Part One is archived here.
The “Dennis Strategy” might be said to amount to one tenth of the ARV-ATS strategy in terms of demographics. The sinking middle class is one of the ten core demographics I have identified as potential constituents for anarcho-pluralism/pan-secessionism. (By the same measure, the “Sailer Strategy” might account for another one tenth given its primary orientation towards the populist-nationalist Right.) This also fits with the centrist dimension of the ARV-ATS strategy, which involves addressing the economic needs of the general public at large of which the sinking middle class and the various demographic subgroupings comprising the populist-right are a significant part.
Of course, there are two big differences between the ARV-ATS approach and those of both Dennis back then and Sailer today. Anarcho-pluralism/pan-secessionism identifies a much wider range of potential constituent groups for a revolutionary movement towards the end of achieving a popular majority. Both the Dennis approach and the Sailer approach are too narrowly focused population-wise to achieve ultimate success given contemporary political realities. Second, while the views of Lawrence Dennis advocating a stronger, centralized state and militarized political party might have reflected the prevailing trends of his time (Dennis was nothing if not a realist), Martin Van Creveld has demonstrated that the 21st century tendency is towards the delegitimization of the state in favor of the “fourth generation” military model. Hence, the appropriateness of the ARV-ATS emphasis on secession, decentralization, militias, etc.
Dennis’ view might have indeed been preferable to a Marxist revolution with its inevitable blood purges and economic stagnation. To some degree, the U.S. actually followed a version of the course suggested by Dennis during WW2 with the mass military mobilization and creation of the managerial state during that era, whatever the consequences of these. (Dennis was prosecuted for sedition because of his opposition to WW2 and he later became a staunch critic of the Cold War.) Fortunately, the military failures of the American empire, the bankruptcy of the welfare states, and the growing contempt for the political class should have the combined effect of reversing the 20th century trend toward ever-expanding statism.
Revolution seemed to be in the air in the 1930s. The Nude Eel was floundering about, experimenting but the Great Depression continued. FDR & the Democrats bought time by extending relief to individuals. This was something Hoover & the Republicans refused to do. They wanted relief at the Federal level only for big companies like with their Reconstruction Finance Corporation.
Most people talking of revolution thought of communism. But Lawrence Dennis as a Nationalist and an American was opposed to the classic Proletarian Revolution of left-wing dreams. Instead, Dennis proposed a middle-class revolution.
He raised these technical objections to Communist Revolution. He felt it would involve a high degree of violence & disorder. “Going against the American kulaks,” was how he phrased it. This meant liquidating many competent managers and experts. Whereas Dennis wished to utilize the skills of present bosses to economize the human resources of society.
Remember Lawrence Dennis was specific in that which he wished to accomplish. In his 1932 book, IS CAPITALISM DOOMED?, he made a closely argued attack on the policy of allowing investment bankers to determine the use & allocation of capital. But he didn’t hesitate or shrink from what needed to be done.
He was flat out for a dictatorship. States rights & the tripartite division of government would be abolished in favor of a highly centralized government which would exercise powers of a truly nation state. This was something Francis Parker Yockey would argue was something America never had.
Since the multi-party system was utterly incompatible with the successful pursuit of any possible scheme of national interest, there would have to be a single national party. This party would probably have a militarized type of organization.
Banks and basic monopolies would be nationalized; as, of course, the Federal Reserve. The rest of business would be place under strict public regulation. Above all, Dennis emphasized that a regime of discipline was a necessity.
Who would make this revolution? Dennis felt it would not come from big business or the elite professionals. Rather, he felt that the frustrated elite of the lower middle classes, the sinking members of the middle class in danger of being de-classed, here is where the revolutionary impulse would come from.
This is the opposite of the Obama schema of the top using the bottom against the middle. It should also be obvious that the aging, well-off base of the Tea Party would play NO role as well.
Neither militant labor nor reactionary capital but the insurgent middle class!
The Antifa who are strongly against racism and strongly advocate more tolerance toward the non-white invasion of Europe, got “culturally enriched”, beaten off by immigrant youths. This is how the Muslim immigrants shows their gratitude toward those naive Antifa militants, they got their ass kicked off in sign of gratitude.
