Updated News Digest November 1, 2009 Reply

Why Read the Sunday Papers When You Can Read AttacktheSystem.Com!

Quotes of the Week:

“”The present state of public affairs shows clearly enough that the State is the poorest instrument imaginable for improving human society, and that confidence in political institutions and political nostrums is ludicrously misplaced. Social philosophers in every age have been strenuously insisting that all this sort of fatuity is simply putting the cart before the horse; that society cannot be moralized and improved unless and until the individual is moralized and improved. Jesus insisted on this; it is the fundamental principle of Christian social philosophy. Pagan sages, ancient sages, modern sages, a whole apostolic succession running all the way from Confucius and Epictetus down to Nietzsche, Ibsen William Penn, and Herbert Spencer–all these have insisted on it.”
                                                                                      -Albert Jay Nock

“The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting deer, it’s about hunting politicians.”
                                                                          -Congressman “B1” Bob Dornan

“I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence I would advise violence.”
                                                                              -Mohandas Gandhi

“This is the law: The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.”

                                                                                     -John Steinbeck

The Religion of Marxism by Murray Rothbard

Politics As Tribe from the National Policy Institute

United Steelworkers Enlist Mondragon in Drive Toward Employee Democracy from Infoshop.Org

The State As Drug Lord by Kevin Carson

Criticism of Israel: A Wonderful Hiding Place by Michael Neumann

How the $outhern Poverty Law Center Profits From Intolerance by Ken Silverstein

An Opportunity for the Oathkeepers: End the Occupation by William Norman Grigg

Obama’s Real Death Panels by Ted Rall

30 Years On, Remembering the Cambodian Holocaust by John Pilger

When Small Countries Lead the Way by Mark Weisbrot

Karzai As Diem by Justin Raimondo

The Real Climate Change Catastrophe by Christopher Booker

Are You Ready for the Next Crisis? by Paul Craig Roberts

AfPak: Illegal, Immoral, and Fattening by Jeff Huber

Afghan Insurgents: Terrorists or Tea Partiers? by Justin Raimondo

American Preeminence Is Disappearing Fifteen Years Early by Michael T. Klare

Bankster Holiday by Paul Craig Roberts

Forever War by Pat Buchanan

The Network Revolution vs The State and Its Allies by Kevin Carson

Is An Attack on Iran Coming? by Paul Craig Roberts

Blair’s Regime’s Secret Plans for a Multicultural U.K. by Simon Walters

Rubbing Their Noses In It by Richard Spencer

Unilateral Disarmament by Richard Spencer

The U.S. Expands the Empire by Mike Sullivan

An Interview with Gore Vidal by John Meroney

A Few Brave Conservatives Reject Unhinged Radio Ranters by Jack Hunter

Stumbling Into the Mainstream, Against a Wall of Bias by Sean Gabb

Good News in the War on Drugs by David Kramer

Neocons and the Pentagon Rage Against the Dying of the Fight by Jeff Huber

Hyper Inflation by Ilana Mercer

Winning Through Intimidation by Brenda Walker

King Dollar Abdicates by Peter Schiff

Upcoming West Coast Nurses’ Strike from Infoshop.Org

Green Monster by Stanislav Mishin

On Tea Parties and Patriots from Infoshop.Org

Motherland by Nina Kouprianova

Anarchism and the Politics of Technology from Infoshop.Org

Dostoevsky on Modern Conservatism by Mark Hackard

To a Los Angeles Anarchist from Infoshop.Org

Rebel Against the Empire by Thomas Naylor

When Gitmo and Abu Ghraib Come Home by Bill Quigley and Deborah Popowski

Will the Dollar Remain the World’s Reserve Currency in Five Years? by Mike Whitney

A Commissar a Day Keeps the Doctor Away by TGGP

White Cross Patrol from Bay Area National Anarchists

Urban Gardens from Bay Area National Anarchists

Folsom Street Fair, Protest Part 2 from Bay Area National Anarchists

Creation of an Urban Guerrilla 

The Global Warming Crusaders by George Giles

Health Care Hypocrisy by Laurence Vance

Why They Hated the Articles of Confederation by Lew Rockwell

Dancing With the Czars by David Kramer

Neocon Stooge David Brooks Sucks Up to Obama by David Brooks

High Costs, Low Odds by Stephen M. Walt

Abolish NATO by Jeff Huber

The FBI Is Assessing You Nat Hentoff interviewed by Scott Horton

War Is a Hate Crime  by Chris Hedges

Libertarians Debate “Cultural Values” from Reason

Have You Seen This Missing Girl?

The U.S. Military Is Crazy As a Bedbug by Fred Reed

The Lynching of a Real Defense Attorney by William Anderson

Are You Middle-Class? Not for Long! by David Calderwood

The American Idea by Walter Williams

We’re Returning to the Middle Ages by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Another Imperial Puppet in Afghanistan by Eric Margolis

What Are You Buying for Self-Defense by Lew Rockwell

Former Marine Captain Resigns In Protest of Afghanistan War by Jeff Huber

Congressman Seeks to Atone for War Vote by George C. Wilson

Hate Is Not a Crime by Jack Hunter

Black Tuesday and How We Got Out of It by Mike Whitney

Here Comes the Third Party: Palin and the Constitutionalists by Jayne Lyn Stahl

Palin and Conservatives of the Heart by Pat Buchanan

The Anarchist Library Update from Infoshop.Org

Coalition Against Police Brutality in Greensboro, North Carolina from Infoshop.Org

Beautiful Losers by Paul Gottfried

The Trouble with Limited Government by Jesus Huerto de Soto

The Return of the Great Depression by Vox Day

Gerald Celente on Avoiding Economic Hardship by Naresh Vissa

Living the Outlaw Life by Claire Wolfe

Democracy’s Most Critical Defect by Robert Higgs

Stealth Gun Control  by Karen De Coster

Libelous Leftoidal Lynch Mobs by Tom DiLorenzo

Our Enemy, the Political Class by James Ostrowski

Nullification in Ohio

The Persecution of Self-Defenders by David Kramer

A Conservative Primer for Conceptualizing Political Economy on the Humane Scale by Patroon

Tea  Pot Ready to Boil in Upstate New York by Patroon

The U.S.S. Liberty Affair and the Problem of Truth in History by Alan Hart

Three Years Later, Brad Will is Still Dead by John Ross

Roman Roads and Modern Emperors by Conn Hallinan

Drug War Assassinations by Jacob Hornberger

Capitol Hill Hos by Jack Hunter

The National-Anarchist Movement Continues to Grow in Australia from Bay Area National Anarchists

The Real Forgotten: Victims of the Empire by Geoffrey Pike

Voting Lowers Your Testosterone by Gary Reed

Jimmy Carter: Racial Separatist

The Polygamy Experience 

Brown Berets Protest in Houston (their history)

Progressives for Immigration Reform

Military Recruiters Leave No Child Behind by David Goodman

Empire Falls: The Revolutions of 1989 by Charles Burris

Bob Gates’ Bad Bet by Jeff Huber

On the Eve of WW3 in Iran? by Gordon Prather

Kipling Haunts Obama’s Afghan War by Ray McGovern

There Is No Need for Conflict with China by John V. Walsh interviewed by Scott Horton

Land Wars in Asia Eric Margolis interviewed by Scott Horton

The Long Gaze of the State by Alexander Cockburn

Medical Marijuana Goes Mainstream by Norm Kent

 Invisible Review, Invisible Racism by Mupetblast

With Friends Like This, Obama Needs No Enemies by Mupetblast

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

European Nationalist Parties Form Alliance 

In Defense of Carol Swain

“Racist” Biscuit Removed From Shelves 

What I’ve Learned from Debating Religious People Around the World by Christopher Hitchens

Kids As Young As Nine Receive Career Advice 

Motorist Is Told Flag Could Be Racist 

 Mao’s War Against Nature: Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China

Trouble in Tea Party Land 

Neoconservatism and Trotskyism

Racist Nursery Children

Slavery in Modern Africa 

The Visigoths and the Fall of Rome 

War Is a Racket by General Smedley Butler 

H.L. Mencken Speaks , Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five, Part Six, Part Seven, Part Eight 

Sting Says Obama Sent from God (or “Don’t Take Advice from Rock Stars”)

Icelandic Sorcery and Witchcraft 

U.S. Workers Starved Into Service 

Modern Man Had Sex with Neanderthals 

Mayor Says Pay Problem Parents Not to Breed

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

Updated News Digest October 25, 2009 2

Why Read the Sunday Papers When You Can Read AttacktheSystem.Com!

Quotes of the Week:

A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery.”

Despise the enemy strategically, but take him seriously tactically.”

Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.”

 Weapons are an important factor in war, but not the decisive one; it is man and not materials that counts.”

                                                                                        -Mao Tse-tung   

An unmistakable sign of Third World despotism is a police force that sees the public as the enemy. Thanks to the federal government, our local police forces are now militarized and imbued with hostile attitudes toward the public. SWAT teams have proliferated, and even small towns now have police forces with the firepower of U.S. Special Forces.

Summons are increasingly delivered by SWAT teams that tyrannize citizens with broken down doors, a $400 or $500 repair born by the tyrannized resident. Recently, a mayor and his family were the recipients of incompetence by the town’s local SWAT team, which mistakenly wrecked the mayor’s home, terrorized his family and killed the family’s two friendly Labrador dogs.

If a town’s mayor can be treated in this way, what do you think is the fate of the poor white or black? Or the idealistic student who protests his government’s inhumanity?

In any failed state, the greatest threat to the population comes from the government and the police. That is certainly the situation today in the U.S.A. Americans have no greater enemy than their own government. Washington is controlled by interest groups that enrich themselves at the expense of the American people.

The 1 percent that comprise the superrich are laughing as they say, “Let them eat cake.”

                                                                                     -Paul Craig Roberts

The U.S.A Is a Failed State by Paul Craig Roberts

You’re Not the Customer: Don’t Trust Cops, Never Talk to Cops by Kevin Carson

Police State U.S.A William Norman Grigg interviewed by Scott Horton

Anarchists Unite: How Does That Work? by Gendy Alimurung

The Presidential Dictatorship by Tom Engelhardt and David Swanson

The New Totalitarians by Rafael Koski (intro by Peter Brimelow)

The Hate Industry by Elizabeth Wright

What’s Up with the Front Porch Republic? by Dylan Hales

All the Populism Money Can Buy by Alexander Cockburn

The Neocons Sing the Same Old Song in the Emperor’s Ear by Philip Giraldi

Rethinking World War III by Justin Raimondo

Obama’s War Interview with Col. Andrew Bacevich

Throttling Back on Afghanistan by Jeff Huber

Is Adulation of the Military Really Patriotic? by Ivan Eland

Getting the Vietnam Analogy Right in Afghanistan by Leon Hadar

China Seeks Deterrence, Not Dominance by Doug Bandow

Israel Was a Mistake Gabriel Kolko interviewed by Scott Horton

Our Two Faced Iran Policy by Justin Raimondo

The State’s Plan for Your Great Grandson by Tom Hayden

What Motivates the Taliban? by Glenn Greenwald

The Dark Side of the “Special Relationship” by Justin Raimondo

The Economics of Empire Donald Losman interviewed by Scott Horton

General Treachery-What Is This? A Coup? by Jeff Huber

The Afghan Quagmire by Joshua Holland

White Noise by Alex Kurtagic

FUCK: The Most Popular Word in the English Language by Mandolyna Theodoracopulos

It’s High Time by Richard Spencer

The Feminist, Multicultural Edmund Burke by Richard Spencer

The Frankfurt School in Exile: Authoritarianism and the Family by Kevin MacDonald

