Uncategorized

The Elephant in the Room

Article by David Icke.

———————————————————————————————————————————————

 


… BUT SEE IT AND YOU’RE ‘RACIST’

 

Hello all …

The political creed of Zionism has big ears and a long trunk and I think it’s time that was pointed out. It also stampedes through our lives at every level and that needs to be said, too.



It has created a pincer-movement on the human mind by hijacking staggering amounts of political, corporate, banking and media power on one side and by using the fear of being called ‘anti-Semitic’ if you dare to state the bloody obvious.

They have been able to do this by equating in public perception that Zionism = Jewish people. It does not. Zionism is a political creed introduced by the House of Rothschild to advance the goals of the Illuminati families that are largely controlled by the Rothschilds.

When people think of Zionism they think of Jewish people. When they think of Israel they think of Jewish people. That’s understandable given the propaganda, but it is seriously misleading and those instant connections need to be broken if we are going to understand what’s going on here.

Zionism means Rothschild just as Israel means Rothschild. When we see the extraordinary number of Zionists in key positions around the world we are looking not at ‘manipulating Jews’, but manipulating Zionists representing the interests and demands of the Rothschilds.

 

Significant numbers of Jewish people are not Zionists and oppose that appalling creed while many Zionists are not Jewish. These include the Christian Zionists and Obama’s vice-president, Joe Biden, who told Israeli television ‘I’m a Zionist’. Here’s the clip if you can stand it … If, as Biden rightly says, you don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist, how can it be a racial rather than a political movement? It can’t. It’s just made to appear like that to manipulate public perception because opposing Zionism then becomes opposing Jewish people as a whole and the ‘you’re a racist’ card can be played over and over.

Far from protecting and advancing the interests of the mass of Jewish people it has often been devastating for them and caused millions to be labelled unfairly by the actions of the Zionist elite. On the Jews Against Zionism website one feature highlights how Rothschild Zionism targeted Jews who had lived for generations in Palestine side-by-side with Arabs in peace and harmony:

‘The religious Jews who by virtue of their faith, clearly contradicted Zionist nationalism, and who had lived peacefully with their Arab neighbors for generations, became unwillingly identified with the Zionist cause and their struggle with the Arabs.

They requested the United Nations that Jerusalem be designated as a defacto international city. They appealed to the diplomatic corps assigned to Jerusalem — but to no avail. They were hence confronted with the choice of either becoming a part of the Zionist State, which diametrically opposed the interests of Jews as a religion, or abandoning the land of which their forefathers were the first Jewish settlers.

Let’s get this straight. Zionism doesn’t give a damn about Jewish people. To the Rothschilds and their Zionist gofers and thugs the Jewish people as a whole are merely cattle to be used and abused as necessary – just like the rest of the human population.

The networks of the House of Rothschild were behind Hitler and the rise of the Nazi Party in the Rothschild heartland of Germany where they had changed their name from Bauer in 18th century Frankfurt and launched the dynasty that was to control global finance.

After the war the Rothschilds used public sympathy for Jewish people targeted by the Nazis to press for a homeland in Palestine. This was the alleged reason for the founding of Zionism, but that is only part of it.

 

Rothschild
______________________________________________

 

As I show in my books, the campaign to impose a Rothschild fiefdom in Palestine goes back at least to the earlier part of the 19th century and probably long before. It was given a massive boost with the Balfour Declaration in 1917 when the British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour declared in a letter his government’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

This letter was sent by Balfour, an inner-circle member of an elite secret society called the Round Table, to Baron (Walter) Rothschild who funded the Round Table.

Today, Rothschild Illuminati fronts like the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Royal Institute of International Affairs, and others, still answer to the Round Table which string-pulls and coordinates from the shadows. This is why Zionists in government are invariably connected with these Rothschild-controlled organisations.

The Rothschilds funded the early settlers from Europe to relocate in post-war Palestine and they also funded and armed the terrorist groups, like Irgun, which bombed and terrorised Israel into existence in 1948, a campaign which forced 800,000 Palestinians to leave the land of their birth.

Israel is simply the State of Rothschild and how appropriate that they paid for the construction of the Israeli parliament building, the Knesset, and the Israel Supreme Court. The name Rothschild means Red-shield and it originates with the red shield ‘Star of David’ symbol (not a Jewish symbol before the Rothschilds) which they displayed on their house in Frankfurt …

… Seen it somewhere before …?


