedure for the German People (as well as all the other Peoples) which is rich in tradition, sated with the present and filled with the future.

13. Each nationalism begins at the many borders of its own nation, at the other nations, and as such as internationalism. Similarly, in economic life the market starts off at the boundary of the communities; it starts as a world market and has the inner market, which penetrates deeper and deeper inwardly and which ultimately necessitates the differentiated power of inland customs duty, as its final result. Nationalism is the truth of internationalism. Measure is the idea of Being.

14. The oldest and most despicable traitor of the `68 idea amongst the current members of the FRG government is Otto Schily. He is attempting to push the ban of the NPD through precisely because this party, which in 1968 still stood firmly behind the American occupying power and the capitalistic system of exploitation, has moved onto the most resolute anti-capitalist and anti-American course. This new political course of the NPD is borne by the German youth, in particular by the Central German youth. With the deployment of special units of the German Border Police, Schily has now spoken out a "Declaration of War against our Offspring" (Die Welt, 20.02.2001, p. 10). Dutschkism continues to live in this youth, whose feelings revolt against a system which in April 1968 managed to get a young worker from Saxony-Anhalt to shoot Rudi Dutschke.

15. Each person who is psychologically healthy, feels existential disgust towards capitalism, i.e. the rule of money. This disgust is insurmountable. Against this disgust, as well as the desire for salvation, capitalism will fail. Probably more ignominiously than Communism did.

America Has Fallen to a Jacobin Coup

by Paul Craig Roberts

The most important casualties of September 11 are respect for truth and American liberty. Propaganda has replaced deliberation based on objective assessment of fact. The resurrection of the Star Chamber has made moot the legal protections of liberty.

The US invasion of Iraq was based on the deliberate suppression of fact. The invasion was not the result of mistaken intelligence. It was based on deliberately concocted "intelligence" designed to deceive the US Congress, the American public, and the United Nations.

In an interview with Barbara Walters on ABC News, General Colin Powell, who was Secretary of State at the time of the invasion, expressed dismay that he was the one who took the false information to the UN and presented it to the world. The weapons of mass destruction speech, he said, is a "blot" on his record. The full extent of the deception was made clear by the leaked top secret "Downing Street Memos."

Two and one-half years after the March 2003 invasion, the US Congress and the American people still do not know the reason Iraq was invaded. The US is bogged down in an expensive and deadly combat, and no one outside the small circle of neoconservatives who orchestrated the war knows the reason why. Many guesses are rendered – oil, removal of Israel’s enemy – but the Bush administration has never disclosed its real agenda, which it cloaked with the WMD deception.

This itself is powerful indication that American democracy is dead. With the exception of rightwing talk radio, everyone in America now knows that the invasion of Iraq was based on false information. Yet, 40 percent of the public and both political parties in Congress still support the ongoing war.

The CIA has issued a report that the war is working only for Osama bin Laden. The unprovoked American aggression against Iraq, the horrors perpetrated against Muslims in Abu Ghraib prison, and the slaughter and mistreatment of Iraqi noncombatants, have radicalized the Muslim world and elevated bin Laden from a fringe figure to a leader opposed to American hegemony in the Middle East. The chaos created in Iraq by the US military has provided al Qaeda with superb training grounds for insurgency and terrorism. Despite overwhelming evidence that the "war on terror" is in fact a war for terror, Republicans still cheer when Bush says we have to "fight them over there" so they don’t come "over here."

If fact played any role in the decision to continue with this war, the US would not be spending hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars to provide recruits and training for al Qaeda, to radicalize Muslims, and to destroy trust in the United States both abroad and among its own citizens.

American casualties (dead and wounded) of this gratuitous war are now approximately 20,000. In July, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said the war might continue for 12 years. US casualties from such protracted combat would eat away US troop strength. Considering the well-publicized recruitment problems, America would require a draft or foreign mercenaries in order to continue a ground war. Like the over-extended Roman Empire, the US would have to deplete its remaining wealth to pay mercenaries.

Dead and wounded Americans are too high a price to pay for a war based on deception. This alone is reason to end the war, if necessary by impeaching Bush and Cheney and arresting the neoconservatives for treason. Naked aggression is a war crime under the Nuremberg standard, and neoconservatives have brought this shame to America.

There is an even greater cost of the war – the legal system that protects liberty, a human achievement for which countless numbers of people gave their lives over the centuries. The Bush administration used September 11 to whip up fear and hysteria and to employ these weapons against American liberty. The Orwellian-named Patriot Act has destroyed habeas corpus. The executive branch has gained the unaccountable power to detain American citizens on mere suspicion or accusation, without evidence, and to hold Americans indefinitely without a trial.

Foolishly, many Americans believe this power can only be used against terrorists. Americans don’t realize that the government can declare anyone to be a terrorist suspect. As no evidence is required, it is entirely up to the government to decide who is a terrorist. Thus, the power is unaccountable. Unaccountable power is the source of tyranny.

The English-speaking world has not seen such power since the 16th and 17th centuries when the Court of Star Chamber became a political weapon used against the king’s opponents and to circumvent Parliament. The Star Chamber dispensed with juries, permitted hearsay evidence, and became so reviled that "Star Chamber" became a byword for injustice. The Long Parliament abolished the Star Chamber in 1641. In obedience to the Bush regime, the US Congress resurrected it with the Patriot Act. Can anything be more Orwellian than identifying patriotism with the abolition of habeas corpus?