The alliance of Islam and the Left — which is a Demonic Convergence — is only a temporary one. The compound formed by combining Social Marxists with Mohammedans is inherently unstable, and will break down under the slightest environmental stress.
The radical Left in Europe is using Islam as its battering ram against what remains of European democracy. Presumably the lefties think — to the extent that they think at all — that when last redoubts of European civilization are a smoking ruin, they will somehow be able to push the Muslims to one side as they get on with the business of creating a Socialist utopia.
A street festival held in the Rosengård district of Malmö deteriorated into a fight on Saturday evening as activists were forced out by area residents.
The “Reclaim Rosengård” street festival, which was conceived as a protest against the social conditions in Rosengård, didn’t exactly go according to organizers’ plans. The event was supposed to get underway at 8pm on Saturday, but after about 15 minutes the activists who had gathered to participate were pushed out by Rosengård residents.
The activists’ floats with music were also barred from entering the predominantly immigrant neighbourhood.
“There were quite a few who had gathered, not only young people, but also a lot of parents. I think that patience has run out among the residents of Rosengård,” said municipal district representative Inger Leite to the TT news agency.
According to Leite, the Rosengård residents had made it clear previously that they didn’t want people to feel they had the right to come and speak to the residents who live there.
Instead, the activists gathered in front of a nearby petrol station where they threw stones, bottled, and burning objects at police cars.
By 2am Sunday morning, the disturbances remained in full swing. Several small fires were burning, including a hedge near the petrol station which had also had its windows broken.
Thirty minutes later, most of those involved had gone home and the situation had calmed down.
Other than a few small fires and the damage to the petrol station, no other serious incidents were reported, according to Skåne police spokesperson Lars-Håkan Lindholm.
No one was injured during the night’s disturbance and no arrests have been made.
So says this study. Yet another debunking of the myth that all minorities belong to the Left.
A friend and I were talking about Arthur Jensen–the psychologist who reignited the race and IQ debate with his 1969 paper “How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?” published in the Harvard Educational Review. My friend said that starting with that paper there had been a huge amount of supportive research published in reputable academic journals like Intelligence andPersonality and Individual Differences. There have also been major works like The Bell Curve that provoked a national discussion in newspapers and intellectual media. And there have been major works by J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn published by academic presses.
The thrust of my friend’s comments was that it was just a matter of time before it becomes standard wisdom, informing all respectable discussions of the issue, even among politicians and the mainstream media.
But it doesn’t seem to work that way. When it comes to a politically charged issue like the changeability of IQ, there is no necessary gradual path from being out in the intellectual deserts to acceptance among media and political elites.
The Los Angeles Times examines the staggering sums of money expended on patently absurd domestic “homeland security” projects: $75 billion per year for things such as a Zodiac boat with side-scan sonar to respond to a potential attack on a lake in tiny Keith County, Nebraska, and hundreds of “9-ton BearCat armored vehicles, complete with turret” to guard against things like an attack on DreamWorks in Los Angeles. All of that — which is independent of the exponentially greater sums spent on foreign wars, occupations, bombings, and the vast array of weaponry and private contractors to support it all — is in response to this mammoth, existential, the-single-greatest-challenge-of-our-generation threat:
“The number of people worldwide who are killed by Muslim-type terrorists, Al Qaeda wannabes, is maybe a few hundred outside of war zones. It’s basically the same number of people who die drowning in the bathtub each year,” said John Mueller, an Ohio State University professor who has written extensively about the balance between threat and expenditures in fighting terrorism.
I’ve recently started recovering from forty years among pseudo-academic weirdos in the collegiate loony bin. One persistent aspect of modern college life is its obvious loathing for anything that smacks of Christianity. This includes whiting out Christian symbols and references to Christian holidays from the academic landscape. In the fall of 2006, a bronze cross was carted out of Wren Chapel at William and Mary lest it cause offense to unidentified spectators. Faculty members I’ve had the misfortune of knowing usually vibrate with excitement at such displays of sensitivity, and whenever the possibility exists for replacing “Christmas greetings” with “Have a blessed Kwanzaa,” “Peace to you on Ramadan,” or an inspirational listing of white racist sins, academics will run to make this happen. Staff members once changed a “Yule Bowl Party” to a “Season’s Greeting Festival,” arguing that “Yule” references were an affront to non-Westerners. Perhaps an itinerant Hindu would wander into the gathering and go bonkers at the mention of something once associated with Christianity.