The very flag of Israel tells you who owns it. There are many reasons why the Rothschilds and their allies wanted to hijack Palestine and one was to keep the Middle East in a state of disruption and turmoil from which a global war can eventually be triggered to usher in the New World Order of world government dictatorship.

The creation of Israel is a means not an end and the Rothschilds will be quite happy to leave the Jewish population to their fate if it suits them. After all, they’ve done it before.

The world’s second biggest Zionist population is in the United States and given that both America and Israel are controlled by the Rothschild networks it is not hard to fathom why that slither of land in the Middle East receives around a third of all US overseas aid.

An average $3 billion a year is handed to the State of Rothschild as a result of decisions made by American administrations that are always, ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’, controlled by the Rothschilds. One hand of the network hands over the cash to another.

This explains why the United States never talks about the arsenal of nuclear weapons stockpiled by one of the world’s most trigger-happy states. Israel refuses to discuss them and the American policy, recently reconfirmed by Obama, is never to ask or bring up the subject.

The last two US administrations are testament to the extent of Zionist (Rothschild) control of America and thus its foreign policy, not least with regard to Iraq, the former land of Sumer and Babylon, which according to some just happens to be part of the ‘Greater Israel’ that the Zionists seek to secure.

The ‘Bush’ government was the glove-puppet of the so-called neo-cons, or neoconservatives, whose only political philosophy in truth was the interests of Zionism. At the heart of the Rothschild-controlled neocon cabal were Richard Perle (Zionist), Paul Wolfowitz (Zionist), Dov Zakheim (Zionist), Douglas Feith (Zionist), John Bolton (Zionist), Lewis Libby (Zionist), the list goes on and on. These were the people who orchestrated the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on behalf of the Rothschilds.

 


Economic policy was dictated through the years of Reagan-Bush, Father Bush, Clinton and most of Boy Bush by Alan Greenspan (Zionist), chairman of the privately-owned US ‘central bank’, the Federal Reserve. Privately owned, that is, by the Rothschilds through a network of front people and organisations.

Greenspan introduced the policies of deregulation that culminated, as designed, in the free-for-all frenzy of greed by banks and financial markets in general that led to the crash in the last weeks of the Bush presidency. Greenspan resigned from the Fed before the consequences of his long-term game-plan exploded in lost homes, jobs and savings. He was replaced by Bernard Bernanke (Zionist).

Greenspan was enthusiastically supported in his deregulation through successive administrations by Treasury Secretaries in the Clinton years, Robert E. Rubin (Zionist) and Larry Summers (Zionist), and also by the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most powerful in the Fed cabal, Timothy Geithner (Zionist).

When Mr. Fake Change won the presidency amid the gathering financial crisis, caused by all of the above, and others, he appointed Geithner as his Treasury Secretary and Summers as head of the White House Economic Council. Both are protégés of Robert Rubin who resigned from Citigroup earlier this year for his role in ‘advising’ it to the brink of collapse.

Obama’s Budget Director is Peter Orszag (Zionist) who headed the company that advised the Icelandic Central Bank in the prelude to the crash of Iceland’s financial system. This has led to Iceland being fast-tracked into the Rothschild-created European Union to ‘save’ its economy. Orszag also advised the Russian Treasury when state-owned assets and resources were handed to Zionist oligarchs, including Roman Abramovich who is famous in the UK as the owner of Chelsea Football Club.

Add to all this the fact that the World Bank is headed by Robert Zoellick (Zionist), who replaced Paul Wolfowitz (Zionist), and that the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, is run by Dominique Strauss-Kahn (Zionist).

Anyone still doubt that the Rothschild network controls global finance and therefore the lives and choices of virtually every man, woman and child on the planet?

The Rothschilds are at the heart of the Obama White House in the form of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (Zionist) and Chief White House Advisor David Axelrod (Zionist). Emanuel has served in the Israeli army and his father was an operative with the Rothschild terrorist group, Irgun, as it bombed Israel into being. This included the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 that killed 91 people.

 


Rahm Emanuel also worked closely Robert E. Rubin (Zionist) during the Clinton years to impose NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was designed from the start to be a stepping-stone to a North American, and eventually an American Union, along the lines of the EU. The Zionist world is very small indeed.

David Axelrod ran Obama’s election campaigns and now oversees his every word slavishly read from his teleprompter screens. There is little that Obama says that his Zionist handlers don’t tell him or give him to say.

They have also ensured that US policy for Iran and the Persian Gulf is headed by Dennis Ross (Zionist) who has served Israeli interests in successive American administrations. There will not be a cigarette paper behind the scenes between him and that trio of tyranny, Netanyahu, Lieberman, Barak, the prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister of Israel. Rothschild stooges, in other words.