Middle Americans Alienated and Radicalized by Pat Buchanan

National Day of Action Against Police Brutality from Infoshop.Org

Anarchist Resists Grand Jury from Infoshop.Org

The Dollar Will Not Crash by Mike Whitney

James Williamson Rejoins Iggy and the Stooges 

The Christians’ Golden Calf by Laurence Vance

The Pleasures of Tobacco by Patrick Semmens

Stiletto Stoners by Yael Kohen

Horst Mahler: The Synthesis of the Left and Right by George Michael

The Mainstream American Left is Ignorant and Naive by Ray Mangum

Illegal Resistance Activity in Pre-Revolutionary Conditions by Kevin Walsh

Thoughts of an Anarcho-Negro by Rayfield A. Waller

Causes of the Amiseration of the Euro-American Proletariat by Kevin Walsh

Stalinist Russia Had a High Crime Rate by David R. Shearer

Barack Obama: The Last American President by Mike Gogulksi

The Republican’s Balloon Boy by Jack Hunter

Cool Cops and Vets Vow to Resist Dictatorship by Alan Maimon

Obama’s Actual Health Care Reform by Devlin Barrett

PIGS Murder 19-yr-old in California

You Might Be a Constitutionalist If… by Chuck Baldwin

Feminism’s a Bitch by Gavin McInnes

The Rotten Fruits of War by Dan Pearson and Kathy Kelly

Three Myths Driving the Afghan War by Johann Hari

Busting the Darfur Myth by Tom Mountain

Losing the War by Brian Downing

Russia’s Daring Vote      by Israel Shamir

Now Pakistan: Sequential Destruction of Muslim Nations by Liaquat Ali Khan

Syria’s Golan Heights by Franklin Lamb

Uncle Sam in Afghanistan by Norman Solomon

Can the Democrats Avoid a Populist Health Care Rebellion? by Kevin Zeese

Dead Babies in Iraq and Afghanistan Are No Joke by Dave Lindorff

A Young Champion of Liberty by Doug French

The Economics of Secession by Dave Mundy

Currency Controls Are Coming by Doug Casey

Confessions of a Home-Schooler by Andrew O’Hehir

They Can’t Push Us Around Forever by State Rep. Susan Lynn (TN)

“Rule of Law”-Fed Style  by Bill Anderson

The Shadow of Dictatorship Is on the Land by Ron Shirtz

A Rumsfeld-Era Reminder of What Causes Terrorism by Glenn Greenwald

The Real Reason for More Troops in Afghanistan by Michael Gaddy

Five Myths About Iran’s Nuclear Program by Joseph Cirincione

Educating Children in Conflict Zones by Catherine Rottenberg and Neve Gordon

A More Hands-Off Approach in Somalia by David Axe

Seeking Monsters to Kill Abroad by Faith Whittlesey

 Right-Wing Europe by Bede

Love Thy Neighbor…Or At Least Get to Know Them by Patroon

Unlearning the CIA by Christopher Ketcham

Palestine in Pieces by Jeff Gore

Why Did Iran Build the Enrichment Facility? by Gareth Porter

Announcing the Committee for Constitutional Health Care Reform by Dan Phillips

Defend Free Speech for Nick Grifffin by Bede

Towards a Constructive Anarchism from Infoshop.Org

Four Theses on the Invisible University from Infoshop.Org

Over 20,000 Mink Freed from Fur Farms in France/Spain from Infoshop.Org

The Deadly Medical-Industrial Complex by Dr. Doug Henderson and Gary Null

A Naked Swindle Perpetrated by the Ruling Class by Matt Taibbi

The Telecom Industry Aids and Abets the Police State 

“Education”: The Lizard State Wants Your Children by Doug Casey

Bartering With Ammo? by Terrence Gillespie

Media Stooges for the Fascist Legal Racket by Bill Anderson

Is “Being Offended” the New National Sport? by Karen De Coster

Anarchists on PBS from David Kramer

FOX Hunt by Jack Hunter

Nixon and Obama: Soul Brothers? by Pat Buchanan

March Against Police Violence in Santa Rosa from Infoshop.Org

Gerald Celente: The Worst Is Yet to Come by Naresh Vissa

Are You in Big Brother’s Database? by James Bamford

Nixon Killed America by Lew Rockwell

U.S. “Justice” Sucks by Lew Rockwell

Israeli Ethnic Cleansing by David Kramer

The World Will Be Fine Without American Bombs by Jeff Huber

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Worker Cooperatives 

The Holy War Against Fat-ism 

Jim Goad 

Psychopaths Are Distracted, Not Cold-Blooded 

Is Political Correctness to Blame for Lack of Coverage of Horrific Black-on-White Killings? 

National Resistance to the Obama Regime 

American Jews Rethink Israel 

White Trash from a Marxist Perspective

Defend Illegal Alien Halloween Costumes! 

Afghanistan’s Golden Age 

Latin America Plans U.S. Dollar Replacement

The Tragedy of the Palestinian Diaspora 

Why Are Stocks Surging As Jobs Disappear?

Socialism Vs Austrian Economics

Inland Empire National-Anarchists 

Where Will the Jobs Come From? 

Insurance Company Calls Rape a “Pre-Existing Condition”  

The White City of Portland 

Petition to Bring Tony Blair to Trial for War Crimes 

Distributivism in Today’s World and Economy

Nixon Tapes on Archie Bunker and Homosexuality 

Nixon on Jew Spies vs Negro Spies 

Nixon Drunk on Watergate 

Nixon and Pat Buchanan on Ivy League War Protests 

Nixon and Gerald Ford Discuss Republican Doves

Nixon Says “Get the Son of a Bitch” Daniel Ellsberg 

J. Edgar Hoover Calls Katherine Graham an “Old Bitch” 

Nixon and Kissinger on Idi Amin

Labour Wanted Mass Immigration to Make the U.K. More Multicultural, Says Former Adviser 

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

The Death of Politics  by Karl Hess

The Traffic in Women by Emma Goldman

Crime and Punishment by Errico Malatesta

Feminism As Fascism by Bob Black

Are You a True Revolutionary or a Couch Rebel? 4

by Peter Bjorn Perls

What keeps a lot of people back is that they have too much to lose from an upheaval of the existing, mostly peaceful, order of things.

The essence of the matter is that, to gain freedom, there must be some sacrifices, especially in the short term.

Assume a rebellion, either in the UK or US or wherever. It could have many consequences, both on the high-up political level (fx. by the national guard or army being sent into quell a rebellion), but the most felt change in the everyday for regular people will be the loss of amenities taken for granted.

Thank about the goods you use everyday, and would have to find alternatives for: Water in the tap, working toilets, garbage disposal, convenient shopping with an abundance of foods, drinks and “fun goods” available to you at minor expense. Electricity! No electricity means no computers, no internet, no Tv with associated sitting on the couch with a cold beer to relax from the day’s toil, no easy cooking, no electrical lighting. Everyday transportation – automotive transportation is taken for granted, and so is the supply of it’s lifeblood – gasoline.

All these things have solutions that are either obvious, easy, or not too hard to fix with cooperation in small groups (i’ll post that separately, this is getting too long). The point is that all these little things PILE UP to become a seemingly un-scaleable wall.

For those directly on the government payroll, either as “Public” employees or on welfare handouts, well, no need to explain that is there?

There is the very real possibility of engaging in rebellion that the “authorities” will crack down hard and physically on you and your compatriots. Bodily harm is probably assured, and actual death is possible.

There is the social aspect; as much of society is lulled into the dream of democracy-end-of-history and democracy-is-good, anyone who vocally, visibly and clearly shows disdain and rejection of that mindset faces ostracism and oodles of abuse.

(In this regard, i would wish the Randians had more balls to turn words to action, because they don’t seem to give a shit about their critics. As far as political fundies go, they are an example of what the leaders of a rebellion in these times of mental sheepism need to be – staunch and uncompromising).

If rebellion and secession is to become reality, what you must ALL ask yourselves is:

How much of the stuff I have today, which I take for granted, am I willing to give up, to gain freedom and more control of my future life?

If the answer is that you don’t want to lose your goodies, even for a short time, then I’m sorry to say that the respondent is not suited for anything more than couch rebellion, and leave the actual uprising to those that have nothing left to lose (but this also means that those who were unwilling to make a sacrifice for their freedom and freedom of others, won’t have much to say in future societal arrangements, and rightly so).

The Conservative Challenge 2


[Keith: The text of a magnificent speech given by Dr. Sean Gabb of England’s Libertarian Alliance. My question: How can we go about turning all of these conservative, libertarian and populist government-distrusters into full blown anarchist revolutionaries?]


The Conservative Challenge
By Sean Gabb
(Text of a Speech Given to a Conservative Association
On Friday the 16th October 2009)


On Friday the 16th October 2009, I spoke to a Conservative Association in the South East of England. Though I did not video the event, and though –  on account of the heated and not always good natured debate the followed my speech – I was asked not to identify the particular Association to which I spoke, I think what I said is worth recording. Therefore, I will write down my words as best I can recall them. I have suppressed all the questions, but carried some of the answers into the main text. Otherwise, I will try to keep the flavour of the original.

The Speech

Because of transport difficulties that prevented many people in this room from arriving on time, I am beginning my speech an hour later than expected. I am honoured by the Chairman’s apology for the delay. However, the series of conversations and arguments with which those of us who were here entertained ourselves while waiting have given me the idea for a speech that is still on my stated theme, but that I think will be more interesting than the one I had in mind. Now, this theme – “The Conservative Challenge” – has been routinely given to speakers at Conservative gatherings since at least the 1880s. The question that must always be answered is how we can remain the free citizens of an independent country in ages that have been progressively hostile both to individual freedom and to national independence. I did have a plan loosely worked out in my head. What I will do instead, though, is take some of our bar room discussions and summarise or expand on them as seems appropriate. I will do this by giving short statements of what was said to me, and then by giving my responses.

1. This has been a bad Government

I disagree. Oh, if you want a government that defends the country and provides common services while keeping so far as possible out of your way, the Labour Government elected in 1997 has been a disappointment. This does not mean, however, that the Blair and Brown Governments have been a failure in their own terms. They have, on the contrary, been very successful.

The purpose of the Government that took power in 1997 was to bring about a revolutionary transformation of this country – a transformation from which there could be no return to what had been before. The English Constitution has never been set down in a written document, and there has never been any statement of fundamental rights and liberties that was protected from change by ordinary legislation. Instead, these rights and liberties were protected by a set of customs and institutions that, being legitimised by antiquity, served the same purpose as formal entrenchment. It can be hard, in every specific case, to justify trial by jury, or the rule against double jeopardy, or the idea that imprisonment should be for a specified time and no longer, or the right to speak freely on matters in the public domain. There are principled arguments that satisfy in the absence of strong passions. But, strong passions being granted, the best argument has always so far been that these things have always been in England, and that to change them would be to break the threads that tie us to the past.

It would be childish to argue that the Ancient Constitution was in good health until 1997, when it was suddenly overturned. Unless there is an catastrophic foreign invasion, constitutions are not destroyed in this way. Ours had been sapped long before 1997. To say when the tipping point was reached, and by what means, would take me far beyond my stated theme. However, what remained of the Constitution has, since 1997, been dismissed as a set of “outmoded” relics, and large parts of it have been swept away. Those that remain have been transformed beyond recognition.

Let me give myself as an example. My first degree was in History. Much of this was taken up with a study of late antiquity and the early middle ages. But some of it was given to English history between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. Of course, the Constitution changed within these periods, and had changed much since then. But I could take up the debates of the Cavalier Parliament, or a pamphlet written during the American War, or a case published in the State Trials, and find myself within a conversation of the English people. I was not in the same position as a French undergraduate, who, for anything published before 1791, would find himself in a world of institutions, and territorial names, and weights and measures, and monetary units, and general assumptions, as alien as those of a foreign country.