This reaching out to other cultures while pushing away the host culture took a particularly bizarre form at a nearby college about fifteen years ago when a Protestant chapel was being built. Plans had been made to crown the newly constructed steeple with a simple cross to indicate a Christian house of worship at what was then a quasi-denominational institution. But this was not permitted to transpire because a Jewish faculty member protested mightily against the blood-curdling symbol. It seems the cross reminded her of the Holocaust, an association that is perhaps understandable given that authors who are abundantly present in college libraries always make the same dubious connection. The proper answer in this instance would have been to tell the employee to look elsewhere for a job if she found Christian symbols so intolerable. Instead, the “cross was reconsidered”—that is, replaced by a less offensive spherical object.
It’s nonetheless worth noting, however, the incongruity of a magazine named for a radical activist who embraced civil disobedience in defiance of unjust laws and refused to recognize the legitimacy of the state’s legal actions against her hiring a careerist Democratic pundit, Adam Serwer, who explicitly rejects the notion that those who kill as part of unjust wars of aggression are moral actors who bear any responsibility for their actions, morality being the sole province of our betters in political office. He even maintains that one’s support for members of the military ought to be “unconditional,” just as soldiers themselves, in his view, ought to kill and be killed without question, anything less than blind allegiance to authority being a potentially grave threat to the republic. Serwer also defended on narrow legal grounds the U.S. government’s extrajudicial killing of an apparently unarmed, detained man — an argument he defended with ripped-from-The–Weekly-Standard Chomsky and pacifist-bashing — and, rather than respond to actual arguments that were made, mocked yours truly because I work for an antiwar group that is nowhere near as “prestigious” in his view as, hold your laughter, The American Prospect.
Unfortunately, Serwer’s brand of smug apologia for the Democratic Party, mixed in with a healthy dose of condescension toward those who fail to see the electoral system and the law-making process as the be-all and end-all of political agitation, will fit right in at the modern Mother Jones. This is a formerly radical magazine, remember, that employs the invasion of Iraq-supporting, bailout-defending Kevin “I’d literally trust [Obama’s] judgment over my own” Drum (warning: his writing may cause drowsiness) and which attacked Ron Paul, not over his odious views on immigration, but because the latter wants to end the war on drugs, stop arresting sex workers and would have “sought Pakistan’s cooperation” in the arrest of an international fugitive, things that were once known as Standard Left-Wing Positions.
So no, I’m pretty sure that, were she alive today, Mother Jones would not be reading Mother Jones.
One of the most common reasons for wanting to expatriate from the United States is the concern about government overreach. Many feel that the expansion of government in recent years has been chipping away at the freedom and liberty that the country was founded upon. What with more and more agencies, regulations, surveillance, and mandates, the right to privacy and self-determination is steadily shrinking right along with financial outlooks.
So, are you among the increasing number of people who feel that the only real solution is to get out of the country? Well, using the exact same tactics that are driving you away, the government appears intent on preventing you from leaving. Changes that have recently been put in place as well as proposals for future changes in rules and regulations might be intended to discourage. But they might also drive your resolve to take your destiny into your own hands and do whatever it takes to make your move overseas.
1. Escalating Cost of Passports
From $35 a few years ago the fee for a US passport has ballooned to today’s $135 for adults (16 and older) and $105 for minors. Renewals cost $110. If you need it in a hurry, there is another $60 expediting fee, and you have to provide a preaddressed prepaid express mail envelope, if you want it back in less than the 6-8 weeks required. The Passport Agency of the Department of State in 2010 issued 13,883,129 passports as well as 1,596,485 items of a new product called the “passport card,” which is good for reentry from anywhere within the Western Hemisphere. This product, which costs $55 for adults, $30 for previous adult passport holders, and $40 for all minors, was created at the behest of heavy lobbying by the cruise industry.