Zionist Mandelson works for the pyramid

The most influential figure by far in the current British government is Peter Mandelson (Zionist) who continues to amass more titles and powers from the beleaguered Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Mandelson is an insider operative for the Rothschilds and has frequently accepted hospitality from his close friend and associate, Nathaniel Rothschild. This week Mandelson called for the UK to join the (Rothschild) single European currency.

Meanwhile, the hapless and hopeless Gordon Brown did as he was told and appointed Ivan Lewis (Zionist) to be minister of state with responsibility for, wait for it … British policy on the Middle East. Lewis, vice-chair of the Labour Friends of Israel, was an outspoken supporter of Israel’s slaughter of the innocent in Gaza this year. Lewis said of his new job:

‘My responsibility for the Middle East peace process is particularly poignant. I have never hidden my pride at being Jewish or my support for the State of Israel.’

What chance do the Palestinians have of fairness and justice? None.

In France, as I mentioned last week, President Sarkozy (Zionist) is a long-time asset of Mossad, the Rothschild enforcement agency masquerading as the intelligence agency of Israel. Mossad has been implicated in terror attacks and other horrors all over the world because it represents the Rothschild global agenda and not the people of Israel.

French President Sarkozy (Zionist Jew)
_______________________________________
 


Look also at the Zionist (Rothschild) control of the entertainment and media industry in the form of people like Fox News President Peter Chernin (Zionist); Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Zionist); Walt Disney CEO Robert Igor (Zionist); Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (Zionist); Warner Brothers Chairman Barry Meyer (Zionist); CBS CEO Leslie Moonves (Zionist); MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Zionist); and NBC/Universal Studios CEO Jeff Zucker (Zionist).

 


The Rothschilds control America


The Los Angeles Times columnist Joel Stein (Zionist) wrote an article proclaiming that Americans who don’t think Jews (Zionists) control Hollywood are just plain ‘dumb’. Stein went on:

‘The Jews are so dominant. I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. But lo and behold, even one of that six, AMC President Charles Collier, turned out to be a Jew! … As a proud Jew, I want America to know of our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood.’

And not only Hollywood. Shahar Ilan, a daily features editor with the leading Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, wrote: ‘The Jews do control the American media. This is very clear, and claiming otherwise is an insult to common knowledge’. Zionists have truly massive influence over the news media with the likes of Rupert Murdoch (Zionist) with his vast television and newspaper empire, and the Sulzberger family (Zionists) who own the New York Times. The list is enormous across television, radio, newspapers and the Internet.

When you look at the number of Zionists in key positions of power and control in politics, banking, corporations, news media, Hollywood and so on, it is sobering to think that Jewish people are just 1.7% of the American population and many of those won’t be Zionists.

What if the same situation happened with Arab people or Chinese, Irish or even black Americans? There would be an outcry and questions asked about how one group can have so much influence over the lives of a whole nation, indeed many nations. And I stress again that, in the end, this control system leads to the Rothschilds and the spider they represent at the centre of the web.

 

B’nai Brith Front Man Harry Abrams
____________________________
 


The Rothschilds established B’nai B’rith in 1843 to prevent exposure of the global Zionist networks. The ‘ BB’ is an offshoot of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and operates worldwide to brand as ‘anti-Semitic’ anyone who exposes the Rothschild operation.

In 1913, B’nai B’rith launched an organisation specifically to target and defame researchers, in fact anyone, who questions, criticises or exposes Israel and the ever-gathering Zionist influence across the world. With typical irony they called it the Anti-Defamation League, better known as the ADL, and claimed it was there to protect Jewish people. As Plato said: ‘This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector’.

The ADL is, in fact, a sub-agency of the Israeli (Rothschild) centre for covert operations, the Mossad, which, according to a former agent, has the motto: ‘By way of deception, thou shalt do war’. If that isn’t the motto, it should be. The ADL is behind the introduction of ‘hate laws’ which are aimed at silencing dissent against Zionism or Israel. The Jewish academic, Noam Chomsky, said this of the ADL in his book, Necessary Illusions:

‘The ADL has virtually abandoned its earlier role as a civil rights organization, becoming “one of the main pillars” of Israeli propaganda in the U.S., as the Israeli press casually describes it, engaged in surveillance, blacklisting, compilation of FBI-style files circulated to adherents for the purpose of defamation, angry public responses to criticism of Israeli actions, and so on.