This has now changed. Anyone who, this month, has started a degree in History or Law or Politics will find himself in the same position as that French undergraduate. We have new legislative bodies all over the country, and new principles of administration, and new courts with new procedures and languages, and new lines of authority terminating in bodies outside the country. The work is not yet complete. But already, the conversation of the English people has been made largely incomprehensible to those born since I was an undergraduate.

Whether the changes can be justified as improvements – or whether they could have been made with more regard for economy and consistency – is beside the point. The main purpose of change has been to seal off the past. That past has been delegitimized in order to strip rights and liberties of the associations that used to protect them. Not surprisingly, we find ourselves in a country with a Potemkin democracy, where speech and publication are censored, where the police are feared, where we are continuously spied on as we go about our business, where we can be imprisoned without trial or charge for a month, and generally where we find ourselves having to deal every day with administrative bodies given powers that others who have not yet had felt them still cannot believe possible.

On any normal assumptions, the country has been governed very badly since 1997. On the assumptions of the Government, things have gone very well indeed.

2. This country is ruled by people who have been corrupted by bad ideas.

Again, I disagree. For centuries now, England has been governed by people rather like ourselves. Sometimes, they have governed well, sometimes badly. But we have never had to doubt their fundamental good faith. This has changed. The people who now rule this country have not been led astray by bad ideas. Rather, they are bad people who choose ideologies to justify their behaviour.

There are ideologies of the left – mutualism, for example, or Georgism, or syndicalism – that may often be silly or impracticable, but that are perfectly consistent with the dignity and independence of ordinary people. These are not ideologies, however, of which those who rule us have ever taken the smallest notice. These people began as state socialists. When this became electorally embarrassing, they switched to politically correct multiculturalism. Now this too is becoming an embarrassment, they are moving towards totalitarian environmentalism. Whether in local or in national government, their proclaimed ideologies have never prevented them from working smoothly with multinational big business, or with unaccountable multinational governing bodies.

It is reasonable to assume that, with these people, ideas are nothing more than a series of justifications for building a social and economic and political order within which they and theirs can have great wealth and unchallengeable power.

They tell us they want to end “child poverty” and “build a more equal society”. In fact, they have employed an army of social workers to terrorise every working class family in the country – an army of social workers backed by closed and secretive courts, and that may even be selecting children for legal kidnap and sale to barren middle class couples. They have pauperised millions with policies that keep them from achieving any reasonable independence and subject them to the bullying of credentialed bureaucracies.

They tell us they want a more “inclusive” and “diverse” society. They have certainly welcomed the mass immigration that they enabled the moment they came into office. It has been useful for impoverishing the working classes – in their attitudes and behaviour once perhaps the most conservative people in the country. It has also provided much evidence for their claim that the old England into which we were born has passed away, and that we need a new constitutional settlement – a settlement much in need of censorship and endless meddling in private choices. Even so, they make sure to live in white enclaves and to send their children to private schools where class photographs look much as they did in 1960.

They tell us they want to save the planet from “climate change”. If they have made Phillips and Siemens rich from their light bulb ban, they still fly everywhere and drive everywhere, and light up their own houses and offices like Christmas trees.

These are bad people. They must be regarded as such in everything they do. And we must hope that they will one day be punished as such.

3. The country is misgoverned.

Let me go back to my first point. There is no doubt that everything done by these people has involved huge cost for little of the promised benefit. We have computer systems that do not work. We have new bureaucracies that do not achieve their stated purpose. The National Health Service, for example, has had its budget doubled or trebled in the past twelve years. Yet the waiting lists are as long as ever, and the hospitals are dirtier than ever. Medical incompetence and even corruption and oppression are now everyday stories in the newspapers.

Again, however, these are failures only on the assumption that money has been laid out for the purpose of improving services. It has not. The real purpose of washing a tidal wave of our money over the public services has been partly to raise up an army of clients more likely to vote Labour than anything else, and partly to give these clients powers that tell everyone else who are the masters now. On this assumption, the money has not been wasted at all. It has indeed been an “investment in the future”.

What is to be done?

I often speak about an electoral coup in which a genuinely conservative government came to power and set about undoing the revolution. This involves shutting down most of the public sector. I am not saying that poor people would no longer receive their benefits or medical attention free at the point of use. These are not in themselves expensive. They may have undesirable consequences in terms of smothering personal responsibility and voluntary initiative. But these are problems to be addressed over a long period during which no settled expectation need be denied. What I do say is that the bureaucratic machine that bleeds us white in taxes and grinds us into obedient uniformity should be smashed to pieces that cannot easily be put back together. It should be smashed because we cannot afford it. It should be smashed because it oppresses us. It should be smashed because it is an agent of national destruction.

I once wrote a book about why this should be done and how to do it. Sadly, it will not be done in the foreseeable future. We shall probably have a Conservative Government within the next nine months. But this will not be a government of conservatives. If we want a preview of the Cameron Government, we need only look at what Boris Johnson has achieved during the past year as Mayor of London. He has not closed down one of the bureaucracies set up by Ken Livingstone and his Trotskyite friends. The race equality enforcers are still collecting their salaries. The war on the private motorist continues. Rather than cut the number of New and Old Labour apparatchiks, he is currently putting up taxes. David Cameron will be no better. He may be forced to make some changes and to slow the speed of the transformation. The transformation will continue nevertheless.

We need to speculate on the purpose and nature of counter-revolution. It is useful to know what ought to be our long term purpose. It inspires us to action in an otherwise bleak present. But we need also to know what present actions are to be inspired. My advice is that we need, in all our thoughts and in whatever of our behaviour is prudent, to withhold our sanction.

Any system of oppression that does not rely on immediate and overwhelming – and usually foreign – violence requires the sanction of its victims. We cannot all have guns put to our heads all day and every day. We therefore need to believe, in some degree, that what is done to us is legitimate. We must believe this if we are to obey. We must believe it if those who oppress us are to keep their good opinion of themselves. I suggest that we should withhold that sanction. I do not say that, without our sanction, the illegitimate power that now constrains our lives will fall immediately to the ground. I do suggest, however, that it will be insensibly undermined, and that it may therefore collapse suddenly in the event of some unexpected shock. This is how Communism died in Eastern Europe. It may be how the New Labour Revolution will die here.

The Police

One of the myths, endlessly repeated through what is called “Middle England”, is that the Police are among the victims of Labour rule – that they have been forced to act in ways that they find abhorrent or absurd. But this is only a myth. The Police are no friends to respectable people in any class or race. When I was a small boy, I was reduced to tears by what seemed a gigantic policeman in a tall helmet. One glare of his bearded face, and I was straight off the municipal flower bed where I had thrown my ball. He spoke to my grandmother before moving to other business, and that was the end of my transgression.

His sort retired decades ago. They have been replaced by undersized, shaven headed thugs – frequently with criminal records – who take delight in harassing the respectable. If you are robbed or beaten in the street, they will be nowhere in sight. If you approach them to complain, they will record the crime and send you on your way. If, on the other hand, you try defending yourself or your loved ones, they will prosecute you. They will do nothing about drugged, aggressive beggars, but they will jump on you if they see you smoking under a bus shelter. These people have been given powers that move them closer to the East German Stasi than to the uniformed civilians many of us can still remember. They can arrest you for dropping a toffee wrapper in the street. Once arrested, you may be charged, but you will more likely be released after being fingerprinted and having DNA samples taken and stored. We do not know what other body or government will be given your DNA. We do not know what future oppressions it may enable. Regardless of any littering charge, you will have been punished already.

We should not regard the Police in any sense as our friends. They are not. This does not mean that we should have no dealings with them. There are times – insurance claims, for example, where things must be reported. There are times when the Police are needed, and when they may give some limited assistance. Even so, we should on no account behave to them as if they were uniformed civilians. They are an armed, increasingly out of control pro-Labour militia.

The Law

We were all of us born in a country where the phrase “The Law is the Law: it must always be obeyed” did not seem absurd. Yes, it may not have been quite as we were told. By and large, however, it was a law made by our representatives and with our loose consent – or it was made by Judges rationalising honestly from assumptions grounded in common sense notions of justice. It is that no longer. For all its blemishes, the old laws of England were there to stop us from knocking into each other too hard as we went about our business. Its function was reactive. The function of law nowadays is transformational. It is there to change the ways in which we think and live. So far as this is the case, the law has been delegitimised.

And this is how we are to regard uses of the law. At the moment, The UK Independence Party is being edged towards bankruptcy over some matter of a political donation. It seems not to have complied with the requirements of a law made in the year 2000 that effectively nationalises all political parties – and that may one day be used to control what policies they advocate and how they oppose measures with which they disagree. Again, there are complaints about how the BBC has invited the Leader of the British National Party to appear on Question Time. It is said that the BNP is currently an illegal organisation because of its internal rules. The alleged illegality is based on a novel interpretation of a 1976 law, as amended in 2000, that is itself illegitimate.

There was a time when it was enough for us to be told that someone had broken the law for us to think ill of that person. But times are altered. When the laws themselves are corrupt, they lose moral force. It is no longer enough for us to be told that someone is a law breaker. Whatever we may think of these parties for what they advocate, they are to be seen not as law breakers but victims of political oppression. To think ill of them purely for their disregard of the law is rather like calling Alexander Solzhenitsyn a jailbird on account of his time in the Gulag.

The Law is no longer the Law. It is a set of politicised commands made for our destruction as a free people. It no longer deserves our automatic respect. Yes, the laws that protect life and property are still to be respected. But it is now rational to inspect every law thrown at us to see which do bind in conscience and which do not. I know that this is a dangerous principle to announce. There are many people for whom the law is a unified thing: say that one part has no binding force, and all parts are weakened. But this is not our fault. We have not made the law disreputable. We are simply facing a state of affairs that has been called into being by others.

The Constitution

I have already mentioned the remodelling of the Constitution. As a people, we have long amused foreigners with our respect for titles and old forms of government. I once chaired a meeting addressed by a Member of the House of Lords. This was before the Internet, and I spent nearly an hour in a library clarifying that he should be introduced as – let me change the name – John, Lord Smith of Wilmington, rather than Lord John Smith or Lord Wilmington. This was all good fun. It also had a serious point. I was helping maintain one of those innumerable and seemingly absurd customs that among were the outer defences of our rights and liberties. Our Ancient Constitution may have struck outsiders as a gigantic fancy dress ball. But it covered a serious and very important fact. This was an imperfect acceptance of Colonel Rainsborough’s claim that “the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he”.

But, again, times are altered. The more gorgeous events of the fancy dress ball have been retained. But the underlying substance – the protection of rights and liberties – has been stripped out. This being so, all obligation of deference has lapsed. I will not defer to the man whose name has been changed by a sheet of parchment sealed with wax to Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty. Nor will I call Peter Mandelson other than “Mr Mandelson. Nor, unless I am in his court, and he is likely to take more against me than he naturally would, will I address the former Communist Stephen Sedley as “My Lord”. Nor will I acknowledge his Knighthood out of court. I am not yet sure if it is appropriate to stop recognising hereditary honours, or those granted before 1997. But I certainly regard all honours granted since 1997 as void. They have the same legitimacy as those conferred by Cromwell during the Interregnum. No – Cromwell was a great man who did honour to this country and who deserves his statue outside Parliament. Recent honours have the same status as those conferred by James II after he ran away to France. They are to be seen as a badge of ridicule and disgrace on those who have accepted them.

