"This Land Is Ours" ...?
Multi-Culturalism or Cultural Diversity?
a critical re-appraisal of attitudes

When Lord Tebbit used a fringe meeting of the Conservative Party conference this summer to attack the concept of multi-culturalism, he also expressed the fear that we are becoming "a pagan society worshipping Mother Earth". We must pay tribute to him here for being the first establishment politician to acknowledge the best ecological magazine on the Internet... at the same time, we note the irony of this little-reported part of his speech -- for paganism, more than any spiritual tradition, is linked intimately to cultural identity as well as climate, ecology and landscape. Japan's Shinto religion, for example, is linked at both folk and State level to the concept of racial and cultural uniqueness. The name "Hindu" is linked to the name "India", and African Traditional Religion is the spiritual wing of black consciousness -- as such it is growing fast. In our own European societies, the revival of interest in pagan beliefs and folklore is part of a wider movement to reclaim folk identities. The growing fascination for Celtic goddesses, Norse shaman-kings and Baltic wood spirits is one that unites a pride in ethnic heritage with a reverence for nature -- a green, non-racist form of regional loyalty.

Another irony of Lord Tebbit's speech is that of a politician who has dedicated his career to economic globalisation suddenly proclaiming himself a little Englander. Free trade and cultural protectionism do not sit well together, as Enoch Powell found to his cost when he tried to combine Friedmanite economics with populist racial prejudice. It is a truism today that opponents of multi-culturalism come from the political right. There is, nonetheless, a left-wing critique of movements of population and enforced assimilation. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, founder of modern anarchism, concluded in 1856 that :

"Land belongs to the race of people born on it, since none other is able to develop it according to its needs."

A century and a half later, he is predictably pilloried for these words by the "politically correct" thought-police -- many of whom themselves claim to be libertarians. Even Peter Marshall, in an otherwise sensitive appraisal of Proudhon's work, accuses him of proto-fascist "Blood and Soil" ideology. [1] Yet Proudhon was not suggesting that one people had the natural right to colonise, suppress or exterminate others... Instead, he was merely underlining the connection between land, culture and the preservation of freedom.

In a semi-agrarian society like nineteenth century France, such connections could be grasped quite easily by radicals and reactionaries alike. Today, surrounded by the urbanised, globalised, consumerist junk culture, we rely increasingly on indigenous land rights movements to remind us of enduring values. These movements give hope to those who seek political change, because they combine the best of anarchist, conservative and green agendas : decentralisation; cultural autonomy; reverence for nature; respect for tradition and ancient wisdom. A joint declaration of the Sioux, Navajo and Iroquois peoples, issued in 1978, defines land as the basis of their peoples' identity :

"Our roots are deep in the land where we live. We have a great love for our country, for our birthplace is here. The soil is rich from the bones of thousands of our generations.Each of us was created in these lands and it is our duty to take care of them, because from these lands will spring the future of our peoples. We will walk about with great respect for the Earth, for it is a very Sacred Place."

These Native Americans, and Proudhon's peasant forebears, derived their organic, stateless forms of social organisation from identification with ancestral land -- land as the guarantor of life, as the focus of religion, and as the source of ethnic distinctiveness. Today's more enlightened, less "politically correct" ecologists realise that the best conservers of local environments are not so-called professional experts, but indigenous peoples who are still outside the global economy.

Libertarians have, in the past, been quite good at supporting land rights. Both Proudhon and Kropotkin recognised its value to rural populations as a recourse against capital and state. The anarchist communes of the Spanish Civil War were radical experiments in co-ownership and self-management -- but unlike state socialism, they drew from regional traditions of direct democracy and mutual aid. Indeed it has been observed by George Woodcock that the ethos of the Asturian anarchist communities was socially conservative. Since the 1960s, and under the totalitarian influence of the New Left, the anarchism of Europe and North America has lost much of that "conserving" element which was once its great strength. Rather than raise critical questions about change, most of today's anarchists give unflinching allegiance to the raceless, genderless, history-less utopia of left-wing statism, sustained by social workers (the new missionaries), trendy educationalists, local government busybodies and the self-appointed Inquisitors of "political correctness".

During my time at Survival International, I recall an occasion when a volunteer in the office loftily proclaimed that the people of the East End "don't take enough advantage of the multi-cultural society around them". When I suggested that we should think of London's native working-class population as an indigenous people too, the response of my left-wing colleagues combined bafflement and anger. Brainwashed with left-liberalism, they were incapable of recognising the irony of their position. Whilst campaigning against gold mining settlers in Amazonia for destroying Indian land and undermining tribal culture, they refused to defend embattled cultures closer to home...

"Multi-culturalism" is a new word, much bandied about these days by opinion-formers in the political and business elites. It is not really about cultural diversity, still less land rights, and least of all individual freedom. Rather, it is a form of social engineering that seeks to level-down and standardise all cultures, trampling on regional and ethnic loyalties which are not determined by market or state. Multi-culturalism is more insidious in some ways than old-fashioned Stalinism or capitalism in the raw, because it uses the language of inclusion and equality. Nonetheless, the partisans of multi-culturalism are quick to impose universalist, "politically correct" principles on minority populations, be they Muslims (male and female) who resist the feminist blueprint [2], or English country folk (of all classes) who defend country sports. If anything, our society is becoming ever more uniform, less tolerant of non-conformity, with fewer local cultures, folk beliefs and tastes.

In former times, mass movements of population were part of a process of military conquest, prime examples of which include the Saxon displacement of the Celt and the Norman invasion. They could also be linked to a slave labour economy, as they were in ancient Greece and Rome, or in the American colonies. Global capitalism, however, transfers populations as a cheap, convenient way to erode local cultures, with their traditions of resistance to state and corporate control. In Amazonia, the Brazilian authorities oppose the idea of indigenous land rights - and the right of Indians to live by their traditional rules - with the "modern" idea of equal opportunities : If all Brazilians are equal, why should settlers be prevented from occupying ancient tribal land and polluting rivers in the name of progress? The Indonesian invaders of West Papua have planted half a million immigrants there, on land stolen from local tribes. Future plans include the forcible interbreeding of Papuans with these incoming Javanese and Sumatrans, to destroy the former and strengthen the latter. Against this background of land-grabbing and sinister eugenics, mining multinationals gouge vast holes out of sacred mountains.