When Tea Partiers began declaring that they wanted to “take their country back,” liberals were quick to tell us what this really meant: Racism. Never mind all that talk about big government and the debt — what Tea Partiers really wanted, the left assured us, was to “take their country back” from a black president.
Is it true that Tea Partiers are motivated by racism? A very small minority might be. But liberals will continue to insist all of them must be — as it has always been easier for the left to marginalize conservatives through smear tactics than to confront their arguments directly.
A similar tactic has become commonplace on the right. Some conservatives denounce the mere use of the term “neoconservative” as nothing more than code for “Jewish.” But are those who criticize neoconservatives really just anti-Semites? It would be dishonest to deny that some are. But it is equally dishonest to say that all or even most are. The notion that any criticism of neoconservatism amounts to anti-Semitism is about as intellectually serious as the notion that all Tea Partiers are “racist.” Yet too many conservatives still find it necessary to sink to the same lows as the left — and for the same cowardly reasons.
Article by MRDA. The best analysis yet of the London riots.
When folk get angry, why do they always piss on their own doorstep? Westminster is only a bus ride away.
– Tunnocks, Guardian Reader.
But this I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful…And when they call themselves the good and the just, do not forget that they would be pharisees, if only they had—power.
– Friedrich Nietzsche
It took only two bullets to rupture the relative calm of a whole country…
…and,more than three weeks later, the wound remains sore and exposed.
However I won’t delve too deeply into the circumstances surrounding Mark Duggan’s fatal shooting by the Boys in Blue; nor those of the ensuing protest, two days later. Much remains to be clarified over those two occurrences: did Duggan unwittingly commit “suicide-by-cop”, or receive a summary execution ala Jean Charles de Menezes? Did the police go on to batter a peaceful protestor, or a pugilist? The little that has come to light hardly sheds any in return.
Still, I will spout off a few paragraphs concerning the now-infamous riots that springboarded off of those events…
Michele Bachmann was in Orlando over the weekend speaking at the annual awards dinner of the Florida Family Policy Council. According to the Orlando Sentinel, she talked more about her Christian faith than politics. Now, I am all for her Christian faith and the Christian faith of any other presidential candidate, but it is really irrelevant except to gullible Christians who think that being a Christian means that one will be a good president. Just look at the horrible presidency of George W. Bush. I would much prefer an atheist president who strictly followed the Constitution and followed a sane, noninterventionist foreign policy than a politician like Bachmann who uses religion to get votes and is a bloodthirsty warmonger.
The ideal Christian, pro-life, family values candidate is, of course, Ron Paul, who alone promotes peace and nonintervention, and promotes these things consistently.
Andrew McCarthy writes at National Review about the gradual surrender of Europe to Islamization —
Do you remember the jihadist terror campaign that ravaged Malmo, Sweden’s third largest city? Do you recall the bombings, the suicide-hijackings, and the random assassinations that finally coerced the city to surrender to Islamization?
No? Funny, I don’t remember them either. Yet there is no question that Malmo has surrendered. Large enclaves of the city, like similar enclaves throughout Western Europe, have earned the dread label “no-go zone.” They are unsafe for non-Muslims, particularly women who do not conform to Islamist conventions of dress and social interaction. They are especially perilous for police, firefighters, and emergency-medical technicians.
Why would a community discourage the so-called first-responders? After all, the top priority of law-enforcement officers is to assist crime victims. In an Islamic enclave, a high percentage of these will be Muslims. And obviously, the fire department and the ambulances are dispatched to save lives — here, Muslim lives. Yet, the community is hostile. The police and other emergency personnel are viewed as agents of the non-Muslim state. Their presumptuousness in entering the Islamic enclave and acting under the color of Swedish law is taken as an affront to Islamic sovereignty.
The whole thing is worth a read. That said, it is a typical conservative “woe is me” type post with no advocacy of a solution. It’s implied that Muslims should assimilate to European culture, but what does that even mean? And why should they?
Chester Arthur was a most unlikely reformer.