Now, this may seem a pedantic and self-indulgent point. But it is not. These people should not be allowed to wrap themselves in any remnant of the associations that once bound us to the past. And they evidently enjoy playing at nobility. I once did a radio debate with a police chief who had been recommended for a Peerage by Tony Blair. He was annoyed by my substantive arguments. He was reduced to spluttering rage when I addressed him as plain “Mister” and sneered that his title was a sham. Bearing in mind that it is not illegal to drop their titles, and how it upsets them, I think it worth doing on every convenient occasion.

And it is part of what I would see as a more general approach. Conservatives often denounce what is being done to us as a “breach of the Constitution”. It is really no such thing, because the Ancient Constitution has been abolished. As said, the fancy dress ball continues in something like full swing. But “the poorest he that is in England” has been stuffed. We do have a constitution in the sense that every organised community has one. Ours says that whoever can frogmarch a majority of placemen through the lobbies of the House of Commons can do whatever he pleases. I did hope, earlier in the present decade, that the Judges would intervene to limit parliamentary sovereignty. The Labour response, however, was to pack the bench with their own people. Therefore, since it has been destroyed, or has been suspended, we are in no position to claim that the Constitution has been breached. The obvious result is that we should not regard ourselves as morally bound to recognise any of the authority that is claimed and exercised over us.

And if our people ever get into power through the electoral coup that I mentioned earlier, I see no reason for recognising any purely “constitutional” limits to the nature and speed of our counter-revolution. For example, regardless of the withdrawal mechanism in the Lisbon Treaty, I would be for just repealing the European Communities Act 1972 as amended. That would be complete and immediate withdrawal. If any Judges tried to block this, I would have them removed. I might also be for passing an Act voiding every previous law made since the first session of the 1997 Parliament. Otherwise, I would prefer to declare a state of Emergency under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and then repeal hundreds of laws by decree. A slow revolution can take place when those at the top have the numbers and staying power to take it slowly. When there has been a revolutionary or counter-revolutionary seizure of power, change must be swift and determined if it is to be a success.

There must be a return to constitutional norms – and the extraordinary measures that may enable this return must not be allowed to set any precedents of their own. Nor – let me emphasise – do I hope that our reaction will involve violence. But if conservatives are to bring about a reaction, so that we can again be a free people in an independent nation, we have little positive to learn from Burke’s Reflections. There comes a point beyond which a constitution cannot be rescued. I think we have reached that point. There can be no patching up this time, as happened at the Restoration in 1660, or after the Revolution of 1688. By all means, we should not innovate just for the sake of neatness. But we shall need to innovate. We shall need to create new safeguards for our rights and liberties that take into account the country in which we live.

The Monarchy

This means, I increasingly believe, a republican constitution. There is nothing wrong with the principle of hereditary monarchy. I suspect that the division of authority and power that took place between 1660 and 1714 contributed much to the freedom and stability of England during our classical period. The problem is not the institution of monarchy, but the person of the Monarch.

When she came to the throne, Elizabeth had what seems to have been almost the universal regard of the people. She has spent the past 57 years betraying the people. Whatever the constitutional lawyers may claim, there is a contract between Monarch and people. We pretend to treat whoever wears the Crown as the Lord’s Anointed. The wearer of the Crown agrees in turn to act as a defence of last resort against tyrannical politicians. That is the truth behind the phrases of the coronation oath. The Queen could, without bringing on a crisis, have blocked the law in the early 1960s that removed juries from most civil trials. She could have blocked the subsequent changes that abolished the unanimity rule and the right of peremptory challenge. She should have risked a crisis, and refused her assent to the European Communities Bill, or demanded a fair referendum first. She could have harried the politicians of the past two generations, reminding them of the forms and substance of the Ancient Constitution. She had the moral and legal authority to do this. Had she spoken to us like adults, she would have had popular support. She did nothing. I believe she bullied Margaret Thatcher into handing Rhodesia over to a communist mass-murderer, and made repeated noises about South African sanctions. And that was it.

Whatever her failings in the past, she had every legal right to demand a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty. This had been promised by every party at the 2005 general election. When the promise was withdrawn, she would have had public opinion and much of the media behind her in refusing to give assent to the Treaty’s Enabling Act. Again, she did nothing.

We are continually told about the Queen’s sense of duty. All I see is much scurrying about the country to open leisure centres – and otherwise a total disregard of her essential duties. If the Constitution was in decay before she was even born, she has spent her reign watching all that was left of it slip between her fingers.

It may be argued that she is now very old and will not remain much longer on the throne. The problem is that her son will be worse. She has been lazier than she has been stupid. He is simply stupid. So far as he insists on using his powers, it will be to drive forward the destruction of England. His own eldest son might easily be an improvement – but he could be decades away from the Crown. We are in no position to wait on what is in any event uncertain. The Queen has broken the contract between her and us. Her son will do nothing to repair the breach. We live in an age where hereditary monarchy must be strictly hereditary or nothing at all, and so we cannot waste our time with new Exclusion Bills or Acts of Settlement. If, therefore, we are ever in a position to bring about a counter-revolution, we shall need to find a head of state who can be trusted to do the job of looking after our new constitution.

Closing thoughts

I could go further on this theme. I know that many conservatives – and a few Conservatives – have lost faith in democracy. Undoubtedly, representative democracy has thrown up a political class that is separate from the people, and that is increasingly hostile to the rights and liberties of the people. But I cannot think of a lasting new settlement based on Caesaristic dictatorship or a limitation of the franchise. My own suggestion would be to select most positions in the executive by sortition – to choose rulers, that is, by a lottery – as in ancient Athens, and to settle all legislative matters by local or national referendum. Most judicial business that had any bearing on the Constitution could be put before juries of several hundred people, chosen by the same random process as criminal juries now are.

But, you will agree that this takes me far, far beyond my stated theme. It would make what has been a long speech longer still. I will close by observing that if you want to be a conservative in an England broken by revolution, you need to look beyond a rearguard defence of forms from which all substance was long since drained.. The conservative tradition may have been dominated since the 1970s by Edmund Burke. But it does also contain the radicals of the seventeenth century. And – yes – it also has a place even for Tom Paine. If you want to preserve this nation, you must be prepared for a radical jettisoning of what is no longer merely old, but also dead. The conservative challenge is to look beneath the plumage and save the dying bird.

NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3

Saddam Hussein's Pre-War Prisoner Amnesty Program 2


Iraq ’empties its jails’


Iraqi television has been showing pictures of joyful prisoners leaving jail, shortly after the authorities announced an unprecedented general amnesty.A nationally televised statement from the Revolution Command Council, read by Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, said the “full and complete and final amnesty” applied to “any Iraqi imprisoned or arrested for political or any other reason”.

The amnesty was intended to thank the Iraqi people for their “unanimity” in last week’s presidential referendum, the statement said.Iraqi President Saddam Hussein won 100% support in the poll, in which he was the only candidate.

The amnesty also included “prisoners, detainees and fugitives… including those under sentence of death, inside or outside Iraq,” the statement said.

The exception, the statement said, was for murderers, who would be released only with the consent of the victims’ families.

Joyful scenes

Soon after the statement, Iraqi television began showed footage of dozens of prisoners rushing out of various prison gates chanting support for Saddam Hussein.

There is no way of verifying how many prisoners have been released..Human rights groups accuse Iraq of detaining tens of thousands of its citizens as political prisoners over the years, although many are thought to have been executed.

In April, the UN Human Rights Commission condemned Iraq for conducting a campaign of “all pervasive repression and widespread terror”.

It demanded that Baghdad should immediately put an end to its “summary and arbitrary executions… the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances”.

Regime change

Analysts see the amnesty and referendum as a concerted effort by the Iraqi Government to rally domestic and international opposition to US demands for a change of regime in Baghdad.

In his UN speech on Iraq last month, US President George W Bush demanded that the leadership end internal oppression in Iraq, as well as stop its alleged programme to develop weapons of mass destruction.Also this week, Iraq has taken steps to return Kuwait’s national archive which was looted by Iraqi forces during the 1990-91 Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.

The first box of documents was handed over in the demilitarised border zone along the Iraqi-Kuwaiti frontier under UN supervision on Sunday.

There is no indications whether any of the 600 Kuwaitis – missing since 1991 and alleged by Kuwait to be still being held in Iraq as prisoners of war – are among those released on Sunday.

Iraq says it has lost track of those prisoners.

Basic Bakunin Reply


Republished from the (British) Anarchist Communist Federation’s original pamphlet in 1993 by P.A.C. (Paterson Anarchist Collective) Publications. This electronic version has the extra ACF text added to the PAC version, for more completeness.


“The star of revolution will rise high above the streets of Moscow, from a sea of blood and fire, and turn into a lodestar to lead a liberated humanity”
-Mikhail Bakunin


The aim of this pamphlet is to do nothing more than present an outline of what the author thinks are the key features of Mikhail Bakunin’s anarchist ideas.

Bakunin was extremely influential in the 19th century socialist movement, yet his ideas for decades have been reviled, distorted or ignored. On reading this pamphlet, it will become apparent that Bakunin has a lot to offer and that his ideas are not at all confused (as some writers would have us think) but make up a full coherent and well argued body of thought. For a detailed but difficult analysis of Bakunin’s revolutionary ideas, Richard B. Saltman’s book, “The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin” is strongly recommended. Ask your local library to obtain a copy.


Bakunin saw revolution in terms of the overthrow of one oppressing class by another oppressed class and the destruction of political power as expressed as the state and social hierarchy. According to Bakunin, society is divided into two main classes which are fundamentally opposed to each other. The oppressed class, he variously described as commoners, the people, the masses or the workers, makes up a great majority of the population. It is in ‘normal’ time not conscious of itself as a class, though it has an ‘instinct’ for revolt and whilst unorganized, is full of vitality. The numerically much smaller oppressing class, however is conscious of its role and maintains its ascendancy by acting in a purposeful, concerted and united manner. The basic differences between the two classes, Bakunin maintained, rests upon the ownership and control of property, which is disproportionately in the hands of the minority class of capitalists. The masses, on the other hand, have little to call their own beyond their ability to work.

Bakunin was astute enough to understand that the differences between the two main classes is not always clear cut. He pointed out that it is not possible to draw a hard line between the two classes, though as in most things, the differences are most apparent at the extremes. Between these extremes of wealth and power there is a hierarchy of social strata which can be assessed according to the degree to which they exploit each other or are exploited themselves. The further away a given group is from the workers, the more likely it is to be part of the exploiting category and the less it suffers from exploitation. Between the two major classes there is a middle class or middle classes which are both exploiting and exploited, depending on their position of social hierarchy.

The masses who are the most exploited form, in Bakunin’s view, the great revolutionary class which alone can sweep away the present economic system. Unfortunately, the fact of exploitation and its resultant poverty are in themselves no guarantee of revolution. Extreme poverty is, Bakunin thought, likely to lead to resignation if the people can see no possible alternative to the existing order. Perhaps, if driven to great depths of despair, the poor will rise up in revolt. Revolts however tend to be local and therefore, easy to put down. In Bakunin’s view, three conditions are necessary to bring about popular revolution.

They are:

  • sheer hatred for the conditions in which the masses find themselves
  • the belief the change is a possible alternative
  • a clear vision of the society that has to be made to bring about human emancipation

Without these three factors being present, plus a united and efficient self organization, no liberatory revolution can possibly succeed.

Bakunin had no doubts that revolution must necessarily involve destruction to create the basis of the new society. He stated that, quite simply, revolution means nothing less than war, that is the physical destruction of people and property. Spontaneous revolutions involve, often, the vast destruction of property. Bakunin noted that when circumstances demanded it, the workers will destroy even their own houses, which more often than not, do not belong to them. The negative, destructive urge is absolutely necessary, he argued, to sweep away the past. Destruction is closely linked with construction, since the “more vividly the future is visualized, the more powerful is the force of destruction.”