Historians are quick to note that the Star Chamber was mild compared to Gitmo, to the US practice of sending detainees abroad to be tortured, and to the justice (sic) regime being run by Attorney General "Torture" Gonzales and his predecessor, "Draped Justice" Ashcroft, who went so far as to say that opposition to the Patriot Act was itself the mark of a terrorist.

The time-honored attorney-client privilege is another casualty of the "war on terror." Taking their cue from the restrictions placed on lawyers representing Stalin’s victims in the 1930s show trials, Justice (sic) Department officials seek to limit attorneys representing terrorist suspects to procedural niceties. Lynn Stewart, attorney for Omar Abdel Rahman, was handed a letter by a Justice (sic) Department prosecutor instructing her how to represent her client. When she did what every good lawyer would do and represented her client aggressively, she was arrested, indicted and convicted.

Many conservative lawyers have turned a blind eye, because Stewart is regarded as a leftwing lawyer whom they dislike. Only a few civil libertarians, such as Harvey Silverglate, have pointed out that prosecutors cannot create felonies by writing letters to attorneys. Stewart was convicted for violating a prosecutor’s letter (technically, a Special Administrative Measure). This should make it obvious even to the blind that American democracy has lost all control over law.

Federal officials have sensed the sea change in American law: arbitrary actions and assertions by federal officials are taking the place of statutory legislation. We saw an example recently when the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced that news media covering the New Orleans hurricane story were prohibited from taking pictures of the bodies of inhabitants drowned when the levees failed. Nowhere is FEMA given authority to override the First Amendment. Yet, FEMA officials saw no reason not to issue its decree. Rome had one caesar. America has them throughout the executive branch.

We see the same exercise of arbitrary authority in break-ins by police into New Orleans homes in order to confiscate legally owned firearms. No authority exists for these violations of the Second Amendment. No authority exists for the forceful removal of residents from non-damaged homes. Tyrannical precedents are being established by these fantastic abuses of government authority.

In the US today nothing stands in the way of the arbitrary exercise of power by government. Federal courts have acquiesced in unconstitutional detention policies. There is no opposition party, and there is no media, merely huge conglomerates or collections of federal broadcasting licenses, the owners of which are afraid to displease the government.

The collapse of the institutions that confine government to law and bind it with the Constitution was sudden. The president previous to Bush was impeached by the House for lying about a sexual affair. If we go back to the 1970s, President Richard Nixon had the decency to resign when it came to light that he had lied about when he first learned of a minor burglary. Bush’s failures are far more serious and numerous; yet, Bush has escaped accountability.

Polls show that a majority of Americans have lost confidence in the Iraq war and believe Bush did a poor job responding to flooded New Orleans. Many Americans hope that these two massive failures have put Bush back into the box of responsible behavior from which September 11 allowed him to escape. However, there is no indication that the Bush administration sees any constraints placed on its behavior by these failures.

The identical cronyism and corrupt government contract practices, by which taxpayers’ money is used to reward political contributors, so evident in Iraq, is now evident in New Orleans.
Despite having been fought to a stalemate by a few thousand insurgents in Iraq, the Bush administration continues to issue thunderous threats to Syria and Iran.

To press its fabricated case against Iran’s alleged weapons of mass destruction program, the Bush administration is showing every foreign diplomat it can corral an hour-long slide show titled, "A History of Concealment and Deception." Wary foreigners are reminded of the presentations about Iraq’s WMD and wonder who is guilty of deception, Iran or the Bush administration.

Now that the war in Iraq has established that US ground forces cannot easily prevail against insurgency, the Bush administration is bringing new military threats to the fore. The neocon orchestrated "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" abandons the established doctrine that nuclear weapons are last-resort options. The Bush administration is so enamored of coercion that it is birthing the doctrine of preemptive nuclear attack. US war doctrine is being altered to eliminate the need for a large invasion force and to use "preventive nuclear strikes" in its place.

Is this the face that the American people want to present to the world? It is hard to imagine a greater risk to America than to put the entire world on notice that every country risks being nuked based on mere suspicion. By making nuclear war permissible, the Bush administration is crossing the line that divides civilized people from barbarians. The United States is starting to acquire the image of Nazi Germany. Knowledgeable people should have no trouble drawing up their own list of elements common to both the Bush and Hitler regimes: the use of extraordinary lies to justify military aggression; reliance on coercion and threats in place of diplomacy; total belief in the virtue and righteousness of one’s cause; the equating of factual objections or "reality-based" analysis to treason; the redirection of patriotism from country to leader; the belief that defeat resides in debate and a weakening of will; refuge in delusion and denial when promised results don’t materialize.

As Professor Claes Ryn made clear in his book, America the Virtuous, the neoconservatives are neo-Jacobins. There is nothing conservative about them. They are committed to the use of coercion to impose their agenda. Their attitude is merciless toward anyone in their way, whether fellow citizen or foreigner. "You are with us or against us." For those on the receiving end, the Nazi and Jacobin mentalities come to the same thing.

The Bush administration has abandoned American principles. It is a Jacobin regime. Woe to its citizens and the rest of the world.

(Article taken from