These efforts, buttressed by insinuations of anti-Semitism or direct accusations, are intended to deflect or undermine opposition to Israeli policies, including Israel’s refusal, with U.S. support, to move towards a general political settlement.’

The American rabbi, Michael Lerner, agrees:

‘The ADL lost most of it credibility in my eyes as a civil rights organization when it began to identify criticisms of Israel with anti-Semitism, still more when it failed to defend me when I was receiving threats to my life from right-wing Jewish groups because of my critique of Israeli policy toward Palestinians (it said that these were not threats that came from my being Jewish, so therefore they were not within their area of concern).’

Firstly, the ADL has never been a civil rights organisation. Its very purpose has been to take them away. Secondly, it is not there to defend anyone, Jewish or otherwise. It’s there to represent the sadistic interests of the House of Rothschild and the wider Illuminati.

 

It is so important that people are aware of this background to Zionism because at the moment it is basically speeding along unchallenged through lack of awareness and fear of being dubbed ‘racist’.

Well, I couldn’t care less what people say about me with regard to this or anything else. I want to uncover the truth, not win a popularity contest.

Please, let’s circulate this information as effectively as we can and bring it from the shadows to public attention. We must refuse to be intimidated into silence over this.

Martin Luther King said: ‘… we must straighten our backs and work for our freedom. A man can’t ride you unless your back is bent.’

It is time to stand up, in every sense.

Related Story
1948: How the State of Israel “Really” Came Into Being

Categories: Uncategorized

20 replies »

  1. It’s this kind of conspiracy bs which has totally incapacitated the radical right in the post war period, and Icke is the very worst example of it. Intellectual justification and argument has been almost wholly replaced by a dialogue on a Brothers Grim tome of ridiculous fairy stories which are entirely irrelevant to the struggle against elite power in the West.

    If anyone has got a better example of none authoritarian none hierarchical tribal/ethnic intentional communities than the Kibbutz movement, step forward that man. National anarchism’s number one exhibit in its case for being a practically applicable ideology is entirely the product of Zionism. (That’s Zionism as in the actual concept, not short hand for the Big Jew Conspiracy and variants)

    If anyone has a better solution to the Palestinian Question than anarcho nationalism’s thousand state solution I have yet to hear it.

  2. RJ, Jones and Icke’s disciples aren’t anti-state. They have been told that the state is not the problem but the “people” that control it. Their ambition is to “retake” the state and use it to crush their fictitious enemies. They all believe that there was some golden age when the state was on their side and all they want is a “return” to that.

    One of the reasons they are so keen to swallow stories of James Bond villains is that they don’t want to face up to uncomfortable and complex realities like capitalism doesn’t work, the state can only serve itself and industrial society is just a grandiose and masochistic collective suicide. We are talking about intellectual cowards, lazy minded people who want a neat painless narrative to explain away society’s ills without putting one ounce of blame on them. Preferably one describing an enemy which can be beaten through an “infowar”, voting for Ron Paul or buying a Silver Dollar, anything they can do from their armchair without exerting any effort, or even making any compromise, at all.

    It’s thanks to this tendency that the radical right so utterly lost “the war of ideas” to the statist left. No-one with any intellectual pride can tolerate be associated with people who insist their problem is all down to Jews, aliens, lizards or alien lizard Jews. Defeat, or rather annihilation, in that crucial intellectual arena doomed the right to irrelevance and impotence in the post war period.

    Which is why National Anarchism (or whatever you want to call it) is so important, it’s probably the first radical right impulse in a century which relies on rational analysis and critique rather than silly scapegoating and militant ignorance. We must be utterly uncompromising in rejecting the pathetic legacy of the John Birch Society or guarantee failure.

    BTW, when Icke posts Radical Decentralisation or A New Independence then I might concede you have a point.

  3. “They have been told that the state is not the problem but the “people” that control it. Their ambition is to “retake” the state and use it to crush their fictitious enemies. They all believe that there was some golden age when the state was on their side and all they want is a “return” to that. One of the reasons they are so keen to swallow stories of James Bond villains is that they don’t want to face up to uncomfortable and complex realities like capitalism doesn’t work, the state can only serve itself and industrial society is just a grandiose and masochistic collective suicide. We are talking about intellectual cowards, lazy minded people who want a neat painless narrative to explain away society’s ills without putting one ounce of blame on them.”

    Perhaps the leaders, but not the ordinary NWO conspiratorial types, many of the survivalists are pretty damn serious, least on the surface.

  4. It’s not a question of either/or on this question. It’s more a matter of finding an appropriate balance between elitism and populism.

    In terms of our efforts at developing an intellectual high culture, clearly we would want to reject someone like Icke and other comparable types. But at the grassroots level, we have to recognize that a political movement capable of actually gaining or exercising real power has to have a strong populist component. Therefore, at the rank and file level we can expect all sorts of things to come into our camp as a our movement grows. I tried to address some of these issues in my piece on Alex Jones for AltRight: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/our-glenn-beck/

    I have several goals that I am pursuing simultaneously. I want to establish anarcho-nationalism as the dominant political consensus among the Alternative Right and the New Right, particularly in North America. I want to establish the wider concept of anarcho-pluralism as the dominant consensus among anti-state radicals generally. And I want to establish pan-secessionism as the dominant strategic paradigm among both anarchists and nationalists. Of course, even all of that is only part of the work. There’s also the question of advancing the liberty and populism agenda and reaching the ten core demographics for the sake of achieving a political majority and doing so within the “forty years in the wilderness” time frame.

  5. I wasn’t previously very familiar with the Pirate Party, but after reading up on them I’d say they sound very similar to what I would like for our movement to aspire to be. Only with a much more expansive agenda, as you’ve mentioned.

    “The real question is this: who will replace our older elites during our heyday, working within a forty year time window? You might not be around 50 years from now (I know, I apologize for saying this). The non-elites in their 20s today like myself must be capable of carrying on from the top 40-50 years from now. What if it’s 50, or 60 years? What are your thoughts on this?”

    It’s interesting you ask that as I had a lengthy conversation on these matters this evening with a friend of mine who’s interested in a lot of what I do. She very much comes down on the elitism side of things and has a problem with some of the more untermenschen and rough-around-the-edges folks in my circles.

    As I have written elsewhere:

    “The standard pattern in the history of the advancement of radical movements is that a new revolutionary outlook first captures the imagination of the intellectual elite, who become dissenters, and this new outlook then advances into the ranks of those who are most likely to opt for radicalism, or who have the least to lose by doing so. So, in turn, the intellectual dissidents are joined by student radicals and rebellious youth, bohemians and counterculturalists, members of the lumpenproletariat and the underclass, and marginalized or outcast social groups. Eventually, radical ideas begin working their way into the ranks of the conventional proletariat, and then into the middle class, and, finally, the establishment, with social reactionaries reluctantly being dragged along. At this point, the revolution is complete.”

    I don’t know that you can just get a group of people together and say, “OK, we’re the elite.” It’s something that has to grow organically. How did the forbears of the Enlightenment do it? How did the classical anarchists and socialists do it? How did the New Left do it? As ideas spread and trickle down (or trickle up, it can work both ways) into different layers of societies, they start to take on a life of their own and begin to get passed down along generational lines. Not just biological generations, but cultural and institutional ones as well.

  6. Don’t get me wrong, I love what you guys are trying to do here and I totally endorse it (much use as that is).

    My argument here is one about strategy. I see the role of NA or pan secessionism, at least at this stage, as being about helping the natural intellectual elites of particularly self identifying “radical right” entities develop a coherent intellectual foundation for their beliefs. The intention being that when they are encouraged to properly explore the ideologies and value systems to which they are attracted they will realise that the conventional assumptions of those ideologies are obsolete (at best) and come to understand that they have a commonality of interest with some of those on “the left”; specifically the anarchist tradition. We can only assume that there must be people in that tradition making a parallel effort to break that school out of its stagnant cultural rut, some of them must realise the basic implications of their own belief system and analysis contradict the adopted progressive mentality.

    As a bonus the adoption of decentralist ideas opens the door to strategies and tactics which are a hell of a lot more likely to actually work than those bequeathed to us by tradition.

    The problem with attempts to appeal to Ickians and Jonesites is that tends to undermine the intellectual credibility of those that do it. Al-Qaeda opposes global capitalism and some forms of Imperialism as well, but it wouldn’t be a real smart move to start trying to educate its followers since that would isolate you from everyone else.

    We need, and are now developing, a revolutionary vanguard. People who have at least a working understanding of the ideological basis of new wave radical right thought, techniques for implementing and disseminating those ideas and are prepared to use them. For that we need some pretty good quality material, that pretty much rules out people who live in terror of the lizard queen. However numerous they might be.

  7. This is an interesting and important discussion. Perhaps I could clarify things a bit by describing how I conceive of ATS. I generally want this blogsite to play the same role for our tendency (s) as LewRockwell.Com and AntiWar.Com do for the mainstream libertarians. LRC offers a mixture of high theory (the Rothbard and Hoppe stuff) with generic news items, editorializing, opinion columns, more routine economic analysis, some stuff that’s obviously intended to appeal to their more low-brow readers (the conspiracist and creationist stuff, for instance), some stuff that’s just entertainment and some stuff that’s just outright cranky (Gary North’s columns, for instance).

    I suspect that’s the kind of formula you need if you want to do anything other than preach to the choir.

    Meanwhile, they use the Mises Institute to develop the kind of intellectual counter-culture they envision. We’re not really at the point where we can have our own think tank but I agree that should be a long range goal. Once again, the question is where do you draw the line between quality and quantity?

    Here’s another strategic question: What do you think of blending the “Pirate Party” model (which as Ryan pointed out seems to be working) with the “Norman Mailer for Mayor” model (which of anything I’ve yet to encounter is probably the best model for promoting and achieving decentralization in the U.S.)?

    http://www.pri.org/stories/world/germany-s-pirate-party-a-political-force-of-20-somethings6059.html

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2009/may/04/00014/

    What this would mean in practice is that eventually we would have a party that re-attempts (broadly speaking) what Mailer tried to do in 1969 in a multiplicity of US cities, towns, and counties, and then brings Pirate Party related ideas into the mix as well, with each local activity being geared towards the local population and local ideologies? If nothing else, an effort like that would probably attract a lot of attention.

  8. Ok I take your point that a sort of “post modern” mix of high and low brow might be acceptable and more attractive to a certain audience than simple dry intellectual debate. However I believe this is a high risk strategy since we are operating in a field which people come to looking to have their suspicions confirmed. Rightly so since nine times out of ten when the surface of radical right groups are scratched you do tend to find, lets be honest here, people with a the very least fascist tendencies. I think that given this hyper paranoid environment we would be wise to avoid anything which might lead people to draw a line between ATS and the unacceptable under belly of right wing radicalism, whether that is the outlandish world of conspiracy or the wannabe state totalitarians.

    Google National Anarchism and you’ll find one link from some reactionary cultural “anarchist” denouncing NA as fascism in a ski mask for every pro site. Let’s not encourage that.

    As for the Naylor campaign. I totally support that technique. I’m promoting a similar idea within the British radical right (which is in a receptive mood at the moment) which I call DRM 11 (Democratic Revolutionary Mechanism 2011). The idea is to take local council districts and issue a charter or constitution converting the elected representative to a direct democracy delegate under certain conditions; the meeting of a certain quorum. OK this isn’t a panacea, but it’s a first step towards raising the political consciousness of a community which is absolutely essential to move towards more sophisticated political arrangements. I also believe that if I can get this implemented (and I did come with 5% or so in an election this year of doing it) it would serve as a rallying point for NA and seriously increase interest in it and the assessment of its utility by the mainstream radical right and compel the anarchist left to take NA seriously.

    As for the Pirate Party. Well sure, I’m not going to protest them or anything. However I believe that conventional party structures are so vulnerable to infiltration, incompetence and propaganda campaigns as to be all but useless. For practical reasons as well as ideological consistency I prefer a decentralised approach using an informal cell structure. So individuals form small group, or loose federations, at a local community level. This reduces internal stresses, creates engineering redundancy, promotes internal competition and neutralises establishment media power. These kind of single issue parties are useful techniques for promoting particular causes, and because of cultural tradition tend to be popular with a certain kind of activist but they won’t be overthrowing the state any time soon. A big plus is the adoption of this decentralised organisation model allow the use of the term “fractal revolution”, which is really cool.

    I think a more interesting group is the “Common Law” movement. OK their argument is complete bs in that their is no natural law somehow entombed in the legal system and even if there was it could be simply overridden by legislatures which are after all enemy. However their method does demand some sort of consideration of the legitimacy of rule and law which is bound to lead to only one place for anyone with any sense. Moreover they are promoting the creation of parallel democratic and even legal structures which is textbook NA and the only revolutionary technique I can see working at any level in the West. They even operate a decentralised none hierarchical organisational structure.

    And of course, any and all localist initiatives need to be looked at. Transition Towns seems to be leading the field in this area.

  9. Adding James Altucher to LRC was a good move, and posting more of his stuff here would be a home run IMO. I recently put up his “Abolish the Preisdency” piece. In general, the strategy of more general interest pieces that tie in to our cause is a good one. There’s an emerging online community of urbanist thinkers, for instance, that I think meshes well here (lots of critique’s of zoning plus cultural interest and downright cool pictures and the like.)

    TDA is like the nexus between twenty and thirty something “anons” and John Robb’s readership. I’m sure there’s a lot of niches we could explore.

  10. Pow Wow went well. I’m not well known outside of Tlingit Country, and there’s a small cultural gap between Pacific NW Coast Natives/AK Natives and American Indians in the lower 48. Pow Wows aren’t really our thing. But I did introduce myself and the small contingent of AK Natives who were in attendance. It was a good time!

  11. RJ, on the subject of the prevalence of conspiracy theories, yeah sure there is a massive audience for them. Personally my opinion is that their popularity is a manifestation of the intellectual retardation of the West as a result of the effects of industrialisation. Conspiracy fills the vacuum left by serious political analysis and critique of the sort at least a fraction of the population used to be able to engage in.

    I only subscribe to one conspiracy theory, that most of them are encouraged by either state or semi-establishment private individuals and groups which do so exactly because they know they disempower radicalism through misdirection. To use the favoured technique of conspiracy theorists because the establishment benefits from conspiracy theories then they must be behind them. Maybe the CIA flew the planes into the towers to create the “truther movement”? After all the last thing the state wants is people wandering about pointing out they are incompetent, inefficient and generally not all that. Much better that people with anti-state instincts think the state could pull off something like 9/11 and therefore should be regarded as unstoppable. Has anyone thought of that!

    In my experience it is real difficult to dig people out of the rabbit holes they get lost in once they start buying into conspiracy theories. All I’m sayin’ is maybe we need some revolutionary triage? “this one ain’t gonna make it, next!”

    How about some links from The Exiled? Everyone loves those guys.

  12. Once again, I think the model of what the Rothbardians do applies here. LRC is their media outlet, the Mises Institute is where they do their more theoretical work, and the Ron Paul related groups are their action and activism (along with activities like Antiwar.Com).

    So how do we separate our efforts to develop high theory from our general outreach efforts? I consider ATS to be more of the former than the latter, as I said, so how do we go about accomplishing the former? One issue with us is that we’re a lot more open-ended and less ideologically rigid than the anarcho-capitalists around LRC. It seems to me our goal is not to develop some all-encompassing theoretical system like Marxism and what Rothbard was trying to do. Instead, we’re essentially trying to assemble a collection of “tribes” that bring their own philosophies, customs, values, or ideals with them. For instance, from my experience of participating the Alternative Right and the New Right, there are about as many philosophies present there as there are individuals. If you go to one of their events, you can sit at the dinner table with a Catholic traditionalist, neo-pagan heathen tribalist, High Calvinist, National-Bolshevik, and Hoppean libertarian, to name but a few examples. It seems to me the anarcho-nationalist position is helpful for creating a kind of meta-systemic framework that is capable of accommodating these kinds of differences.

    At this point, I don’t think we are large enough to start up things like think tanks of our own. Rather, I think establishing a presence for ourselves in other, larger milieus is a much better approach. That’s what I have done in libertarian, paleoconservative, New Right, and Alt Right circles. That’s what Vince has done among his own people. That’s was RJ is doing with the techno-subversives. Miles is into the BN scene. Jeremy works with the more “normal” libertarians. Perhaps eventually we can gain enough influence in all of these kinds of circles to start bending all of these movements towards one another.

    This brings us to the question of what I am really most concerned about and that is how will our movement (s) express itself in terms of action? The Rothbardians seem to have put their energy into the Ron Paul thing, which as I’ve said before is paving the way for something more radical and extreme in the future (i.e., us). But what form will it take? Many of us and our sympathizers want to build alternative or parallel institutions. Pearson raises the example of the common law courts. I have other friends who want to build very elitist intentional communities of intellectuals and artisans. I’m for doing all of these things, but I also think we need something that engages the system on a more direct basis and simultaneously serves as a recruiting and propaganda mechanism for our movement like the RP thing does for the libertarians.

    I think we have a general consensus here for pan-secessionism, but what specific forms would it take? I like what the SVR has done in Vermont. I like the example of what the Mailer-Breslin combo was trying to do in NYC in ’69. I like this Pirate Party model RJ is enthusiastic about. So do we try to synthesize all of these approaches into a common political front while cultivating all of these divergent movements as well as whatever parallel institutions that pop up as our constituents, base, etc.?

  13. My strategy has been to pretty much “ride the wave”, and pinpoint the various political dynamics in our society. Its from this that I’ve gathered what I think are the most important political dynamics in society right now:

    Another one that doesn’t actually have a following yet but what I want to finally discover again and nurture, though, are the “conservative anti-capitalists”. Those conservatives who oppose consumerist values and the gargantuan power of big corporations in their lives and their families’ lives. Otherwise:

    1. Anonymous/Lulzsec/Internet culture/civil liberties movement, etc., on the heels of the gradual push towards more social liberal views in our society.
    2. The dissafecteds (what I’ve called the Bill Hicks radicals, the type of people who don’t vote out of disaffected-ness, or who vote for Paul or Nader, independent, intellectual, conspiratorial cynics, who “are staunch ideological opponents of everything we’ve attacked, they just need a system to replace it”, as I’ve written)
    3. White nationalism/Racial politics
    4. Buchananite economic nationalist sentiments and movements.

    “I generally want this blogsite to play the same role for our tendency (s) as LewRockwell.Com and AntiWar.Com do for the mainstream libertarians. LRC offers a mixture of high theory (the Rothbard and Hoppe stuff) with generic news items, editorializing, opinion columns, more routine economic analysis, some stuff that’s obviously intended to appeal to their more low-brow readers (the conspiracist and creationist stuff, for instance), some stuff that’s just entertainment and some stuff that’s just outright cranky (Gary North’s columns, for instance).

    I suspect that’s the kind of formula you need if you want to do anything other than preach to the choir.”

    It seems like the articles have gotten of less importance and of a real intellectually inspiring, meat-and-potatoes, interesting sort of stock than there was when I first came here, when I was reading it through for a long time instead of skipping over the majority of them, maybe its because your not showing enough of the writing without having to click on the whole thing, maybe its because theres not as many interesting things from the blogroll of say BANA or the Daily Attack/Kevin Carson-like pages, dunno. Although it looks like looking through your ancient archives like your “glory days” were in the Bush years, long before I came and you were doing long “updated news digests” for the next few days.
    “We’re not really at the point where we can have our own think tank but I agree that should be a long range goal.”

    Oh yeah, but more like the MIddlebury Institute than the Mises think tank and boards.

  14. “I think we have a general consensus here for pan-secessionism, but what specific forms would it take? I like what the SVR has done in Vermont. I like the example of what the Mailer-Breslin combo was trying to do in NYC in ’69. I like this Pirate Party model RJ is enthusiastic about. So do we try to synthesize all of these approaches into a common political front while cultivating all of these divergent movements as well as whatever parallel institutions that pop up as our constituents, base, etc.?”

    I think this is the only place, in strategies for actually achieving pan-sec, that we need to reaffirm that we are above all anarchists, trying to achieve practically an anarchist system, and not just taking any statist system that we come across that we can get, we should still be writing and talking and acting as anarchists, although we are willing to work with certainly plenty of individuals who have never considered anarchism in their entire lives.

    “It seems to me the anarcho-nationalist position is helpful for creating a kind of meta-systemic framework that is capable of accommodating these kinds of differences. At this point, I don’t think we are large enough to start up things like think tanks of our own. Rather, I think establishing a presence for ourselves in other, larger milieus is a much better approach. That’s what I have done in libertarian, paleoconservative, New Right, and Alt Right circles. That’s what Vince has done among his own people. That’s was RJ is doing with the techno-subversives. Miles is into the BN scene. Jeremy works with the more “normal” libertarians. Perhaps eventually we can gain enough influence in all of these kinds of circles to start bending all of these movements towards one another. ”

    And I have my blog, which I haven’t started yet but will link if anything like these long comment streams ever happens again, and I had that idea about surveying the Stormfronters which I didn’t do but obviously can.
    I’ve noticed a sort of problem with regards to that I think, as our fanbase grows, we will eventually run into people like those one or two Black Panthers that came in one day a while back not knowing exactly where they were, talking positively about Obama and other people. I think we need to keep our own space here and keep it a decentralized network, and allow the Infoshop crowd, and all the WNs and everyone else everyone to work things out in their own individual spaces with contact on this site limited until we choose to do so, so we don’t end up having uncalled for fights between the WN types and the Infoshop crowd, and especially so we don’t encourage the floodgates to just open and any random statist commenting on here can just do so with abandon. I think theres no reason why we can’t have something almost prepared to give to all the strong progressives or strong conservatives/nationalists, that might stumble upon here, to explain in almost a sort of marketing way, that says “Oh yes, we oppose this and this, but don’t forget we also are favorable towards this and this, etc.” That’ll give us a pretty good base I believe, even if its just more bloggers putting us on their rolls.

Leave a Reply to Vince Cancel reply