Given the close relationship between the concentration of wealth and power in capitalist societies, it is not surprising that Bakunin considered economic questions to be of paramount importance. It is in the context of the struggle between labor and capital that Bakunin gave great significance of strikes by workers. Strikes, he believed, have a number of important functions in the struggle against capitalism. Firstly they are necessary as catalysts to wrench the workers away from their ready acceptance of capitalism, they jolt them out of their condition of resignation. Strikes, as a form of economic and political warfare, require unity to succeed, thus welding the workers together. During strikes, there is a polarization between employers and workers. This makes the latter more receptive to the revolutionary propaganda and destroys the urge to compromise and seek deals. Bakunin thought that as the struggle between labor and capital increases, so will the intensity and number of strikes. The ultimate strike is the general strike. A revolutionary general strike, in which class conscious workers are infused with anarchist ideas will lead, thought Bakunin, to the final explosion which will bring about anarchist society.

Bakunin’s ideas are revolutionary in a very full sense, being concerned with the destruction of economic exploitation and social/political domination and their replacement by a system of social organization which is in harmony with human nature. Bakunin offered a critique of capitalism, in which authority and economic inequality went hand in hand, and state socialism, (e.g. Marxism) which is one sided in its concentration on economic factors whilst, grossly underestimating the dangers of social authority.


Bakunin based his consistent and unified theory upon three interdependent platforms, namely:

  • human beings are naturally social (and therefore they desire social solidarity)
  • are more or less equal and,
  • want to be free

His anarchism is consequently concerned with the problem of creating a society of freedom within the context of an egalitarian system of mutual interaction. The problem with existing societies, he argued, is that they are dominated by states that are necessarily violent, anti-social, and artificial constructs which deny the fulfillment of humanity.

Whilst there are, in Bakunin’s view, many objectionable features within capitalism, apart from the state, (e.g. the oppression of women, wage slavery), it is the state which nurtures, maintains and protects the oppressive system as a whole. The state is defined as an anti-social machine which controls society for the benefit of an oppressing class or elite. It is essentially an institution based upon violence and is concerned with its maintenance of inequality through political repression. In addition the state relies upon a permanent bureaucracy to help carry out its aims. The bureaucratic element, incidentally, is not simply a tool which it promotes. All states, Bakunin believed, have internal tendencies toward self perpetuation, whether they be capitalist or socialist and are thus to be opposed as obstacles to human freedom.

It might be objected that states are not primarily concerned with political repression and violence and indeed that liberal democratic states, in particular, are much interested in social welfare. Bakunin argues that such aspects are only a disguise, and that when threatened, all states reveal their essentially violent natures. In Britain and Northern Ireland this repressive feature of state activity has come increasingly to the fore, when the state has been challenged to any significant degree, it has responded with brutal firmness.

And developments within Britain over the last couple decades tend to substantiate another feature of the state which Bakunin drew attention to, their tendency toward over increasing authoritarianism and absolutism. He believed that there were strong pressures in all states whether they are liberal, socialist, capitalist, or whatever, toward military dictatorship but that the rate of such development will vary, however according to factors such as demography, culture and politics.

Finally, Bakunin noted that states tend toward warfare against other states. Since there is no internationally accepted moral code between states, then rivalries between them will be expressed in terms of military conflict. “So long as there’s government, there will be no peace. There will only be more or less prolonged respites, armistices concluded by the perpetually belligerent states; but as soon as a state feels sufficiently strong to destroy this equilibrium to its advantage, it will never fail to do so.”

Bourgeois Democracy

Political commentators and the media are constantly singing the praises of the system of representative democracy in which every few years or so the electorate is asked to put a cross on a piece of paper to determine who will control them. This system works good insofar as the capitalist system has found a way of gaining legitimacy through the illusion that some how the voters are in charge of running the system. Bakunin’s writings on the issue are of representative democracy were made at the time when it barely existed in the world. Yet he could see on the basis of a couple of examples (the United States and Switzerland) that the widening of the franchise does little to improve the lot of the great mass of the population. True, as Bakunin noted, middle class politicians are prepared to humble themselves before the electorate issuing all sorts of promises. But this leveling of candidates before the populace disappears the day after the election, once they are transformed into members of the Parliament. The workers continue to go to work and the bourgeoisie takes up once again the problems of business and political intrigue.

Today, in the United States and Western Europe, the predominant political system is that of liberal democracy. In Britain the electoral system is patently unfair in its distribution of parliamentary seats, insofar as some parties with substantial support get negligible representation. However, even where strict proportional representation applies, the Bakuninist critique remains scathing. For the representative system requires that only a small section of the population concern itself directly with legislation and governing (in Britain a majority out of 650 MP’s (Members of Parliament)).

Bakunin’s objections to representative democracy rests basically on the fact that it is an expression of the inequality of power which exists in society. Despite constitutions guaranteeing the rights of citizens and equality before the law, the reality is that the capitalist class is in permanent control. So long as the great mass of the population has to sell its labor power in order to survive, there can not be democratic government. So long as people are economically exploited by capitalism and there are gross inequalities of wealth, there can not be real democracy. As Bakunin made clear, economic facts are much stronger than political rights. So long as there is economic privilege there will be political domination by the rich over the poor. The result of this relationship is that representatives of capitalism (bourgeois democracy) “posses in fact, if not by right, the exclusive privilege of governing.”

A common fiction that is expounded in liberal democracies is that the people rule. However the reality is that minorities necessarily do the governing. A privileged few who have access to wealth, education and leisure time, clearly are better equipped to govern than ordinary working people, who generally have little free time and only a basic education.

But as Bakunin made clear, if by some quirk, a socialist government be elected, in real terms, things would not improve much. When people gain power and place themselves ‘above’ society, he argued, their way of looking at the world changes. From their exalted position of high office the perspective on life becomes distorted and seems very different to those on the bottom. The history of socialist representation in parliament is primarily that of reneging on promises and becoming absorbed into the manners, morality and attitudes of the ruling class. Bakunin suggests that such backsliding from socialist ideas is not due to treachery, but because participation in parliament makes representatives see the world through a distorted mirror. A workers parliament, engaged in the tasks of governing would, said Bakunin, end up a chamber of “determined aristocrats, bold or timid worshipers of the principle of authority who will also become exploiters and oppressors.”

The point that Bakunin makes time and time again in his writings is that no one can govern for the people in their interests. Only personal and direct control over our lives will ensure that justice and freedom will prevail. To abdicate direct control is to deny freedom. To grant political sovereignty to others, whether under the mantle of democracy, republicanism, the people’s state, or whatever, is to give others control and therefore domination over our lives.

It might be thought that the referendum, in which people directly make laws, would be an advance upon the idea of representative democracy. This is not the case according to Bakunin, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the people are not in a position to make decisions on the basis of full knowledge of all the issues involved. Also, laws may be a complex, abstract, and specialized nature and that in order to vote for them in a serious way, the people need to be fully educated and have available the time and facilities to reflect upon and discuss the implications involved. The reality of referenda is that they are used by full-time politicians to gain legitimacy for essentially bourgeois issues. It is no coincidence that Switzerland, which has used the referendum frequently, remains one of the most conservative countries in Europe. With referenda, the people are guided by politicians, who set the terms of the debate. Thus despite popular input, the people still remain under bourgeois control.

Finally, Bakunin on the whole concept of the possibility of the democratic state: For him the democratic state is a contradiction in terms since the state is essentially about force, authority and domination and is necessarily based upon an inequality of wealth and power. Democracy, in the sense of self rule for all, means that no one is ruled. If no one rules, there can be no state. If there is a state, there can be no self rule.


Bakunin’s opposition to Marxism involves several separate but related criticisms. Though he thought Marx was a sincere revolutionary, Bakunin believed that the application of the Marxist system would necessarily lead to the replacement of one repression (capitalist) by another (state socialist).

Firstly, Bakunin opposed what he considered to be the economic determinist element in Marx’s thought, most simply stated that “Being determines consciousness.” Put in another way, Bakunin was against the idea that the whole range of ‘super structural’ factors of society, its laws, moralities, science, religion, etc. were “but the necessary after effects of the development of economic facts.” Rather than history or science being primarily determined by economic factors (e.g. the ‘mode of production’), Bakunin allowed much more for the active intervention of human beings in the realization of their destiny.

More fundamental was Bakunin’s opposition to the Marxist idea of dictatorship of the proletariat which was, in effect, a transitional state on the way to stateless communism. Marx and Engles, in the Communist Manifesto of 1848, had written of the need for labor armies under state supervision, the backwardness of the rural workers, the need for centralized and directed economy, and for wide spread nationalization. Later, Marx also made clear that a workers’ government could come into being through universal franchise. Bakunin questioned each of these propositions.

The state, whatever its basis, whether it be proletarian or bourgeois, inevitably contains several objectionable features. States are based upon coercion and domination. This domination would, Bakunin stated, very soon cease to be that of the proletariat over its enemies but would become a state over the proletariat. This would arise, Bakunin believed, because of the impossibility of a whole class, numbering millions of people, governing on its own behalf. Necessarily, the workers would have to wield power by proxy by entrusting the tasks of government to a small group of politicians.

Once the role of government was taken out of the hands of the masses, a new class of experts, scientists and professional politicians would arise. This new elite would, Bakunin believed, be far more secure in its domination over the workers by means of the mystification and legitimacy granted by the claim to acting in accordance with scientific laws (a major claim by Marxists). Furthermore, given that the new state could masquerade as the true expression of the people’s will. The institutionalizing of political power gives rise to a new group of governors with the same self seeking interests and the same cover-ups of its dubious dealings.

Another problem posed by the statist system, that of centralized statist government would, argued Bakunin, further strengthen the process of domination. The state as owner, organizer, director, financier, and distributor of labor and economy would necessarily have to act in an authoritarian manner in its operations. As can be seen by the Soviet system, a command economy must act with decision flowing from top to bottom; it cannot meet the complex and various needs of individuals and, in the final analysis, is a hopeless, inefficient giant. Marx believed that centralism, from whatever quarter, was a move toward the final, statist solution of revolution. Bakunin, in contrast opposed centralism by federalism.

Bakunin’s predictions as to the operation of Marxist states has been borne out of reality. The Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, talked incessantly of proletarian dictatorship and soviet power, yet inevitably, with or without wanting to, created a vast bureaucratic police state.


Most of the left in Britain view the present structures of trade unions in a positive light. This is true for members of the Labor Party, both left and right, the Communist Party, the Militant Tendency and many other Marxist organizations. These bodies wish to capture or retain control of the unions, pretty much as they stand, in order to use them for their own purposes. As a result, there are frequently bitter conflicts and maneuverings within the unions for control. This trend is most apparent in the C.P.S.A. where a vicious anti-communist right wing group alternates with the Militant Tendency and its supporters for control of the union executive and full time posts. The major exception to this is the Socialist Workers Party which advocates rank and file organization, so long as the S.W.P. can control it.

Bakunin laid the foundations of the anarchist approach to union organization and the general tendency of non-anarchist unions to decay into personal fiefdoms and bureaucracy over a century ago. Arguing in the context of union organization within the International Working Mens Association, he gave examples of how unions can be stolen from the membership whose will they are supposed to be an expression of. He identified several interrelated features which lead to the usurpation of power by union leaders.

Firstly, he indicated a psychological factor which plays a key part. Honest, hardworking, intelligent and well meaning militants win through hard work the respect and admiration of their fellow members and are elected to union office. They display self sacrifice, initiative and ability. Unfortunately, once in positions of leadership, these people soon imagine themselves to be indispensable and their focus of attention centers more and more on the machinations within the various union committees.