The British left pays lip-service to the rights of far-away indigenous minorities, but usually through little more than stale, anti-imperialist rhetoric... They forget, if they ever knew, that the Buddhist Chakma minority in Bangladesh enjoyed more rights in colonial times than today, and that for the Tuareg of North-West Africa, "independence" has meant subjection to racist governments that dismiss them as "White Nomads". The left's indifference to such complexities erupts into hostility when it confronts working-class, urban communities who oppose or are even vaguely sceptical about multi-culturalism. Its position is essentially a debased form of internationalism, by which any opposition to non-European settlement is taken to be racist and placed beyond the pale. This attitude is backed up increasingly by official edicts, including "positive discrimination", and a burgeoning bureaucracy of community relations which seeks to control what can or cannot be discussed. It is hard to think of a better way to alienate young, white, working-class youth, males in particular, who live in aesthetic and emotional poverty as well as economic deprivation.

Like tribal peoples, Britain's indigenous working-class have suffered disproportionately from other peoples' idea of progress. Their hostility to multi-culturalism should be understood in a new way, as a particularist rather than a racist response to confusing cultural changes in which they lack a voice. A generation of bien-pensant reformers have been remarkably successful in destroying working-class culture, with its traditions of self-help and voluntary co-operation, its emphasis on family and community. High-rise housing, insensitive bureaucratised welfare and mass immigration into working-class areas have all, in their own ways, contributed to this process. Recognising this is a step towards an interesting political realignment in which greens, traditionalists and libertarians can all play a part.

[1]Demanding the Impossible : A History of Anarchism by Peter Marshall; Fontana, London 1993, page 257.

[2]It is worth noting here that, contrary to "politically correct" propaganda, many Muslim societies accord high status to women. For example, among Tuareg tribespeople women are the educated elite, and it is the men who wear veils.

"Life is Struggle"

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.]

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.

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

"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

TRANSCENDING THE BEYOND
FROM THIRD POSITION TO NATIONAL-ANARCHISM

by Troy Southgate

Man's obsession with trinitarian concepts has lasted for thousands of years. Indeed, when presented with two distinct choices - both of which are considered inadequate - we often look for a third alternative. In the late sixth century BC, the famous Buddhist sage, Prince Gautama, rejected a life of opulent complacency and experimented with self-disciple and denial. Consequently, after driving himself to the very brink of starvation the Prince realised that there was -a middle way- beyond both luxury and asceticism. In this case, it was the path of meditation and detachment, a process in which both lifestyles were transcended and overcome.

An interesting parallel can be drawn between the example of Gautama's rejection of hereditary privilege and the search for an alternative to Capitalism during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The solution, as we know only too well, was Communism. In fact the last century may be rightly perceived as having been a furious historical battleground for two highly adversarial and bitterly-opposed ideologies. But as Hilaire Belloc observed in The Restoration of Property over sixty years ago, the differences between the two are not as distinct or clear-cut as their supporters often like to contend: The only economic difference between a herd of subservient Russians and a mob of free Englishmen pouring into a factory of a morning is that the latter are exploited by private profit, the former by the State in communal fashion. The motive of the Russian masters is to establish a comfortable bureaucracy for themselves and their friends out of the proletariat labour. The motive of the English masters is to increase their private fortunes out of proletariat labour. But we want something different from either. Thus Communism is considered, not as the antidote, but as a symptom and a product of Capitalism. Belloc-s own quest for a genuine alternative to both Capitalism and Communism was represented by The Distributist League, which he founded in 1936 with G.K. Chesterton. Both were famous converts to Catholicism and were inspired by Rerum Novarum, a timely encyclical in which Pope Leo XIII replied to the challenge of atheistic Communism by proposing that property be distributed more fairly and workers treated with more dignity. As we shall see below, Belloc and Chesterton were to become two of the chief ideologues of the new Third Position.

By the late1970s Britain-s largest Far Right organisation, the National Front (NF), had experienced an unprecedented growth spurt. Virtually indistinguishable from the more mainstream Conservative Party in that it defended family values, law and order, capital punishment and several other Right-wing policies, the NF became a household name due to its opposition to multi-racialism and support for the compulsory repatriation of all non-white immigrants. By 1979, however, the Party was heavily defeated at the ballot box after Margaret Thatcher had herself expressed one or two outspoken comments about the growing immigration problem. As a result, most NF supporters left for the comparatively less extreme realms of the Centre Right, although, predictably, Mrs. Thatcher's pledge to tighten up on immigration was never practicably consolidated. From that point onwards the NF went through a period of factionalism, as the complicated mish-mash of ideologies which for so long had marched beneath the same banner now resulted in a bitter struggle between reactionary conservatives, blatant neo-nazis and revolutionaries. NF luminaries like Martin Webster and John Tyndall were ousted from the Party in the early-1980s, clearing the way for a new up-and-coming generation of young activists; men like Derek Holland, Nick Griffin, Patrick Harrington and Graham Williamson. These individuals had been motivated by -third way- organisations abroad, not least by Italy-s Terza Pozitione (Third Position) and the exiled Roberto Fiore. The strategy of tension - Anno di Piombo - which had characterised Italian politics during the 1970s had led to the development of the Nuclei Armati Rivoluzionari (Armed Revolutionary Nuclei), and demonstrators had been seen on the streets bearing placards in simultaneous praise of both Hitler and Mao. Many NF members had also been inspired by Otto Strasser, a former member of the German National-Socialist Workers Party who had fought with Hitler over the latter-s betrayal of the NSDAP's more socialistic tenets. So, for the NF, this was to be a new era for revolutionary politics. One in which the boundaries of left and right were to be totally rejected and redefined.