A crucial cog in the political machine of the Empire State’s Sen. Roscoe Conkling, he was named by President Grant to the powerful and lucrative post of collector of customs for the Port of New York.
Arthur was removed in 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes, who wanted to clean up the federal patronage system. But when James Garfield of Ohio was nominated to succeed Hayes, he sought to unite his party by picking the Stalwart Arthur as running mate.
Six months into the new administration, a deranged office-seeker shot Garfield. Arthur was president. And in a dramatic turnabout, he became the president forever associated with civil service reform, converting the U.S. government into a meritocracy where individuals were hired based upon examinations and advanced based upon merit.
In our time, however, Arthur’s achievement has been undone, as a racial spoils system in federal hiring and promotions has been imposed by Democratic presidents, unresisted by Republicans who rarely exhibit the courage to stand up for their principles when the subject is race.
OBAMA HAS TIME FOR A TURKEY BUT NOT FOR MARCUS GARVEY
MORE TO THE PRESIDENTS LIKING?
President Obama has done so little for the African American people that sometimes I think he figures if he keeps a low profile the white folks won’t notice that he is black. Maybe that is a nasty thing to say, but now we learn that a simple request to pardon Marcus Garvey is just too much trouble for America’s first African American President. I hate to say it, but I bet even Bill Clinton would have done this, if asked. To me the response to the pardon request is just a symptom of the much bigger problem Obama has when it comes to issues of importance to African Americans. Kinda sad really?
Even by Mexican Drug War standards, last Thursday’s death inferno at Monterrey’s Casino Royale seemed a bit much.
At least 52 people died after a group of eight or nine gunmen stormed the casino, began randomly firing at civilians, doused the entrance with gasoline, and torched the joint. Trapped inside, most of the victims were thought to have died of smoke inhalation. Many of the corpses were found clutching cell phones, vainly calling for help as they helplessly perished.
This sort of psychotic public-arena violence is nothing new in Monterrey—nor even at Casino Royale. In July, 27 people were shot to death in a Monterrey bar after another group of gunmen burst in and randomly began spraying lead. In June, 34 people were murdered in Monterrey over a single 24-hour period, all of it blamed on an escalating turf war between rival drug syndicates—the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas Cartel. In May, rifle-wielding psychopaths robbed four Monterrey casinos, including Casino Royale. In January, armed gunmen opened fire on presumed rivals inside Casino Royale.
What’s truly insane is that the insanity is by no means confined to Monterrey. In less than five years, the Mexican Drug War is already thought to have stacked up over 40,000 corpses.
Try counting out loud to 40,000. You’ll likely give up before you reach 100.
The Associated Press reports a new poll showing “that Americans are plenty angry at Congress,” going on to observe that “[t]he poll finds more people are down on their own member of Congress, not just the institution, an unusual finding in surveys.”
That disapproval of Congress so thoroughly pervades the American population can tell us something important about the class character of the state. We’ve all heard the aphorism, “If you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one,” and one possible interpretation of the Associated Press-GfK poll is that a polarized America is unsatisfied with the compromises — or indeed the inaction — that the Washington political process delivers.
Under this view, since Congress is divided between Republicans and Democrats, neither group is ultimately pleased with the aggregate, surmising that the other side frustrates their caucus’s attempts to realize a more ideologically pure agenda.
On the other hand, the “responsible” talking heads, epitomized by self-described “centrists” like Chris Matthews, insist that a lack of compromise is the source of Americans’ disaffection with Congress; these “moderates” worry that Congress isn’t getting enough done, rallying for a more coordinated — and more meddlesome — legislative branch.
From Suzie at Echnidne of the Snakes. Reposted without further comment, to elicit thought and conversation.
Riots & gender
Large-scale violence rarely triggers a public discussion of gender, even though men and boys are the majority of perpetrators. Consider last week’s mayhem in Britain: Although some women participated,most of those involved have been young men from poor areas,the Guardian reported.
The civil liberties of male suspects are being discussed, and for good reason — some sentences sound absurd. But what about the rights of women who wanted to go about their business, without ending up in a mob of angry men? The threat of male violence restricts the lives of women, but people have become so accustomed to it that it often goes unquestioned.