The one time militant thus becomes removed from the every day problems of the rank and file members and assumes the self delusion which afflicts all leaders, namely a sense of superiority.

Given the existence of union bureaucracies and secret debating chambers in which leaders decide union actions and policies, a ‘governmental aristocracy’ arises within the union structures, no matter how democratic those structures may formally be. With the growing authority of the union committees etc., the workers become indifferent to union affairs, with the exception Bakunin asserts, of issues which directly affect them e.g. dues payment, strikes etc. Unions have always had great problems in getting subscriptions from alienated memberships, a solution which has been found in the ‘check off’ system by which unions and employers collaborate to remove the required sum at source, i.e. from the pay packet.

Where workers do not directly control their union and delegate authority to committees and full-time agents, several things happen. Firstly, so long as union subscriptions are not too high, and back dues are not pressed too hard for, the substituting bodies can act with virtual impunity. This is good for the committees but brings almost to an end the democratic life of the union. Power gravitates increasingly to the committees and these bodies, like all governments substitute their will for that of the membership. This in turn allows expression for personal intrigues, vanity, ambition and self-interest. Many intra-union battles, which are ostensibly fought on ideological grounds, are in fact merely struggles for control by ambitious self seekers who have chosen the union for their career structure. This careerism occasionally surfaces in battles between rival leftists, for example where no political reasons for conflict exist. In the past the Communist Party offered a union career route within certain unions and such conflicts constantly arose.

Presumably, within the Militant Tendency, which also wishes to capture unions, the same problem exists.

Within the various union committees, which are arranged on a hierarchical basis (mirroring capitalism), one or two individuals come to dominate on the basis of superior intelligence or aggressiveness. Ultimately, the unions become dominated by bosses who hold great power in their organizations, despite the safeguards of democratic procedures and constitutions. Over the last few decades, many such union bosses have become national figures, especially in periods of Labor government.

Bakunin was aware that such union degeneration was inevitable but only arises in the absence of rank and file control, lack of opposition to undemocratic trends and the accession to union power to those who allow themselves to be corrupted. Those individuals who genuinely wish to safeguard their personal integrity should, Bakunin argued, not stay in office too long and should encourage strong rank and file opposition. Union militants have a duty to remain faithful to their revolutionary ideals.

Personal integrity, however, is an insufficient safeguard. Other, institutional and organizational factors must also be brought into play. These include regular reporting to the proposals made by the officials and how they voted, in other words frequent and direct accountability. Secondly, such union delegates must draw their mandates from the membership being subject to rank and file instructions. Thirdly, Bakunin suggests the instant recall of unsatisfactory delegates. Finally, and most importantly, he urged the calling of mass meetings and other expressions of grass roots activity to circumvent those leaders who acted in undemocratic ways. Mass meetings inspire passive members to action, creating a camaraderie which would tend to repudiate the so called leaders.

(Electronic Ed- From this, one can conclude that Bakunin was a major inspiration for the anarcho-syndicalist movement.)

Revolutionary Organization

Above all else, Bakunin the revolutionary, believed in the necessity of collective action to achieve anarchy. After his death there was a strong tendency within the anarchist movement towards the abandonment of organization in favor of small group and individual activity. This development, which culminated in individual acts of terror in the late nineteenth century France, isolating anarchism from the very source of the revolution, namely the workers.

Bakunin, being consistent with other aspects of his thought, saw organization not in terms of a centralized and disciplined army (though he thought self discipline was vital), but as the result of decentralized federalism in which revolutionaries could channel their energies through mutual agreement within a collective. It is necessary, Bakunin argued, to have a coordinated revolutionary movement for a number of reasons. Firstly, is anarchists acted alone, without direction they would inevitably end up moving in different directions and would, as a result, tend to neutralize each other. Organization is not necessary for its own sake, but is necessary to maximize strength of the revolutionary classes, in the face of the great resources commanded by the capitalist state.

However, from Bakunin’s standpoint, it was the spontaneous revolt against authority by the people which is of the greatest importance. The nature of purely spontaneous uprisings is that they are uneven and vary in intensity from time to time and place to place. The anarchist revolutionary organization must not attempt to take over and lead the uprising but has the responsibility of clarifying goals, putting forward revolutionary propaganda, and working out ideas in correspondence with the revolutionary instincts of the masses. To go beyond this would undermine the whole self-liberatory purpose of the revolution. Putchism has no place in Bakunin’s thought.

Bakunin then, saw revolutionary organization in terms of offering assistance to the revolution, not as a substitute. It is in this context that we should interpret Bakunin’s call for a “secret revolutionary vanguard” and “invisible dictatorship” of that vanguard. The vanguard it should be said, has nothing in common with that of the Leninist model which seeks actual, direct leadership over the working class. Bakunin was strongly opposed to such approaches and informed his followers that “no member… is permitted, even in the midst of full revolution, to take public office of any kind, nor is the (revolutionary) organization permitted to do so… it will at all times be on the alert, making it impossible for authorities, governments and states to be established.” The vanguard was, however, to influence the revolutionary movement on an informal basis, relying on the talents of it’s members to achieve results. Bakunin thought that it was the institutionalization of authority, not natural inequalities, that posed a threat to the revolution. The vanguard would act as a catalyst to the working classes’ own revolutionary activity and was expected to fully immerse itself in the movement. Bakunin’s vanguard then, was concerned with education and propaganda, and unlike the Leninist vanguard party, was not to be a body separate from the class, but an active agent within it.

The other major task of the Bakuninist organization was that it would act as the watchdog for the working class. Then, as now, authoritarian groupings posed as leaders of the revolution and supplied their own members as “governments in waiting.” The anarchist vanguard has to expose such movements in order that the revolution should not replace one representative state by another ‘revolutionary’ one. After the initial victory, the political revolutionaries, those advocates of so-called workers’ governments and the dictatorship of the proletariat, would according to Bakunin try “to squelch the popular passions. They appeal for order, for trust in, for submission to those who, in the course and the name of the revolution, seized and legalized their own dictatorial powers; this is how such political revolutionaries reconstitute the state. We on the other hand, must awaken and foment all the dynamic passions of the people.”



Throughout Bakunin’s criticisms of capitalism and state socialism he constantly argues for freedom. It is not surprising, then, to find that in his sketches of future anarchist society that the principle of freedom takes precedence. In a number of revolutionary programs he outlined which he considered to be the essential features of societies which would promote the maximum possible individual and collective freedom. The societies envisioned in Bakunin’s programs are not Utopias, the sense of being detailed fictional communities, free of troubles, but rather suggest the basic minimum skeletal structures which would guarantee freedom. The character of future anarchist societies will vary, said Bakunin depending on a whole range of historical, cultural, economic and geographical factors.

The basic problem was to lay down the minimum necessary conditions which would bring about a society based upon justice and social welfare for all and would also generate freedom. The negative, that is, destructive features of the programs are all concerned with the abolition of those institutions which lead to domination and exploitation. The state, including the established church, the judiciary, state banks and bureaucracy, the armed forces and the police are all to be swept away. Also, all ranks, privileges, classes and the monarchy are to be abolished.

The positive, constructive features of the new society all interlink to promote freedom and justice. For a society to be free, Bakunin argued, it is not sufficient to simply impose equality. No, freedom can only be achieved and maintained through the full participation in society of a highly educated and healthy population, free from social and economic worries. Such an enlightened population, can then be truly free and able to act rationally on the basis of a popularly controlled science and a thorough knowledge of the issues involved.

Bakunin advocated complete freedom of movement, opinion, morality where people would not be accountable to anyone for their beliefs and acts. This must be, he argued, complete and unlimited freedom of speech, press and assembly. Freedom, he believed, must be defended by freedom, for to “advocate the restriction of freedom on the pretext that it is being defended is a dangerous delusion.” A truly free and enlightened society, Bakunin said, would adequately preserve liberty. An ordered society, he thought, stems not from suppression of ideas, which only breeds opposition and factionalism, but from the fullest freedom for all.

This is not to say that Bakunin did not think that a society has the right to protect itself. He firmly believed that freedom was to be found within society, not through its destruction. Those people who acted in ways that lessen freedom for others have no place; These include all parasites who live off the labor of others. Work, the contribution of one’s labor for the creation of wealth, forms the basis of political rights in the proposed anarchist society. Those who live by exploiting others do not deserve political rights. Others, who steal, violate voluntary agreements within and by society, inflict bodily harm etc. can expect to be punished by the laws which have been created by that society. The condemned criminal, on the other hand, can escape punishment by society by removing himself/herself from society and the benefits it confers. Society can also expel the criminal if it so wishes. Basically thought, Bakunin set great store on the power of enlightened public opinion to minimize anti-social activity.

Bakunin proposed the equalization of wealth, though natural inequalities which are reflected in different levels of skill, energy and thrift, should he argued be tolerated. The purpose of equality is to allow individuals to find full expression of their humanity within society. Bakunin was strongly opposed to the idea of hired labor which if introduced into an anarchist society, would lead to the reintroduction of inequality and wage slavery. He proposed instead collective effort because it would, he thought, tend to be more efficient. However, so long as individuals did not employ others, he had no objection to them working alone.

Through the creation of associations of labor which could coordinate worker’s activities, Bakunin proposed the setting up of an industrial assembly in order to harmonize production with the demand for products. Such an assembly would be necessary in the absence of the market. Supplied with statistical information from the various voluntary organization who would be federated, production could be specialized on an international basis so that those countries with inbuilt economic advantages would produce most efficiently for the general good. Then, according to Bakunin, waste, economic crisis and stagnation “will no longer plague mankind; the emancipation of human labor will regenerate the world.”

Turning to the question of the political organization of society, Bakunin stressed that they should all be built in such a way as to achieve order through the realization of freedom on the basis of the federation of voluntary organizations. In all such political bodies power is to flow “from the base to the summit” and from “the circumference to the center/” In other words, such organizations should be the expressions of individual and group opinions, not directing centers which control people.

On the basis of federalism, Bakunin proposed a multi-tier system of responsibility for decision making which would be binding on all participants, so long as they supported the system. Those individuals, groups or political institutions which made up the total structure would have the right to secede. Each participating unit would have an absolute right to self-determination, to associate with the larger bodies, or not. Starting at the local level, Bakunin suggested as the basic political unit, the completely autonomous commune. The commune, on the basis of universal suffrage, would elect all of its functionaries, law makers, judges, and administrators of communal property.

The commune would decide its own affairs but, if voluntarily federated to the next tier of administration, the provincial assembly, its constitution must conform to the provincial assembly. Similarly, the constitution of the province must be accepted by the participating communes. The provincial assembly would define the rights and obligations existing between communes and pass laws affecting the province as a whole. The composition of the provincial assembly would be decided on the basis of universal suffrage.

Further levels of political organization would be the national body, and, ultimately, the international assembly. As regards international organization, Bakunin proposed that there should be no permanent armed forces, preferring instead, the creation of local citizens’ defense militias. Disputes between nations and their provinces would be settled by an international assembly. This assembly, if required, could wage war against outside aggressors but should a member nation of the international federation attack another member, then it faces expulsion and the opposition of the federation as a whole.

Thus, from root to branch, Bakunin’s outline for anarchy is based upon the free federation of participants in order to maximize individual and collective well being.

Bakunin’s Relevance Today

Throughout most of this pamphlet Bakunin has been allowed to speak for himself and any views by the writer of the pamphlet are obvious. In this final section it might be valuable to make an assessment of Bakunin’s ideas and actions.