In 1983 the British NF began to publish a series of revolutionary magazines, entitled Rising: Booklet For The Political Soldier, in which detailed articles were given over to the twin concepts of political sacrifice and struggle. Meanwhile, Derek Holland's pamphlet, The Political Soldier, inspired yet another generation of new activists and was heavily influenced by the Italian philosopher Julius Evola. By 1986 the NF claimed to have finally purged its ranks of Tories and reactionaries and, much to the chagrin of the traditional Left, was soon forging alliances with Black separatist organisations like Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam and commending the third way stance of Khomeini's Iran. Indeed, whilst the works of Belloc and Chesterton were used to provide the NF with a unique economic platform, the organisation was also advocating Popular Rule, an interesting socio-political theory in which the structure of British society would become so decentralised that it would come to resemble that of Colonel Qathafi-s Libya. Not culturally, but in terms of establishing street, area and regional committees through which power could be decisively channelled up from the grass roots. This, of course, was in stark contrast to the NF's former dependence upon the electoral voting system. The NF, in awe of its Libyan counterparts, was now distributing copies of Qathafi's Green Book and happily chanting the mantra "no representation without participation." As a consequence, therefore, the NF's rejection of the ballot box confirmed its inevitable admittance into the revolutionary domain of extra-parliamentary politics. The movement went on to express its support for regional independence, European solidarity, positive anti-racism and co-operation with Black and Asian communities residing in England.

These were exciting times for supporters of Revolutionary Nationalism, but the personality clashes which tend to prevail in all political circles eventually tore the organisation apart during the Autumn of 1989. On one side were gathered the supporters of Derek Holland, Colin Todd, Nick Griffin and Roberto Fiore, all of whom were involved in the establishment of a new rural project in northern France. On the other were Patrick Harrington, Graham Williamson and David Kerr, who believed that the administrative core of the organisation should remain in the British Isles. Holland, Todd, Griffin and Fiore all left to form the International Third Position (ITP), whilst Harrington and the remaining supporters of the NF disbanded the movement in March 1990 and formed Third Way. But for those who believed that the revolutionary dynamism of the late-1980s could somehow be recreated, it was to end in disappointment and dejection. Third Way became far more conservative by supporting anti-federalist and "save the pound" campaigns, now portraying itself as the radical centre. The ITP, on the other hand, tried to influence traditional Catholics grouped around The Society of St. Pius X, and - to the horror of the overwhelming majority of its membership - took the disastrous road towards reactionary fascism. So whilst one segment of the old NF had become respectable and centrist, the leaders of the other were espousing the principles of Mussolini, Petain and Franco. For the ITP, the inevitable spilt came in September 1992.

By this time I had been personally involved with the NF and, consequently, the ITP since joining as a teenager in 1984. Throughout those years I had served as Regional Organiser with both Sussex NF and the Tunbridge Wells branch of the ITP, publishing magazines such as The Kent Crusader, Surrey Action, Eastern Legion and Catholic Action. Combined with Northern Rising (published by the ITP's Yorkshire and Lancashire branches), these publications comprised five-fifths of the organisation-s literary output. When the ITP virtually disintegrated in 1992, these magazines all withdrew their support. The ITP, meanwhile, was left with Final Conflict, comprising a mixture of skinhead youth culture and Christian bigotry.

The split occurred for a variety of reasons, most notably the fact that the ITP had rejected the internal cadre structure which had been used to such great effect during the NF period. Coupled with the fact that Derek Holland and several others had left the country and were now completely disinterested in the Third Positionist struggle in England, Roberto Fiore was attacked by myself and many others for his involvement in a ruthlessly Capitalist enterprise which operated from Central London. Several outgoing ITP activists also accused Holland and Fiore of stealing many thousands of pounds they had invested in property based within the group's rural enclave in northern France. But the most decisive factor of all, however, was the ITP leadership's increasing obsession with Catholicism and its gradual descent into the reactionary waters of neo-fascism.

From the tattered remains of the ITP came a new independence organisation, the English Nationalist Movement (ENM). New attempts were made to restate the principles of the Third Position, and ENM publications like The Crusader and Catalyst attacked both Hitler and Mussolini and preferred to emulate home-grown English socialists like Robert Owen, William Cobbett, Robert Blatchford and William Morris. This was combined with a call to arms. The ENM also campaigned against Unionism, advocating the break-up of the British Isles into seven distinct nations: England, Scotland, Wales, Ulster, Ireland, Mannin (Isle of Man) and Kernow (Cornwall). Meanwhile, its publishing service, The Rising Press, distributed booklets and pamphlets covering a whole range of topics, including works by Otto and Gregor Strasser, Corneliu Codreanu and Colonel Qathafi.

In 1998 the ENM changed its name to the National Revolutionary Faction and began to call for armed insurrection against the British State in even stronger terms. A series of detailed pamphlets and internal bulletins were disseminated amongst Nationalists across the length and breadth of the country, seeking to end the British National Party's (BNP) obsession with marches and elections. The revamped organisation also forged contacts with like-minded Third Positionist groups abroad, such as Nouvelle Resistance (France), the American Front, Spartacus (Canada), the Canadian Front, Alternativa Europea (Spain), National Destiny (New Zealand), Devenir (Belgium), Rivolta (Italy), Free Nationalists (Germany) and the National Bolshevik Party (Russia). National Bolshevism is a concept which seeks to establish an alliance between East and West, and has been around for many years. Its earliest supporters were men like Arthur Moeller van den Bruck and Ernst Junger, both of whom tried desperately to unite Germany with Russia. National Bolshevism today is mainly associated with the contemporary Russian thinker, Alexander Dugin, and has become one of the NRF's main interests. Not least because the NRF supports the creation of a decentralised Eurasian bloc in defiance of American hegemony.

In recent years the NRF has rejected Third Positionism and now describes itself as a National-Anarchist movement. In other words, whilst Third Positionists are committed to going beyond Capitalism and Communism, National-Anarchists have taken things one step further by actually transcending the very notion of beyond. According to the well-known Anarchist thinker, Hakim Bey, writing in Millennium (1996): "Five years ago it still remained possible to occupy a third position in the world, a neither/nor of refusal or slyness, a realm outside the dialectic". He goes on to suggest that "Where there is no second, no opposition, there can be no third, no neither/nor." So the choice remains: either we accept ourselves as the last humans, or else we accept ourselves as the opposition." This has led the NRF to praise Anarchist thinkers like Bakunin and Proudhon, as well as to reject the concept of the State and call for independent enclaves "in which National-Anarchists can live according to their own principles and ideals." National-Anarchists also declare that even after the demise of Capitalism they neither hope nor desire to establish a national infrastructure, believing that like-minded and pragmatic individuals must set up and maintain organic communities of their own choosing. This, of course, means that whilst the NRF retains its vision of Natural Order and racial separatism it no longer wishes to impose its beliefs on others. The group has also been involved in ecological campaigns, anti-Capitalist demonstrations and animal liberation circles.

The NRF has also been heavily influenced by Alternative Green, a group set up in the wake of Richard Hunt-s resignation as Editor from the leftist newspaper, Green Anarchist. Hunt-s unique economic analysis of the Western core-s exploitation of the Third World periphery, as well as his wholesale rejection of the division of labour, has led to an open-minded alliance between Alternative Green, the NRF, Nationale-Anarchie (German National-Anarchists), the Wessex Regionalists, Oriflamme (medievalists), Albion Awake (a Christian-Anarchist organisation), the Anarchic Movement (influenced by both Junger and Evola) and various other political groupuscles which all firmly believe that opponents of Capitalism from across the board must come together in order to exchange ideas and strategies. In May 2000 these elements staged the first Anarchist Heretics Fair in Brighton, launching a new political initiative called Beyond Left-Right. This has since been attacked by a variety of anarcho-dogmatists on the Left, including the International Workers of the World (IWW) and Anti-Fascist Action (AFA). To date, however, neither of these organisations has attempted to explain precisely why the NRF or its allies deserve the fascist epithet or deserve their threats of violence and intimidation. Furthermore, fewer still have tried to define the actual meaning of fascism itself.

Given that ideologies such as National-Socialism, National Communism and National Bolshevism have each attempted to combine two seemingly diverse and contradictory opposites, the arrival of National-Anarchism always seemed inevitable. But what distinguishes the NRF from its counterparts within the prevailing left-right spectrum, however, is the fact that it is seeking to create a synthesis.

Indeed, Synthesis is the name of a new online magazine established by the Cercle de la Rose Noire, through which NRF thinkers, Evolians and prominent ex-members of the now defunct White Order of Thule (WOT) are promoting the three-fold strategy of Anarchy, Occulture, and Metapolitics. The Circle's website, http://www.rosenoire.org/, has presented National-Anarchists with an esoteric perspective, becoming a huge counter-cultural resource from which articles, essays, poetry, interviews and reviews can be easy obtained.

The similarities between the strategy of National-Anarchism and the triadic analysis of the famous German philosopher, Georg Friedrich Hegel, are tremendous. Hegel believed that when confronted with the ineffectiveness of a thought or affirmation (thesis) and its subsequent negation (antithesis), the result is a yet further negation as the two original precepts are united and thus resolved at a much higher level (synthesis). Once this process takes place, the synthesis itself can then be negated by another antithesis, until the arrival of a second synthesis starts the whole process over again. This brings us back to our long and repeated flirtations with trinitarianism. When considered from this perspective, National-Anarchism appears to be the next logical next towards the raising of mankind's spiritual and intellectual consciousness.

Taken from "Beyond Left and Right" http://blr.folkandfaith.com/beyond3p.htm

Prof. Arnold Keyserling

 

METAPOLITICS, WISDOM AND THE INTERNET

by Prof. Arnold Keyserling and his American student, Ralph

Wisdom is the natural quality of old age. It develops through experience and social action, transforming consciousness into Awareness.

At the dawn of human history, in the clans and tribes, political authority was vested in the wise elders of the community. The elders were given the authority to guide the community because they understood the meaning of existence in all four worlds: the waking world of living people; the dream world of animals, plants and elemental spirits; the world of the dead; and, the world of the Ancestors who have attained immortality. In those times the teachings of Wisdom were founded on vertical hierarchies, absolute obedience to the master of initiations, and loyalty to the prevailing social-cultural tradition.

The nexus between politics and Wisdom has been lost for millennia. Politicians have not gained their authority from Wisdom, and wise men and women have seldom, if ever, been active in politics. Although largely cutoff from political power, the authoritarian structures in spiritual traditions still continued until recent times. Over the last 150 years, however, this hierarchy has crumbled. More and more people have had peak experiences on their own, outside of vertical organizations and established rituals and beliefs. These experiences have provided individuals with glimpses of the kind of holistic Awareness which is inherent to Wisdom. By the nineteen sixties, at the beginning of global civilization and the computer age, the spiritual hierarchies no longer had any real authority for most people. They were replaced by individual search for personal development. The search was based upon psycho-technologies and personal experience, rather than faith and submission to authority. The Human Potential Movement of the nineteen sixties and seventies spearheaded this spiritual revolution.

This revolution in the intimate sphere of personal growth has cleared the way for new developments in the world of community. Personal development is not enough. Both the individual Self, and the social functional Ego, demand our attention. We must develop both the personal Self and the community Ego. This development can only come by bridging the gap which naturally separates the Ego from the Self. The Self is situated in the Hara and the right hemisphere of the brain, and dominates in dreaming and deep sleep. The Ego is located in the head and left hemisphere, and dominates in waking and reflection. In consciousness these two sides - Self and Ego, cannot merge. If you are awake, you are not dreaming. If you are asleep, you are not experiencing thinking associations. In order to blend the Ego and Self, and understand the meaning of the four worlds like the elders of ancient times, you have to move out of consciousness into Awareness, into Wisdom. This happens momentarily in the peak experience, but it does not last. Ordinary consciousness returns and the division between Ego and Self returns. The four worlds separate. In order to permanently link the Ego and Self, and thus attain continuing Awareness, you need to transform all of your social functions in the world so that they embody your personal vision. Conversely you need to channel your personal development into action with others for the service of Humanity and the Earth. In this way the four consciousness functions merge. You are in contact with your dreams in waking life where you work to make them come true. Your thinking is in touch with deep sleep - Nothingness - and you can communicate with all worlds. The Ego serves the Self, but remains autonomous. The Self is vertical, but the Ego is horizontal, not submitted to hierarchy.

This revolution in human development triggers a change from Politics to Metapolitics, which means politics linked with Wisdom. This is a reawakening of the ancient traditions of the clan and the tribe in a new democratic form. The individual realizes their potential with others through self organized activities. Through the free flow of information on a global scale, and the voluntary assistance of friends, people will help each other to accomplish their life's work, to fulfill their meaning in life, and thus attain Awareness and Wisdom. Metapolitical actions groups will form on a local level, but will be based on world wide communications. Groups with complementary aims all around the world will naturally link up with each other and create ever larger synergies of effectiveness. The unique personal motivations and potentials of each individual will be transformed by such Metapolitical action into common intentions and group projects. Taking selfless motivations as the starting point, the many local cultures of the world should pass from ideologies and wars, into intentional harmony - a polyphony of global civilization. As Wisdom retakes its position in community action - in politics - the world will inevitably move from political and economic hierarchies, into synergetic webs.

People around the world are already busy spinning a global web of information and communication. Free people openly communicating with free people creates the Noosphere of the planet. This enables each of us to more easily find the tools necessary to create our meaning in life, and to network with others to carry it out. As we do this a new kind of ecology is forming, an ecology based on global information which links our Ego and Self to the Earth, instead of the heavens. This paradigm shift returns us to Metapolitical action based on the wisdom of the Earth and the Ancestors, and the necessity to fulfill our common human role as Stewards of the Earth. All of us have a common aim as human beings to protect our planet for future generations. This goal of a green Earth serves as the common ground linking the Metapolitics of striving individuals everywhere.

The God of the new Wisdom seekers reflects the historical evolution of Humanity. God is self organizing from Chaos, not predeterministic. He is not, but He becomes, just like the Jewish revelation of his name on Sinai: "I will be who I will be" - the eternal unconditioned future, not "I am that I am" the eternal conditioned present of Newtonian physics. The ideals of today are necessarily future oriented, and so we must act together to preserve a future for our planet. We are no longer masters of Nature, separate and apart from Earth - she is our Mother. We are a part of her, and we must act responsibly to preserve our future as a species with her.

Through Internet, the newly evolving computer communications and information network, each person is now able to create his personal way of knowledge - a path which leads to Wisdom and community. The Internet is the seed of the Noosphere, the natural forum of global Metapolitics. It is the place where the new civilization can flower, where people can learn from each other, and can assist each other in common projects to unite Self and Ego through service to the Earth.

(Taken from http://www.schoolofwisdom.com/internet.html )

The Communal Solution
An Alternative Way

By Avadis

Unfortunately, today a political organisation has no future. There are many people that have been encaged in such organisations or movements and in the end they gave it up or "unexpectedly" found themselves in prison. Reality is very hard, but harder when you are not prepared for things like this.

But as someone who comes from Greece, I am prepared and will give you an example. Here there are two or three nationalist organisations and parties that are clearly tools of the System, full of secret agents, brainless extreme right-wing and xenophobic people.

Well these organisations have no future (which is as it should be). Not because they don't have many people, and neither because they are "extreme", but because the State itself has set the limits of their existence. They are part of the System, and they are not an alternative solution to the one-way street of Capitalism. And I think it is the same in other countries, too. So when many of these people meet with them and begin to understand their dirty role, in the end they give it up altogether. Many times they are compromising with the system, and they are becoming increasingly bourgeois or apolitical.

Leading them there is the one-way street - or dead end - of Capitalism and the modern way of life. They don't want to be "marginal", they're looking for an outlet. But when they see that there is no other outlet than the way towards Capitalism, they become prey to the tentacles of the system.

Some years ago, a Greek pagan (heathen) group was thinking along the lines of creating a village where people with same interests (way of life, religion etc.) could live and work based on their beliefs and on their way of life. This, maybe, would be a solution, a return to the Community. It might sound laughable, but it would undoubtedly be a strike against urbanism and centralisation. I believe that as Troy Southgate says, it is absolutely right that the fight of the future will be between Decentralisation and Centralisation. And it is an alternative way, because the System gathers us into big cities, with many policemen, extreme control, the same way of life and thinking, with thousands of cameras everywhere (Big Brother isn't a tv-show, it is reality!) and we all end up as robots in their hands (all the same).

Community-ism and resistance on the periphery is the only thing we have now, maybe our only hope, we don't have to show mercy to the cities, from the time they took our freedom we will also take away their peace. Let's terrorise them with the way they've been terrorising us for so many years. We must have no morality outside of our community. Out there is the enemy, the chaos, the tyrant . . . inside the community we are all brothers, we have the same visions, ideals, beliefs, customs and the same blood. Outside are those who want to destroy us . . . this must be our basic thought.

Our communities must be open for the folk, to become the real alternative solution and another way of life to the modern West.

Don't forget that community-ism was the basic way of organisation by the ancient Indo-Europeans (and this is why the real racialist is the "community-ist").

Many would say that this is "utopianism". I don't think so. The System doesn't fall with prayers and implorations. But only with loyalty to our visions, for our ancestors, to our customs and our folk, in our race and to the real freedom we can win. It would be a hard, strong fight and for a long time, so let's start the resistance now. Let's become the solution we are looking for . . .

Against bourgeois hypocrisy! For OUR totalitarian tomorrow . . .

VIVA LA REVOLUCION!

Welf Herfurth 

Discussing Race In A Global World

By Welf Herfurth



The subject of race and racial difference is something a lot of people avoid. Some consider it bad manners or impolite. Others say it is offensive and discussion of it should be suppressed by legislation. One spin-off from that category goes as far as to deny the existence of races, claiming any number of religious, philosophic, scientific (sic) and moral theories in support of the proposition. Then, some fellow travellers might conclude that races exist in some narrow, almost meaningless sort of way and may conclude that, for 'human-universalist' reasons - they should be abolished.

Of course, there are people - amongst all races - who believe their particular origin renders them wise or good or superior. The fact this class of human beings exists might condition the attitudes of those who prefer the matter not bedevil us further. Sometimes this group is downright offensive and some amongst them have a genocidalist frame of mind. However, that does not make the existence of races as such - invalid. The old Chinese who spoke of others as barbarian or the Hitlerite who took refuge in false aesthetics or the Zionist Jew who believes some peoples are lesser entities are used as an excuse by many to refuse to entertain any theory of race that proclaims a virtue in their existence.

I am not afraid to discuss race. Because I am prepared to accept races exist, I must therefore say: “Where did they come from? What does it mean?”

I see race and species as different. I certainly agree that humans, as a whole are a species, but within the family you have different races. It is like in the animal world. You have dogs, cats, whales, deer, etc., but within each 'species' you have different 'races'. It might be a simplistic description, but take the species of dogs. You have your German Shepherd, Schnauzer, Fox Terrier, etc. They are all dogs, but they are different - in looks, size and temperament. They can interbreed, if you really want to, but the sense of individuality might ultimately be lost. In my opinion that is the same with humans. We all walk on two legs; have a head and arms and legs. We think, have needs and we need to love and be loved. We communicate with each other and we have always regarded ourselves as related to each other. There is no doubt that we are, however, very special 'animals' (I note there may be certain religious opposition to this label being applied, but my purpose should quickly become clear). Essentially, we have self-awareness. The philosophers have long debated that notion. It is the capacity to think in 'higher' terms, moral terms, to distinguish wants and needs, to regulate impulse, to act socially, that makes the human species special. Why should we be surprised if nature has equipped each of the races slightly differently?

Between the different races we note great differences. Not only the skin colour, but also how we act in different situations and our physical abilities. The Negroid race is generally a more physical race than the Asian or 'Indian' or European or Semite. He has the well known (if always given in cliché form) abilities at certain sports and song, of physical labour and in the endurance of pain. Some Asian groups on the other hand have a higher IQ than the white man, and a capacity for skilled application to the finery of life and culture. The Eskimo have a high IQ, but black groups seem to come in at the bottom of the range. Then the white man is generally more practical and scientific. The Semitic groups have the ability to form intricate systems of religious and mystical Gnostic thought. In some ways, each is 'better' than another and in some ways 'lesser'.

There are also differences within the races whereby each may be broken into sub-groups. We just have to look at the Europeans. They are 'white', but the Italians are different to the Swedish, the Germans are different culturally and temperamentally to the Russians. But this difference is mainly based on their habits, which is influenced by the culture they live in. There are also certain anatomical variations. I suppose we could apply that principle to the Asian race. Japanese are 'fairer' to Vietnamese; Han Chinese have heavier frames to Thais. The skull of the Ethiopian may be easily compared to the Senegalese and the legendary collectivity of the Zulu contrasts with the freer structures of Sierra Leone. And so forth.

This incredible difference between races and variation within races is a natural thing. We can say God made it that way (if we are religious in our view) or we can say nature made it that way (if we are evolutionists). Whichever way, we are dealing with a fact of existence. It seems to be a wondrous fact. The differences in humanity cannot be a thing decried, but only accepted. Once accepted, we should celebrate it. If one is religious in outlook we could say that if it was made that way, it is not to be tampered with. If we are scientific in our outlook, we would say that nature's processes are not to be willed away. I would venture to say that a proper discussion of the existence of race implies a revolution in philosophy of political correctness.

When I do my travels, I always love to cross a border and be instantly in a different world. Just going from Germany to Switzerland is amazing. The landscape might be the same as might be the architecture, but the people and the cultures are different. And that is what I would like to preserve. Look at Europe today. You have so many other races living in England that more than half of London is non-white. If we go to some countries in the Arab world, we would think we were in Pakistan. If we go to India, we find people wanting to be Americans and chatting away only in English. What effect does all this pseudo-globalisation have on the economy of this country? What about the survival of the heritages of the 'native' peoples? I am German, but I would not be offended if people in an African country became annoyed with too many of our tourists or businessmen making pests of themselves. It does not offend me as a 'white man' to learn Malaysians painted large slogans back in the 1950's: "British go home!", "White Man: Pack Up Your Burden". It is always 'numbers' and ‘weight’ that drives a people to demand a bit of living room. I wasn't upset either when Libya sent home many of its guest workers or when Nigeria packed off its illegal immigrants. Nor am I offended when an Icelander asks the question why do they need Indians in their country? It almost seems that if everyone was in his 'place', being himself, there would be less tension and more respect?

Where does all the pressure for 'one world' end? Let us imagine every person on this planet became chocolate coloured with dark hair and dark eyes. No more Asian, African, European or Indian races. Let us assume, therefore, that there was no more racial diversity in people. Let us assume we could teach one language, use one money-system, knock down all barriers and borders and live in one huge market place. Where would the benefit be? Do we really think that that in itself would make for a better mankind or a more harmonious or prosperous or culturally achieving world? And of course, can we assume that if we could put humanity through a blending machine that differentiation might not reappear, in a new form perhaps, but still operate in human affairs?

Of course what is different often has the appeal of the exotic and one cannot prevent the small scale mixing of the races. In certain places too at different times this has occurred on a visible scale, with historical and cultural forces operating to produce over long periods new results. But when we are confronted by those who suggest it should be the norm and be pursued consciously and aggressively, then we must act to prevent the large-scale destruction of singular identities and struggle hard to preserve the diversity of humanity.

I do not know if there is an agenda to encourage the one-world result. It could be the naivety or foolishness or greed of people who push this vision. However, I have come to think there is a push from Western liberals, capitalists of all colours, some theologians and others to create 'one-world'. World-improvers of all sorts and the so-called liberals are promoting the idea that diversity is a tiresome nothing. There can be no doubt that these delightful sounding platitudes will serve those who see that by breaking down all boundaries, humanity is better 'managed' in a market-millennium. For one, I would attack that sort of 'vision' as a monstrosity and prefer the racial differences and diversity. And I would argue that we are not “naturally gravitating” towards The Great Brown Race, but we are being in fact resettled.

I know that in today’s western society discussing the race issue is rather sticky and a dangerous ground to walk on. But I am willing to do that. I believe that the survival of the different races and cultures is as important as the survival of the whale, elephants and different birds. It is a worthy goal if it is kept as a celebration of diversity as essential to overall human progress. We are still a family.

To keep to such a goal, I would repudiate any notion that one race is better than another race in a hierarchy arranged from the best to the least. It is precisely because the races have different skills and aptitudes and possibly deficits that this cannot be done. I am left to say that the races are equal - but they are not the same. We can and we should accept that these differences are recorded in our cultures. Our cultures are the windows to our souls. They define each of the races, each of the sub-types, each of the peoples. These cultures are treasures. They can be appreciated by each of the human types, but they are only fully lived and appreciated only by their creator group. Surely a race or a nation has the right to retain their nation’s culture and identity in their own country. Where is the arrogant self-assertion in that? If a race or other group owns a culture, it has the right to prefer to retain it.

Could we have a world of peoples in definable zones as an alternative to the New World Order of chaos and destruction? Perhaps that is the ultimate expression of the argument I am putting here! But the agenda of the political liberals, the mass media outlets and the entertainment industry in promoting multiculturalism (which in my opinion is actually liberal monoculture) in Western societies will, in effect, destroy the European cultures. However, their model is now increasingly pushed upon other peoples as part of New World Order imperialism. It is a strange imperialism that comes to divest the conquered of their culture and then to merge its wreckage with the wreckage of others. I am pleased to note many people are rising against this model.

I always liked travelling and seeing the world. It gives me the feeling of being alive and interacting with people and place. I will never understand how people can live in one place and one place only - and think that they are living in "the best place" on earth. Each land may be a great country, but there is no such thing as "the best place". Similarly we can discard the idea of the best race. In a world that seems to be losing its way and descending into conflict, we should seek the causes. They do not only lie in the rivalries of races, nor has this sort of rivalry brought the human world to the brink of destruction. If we look back into history, it certainly involved conflicts of races and peoples and evil deeds. However, the past also possessed an outline principle of diversity as being essential to progress overall. Whatever the differences were and the contentions they produced, there was amongst all the idea of a certain security in the arrangements. This is now challenged by the false anti-racism of one-world-ism.

Let us discuss race. Let us see whether the defence of race offers a challenge to one-world-ism. That is a good place to start. If we like the fruits of this discussion, we can take it further. It may be the revolutionary idea to put up against same-ness, conformity, the drab, the destructive and globalisation.


We are all equal, but we are not the same


*Welf Herfurth is a political activist who lives in Sydney / Australia. He was born and raised in Germany. He can be contacted on herfurth@iinet.net.au

Why the Left Blows

By Ean Frick

Capitalism sucks, most people know that whether they say so or not. The vast majority of the problems that people suffer from are somehow attributed to the system we live under. Who has a crappy job? Who finds daily life boring? Who doesn't have enough' free time' (that very phrase says it all)? Who wants more out of life than pointless commodities? People who become anti-capitalist usually do so by having some sort of association with the monolith that is the Left. But they'll tell you that they came to the persuasion of anti-capitalist because of the way capitalism exploits the farmer in Colombia or the peasants in Chiapas and most people in the"privileged" West find it hard to relate to the abuses of that system. While I certainly agree that capitalism is a horribly malicious system that is based off the exploitation, by any means necessary, of workers (especially those in the Third World) to create profit, why do we think only to use those reasons to explain our disgust? Isn't it as equally valid to say I hate capitalism because I can't go to Larz Anderson park at night without some cop coming and telling me to leave because the park is closed (as if Nature hasvisiting hours).

Obviously the oppression of the Iraqis or Palestinians or Colombians at the hands of empire and capital is far greater than my conflict with the uniformed defenders of private property over my right to happiness but why prioritize to the point that my claim would seem petty or illegitimate in the eyes of most card carrying leftists. The game of objective importance is forced upon us everyday. Work is important, play isn't. What is reported on the news is what's officially important but what we personally find interesting isn't. Securing for the future, becoming morally responsible, Doing well at school to get a good job, "growing up", blah blah blah blah blah. No one wants to hear that. People could figure out what they wanted and what makes them happy if they actually had time to think and weren't constantly being told what to like and what to want from politicians and the mass media. Do that many people really want a SUV, a Mc Mansion in the suburbs and an eternity trapped in the hell of wage labor and the constraints of the nuclear family? I don't.

How boring. I don't know what I'll be doing in 20 years and I like that. Spontaneity and the unknown is what makes things fun. Why can't I just read or make collages and paintings all day, or go to the beach or sit on a hill and just enjoy the natural environment that surrounds me? Why should I be doing something 'important' ? Why can't I just be? Contemporary civilization is based on the idea that being productive is essential to living, but what is exactly meant by ‘being productive’ is where the problems come in. If I waste my day on menial labor that won't even be attributed to me when I'm finished but instead to some business for some measly pay I'm being productive. But if I sit in bed all day because I want to, I've committed some sin or crime against what I supposedly should be doing. However the truth remains the only Grand Plan that exists is the one we create ourselves. Now that that rant is out the reader may be asking her or his self what does this have to do with the Left per say? Well, my point is that the idea of objective importance is a tool used by the agents of Capital but also by the Left as well. When one becomes involved in the ranks of the Left they soon see this. Leftists will say they became activists because they felt somesense of duty, that they should be doing something with their free time. So they fill up all the time they have when they aren't cogs in the machine (as that is what free time is) running around making fliers,setting up meetings and espousing some dogma. Ideas are constantly in a state of flux and can come from anywhere, but when they are ordered, rationalized and placed in a nice little package and labeled for consumption they become dogma. Unbreakable rules popup that exist in the metaphysical realm but whom the dogmatists will tell you will cause serious consequences if broken.

Of course there are all sorts of dogmas on the Left, from pacifism to liberalism to Marxism-Leninism, all pushing for hegemony, for a totality, a fixed state where ideas can no longer move freely. Only recently have some on the Left recognized a need for organizations based around ideological pluralism, but whether this has produced new ideas out of the synthesis of others or just old dogmas bumping into each other like a tennis ball with a brick wall is yet to be seen. All dogma is is a police officer in your head. Blow his brains out.

The productivity of the Left is the same as the productivity of wage labor. After all those fliers that have been put up and all those meetings scheduled and all that literature sold what do you have to show for it? All that time and effort for what? Sure some minds were radicalized and exposed to new ideas, that is an achievement, but how much of it was discarded to end up in the rubble of information that fills the cracks of the streets in every city. More people went to antiwar demonstrations against the Iraq war than Vietnam by far, but was the war stopped? In fact the people who are doing the most to the end that war are the citizens of Iraq who are picking up guns and rocks and whatever else they can get their hands on to get the occupying forces out of their country and preserve what's left of their culture and dignity. While the white liberals of the American Left chastise the Iraqis for their violence and try to get 100 people to show up somewhere with signs with hackneyed slogans on them and hope the media notices their poor excuse for a spectacle. Then after they will analyze the (non)importance of their actions in some coffee shop and go back to their lives, separating the personal from the political and succumbing to the bourgeois trap of specialization. The Left forgets that people act in their own interests. They think people will want to sign on to some cause if only it’s sold properly. So ending war, saving nature, fighting bigotry, and even smashing capitalism just becomes treated like some other commodity. So when people refuse to join it because digesting it would take alot longer than some crap from WalMart, the Left either works harder to sell it or they lapse into saying that everyday Westerners are just ‘bought off’ by the decadence of the system.But people aren’t bought off so much as they are conditioned.

The Left has to face the fact that the Spectacle is better at misappropriating people’s desires than they are. And as for the ‘privileged’ West, this attitude is completely uncritical of the utter shit that is Western consumer civilization. Granted it’s no paradise to live in a Third World country with the immense poverty, the terror of the state, and the sweatshops; but many Third World nations still have a strong indigenous culture though that is also being destroyed by globalization and neoliberalism (imports from the West, no doubt). But the culture of the West is one of McDonalds, Thomas Kinkade and Coca Cola. While the regions that make up the monster known as Amerika have their own traditional cultures based on the ethnic groups that live there, that is well on its way out in favor of the cultural hegemony of a KmartNation.

Also the natural environment of Amerika is being completely paved in favor urban sprawl, a nation of strip malls. Many Third World communities also still have a sense of exactly that, community, but life in the West is alienating. Where is the local community to be found? The mall, of course. Any leftist who thinks life in the West is more pleasurable to live in hasn’t yet begun to scratch the surface of any serious criticism of capitalism. The point is nothing is absolute, the West is no better off than the Third World, and the Third World is no better off either. Life is these places are grim for different reasons, but the reasons for this can all be attributed to capitalism. This brings me to my next point: the enemy is capitalism, not the Bush agenda oreven the right wing, for capitalism works under dialectics as does everything else and it needs a leftwing to keep it going. The political spectrum is a product of capitalism, the left and right wings of the system. Also the idea of a spectrum presupposes an absolute, to moderates a leftist is a liberal Democrat, and to right wingers Hilary Clinton is a communist, to the League for a Revolutionary Party Nader is a nativist and a Dems sympathizer, and to the International Socialist Organization Nader was the only leftist choice in the ‘05 election. But who has the audacity to say that their view of what is truly Left and Right is correct? The truth is that there is a system and those support it and those who oppose it. That is the only dichotomy that should be allowed. As long as the Left is bent on ‘realism’ it will fail to pose any serious threat to the global order of capital or recruit any new young people who could possibly help turn it around from the sorry state it’s in now. Despite the fact that the words ‘progressive’ and ‘leftist’ are commonly held to be synonyms, most leftists I’ve encountered are extremely suspicious of new radical intellectual trends. Philosophers like Jean Baudrillard, Henri Lefebvre, Guy Debord, Deleuze & Guatarri and even Sartre (who is far from a new philosopher) have all made excellent contributions to an intellectual critique of the damaging effects of capitalism on individuals in everyday life. Also Theodor Adorno and other members of the Frankfurt School brought anti-capitalism to the realm of culture, another topic the Left is, for the most part,ignorant of. In all their tirades against colonialism, there is a shocking lack of any serious attack on cultural imperialism. To have a nation impose its culture by force upon another its always a reactionary thing, but its even worse when the aggressor nation is obviously culturally inferior. One need look no further than the current occupation of Iraq where you have Uncle Sam prying open the hungry mouths of the Iraqi populace and force feeding them Friends, Gap clothes and American Idol which they are promptly throwing up in the form of day to dayattacks on the new “democracy.”

I recently heard on NPR a new story about the contractors in Iraq (i.e.mercenaries) where one merc admitted to Terry Grossthat he had to educate the Iraqi men he dealt with not to hold hands, which is a sign of fraternity in Arabcountries. In the West, specifically America, this lack of an organic national culture outside of consumerism is a problem that resonates with many disaffected people, especially the youth. If we have another world to win, we’re going to have to build anew culture in place of the garbage that masquerades as one now, and no socialist realism or cult of the proletariat is going to help either. Toni Negri and Felix Guattari wrote an excellent book titled Communists Like Us, which noted how the realm of production in a late capitalist society has moved outside the old factories and is now operated in a much more social realm. The line between worker and consumer is being constantly blurred, and the average proletarian is stuck in the position of perpetually creating and buying commodities. This means that the realm of labor has moved into the social realm so you have a whole society of worker/consumers who have no break from the means of production. This leaves us all very tired at the end of the day and with little patience for the wage labor-like productivity of the Left. If the Left wants to seriously change things for the better its going to have to make some major changes, like a serious break with the dogmatists and reformist-grounded liberals who have no tolerance for extraparilmentary or direct action politics, an admission that we live in a new era of capitalism that requires new strategies and criticisms, an opening of a cultural front that would work with youth and avantgarde countercultural currents where grass roots, organic, and DIY ethics are practiced, and an abandoning of spectrum politics, which reduces every issue to left or right instead of capitalist and anti-capitalist, authoritarian and autonomous. Unless the Left starts to make these or similar changes, its going to continue to be part of the problem instead of the solution.