Concepts of masculinity play a large role. A man may get respect through violence, or with the right consumer goods. After all, marketing tells us how men should look and what stuff they need. But it does the same for women, and we’re not nearly as likely to break a store window to get what we want or to gain respect. […]
A 15-year-old boy has been charged with raping a 13-year-old girl in Woolwich. But the Guardian points out that it happened after the riots there, not during, as had been first reported. Now we are free to ignore it, just like most rapes, which get no political analysis.
Next time a girl or woman gets raped, why don’t women take to the streets and smash any business that caters to men? Oh, never mind, men would strike back harder, just like British authorities are upping the sentences for the rioters.
Most conservatives consider those who stole and/or destroyed property as criminals. In response, Naomi Klein writes about the riots as political. When people in politics and business loot their own countries and others, Klein says, you can expect those hit hardest to hit back. She calls this physics, but it appears to be a physics of men, since the highest authorities are predominantly men. How do we change society so that men aren’t hurting us from above and below?
[…] Unlike gender, there has been much discussion of race and ethnicity in regard to the riots. The Guardian reported that people of all races and ethnicities participated, while some white conservatives are blaming blacks and/or Muslims. There needs to be an examination of culture as it intersects with gender. For example, will street crime lead to greater restrictions for some women?
Why is it so easy to see class, race and ethnicity but not gender?
Mike Lawlor, undersecretary for criminal justice policy and planning for the state of Connecticut, joins the ranks of other public officials who are choosing to simply ignore those rights they don’t believe citizens should have.
“In almost every situation you can imagine this happening in, it qualifies as breach of peace,” he said. “If you walk into a restaurant with a gun it’s almost by definition a breach of peace.”
That results in an arrest and sets in motion a chain of events that usually results in the revocation of an issued pistol permit, he said. And that’s the way it should be, Lawlor said. Anyone who walks into a McDonalds plainly carrying a firearm either intends to alarm people or is irresponsible, he said.
Here’s the problem: If you have a permit, it’s perfectly legal to walk into a McDonalds in Connecticut while plainly carrying a firearm. As Gideon notes, the problem is that too many cops in Connecticut simply don’t know the law. Lawlor’s solution isn’t to educate them, but to come up with creative (and baseless) applications of other laws that allow cops to continue to violate the rights of Connecticut citizens who exercise their right to carry. Gideon’s analogy to the camera issue is spot-on. Because exercising this particular right tends to upset police officers, and because police officers aren’t aware of the law, the state officials in charge of law enforcement have chosen to simply not give a damn about protecting this particular right. If a citizen exercising his rights combined with a cops’ ignorance of the law results in a “breach of the peace,” Lawlor’s conclusion is that the proper thing to do is charge you for breaching the peace. It’s an abhorrent and lazy mindset that forgets everything about who serves who in a free society. In a just world, Lawlor would be resigning over it.
Gillespie, Nick, and Welch, Matt. The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong with America. New York: PublicAffairs 2011. Pp. xvi, 266. Index. 978-1-58648-938-0.
The Declaration of Independents is a breezy, entertaining manifesto. Defending “libertarian politics,” Reason’s Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch make clear that they’re for decision-making that’s bottom-up rather than top-down, distributed rather than centralized. They favor the innovation and creativity fostered by the market over the products of sclerotic, ossified monopolies. Entertaining stories about the things that set people free and the positive effects of freedom help to make their point—stories about rock-’n’-roll behind the Iron Curtain and Southwest Airlines’ fight against the government-sponsored air travel cartel, for instance. They celebrate the abandonment of 1950s-style conformism. They emphasize the liberatory potential of new media, and they explore positive reforms in multiple areas—health care, education, and retirement—designed to respond to the impossible financial positions of governments at all levels and the absence of competition-inducing alternatives in key areas of our lives. They call repeatedly not only for independence from the duopoly of Team Red and Team Blue but also for independence from politics itself—for the opportunity to shape life individually rather than in accordance with top-down mandates from the state. I’d much rather live in their world than in the one we inhabit now.
But that leaves open the question whether their vision of libertarianism really covers the most important bases.