With the dominance of Marxism in the world labor and revolutionary movements in the twentieth century, it became the norm to dismiss Bakunin as muddle-headed or irrelevant. However, during his lifetime he was a major figure who gained much serious support. Marx was so pressured by Bakunin and his supporters that he had to destroy the First International by dispatching it to New York. In order that it should not succumb to Anarchism, Marx killed it off through a bureaucratic maneuver.

Now that Marxism has been seriously weakened following the collapse of the USSR and the ever increasingly obvious corruption in China, Bakunin’s ideas and revolutionary Anarchism have new possibilities. If authoritarian, state socialism has proved to be a child devouring monster, then libertarian communist ideas once again offer a credible alternative.

The enduring qualities of Bakunin and his successors are many, but serious commitment to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the state must rank high. Bakunin was much more of a doer than a writer, he threw himself into actual insurrections, much to the trepidation of European heads of state. This militant tradition was continued by Malatesta, Makhno, Durruti, and many other anonymous militants. Those so-called anarchists who adopt a gradualist approach are an insult to Anarchism. Either we are revolutionaries or we degenerate into ineffective passivism.

Bakunin forecast the dangers of statist socialism. His predictions of a militarized, enslaved society dominated by a Marxist ruling class came to pass in a way that even Bakunin could not have fully envisaged. Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin outstripped even the Tsars in their arrogance and brutality. And, after decades of reformist socialism which have frequently formed governments, Bakunin’s evaluations have been proved correct. In Britain we have the ultimate insult to working people in the form of “socialist Lords”. For services to capitalism, Labor MP’s are ultimately granted promotion to the aristocracy.

Bakunin fought for a society based upon justice, equality and freedom. Unlike political leaders of the left he had great faith in the spontaneous, creative and revolutionary potential of working people. His beliefs and actions reflect this approach. So, revolutionaries can learn much of value from his federalism, his militancy and his contempt for the state, which, in the twentieth century, has assumed gigantic and dangerous proportions, Bakunin has much to teach us but we too must develop our ideas in the face of new challenges and opportunities. We must retain the revolutionary core of his thought yet move forward. Such is the legacy of Bakunin.

With this in mind, the Anarchist Communist Federation is developing a revolutionary anarchist doctrine, which whilst being ultimately based on Bakunin’s ideas, goes much further to suit the demands of present-day capitalism. Ecological issues, questions of imperialist domination of the world, the massive oppression of women, the automation of industry, computerized technology etc. are all issues that have to be tackled. We welcome the challenge!



There are two main compilations of Bakunin’s works which are quite readily available through public libraries. They are “Bakunin on Anarchy” edited by Sam Dolgoff and “The Political Philosophy of Bakunin” edited by G.P. Maximoff. Also worth looking at, if you can get hold of them are “The Basic Bakunin – Writings 1869-1871” edited by Robert M. Cutler and “Mikhail Bakunin – From Out of the Dustbin”, edited by the same person.

For an understanding of the full profundity of Bakunin’s ideas, there is nothing to match “The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin” by Richard B Saltman. This American publication should be available through your local library.

Bakunin’s works currently available:

  • “God and the State”
  • “Marxism, Freedom and the State” (edited by K.J. Kenafik)
  • “The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State”
  • “Statism and Anarchy” (heavy going) ed. Marshall Shatz.

Updated News Digest October 18, 2008 1

Why Read the Sunday Papers When You Can Read AttacktheSystem.Com!

Quote of the Week:

“For what is freedom? That one has the will to self-responsibility. That one maintains the distance which separates us. That one becomes more indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privation, even to life itself. That one is prepared to sacrifice human beings for one’s cause, not excluding oneself.

  • Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of “pleasure.” The human being who has become free — and how much more the spirit who has become free — spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior. —
  • How is freedom measured, in individuals as in nations? By the resistance which must be overcome, by the effort [Mühe] it costs to remain on top. The highest type of free men should be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude. This is true psychologically if by “tyrants” are meant inexorable and dreadful instincts that provoke the maximum of authority and discipline against themselves — most beautiful type: Julius Caesar — ; this is true politically too; one need only go through history. The nations which were worth something, became worth something, never became so under liberal institutions: it was great danger that made something of them that merits respect. Danger alone acquaints us with our own resources, our virtues, our armor and weapons, our spirit — and forces us to be strong …
  • First principle: one must need to be strong — otherwise one will never become strong. — Those large hothouses [Treibhäuser] for the strong, for the strongest kind of human being that has ever been, the aristocratic commonwealths of the type of Rome or Venice, understood freedom exactly in the sense in which I understand the word freedom: as something one has and does not have, something one wants, something one conquers …”

                                                                                       -Friedrich Nietzsche

War Criminals Are Becoming the Arbiters of Law by Paul Craig Roberts

World Cops by William Norman Grigg

Israel’s-and Only Israel’s-Right to Self-Defense by Paul Craig Roberts

An Imperial Strategy for the New World Order by Andrew Gavin Marshall

Reflections on the G20 Protests from Infoshop.Org

The Rich Have Stolen the Economy by Paul Craig Roberts

A Useful Guide for Freeing Your Mind by Kevin Carson

Obama’s War Without Borders by Michael Chossudovsky

The Nobel Police Prize by Jack Hunter

The Affirmative Action Nobel by Pat Buchanan

Defend the Free Market-Support the Strikers by Dave Chappell

The Smooth Operator from Chicago by John Pilger

The Silent Catastrophe by Jared Taylor

Welcome Back, Lenin by Paul Craig Roberts

Ignoble Prizes by Paul Gottfried

Thinking About Nietzsche by David Reid Saucier

The Real Stakes in Afghanistan by Dan Phillips

Fetishes for Tots? Folsom Street Fair Protest by Bay Area National Anarchists

American Worker Displacement Resumes by Edward Rubenstein

American Rebel: The Life of Clint Eastwood by David Thomson

Rolling Your Own Is Now Cool  by Shane Watson

Is Gun Control Racist? by Wilton Alston

Walter Block vs “Diversity” by Walter Block

Whatever Happened to Global Warming? by Paul Hudson

Economics and the Drug War by Bart Frazier

Backdoor Escalation by Justin Raimondo

Dianne Feinstein: War Profiteer by Justin Raimondo

My New Lincoln Book by Grant Havers (review by Paul Gottfried)

Nietzsche contra Christianity by Mark Hackard

Goodbye to All of That by Taki Theodoracopulos

In Praise of Anglo-Protestant Suicide by Lawrence Auster

The Swiss Resisted the Nazis, But Fell to the Americans by Lynnley Browning

Nazi New York City by Anthony Gregory

State-Inflicted Gang Violence by William Norman Grigg

Boycott FedEx!! by Spencer Hahn

America’s Youngest Criminal by David Kramer

Photos of Military Deaths in Afghanistan Banned by David Kramer

U.S. Soldier Jailed for Refusing to be Mercenary for Imperialism by Lew Rockwell

Rapist PIG by Bill Anderson

Obama’s Unrestrained FBI by Nat Hentoff

What Lies Beneath the War in Afghanistan by Eric Margolis

The Reverse-Midas Effect by Justin Raimondo

Stars and Garters in Afghanistan by Jeff Huber

Our Cheap Politicians  by Andrew Cockburn

Social Justice or Social War? from Infoshop.Org

Abandoning Women and Children by Nadia Hijab

The Republican Party Moves Leftward by Richard Hoste

Craig Bodeker Refutes the $PLC by Craig Bodeker

Global Warming and the 2nd Battle of Copenhagen by Pat Buchanan

Meet the New Healthcare Boss by Kevin Carson

The British National Party’s Aboriginal Problem by Derek Turner

Higher Interest Rates in Our Time by Richard Spencer

Obama Vs Fox News by Alexander Cockburn

Where $18 an Hour is Too Much by Carl Ginsburg

Barney Frank: The Bankers’ Consort by Ralph Nader

Agent Orange in Vietnam: Ignoring the Crime Before Our Eyes by Dave Lindorff

Why I Miss China by James L. Secor

The Scorched Earth Mindset of the International Banker by Stephen Martin

Killcullen’s Long War by Tom Hayden

Mumbai: The Horror of Gun Control by Benedict D. LaRosa

Academic Dishonesty by Walter Williams

Still Fanning the Flames of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Class War from Infoshop.Org

24-Hour General Strike from Infoshop.Org

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

European-American Socialist Peoples’ Front

Male Rape in U.S. Prisons from Human Rights Watch

Psychiatry Extends Its Totalitarian Tendencies 

Neocon Lunatic John Bolton Suggests Nuclear Attack on Iran 

What is Paganism? 

Stop Boer Genocide 

Keep Your Laws Off My Guns 

National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee 

Ralph Nader Speaks 

The New Gangsterism 

American Veterans Movement (Partisans) 


A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

Attack Is the Best Form of Defense by Johann Most

The Pittsburgh Proclamation by Johann Most

Majorities and Minorities by Errico Malatesta

The Question of Crime by Errico Malatesta

The World's First Terrorists 5


It was us!!!

I have always been sickened by the fact that anarchists have this history of fierce martial struggle, but are today represented by the kind of riff-raff that constitutes the mainstream “anarchist movement.”

A few years ago I did an academic paper tracing the history of modern terrorism to the classical anarchist concept of “propaganda by the deed” and explained how 20th century terrorism evolved into Fourth Generation Warfare. I created a page for it, in case anyone is interested in reading a long, dry academic treatise:


Why We Are National-Anarchists 6

from Western Australian National-Anarchists (WANA)


To many people, on all sides of the political spectrum, the question would be asked when they hear of our new philosophy, “why?”.  Why would you choose to be a National-Anarchist, which is universally hated by the majority of the dogmatic left and right wings? Why would we choose to be ostracised from the mainstream like this? I will attempt to give as good an answer as i am able.

“He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils” – Francis Bacon

For decades, both the left-wing and the right-wing have not developed their world-view. Anarchists are the same as they were 40 years as ago, along with the socialists, communists, nationalists, conservatives, liberals etc. Most people cling to 20th century beliefs and ideologies in the 21st century. To use 20th century beliefs in the 21st seems to be almost stupid, does it not?

“Smash all political dogma’s!” – slogan of the Australian New Right/ National Anarchists

For a small, but growing group of people, it does. Tired of the repeated failures of the reactionary right-wing, a small group of people split with those Nationalist groups and adopted Third Positionism, providing a Third Way alternative to the dual Communist and Capitalist dominated world of the time. However, as the Soviet Union fell, and Communism became relatively obsolete, and Capitalism marched onwards to world hegemony, a more revolutionary approach to the emerging NWO of global government, exploitation of the worlds workers, and submissiveness to the Elite, was needed.

Thus, National-Anarchism was born. With the Orwellian-like State oppression of dissidents, with the farce of so-called “Democracy”, party-politics has been discarded as a pipe-dream. The State and its vast apparatus of bureaucratic leeches (”politicians”) have become the only enemy of all freedom loving peoples the world over. But we do not advocate armed struggle against the State, as it is too powerful, instead we advocate living outside of the System, as far as is legal and we are able, and establishing (eventually) our own communities, according to our own customs and beliefs. (As Troy Southgate would say, “destroying from within, building from without”).

So why are we National-Anarchists? Well, we recognise there is a fundamental sickness in the heart of our current “civilisation”, and that our world-view offers the only real genuine alternative to this sickness. National-Anarchism is the synthesis to the Left-wing and the Right-wing, (and it must be pointed out that those labels only serve to make us conform to the Government labels, and originated centuries ago, so should surely be obsolete in the 21st century), providing the only real true revolutionary alternative to the radical youth of today.

Everyone has an option, either sit back and watch the world march on passed them, or live a life with more meaning, more value (not in the economic sense) by making positive changes in your community, and help preparing your community (which should be considered your extended family) for the inevitable collapse of Western Capitalism. For surely it will one day collapse, and then our people will need leaders to guide them out of the troubles to follow. Are you a leader? If you are – we want you!

Updated News Digest October 11, 2009 2

Why Read the Sunday Papers When You Can Read AttacktheSystem.Com!

Quote of the Week:

“”The Rothschilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents — men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest — stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved.”

                                                                                            -Lysander Spooner

Warmonger Obama Receives Nobel Peace Prize by Paul Craig Roberts

Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize by Glenn Greenwald

How the Feds Imprison the Innocent by Paul Craig Roberts

Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men Jeffrey Rogers Hummel interviewed by Scott Horton

Marx and Lenin Revisited by Paul Craig Roberts

The Idea of “Empire” by Alain De Benoist

Deconstructing the Decision to Secede by Thomas Naylor

Distorting Rape to Get More Federal Funds by Bill Anderson

Israeli Exceptionalism by Justin Raimondo

A Paleocon Critiques Noam Chomsky by Steve Sailer

Wave of Anarchist Bombings in Mexico by John Ross

Don’t Dare Call It Treason by Kevin Carson

War and Peace by Alexander Cockburn

Left, Right and Libertarians United Against Empire David R. Henderson interviewed by Scott Horton

A Libertarian Theory of Foreign Affairs by Justin Raimondo

Iran, Arms Races, and War by Stephen Walt

Eight Years of Big Lies on Afghanistan by James Bovard

Michael Moore Gets the Problem But Not the Solution by Thomas Naylor

Time for a War Tax by Steve Breyman

General War by Pat Buchanan

The Plight of the Right of Return by Nadia Hijab

Obama No Better Than Bush on Terror War Prisoners Andy Worthington interviewed by Scott Horton

The Crackdown in Pittsburgh by Mel Packer

Obama and Afghanistan: You Can’t Handle the Truth? by David Corn

Behind the Capitalist Curtain by Michael Donnelly

The Iranians Are Threatening to Cooperate? What Will the Neocon Filth Do? by Eric Margolis

Judicial Antics Expose Drug War Insanity by Linn Washington, Jr.

Reflections on the Revolution in Europe by Paul Marshall

Free the Sudafed 25! by Jeffrey Tucker

Why Are Cops in Camo…in Pittsburgh? by Radley Balko

The Scam of Global Warming by Doug Casey

On Afghanistan, Obama Should Follow Eisenhower by Steve Clemons

Israel vs Human Rights by Adam Horowitz & Philip Weiss

All Muslim Politics Is Local by Charles Tripp

Iran, Iran So Far Away by Jack Hunter

Keeping Lone Wolves from the Door by Julian Sanchez

McChrystal’s Ultimatum by Jeff Huber

Invalidate Federal Gun Laws by Declan McCullagh

Ten Lies About Iran by Juan Cole

Stuff  White People Like by Scott Locklin

Situation NORML by Fred Gardner

Odin or Jesus? by Christopher Lyons

Christianity Against Paganism by Mark Hackard

Two Tales of Our Times by Tom Piatak

Stock Market Collapse Dead Ahead by Marc Slavo

Hard Times by Richard Spencer

Does “the West” Go Both Ways? by Richard Spencer

Bring Back the Articles of Confederation 

Rachel Maddow Is a Dumb Cunt by Anthony Gregory

Confessions of a Self-Hating Jew by David Kramer

It’s Good to Be Qaddafi by Taki Theodoracopulos

Irving Kristol Was a CIA Frontman-Duh? by Tom DiLorenzo

Global Warming Scandals by Floy Lilley

Secession in South Africa by Prozium

Fire McChrystal and Get Out of Afghanistan by Ivan Eland

Cross-Dressing Teen Discriminated Against by School by Alexis Cobb

Does Red Toryism Have a Future in America? from Front Porch Republic

Neither Statism Nor Individualism by Thomas Storck

Yes, It Is About Race by Peter Brimelow

Emile Henry: Anarchist Was the First Terrorist of the Modern Age from Infoshop.Org

David Brooks: Cosmetic Conservative  by Jack Hunter

Hire Americans First by Pat Buchanan

“Ravenwood” Comes to America by Chuck Baldwin


“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

Fascism with a Multicultural Face 17

Over at the website for the Center for a Stateless Society, Kevin Carson has a very good article taking down the center-left liberal retards who regard the state as nothing more than One Big Cub Scout Master. Carson demonstrates how stupid this perspective is even from the point of view of the  liberals’ own standards and rational self-interest. What I find particularly interesting, however, is this comment from a reader called “Dave Chappell“:

I would say that it takes more than an authoritarian government however. The support of a certain percentage of the populous is needed for a system such as National Socialism to prevail. Antisemitism in Europe was endemic prior to the eventual political rise of a system that endorsed in officially. My hope for the US is that it is so naturally multi-cultural that there will be never a general acceptance of fascist ideology. A non-racist form of fascism is always possible though I suppose.

What?? A “non-racist form of fascism”? I have argued for years that a culturally leftward-leaning form of fascism is developing in the United States. See here, here, here, here, here, and here. American society exhibits many of the same qualities normally associated with fascism: the corporate state, military-industrial complex, prison-industrial complex, police state, crude jingoism, reckless military adventurism, therapeutic state, dissemination of crude propaganda passed off as journalism, demonizing critics as traitors and subversives, messianic-revolutionary national ideology (“American exceptionalism”), and hysteria over terrorism or crime. The Obama cult is not nearly as extreme as the cults of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Kim Il-Sung, but it’s close enough. One might be inclined to regard liberals’ foolish dismissals of the critics of creeping American fascism as rooted in a simplistic understanding of “fascism”: “Like, dude, man, there can’t be fascism if there’s no brown shirts, or swastikas, or nasty talk about Jews, right? Obama rules, man!” But one could also be inclined to consider the possibility that liberals know perfectly well what kind of order is being established in America, and they like it just fine, because they plan to use it to advance their own agenda as the Cultural Marxists continue to consolidate their position. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

Updated News Digest October 4, 2009 Reply

Why Read the Sunday Papers When You Can Read AttacktheSystem.Com!

Quote of the Week:

“Sir Norman Angell very accurately described human existence in a totalitarian state when he wrote: ‘From the day that a child is born in Nazi Germany or Russia, and to a lesser degree in Italy, it is brought under the influence of the State’s doctrine; every teacher teaches it through the years of childhood and adolescence. In every conscript, whether military or industrial, the process is continued; every book suggests the prevaling orthodoxy; every paper shouts it; every cinema gives it visual suggestion.’ That is precisely the situation in all countries with a well-established democracy, where social forces jealously guard the ‘common demoninator.’ There is no doubt that the great pride of the democracies, compulsory education, and to a lesser degree, conscription, is a prime factor in this process of forming the minds of citizens into a uniform pattern.”

                                                                                          -Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Gore Vidal: “We’ll Have a Dictatorship Soon in the U.S.”  by Tim Teeman

Fascism: Why Can’t It Happen Here? by Kevin Carson (If only the “anti-fascists” would take notice)

U.S. to Break Up Soon? by Chuck Baldwin

How Goldman-Sachs Controls the Senate by Matt Taibbi

Iran: Can U.S. Outlast the Ayatollahs? by Pat Buchanan

Another War in the Works by Paul Craig Roberts

The Desert of the Real by Paul Gottfried

The Need to Secede by Jack Hunter

The Dawn of Decadence by Scott Locklin

More Lies, More Deceptions by Paul Craig Roberts

Southern Populist Terrorism by Harrison Bergeron 2

Krauthammer on Kristol: You’d Think a Shrink Would Know Better by Harrison Bergeron 2

Talking About Iran on the T.V. by Glenn Greenwald

Swine Flu Vaccinations to be the Next Tea Party Protests by Don Fenley

Still Not Convinced That HIV is Bogus? by James Foye

It’s the Balance of Power, Stupid! by Leon Hadar

A Tale of Two Op-Eds by Stephen Walt

Are the Neocons Back? by Daniel Larison

On What Larger Theory is Neoconservatism Based? by Justin Logan

Listening to Sibel Edmonds by Philip Giraldi

Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds? Sibel Edmonds interviewed by Philip Giraldi

The Legacy of Spain’s Legendary Anarchist Teacher Francisco Ferrer from Infoshop.Org

Armed Struggle in Greece  from Infoshop.Org

Can Economies Function Without Growth? by Alexander Jung

Pakistan’s Libertine Descendents of Alexander the Great by Dean Nelson

The Anatomy of Blue-State Fascism by Anthony Gregory

There Is No More America Doug Casey interviewed by Louis James

Free All Political Prisoners! by Bill Anderson

The Meaning of Timothy McVeigh by Gore Vidal

The Extinction of the Mass Media by Michael Crichton

Our Intelligence and Theirs by Justin Raimondo

McChrystal’s Myth: Time to Put Down the Pipe by Jeff Huber

Iran is Not Making Nuclear Weapons Scott Ritter interviewed by Scott Horton

Obama Reverts to Cheney Kidnap Policy by Glenn Greenwald

In China, At Least I Would Have Had a Trial by Jacob Hornberger

Left and Right Against War by Murray Polner

Debunking the War Party by Justin Raimondo

The Struggle Against the Feds for Pot Legalization in California by Michael Boldin

How Similar Are the Cases Against Iran and Iraq? by Glenn Greenwald

Green is Red? by Bill Buppert

Exorcising America’s Diplomatic Demons by Robert Scheer

The New Republic of Texas: Liberty Central or Little Washington? by Russell Longcore

Obama and the Graveyard of Empires by Frank Creel

The Depth of Corruption in the War Propaganda Against Iran by John Pilger

Martial Law Is Their Business-and Business Is Good by William Norman Grigg

Bitter Fruits of Middle East Wars by Pat Buchanan

Is It Racist to Oppose Obama? by Walter Williams

Athens and Jerusalem by Ilana Mercer

On Being a Homeschooling Dad by Paul Galvin

“I’m a Racist, He’s a Racist, She’s Racist, We’re All Racists, Wouldn’t You Like to Be a Racist, Too?!!” by Jack Hunter

What’s Up With the Sarah Palin Cult? by Dylan Hales

Geezer Renditions by Alexander Cockburn

Fall of the Berlin Wall: Another Cold War Myth by William Blum

Chomsky in Mexico by John Ross

Here Is Your Chance to Help End the Failed War on Drugs by Anthony Papa

Obama Is No Radical by Jesse Walker


“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(Hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)


Civil War in America? A New State Called Jefferson? 

A State of Mine-California Secession 


G. K. Chesterton: The Great Author of the Century 

Which Branch of Anarchism Best Represents Your Views? 

William F. Buckley Interviews Huey Newton on Firing Line 

Eugene Girin-A Paleoconservative Perspective on Zionism 

The Case Against Wal-Mart by the Southern Avenger

What is Patriotism? by the Southern Avenger 

Race Matters by the Southern Avenger 

Who’s to Blame for Illegal Immigration? by the Southern Avenger 

Pride in Prejudice by the Southern Avenger

The Dumb Right by the Southern Avenger 

The Post-Paleo Movement by Paul Gottfried Part One

The Post-Paleo Movement by Paul Gottfried Part Two

Chomsky vs Buckley on Firing Line 

William F. Buckley vs Gore Vidal 

American Vice: Mapping the Seven Deadly Sins 

The Twilight of Pax Americana Los Angeles Times

When Europeans Were Slaves 

In Europe, the Left Has Run Out of Gas by Willam Pfaff

Americans Grow Cannabis to Beat the Recession 

New Right Students Association 

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat