Updated News Digest January 24, 2010 6

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

Community Organizing and National-Anarchism presentation by Andrew Yeoman

Tribal Anarchism Video Series Parts One, Two, Three, Four

United Anarchism Vs United Nationism 

Quotes of the Week:

“A man who as a physical being is always turned toward the outside, thinking that his happiness lies outside him, finally turns inward and discovers that the source is within him.”

“Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.”

“Be that self which one truly is.”

“How absurd men are! They never use the liberties they have, they demand those they do not have. They have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech. ”

                                                                                             -Soren Kierkegaard 

The Rule of Law Has Been Lost by Paul Craig Roberts

Obama to Indefinitely Imprison Detainees Without Charges by Glenn Greenwald

The Two Faces of Interventionism by Justin Raimondo

MLK as 20th Century Jesus by Paul Gottfried

Lawyers, Guns, and Money by Kevin Carson

How America Makes Its Enemies Disappear by Petra Bartosiewicz

Prisoner Power: Organize the Ex-Cons! by Eduard Limonov

Privatizing Everything  by Ralph Nader

Will the Tea Partiers Become a Third Party? by James Ostrowski

Big Brother Barack: Enough Hope and Change, Already! by Anthony Gregory

The Anatomy of Blue State Fascism by Anthony Gregory

Terrorism Defined: Bill Clinton Lights Our Way to Truth by Chris Floyd

The Return of the Neocons by David Margolick

Petraeus Gets It Wrong by Robert Dreyfuss

Is America Moving Right? by Pat Buchanan

Say No to “Humanitarian Intervention” in Haiti by Ron Paul

Haiti’s Avoidable Death Toll by Walter Williams

Haiti: An Unwelcome Katrina Redux by Cynthia McKinney

The Supremes Have Opened the Floodgates by Russell Feingold

Freedom of Speech for a Fiction by Christopher Ketcham

Corporate Personhood and Political Free Speech by Manuel Garcia, Jr

How Wall Street Destroyed Healthcare by Paul Craig Roberts

Just Walk Away from the Democrats by Ron Jacobs

Death to the Dictator by Charles Glass

Israel Finds a New Way to Play the Victim by Ira Chernus

The Terrorism Conundrum by Philip Giraldi

Torture: Where’s the Conservative Skepticism? by A. Barton Hinkle

A New Dictator in Iraq? by Ted Galen Carpenter

The Next Crisis for Obama? by Ivan Eland

Fascism Needs an Enemy by Ran HaCohen

FBI Says It Violated the Fourth Amendment by Thomas R. Eddlem

To Help Hait, End Foreign Aid by Bret Stephens

Anarcho-Leftoids Rally Against Free Speech from Infoshop.Org

New Frontiers in PC by Lew Rockwell

Students and Prisoners, Unite! from Infoshop.Org

U.S. Military Weapons with Bible References on Them by Bill Anderson

The Power Elite Is Worried by Lew Rockwell

Demented TSA Brings Charges Against Man for Walking Through the Wrong Door by Mike Rozeff

U.S. Military Diverts Food Flights to Haiti by Mike Rozeff

Government to Teach Parents How to Raise Children by David Kramer

How to Popularize Freedom Tom Woods interviewed by Scott Smith

Who Is Left Holding the Bag on U.S. Debt? by Bill Sardi

U.K. Bans Drinking Contests by Raphael G. Satter

1,000 Rally for Guns, States’ Rights in Virginia Capital by Olympia Meola

The Coming Euro Rupture by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Texans Are Ready for Nullification by Mike Ward

The Banks Are Going Down by Karen De Coster

The Blind Law of State Violence by Jeff Knaebel

Tortured Unto Death by Glenn Greenwald

Obama’s Garrison State by Tom Burghardt

In Defense of Rothbard by Walter Block

The Needless U.S. War with Japan-Courtesy of Stalin and FDR by Michael Kreca

Eco-Fascism by James Delingpole

Nullify the Federal Government by Norvell Rose

The Militia Question Resolved  by Michael Kreca

Hurting People for a Living: The Role of the State by William Norman Grigg

Books on War: The Worst Aspect of the State by David Gordon

Why Africa Has Gone to Hell by James Jackson

Freak-Friendly by Gavin McInnes

Yes, Africa Must Go to Hell by Alex Kurtagic

Tea Party Convention Bars Campaign for Liberty by Patroon

Endorsements of Dennis Steele for Governor of Vermont by Thomas Naylor

A Richly Deserved Humiliation by Alexander Cockburn

How the Patriot Act Perpetuates Official Robberies by James Bovard

Class and Party Difference in Massachusetts by Mary Lynn Cramer

Making the Banks Pay by Dean Baker

Revolution, Not a Tea Party by Ron Jacobs

Why I Voted for the Republican in Massachusetts by John V. Walsh

The State vs The Rule of Law by James Leroy Wilson

My Life as a Politician by Justin Raimondo

How Open Manufacturing Is Related to the End of Neoliberal Globalization by Michel Bauwens

The Establishment Is in Crisis by Butler Shaffer

Obamanomics: Big Government, Big Business, Big Rip-Offs by Michael Brendan Dougherty

Top Ten Passions of Ancient Rome: Sounds like America by Ray Laurence

Cleaning Up Government Messes by Lew Rockwell

The U.S. of Kafka from Lew Rockwell

“My God Is Bigger Than Your God” by Lew Rockwell

But If You Did This to a TSA Thug… by David Kramer

Coulter Slimes the Anti-State Wave by Christopher Manion

May I Pour You Some Neocon Tea? by Lew Rockwell

Has Obama Lost White America? by Pat Buchanan

Anarchistan in Athens by Aya Burweila

Could a Woman Who Posed Nude Get Elected? by Missy Comley Beattie

Weimar Democrats by Harvey Wasserman

New Radical Queer Zine Focuses on Gentrification from Infoshop.Org

Mutual Aid Disaster Relief in Haiti from Infoshop.Org

How Life Has Suddenly Changed in America by Bill Sardi

The Final Crisis of Central Banking by Gary North

There Is No Freedom of Choice in America by Don Cooper

Christian Concentration Camp Guards by Stephen Carson

PIGS Infiltrate Anti-PIG March  from Infoshop.Org

The Great Leap Sideways by Alexander Cockburn

Society Verses the State by Kevin Carson

The Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low Overhead Manifesto by Brad Spangler

“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

Interview with Alain De Benoist, Part One by Tomislav Sunic

The Empire’s Fall Ron Paul interviewed by Scott Horton

The Relevance of Lysander Spooner to Our Times Sheldon Richman interviewed by Scott Horton

Anarchy Radio with John Zerzan and Kathan Z

I Was a Guard at Guantanamo by Brandon Neely interviewed by Scott Horton

Murder-Gate: 3 Tortured to Death at Guantanamo Scott Horton interviewed by Scott Horton

The Ghost Prisoners of Bagram Andy Worthington interviewed by Scott Horton

Reclaiming the American Right Christopher Manion interviewed by Scott Horton

“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 Taylor Somers)

Fire by The Crazy World of Arthur Brown

I Put a Spell on You by Screaming Jay Hawkins

For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge by Coven

Satanic Mass Part 1 Part 2 by Coven

Dignataries of Hell by Coven

Attack of the Demon  by Black Widow

God of Darkness by Iron Maiden (no, not that Iron Maiden)

Lucifer’s Friend by Lucifer’s Friend

Beautiful Dream by Uriah Heep

Sorcerers by Angel Witch

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Why Men Use Prostitutes by Julie Bindel

Pan-African Solidarity: Senegal Offers Land to Haitians 

Haitians May Go Extinct 

The Anti-Enlightenment Tradition by Adam Kirsch

Rabbit Rapist Convicted of Cruelty 

National Bolshevik Party 

Corporate Branding Has Taken Over America by Naomi Klein

Traditionalist, New Right, Conservationist, and Integralist Thought 

The Soft Tyranny of Liberalism by Alexander Dugin

Secession Without Blinders 

Hamas Ready to Cancel Charter 

Republican Savior’s Wife Starred in Half-Naked Music Video About Handjobs 

Voodoo Brings Solace to Grieving Haitians 

Tea Party Movement Getting Hosed 

John Lennon on Monday Night Football in 1974 with Howard Cosell 

European Males Descend From Ancient Farmers 

Curious Myths of the Middle Ages 

The Democrats are the Darlings of Wall Street

Racist Cameras 

(hat tip to Andrew Yeoman for the following links)

Milestones on Minorites and Poverty in Southern Schools 

11-Yr-Old Shot Defending His Mom Against Home Invaders 

South African Woman Killed Over Birth Control 

Is Al-Qaeda Winning? 

Moron Brought to Tears by Republican Seizure of Teddy Kennedy’s Senate Seat 

U.S. Mercenaries Set Sights On Haiti 

Lone Shooter Kills 8 in Central Virginia

Netanyahu: Illegal Immigration a Threat to Israel 

Ron Paul: After CIA Coup, Agency Runs Military 

Fake Cop Arrested During Prostitution Sting 

The Coming Urban Terror by John Robb

Taliban Overhaul Image to Win Allies 

Haiti Homeless Reach Two Million 

Supreme Court Overturns Ban on Direct Corporate Spending on Elections 

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

“The king is most wounded by ridicule.” -Thomas Hobbes

(hat tip to Taylor Somers)

Can a Libertarian Also Be a Conservative? 8


by Antoine Clarke

“At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition.”

Lord Acton, cited by F.A. Hayek1


An informal alliance between conservatives and libertarians, especially in the United Kingdom, can be said to have started with Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech in March 1946, and ended with the abolition of the Federation of Conservative Students in 1986 because of its take over by libertarian activists and the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1989 to 1991.  The abolition of the FCS marked the moment when the Thatcherite part of the Conservative Party preferred to abort its own intellectual future, rather than continue what had been a fairly successful alliance against the idea of big government, at home and abroad.

The alliance, as often in history, was based on the perception of a common external enemy, Soviet imperialism, as well as the internal threat of socialist economic policies of nationalization and central planning.  There was also the sense in the United Kingdom at least, that the social engineering experiment of the welfare state was an assault on freedom, whether liberty was valued for being ancient and traditional, or for being the expression of individual freedom of self-actualisation.

There was some disagreement on what to do about the Cold War.  The British Conservatives were often more opposed to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation because of the subservient position that the UK was placed in relation to the United States of America.  British libertarians, in stark contrast with most of their US counterparts, tended to be more favourable to fighting a global crusade against communism.

On the welfare state, conservative paternalism was reluctant to “abandon” the poor to their own initiative.  Chris R Tame, the Libertarian Alliance’s founder put the conservative view of libertarianism thus:

“The average classical-liberal sympathising conservative puts our ideology in a liberty versus order straightjacket, where freedom is seen to be achieved at a cost in social order and security, and where those values can only be achieved at the price of liberty.  This is a typically conservative viewpoint in which freedom and order are in tension with one another, and the remedy for social chaos is the state.”  2

In the USA, the experiences of isolationism, the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7th 1941 and the Vietnam War exerted diverging pressures on any libertarian/conservative alliance on foreign policy.  However, a coalition of what two British commentators termed “Sun Belt conservatism” and a religious opposition to the secularist/welfarist “liberalism” from the 1930s’ New Deal to the 1960s’ Great Society, gathered pace from the dynamic but electorally unsuccessful 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign, to what became known as “The Right Nation.”3


The modern libertarian movement is a fusion of several historic intellectual traditions, with a style that generally embraces human progress and the liberating aspects of technology.  Traditionally, conservatism could be seen as the long struggle against the enlightenment, taking a sceptical view of human nature which is either explained in terms of Original Sin or a distrust of rationalism.  Dr Tame, in an interview with the current LA President, Tim Evans, expressed the optimism of the libertarian position as: “We’re extreme rationalists…  Death and Taxes, we’re against BOTH of them!”4  The libertarian tends to oppose God’s plan, sees the Enlightenment and its economic outcome—the Industrial Revolution—as the most tremendous liberating force in 2,000 years, and flatly rejects Thomas Hobbes’ scepticism about what free individuals will get up to without a night-watchman state to keep them in line.

Roger Scruton, formerly the editor of the Salisbury Review and Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, the University of London, set out the conservative objection to the Enlightenment’s humanism in a Wall Street Journal article in 1996, titled “Godless Conservatism.”5

Professor Scruton wrote:

“There is a growing tendency among American conservatives to blame society’s present condition not merely on liberals but on the secular and skeptical philosophy of the Enlightenment, from which modern liberalism descends.  As conservatives see it, the constant questioning of established beliefs and authorities has set us upon a path that has anarchy as its only destination.  Many conservatives therefore suggest that we must repudiate the Enlightenment and reaffirm the thing against which the Enlightenment stood: organized religion.”

He added:

“it is not hard to sympathize.  Religious belief fills our world with an authority that cannot be questioned and from which all our duties flow.  Yet there is something despondent in the search for a religious solution to the problems of secular society.  All too often the search is conducted in a spirit of despair by people who are as infected by the surrounding nihilism as those whose behavior they wish to rectify.  Their message is simple: ‘God is dead—but don’t spread it around.’  Such words can be whispered among friends but not broadcast to the multitude.”6

Professor Scruton and Dr Tame would have agreed on almost every issue of significance during the 1970s and 1980s: the economy, the harm caused by socialism, the Cold War, the “battle of ideas,” yet the philosophical underpinning of their positions was almost entirely opposite.  This would not matter so long as the target for their attention was the same and the solution, if only by coincidence, was broadly the same: to support the underground civil society of Soviet colonies, to oppose socialism performed by Conservative politicians, the importance of the statement of ideas and their debate.

Yet as with such coalition projects as the French Revolution, harmonious relations would struggle to  last beyond the achievement of power or the disappearance of the common enemy.  Here, one of the striking differences between the British and US coalitions can be found.  According to John Micklethwait and Adrian Woolridge, in philosophical terms, classical conservatism, as formulated by Edmund Burke, “might be crudely reduced to six principles.”

These are:

  • a deep suspicion of the power of the state;
  • a preference for liberty over equality;
  • patriotism;
  • a belief in established institutions and hierarchies;
  • scepticism about the idea of progress; and
  • elitism.

Micklethwait and Woolbridge argue that:

“to simplify a little, the exceptionalism of modern American conservatism lies in its exaggeration of the first three of Burke’s principles and contradiction of the last three.  The American Right exhibits a far deeper hostility toward the state than any other modern conservative party.  How many European conservatives would display bumper stickers saying ‘I love my country but I hate my government’?”7

The result is that American conservatives tend to display more openness to human progress, making an alliance with some libertarians possible (it may also help to explain the poor performance of the US Libertarian Party since 1972).  The American conservative movement tends to take a classical liberal approach to Burke’s last three principles: hierarchy, pessimism and elitism.  The heroes of modern American conservatism tend to be the same as for libertarians: rugged individualists who don’t know their place and defer to class status, the self-made businessman, or settlers on the Western frontier.

As Mickeltwait and Woolbridge put it:

“the geography of conservatism also helps to explain its optimism rather than pessimism.  In the war between the Dynamo and the Virgin, as Henry Adams characterized the battle between progress and tradition, most American conservatives are on the side of the Dynamo.  They think that the world offers all sorts of wonderful possibilities.  And they feel that the only thing that is preventing people from attaining these possibilities is the dead liberal hand of the past.”8

A more modern representation of this cleavage can be found in the writings of Virginia Postrel, especially her best-selling work, The Future and Its Enemies.9  She replaces the left-right cleavage with one based on the notions of people as either “dynamists” or “stasists.”

Sean Gabb, the Libertarian Alliance’s Director, is perhaps the best known British advocate of “libertarian conservatism,” a body of beliefs that consists of harking back to the days when a British subject could spend virtually his or her entire life with no contact with government or its services except when visiting a Post Office.  Although he did not use the term in his 1974 book, The Offshore Islanders,10 Paul Johnson remarked that English history can be seen as a succession of conservative revolutions, largely attempting to restore ancient liberties, in marked contrast with the French Revolution of 1789 for example, which aimed to create a new order, to the point of creating a decimal calendar with 10-day weeks and 10-hour days with new names for the months.11  The contrast between the ancient liberties of Englishmen (a near approximation of the libertarian ideal) is defended in the name of both its liberalism and its rooting in history.

One example of how these forces are fused in Dr Gabb’s activism has been the 15-year campaign against national identity cards, which has in no way been deflected according to which political party (Conservative or Labour) has held office in the UK.12

Dr Gabb wrote:

“I believe, however, that there is more to ‘rolling back the frontiers of the State’ than paying regard to economic indicators alone.  It is not enough to control the money supply and deregulate the unemployed back into work.  It is necessary to roll back the frontiers in social and political matters as well.  My ideal England—the England that largely existed before 1914—is one in which individuals and groups of individuals are free to pursue their ends, constrained only by a minimal framework of laws.”

“I have no doubt that an identity card scheme would be absolutely fatal to the realising of this ideal—even the ‘voluntary’ scheme that Mr [Michael] Howard proposes for the moment.  It would undermine the half-open society in which we now live.  Given the technology that will soon be available, it would allow the erection of the most complete despotism that ever existed in these islands.  I am astonished that such a scheme could be put forward by a government that dares call itself Conservative.  It is a betrayal not merely of the libertarian and classical liberal wings of the Party, but also of the most reactionary High Toryism.  I will not argue whether this is socialism by other means.  But it is undoubtedly collectivist.”

The problem appears to be that there is a type of modern Conservative who really does not believe in God, natural rights, the virtue of ancient customs, or spontaneous order.  I came across this position in 2002, in a series of discussions on-line with Peter Cuthbertson, who at least has the credit of being one the very early pioneers of conservative blogging in the UK.  One could argue that this was a continuation of the debate between a Lockean and a Hobbesian in the 17th century.  Under the title ‘Is there an Act of Parliament for Table Manners?’13  I wrote:

“I don’t normally respond publicly to comments, but I will make an exception.  Peter Cutbertson has a blog called Conservative Commentary, it is certainly better than the Conservative Party’s website.  He thinks that this conclusion I made makes me insane:

‘The problem for British libertarians is that they aren’t really used to the idea that the state really is our enemy.  This is one reason why I don’t think that the UK withdrawing from the European Union is an automatic recipe for joy.’

In the exchange which follows he appears to believe that ‘without law or government’ society cannot function, and those who disagree with him are ‘insane’ or follow ‘an incoherent, warped political philosophy’.”

I continued

“However, it amazes me that Mr Cuthbertson cannot see that law doesn’t necessarily derive from government.  For a start, any conservative who believes in God ought to consider the possibility that there is a higher authority than the State.  Assuming atheism (which isn’t very conservative, but hey, who’s being coherent?), I should have hoped that a conservative might believe in the organic, spontaneous order of common law.  Assuming God doesn’t exist, and the common law is a fiction (sounds more like a French Jacobin!), what has Mr Cuthbertson done with civil society?  Is it true that members of the Carlton Club only behave because of the fear of being arrested by the police?  Does the members’ code of conduct depend on the State for its existence and enforcement?  Is there an Act of Parliament for table manners?”


In presenting the major philosophical differences between conservatism and libertarianism, I am conscious of one potential fallacy to the negative prognosis: a marriage doesn’t have to be perfect to be successful.  Within each of the tribes, conservative and libertarian, there are numerous differences of opinion, often underpinned by a complete opposite fundamental principle.

There is the obvious problem of abortion.  To one school of libertarian, the woman’s right to choose is absolute and rooted in the idea of self-ownership of our bodies.  Surely no one could argue against that!  But other libertarians argue that there is a point at which a foetus is more than merely a type of cancer tumour, to be charged rent or evicted.  They may root their argument in the concept of a natural right to life from the moment or conception, or 10 weeks, or 20 weeks of pregnancy.  If it is wrong to kill someone who is in a temporary coma, or remove their organs without consent, and also wrong to do the same to a mute or a child who has not yet developed speech, why is it acceptable for a being that has some degree of consciousness and would surely develop all the human attributes of sentience and free will?

Another issue is the transitional state.  Even if all libertarians were anarchists, and many are not, what of the national debt?  Should it be defaulted in full at once?  Should government promises of pensions be treated as the promises of extortionists and therefore have no contractual force?  Are Bank of England notes to be rejected in the Libertarian Year Zero?  Or collaborators with the “bureaucrato-feudalist régime”shot?

One starts doubting whether one can even properly speak of a libertarian position, given the multitude of factions (which have a tendency to denounce each other as “deviant” in a not always deliberate self-parody of the Popular Judean Front of Monty Python’s Life of Brian).  However, it should be noted that the same cleavages exist in any ideological school, whether it be socialism, conservatism or liberalism, so it would be wrong to worry too much about libertarianism’s diverse origins and blueprints for a good society.

Conservatism can mean the support of a theocratic society, the restoration of absolutist monarchy, opposition to post-Leninist reforms in the Soviet Union, support for the use of tanks against student protestors, opposition to homosexuality, the support for free trade, protectionism, the abolition of drug prohibition or its resolute enforcement.  Conservatives are split on abortion, taxes, the National Health Service and whether London should have got the 2012 Olympic Games.


Libertarians and conservatives have many vehement (not violent) disagreements and it is fair to say that each side’s vision of heaven on Earth could be considered hellish to the other.  Yet within each tribe, there are people who have as much in common with each other as with their own tribes.  One thinks of prostitution, abortion and the death penalty, to name just three examples.

Because both a conservative and a libertarian have a degree of scepticism about the power of the State “to make things right,” it is very likely that opportunities for defensive joint action will emerge from time to time.  Conservatives will tend to see their role as reigning in the enthusiasm of libertarians for technology as a liberating force for humanity.  Libertarians will see their role as giving the conservatives a kick up the backside for their passive acceptance of inevitable defeat.

However, it is probably worth keeping in mind the words of Lord Acton, concerning the challenge of ideological alliances which opened this essay:

“At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition.”

Each party to the alliance, libertarian and conservative, regards the other as a sometimes embarrassing auxiliary.


(1)F.A. Hayek, ‘Why I Am Not a Conservative’, in The Constitution of Liberty, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1960.

(2) Chris Tame & Gerry Frost, Libertarianism Versus Conservatism: A Debate, Libertarian Alliance Pamphlet No. 14, 1989, retrieved 1st December 2009, http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/lapam/lapam014.pdf

(3)John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge, The Right Nation: Why America is Different, Penguin, 2005.

(4)Tim Evans, Maggies’s Militants, video produced as part of a PhD thesis, published as Conservative radicalism: A Sociology of Conservative Party Youth Structures and Libertarianism 1970-1992, Berghahn Books, Oxford, 1995.

(5)Roger Scruton, ‘Godless Conservatism’, The Wall Street Journal, Friday, April 5th 1996, p. 8.


(7)Micklethwait & Woodridge, op cit.


(9)Virginia Postrel, The Future and Its Enemies: The Growing Conflict Over Creativity, Enterprise and Progress, The Free Press, 1998.

(10)Paul Johnson, The Offshore Islanders: England’s People from Roman Occupation to the Present, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1972.

(11) ‘French Republican Calendar’, 26th November 2009, retrieved 2nd December 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar

(12)Sean Gabb, A Libertarian Conservative Case

Against identity Cards, Libertarian Alliance Political Notes No. 98, 1994, http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin098.htm

(13)Antoine Clarke, ‘Is there an Act of Parliament for Table Manners?’, Samizdata blog, 30th November 2002, retrieved 1st December 2009, http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2002/11/is_there_an_act_of_parliament.html

Audio interview with Alain De Benoist Reply

Listen to it here.

In Part 1, Tom and Mr. de Benoist discuss the awkward label, the European “New Right”, and the confusion that this label creates, particularly in the USA. They also reflect on the present cultural climate in Europe and America along with its political implications. The show includes:

  • A description of the New Right; its origins and its current perspectives. Alain eloquently explains how “New” is more important than “Right”, and emphasizes the importance of ideas over insignificant political categories.
  • The semantic distortions connected with the labels “Liberal” and “Conservative”; how the terms “Left” and “Right” were born out of modernity and have since lost their meaning as we step fully into postmodernity.
  • Alain elaborates on the major themes in his book On Being a Pagan. Among these are the polytheistic mindset versus its monotheistic counterpart, and the advocacy of cultural pluralism as opposed to multiculturalized “sameness.”

About Alain de Benoist

Alain de Benoist.jpg

Alain de Benoist was born on 11 December 1943. He is married and has two children. He has studied law, philosophy, sociology, and the history of religions in Paris, France. A journalist and a writer, he is the editor of two journals: Nouvelle Ecole (since 1968) and Krisis (since 1988). His main fields of interest include the history of ideas, political philosophy, classical philosophy, and archaeology. He has published more than fifty books and three thousand articles. He is also a regular contributor to many French and European publications, journals, and papers (including Valeurs Actuelles, Le Spectacle du Monde, Magazine-Hebdo, Le Figaro-Magazine, in France, Telos in the United States, and Junge Freiheit in Germany). In 1978 he received the Grand Prix de l’Essai from the Academie Francaise for his book Vu de droite: Anthologie critique des idees contemporaines (Copernic, 1977). He has also been a regular contributor to the radio program France-Culture and has appeared in numerous television debates.

To learn more about Alain de Benoist, read his insightful articles at his personal website and at The Alain De Benoist Collection.

Problems of Revolutionary Strategy Reply

(thanks, Peter!)


This is an excerpt from Problems of Revolutionary Strategy by Abraham Guillen

To the credit of the Uruguayan Guerillas, they were the first to operate in the cement jungles of a capitalist metropolis, to endure during the first phase of a revolutionary war thanks to an efficient organization and tactics, and to confound the police and armed forces for a considerable period… With its failures as well as successes, the Movement of National Liberation (Tupamaros) has contributed a model of urban guerrilla warfare that has already made a mark on contemporary history – the scene of a struggle between capitalism and socialism with its epicenter in the great cities. The lessons that can be learned from the Tupamaros can be summarized in the following ten points.

(1) Fixed or Mobile Front? When urban guerrillas lack widespread support because of revolutionary impatience or because their actions do not directly represent popular demands, they have to provide their own clandestine infrastructure by renting houses and apartments. By tying themselves to a fixed terrain in this way, the Tupamaros have lost both mobility and security: two prerequisites of guerrilla strategy. In order to avoid encirclement and annihilation through house-to-house searches, the guerrillas can best survive not by establishing fixed urban bases, but by living apart (from each other) and fighting together.

(2) Mobility and Security. If urban guerrillas rent houses for their commandos, they are in danger of leaving a trail that may be followed by the police who review monthly all registered rentals. Should most of their houses be loaned instead of leased, then the guerrillas should refrain as a general rule from building underground vaults or hideouts which would increase their dependence on the terrain. To retain their mobility and a high margin of security they must spread out among a favourable population. Guerrillas who fight together and then disperse throughout a great city are not easily detected by the police. When dragnets are applied to one neighborhood or zone, guerrillas without a fixed base can shift to another neighborhood. Such mobility is precluded by a reliance on rented houses or hideouts in the homes of sympathizers, heretofore a major strategical error of the Tupamaros.

(3) Heavy or Light Rearguard? Urban guerrillas who develop a heavy infrastructure in many rented houses commit not only a military error, but also an economic and logistical one. For a heavy rearguard requires a comparatively large monthly budget in which economic and financial motives tend to overshadow political considerations. Lacking enough houses, the guerrillas tend to upgrade to positions of command those willing to lend their own. Among the Tupamaros detained in 1972 was the owner of the hacienda “Spartacus,” which housed an armory in an underground vault. At about the same time the president of the frigorific plant of Cerro Largo was detained and sentenced for aiding the Tupamaros. He may well have embraced the cause of the Tupamaros with loyalty and sincerity; but as a businessman he responded as any other bourgeois would to his workers’ demands for higher wages. Thus when promotion through the ranks is facilitated by owning a big house, a large farm or enterprise, the guerrillas become open to bourgeois tendencies. When guerrillas rely on cover not on a people in arms but on people of property, then urban guerrilla warfare becomes the business of an armed minority, which will never succeed in mobilising in this manner the majority of the population.

(4) Logistical Infrastructure. Although a mobile front is preferable to a fixed one, there are circumstances in which a fixed front is unavoidable, e.g., in the assembly, adjustment and adaptation of arms. These fixed fronts, few a far between, must be concealed from the guerrillas themselves; they should be known only to the few who work there, preferably one person in each, in order to avoid discovery by the repressive forces. In the interest of security it is advisable not to manufacture arms, but to have the parts made separately by various legal establishments, after which they can be assembled in the secret workshops of the guerrillas.

It is dangerous to rely on a fixed front for housing, food, medical supplies and armaments. If the guerrillas are regularly employed, they should live as everybody else does; they should come together only at a designated times and places. Houses that serve as barracks or hideouts tend to immobilise the guerrillas and to expose them to the possibility of encirclement and anihilation. Because the Tupamaros immobilised many of their commandos in fixed quarters, they were exposed in 1972 to mass detentions; they lost a large part of their armaments and related equipment and were compelled to transfer military supplies to the countryside for hiding.

In abusing control over their sympathisers and keeping them under strict military discipline, the Tupamaros had to house them together. But they were seldom used in military operations at a single place or in several simultaneously, indicating the absence of a strategical preparation. If urban guerrillas cannot continually disappear and reappear among the population of a great city, then they lack the political prerequisites for making a revolution, for creating the conditions of a social crisis through the breakdown of “law and order.” Despite their proficiency during the first hit-and-run phase of revolutionary war, the Tupamaros have failed to escalate their operations by using larger units at more frequent intervals for the purpose of paralysing the existing regime.

(5) Heroes, Martyrs and Avengers. In revolutionary war any guerrilla action that needs explaining to the people is politically useless: it should be meaningful and convincing by itself. To kill an ordinary soldier in reprisal for the assassination of a guerrilla is to descend to the same political level as a reactionary army. Far better to create a martyr and thereby attract mass sympathy than to lose or neutralise popular support by senseless killings without an evident political goal. To be victorious in a people’s war one has to act in conformity with the interests, sentiments and will of the people. A military victory is worthless if it fails to be politically convincing.

In a country where the bourgeoisie has abolished the death penalty, it is self-defeating to condemn to death even the most hated enemies of the people. Oppressors, traitors and informers have condemned themselves before the guerrillas; it is impolitic to make a public show of their crimes for the purpose of creating a climate of terror, insecurity and disregard for basic human rights. A popular army that resorts to unnecessary violence, that is not a symbol of justice, equity, liberty and security, cannot win popular support in the struggle against a dehumanised tyranny.

The Tupamaraos’ “prisons of the people” do more harm than benefit to the cause of national liberation. Taking hostages for the purpose of exchanging them for political prisoners has an immediate popular appeal; but informing the world of the existence of “people’s prisons” is to focus unnecessarily on a parallel system of oppression. No useful purpose can be served by such politically alienating language. Morover, it is intolerable to keep anyone hostage for a long time. To achieve a political or propaganda victory through this kind of tactic, the ransom terms must be moderate and capable of being met; in no event should the guerrillas be pressed into executing a prisoner because their demands are excessive and accordingly rejected. A hostage may b usefully executed only when a government refused to negotiate on any terms after popular pressure has been applied; for then it is evident to everyone that the government is ultimately responsible for the outcome.

So-called people’s prisons are harmful for other reasons: they require several men to stand guard and care for the prisoners; they distract guerrillas frmo carrying out alternative actions more directly useful to the population; and they presuppose a fixed front and corresponding loss of mobility. At most it is convenient to have a secure place to detain for shore periods a single hostage.

To establish people’s prisons, to condemn to death various enemies of the people to house guerrillas in secret barracks of underground hideouts is to create an infrastructure supporting a miniature state rather than a revolutionary army. To win the support of the population, arms must be used directly on its behalf. Whoever uses violence against subordinates in the course of building a miniature counter-state should be removed from his command. Surely there is little point in defating one despotism only to erect another in its place!

(6) Delegated Commands. In a professional army the leadership is recruited from the military academies within a hierachical order of command. In a guerrilla organisation the leaders emerge in actual revolutionary struggles, elected because of their capacity, responsibility, combativity, initiative, political understanding and deeds rather than words. However, at pain of forfeiting the democratic character of a revolutionary army and the function of authority as a delegated power, not even the best guerrilla commander can be allowed to remain long at the helm. A rotating leadership is necessary to avoid the “cult of personality”; powers should be alternately exercised by those commanders with the most victories, by those most popular with their soldiers and most respected by the people. Inasmuch as guerrilla warfare takes the form of self-dense, tis success depends on the exercise of direct democracy, on guerrilla self-management and self-discipline – a far cry from the barracks discipline typical of a bureaucratic or professional army…

The people have more need of many revolutionary heroes than of a single outstanding leader like Julius Casesar or Napoleon Bonaparte. Epominondas, the Theban general who defeated the Spartan, held a command that lasted only two years. Although the greatest strategist of his time, he became and ordinary soldier when his command expired. Only because of his extraordinary skill was he made a military adviser to the new commander-in-chief. Guerrillas can benefit by his example.

A delegated command is unlimited except for the time determining its delegation. The responsibility of subordinates is to discuss in advance each operation, to make recommendations, etc. But the discussion ends when the supreme command assumes responsibility for the outcome of a particular battle or engagement. If the commander is mistaken in his judgment, if the result is defeat rather than victory, his duty is to resign. Should he succeed in a vote of confidence he may retain his command; but to successive defeats should make his resignation irrevocable.

One of the most common errors of Latin American guerrillas is to make legends of their leaders as they did of Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. The resulting messianism conceals the incapacity of many guerrilla commanders who take their troops into the countryside – like the Tupamaros in 1972 – without revising mistaken strategies. Perhaps the leaders of the Uruguayan guerrillas have come to believe in their providential powers, thereby reducing the ordinary guerrilla to a political and military zero, to the status of a soldier in a conventional army.

(7) Revolution: Which Revolution? Youthful Leftists without a proletarian praxis, without having suffered directly the effects of capitalist exploitation, aspire to liberate the workers without the workers’ own revolutionary intervention. When revolutionary action is limited to a series of military engagements between guerrillas and a repressive army, armaments ar of little use in mobilising the people for national liberation. The corresponding foquismo [exaggerated reliance on guerrilla focos, armed encounters and military tactics to spark a mass insurrection] is petty bourgeois in origin as well as outlook – evident in the token number of workers and peasants in the guerilllas’ ranks. Actually it is an insurrectional movement of piling up cadavers, for giving easy victories to the repressive generals trained by the Pentagon.

In the case of the Tupamaros the commanding cadres and the greater part of the rank and file have come from the universities, the liberal professions and the rebellious petty–bourgeois youth who have learned how to disobey. They long for a revolution. But what kind of revolution? Since there are few workers or peasants in the columns of the Tupamaros, it is understandable that the struggle is limited mainly to engagements between the guerrillas on one side and the army and police on the other. In these encounters the people are caught in the middle, leaving a political vacuum which only a different kind of guerrilla movement can fill: one providing support for all popular acts of protest, strikes, demonstrations, student rebellions, etc. Only through the intermediary of the people, in other words, can urban guerrillas pass from the first phase of revolutionary war to a generalised state of subversion leading to a social revolution.

In their endeavor to create a state within the state through highly disciplined guerrilla columns, secret barracks, “prisons of the people,” underground arsenals and a heavy logistical infrastructure, the Tupamaros have become overly professionalised, militarised and isolated from the urban masses. Their organisation is closer to resembling a parallel power contesting the legally established one, a microstate, rather than movement of the masses.

(8) Strategy, Tactics and Politics. If the tactics adopted are successful but the corresponding strategy and politics mistaken, the guerrillas cannot win. Should a succession of tactical victories encourage a strategical objective that is impossible to attain, then a great tactical victory can culminate in an even greater strategical defeat.

The kidnappings of the Brazilian consul Dias Gomide and the CIA agent Dan Mitrione are instances of tactical successes by the Tupamaros. But in demanding in exchange a hundred detained guerrillas, the Tupamaros found the Uruguayan government obstinate, in order not to lose face altogether. Here a successful tactic contributed to an impossible strategical objective. In having to execute Mitrione because the government failed to comply to their demands, the Tuparamaros not only failed to accomplish a political objective, but also suffered a political reversal in their newly acquired role of assassins – the image they acquired through hostile mass media.

The Tupamaros would have done better by taping Mitrione’s declarations and giving the story to the press. The population would have followed the incidents of his confession with more interest than the interminable serials. Mitrione’s confessed links with the CIA should have been fully documented and sent to Washington in care of Senator Fulbright. With this incident brought to the attention of Congress, the operation against the CIA would have won world support of the Tupamaros. Once the Uruguayan government had lost prestige through this publicity, the Uruguayan press might be asked to publish a manifesto of the Tupamaros explaining their objectives in the Mitrione case. Afterwards his death sentence should have been commuted out of respect for his eight sons, but on condition that he leave the country. Such a solution to the government’s refusal to negotiate with the guerrillas would have captured the sympathies of many in favour of the Tupamaros. Even more than conventional war, revolutionary war is a form of politics carried out by violent means.

With respect to Dias Gomide the Tupamaros lost an opportunity to embarrass politically the Brazilian government. They should never have allowed matters to read the point at which his wife could appear as an international heroine of love and marital fidelity by collecting sums for his release. Every cruzerio she collected was a vote against the Tupamaros and indirectly against the Brazilian guerrillas. In exchange for Dias Gomide, a man of considerable importance to the military regime, the Tupamaros should have demanded the publication of a manifesto in the Brazilian press. Its contents might have covered the following items: a denunciation of the “death squad” as an informal instrument of the |Brazilian dictatorship; a demand for free, secret and direct elections; the legalisation of all political parties dissolved by the military regime; the restitution of political rights to Brazil’s former leaders and exiles including Quadros, Kubitschek, Brizola, Goular and even reactionaries like Lacerda; the denunciation of government censorship of the press; and a demand that popular priests be est free. With such a political response the revolutionary war might have been exported to Brazil. Guerrilla actions should not be narrowly circumscribed when they can have regional and international repercussions…

The Tupamaros are perilously close to resembling a political Mafia. In demanding large sums of money in ransom for political hostages they have sometimes appeared to be self-serving. It matters little to the average citizen whether bank deposits pass into the hands of “expropriators” who do little directly to lighten the public burden – not because they do not want to but because they cannot do so in isolation from the people and without popular support. There is an historical irony about these would-be liberators who indirectly live off the surplus of the people the liberate.

(9) OPR-33 and the Tupamaros. Enormous losses were suffered by the Tupamaros in 1972 through more than 3000 detentions, including those of persons guilty by association. Popular hatred against the government has intensified because of its house-to-house searches and disregard for fundamental rights. If the Tupamaros had as much political and strategical sense as they have tactical skill, they might have achieved in 1972 a new polarization of forces culminating in a truce, a virtual recognition by the government of a situation of dual powers.

But the political and startegical mistakes of the Tupamaros, their rigorous centralism and hierarchy of authority led instead to internal divisions and split-offs that further weakeneed the organisation. The deliberately mislabeled “Microfaction” broke with the movement. This group politically responseive to the Urguayan Revolutionary WOrkers’ Party (PRT) – a political affiliate of the Argentine People’s Revolutionary Army (ERP) – would hardly have been permitted to split peacefully were it not for the ERP. The “22nd of December” guerrillas likewise split with the leadership: a group concentrating on operations designed to mobilise the trade unions and other mass organisations without the military centralism of the Tupamaros’ general staff..

Politically the Tupamaros follow an ambiguous line promising something of interest to everybody. On the other hand, the Tupamaro Courier, a bulletin of the organisation, has carried in its pages extracts from the speeches of conservative nationalists like Aparicio Saravia. On the other hand the Tupamaros’ leadership forobids its cadres from criticising the pro-Moscow Communists. This political irresolution, indefiniteness and ambivalence have hurt the Tupamaros in their efforts to gain a foothold in the Communist-controlled trade unions. Although they penetrated and won over the leadership of the Union of Sugar Workers (UTA) and the workers of the Frigorifico Fray Bentos, they have been unsuccessful in pressing for immediate reforms because they anticipate that seizing political power will resolve everything.

Unlike the Tupamaros, the anarcho-syndicalist Revolutionary Popular Organisation (OPR-33) uses armed struggle to support the workers’ immediate demands without directly challenging the government and armed forces. Neither OPR-33 nor the “22nd of December” contributed to the 1971 electoral struggles of the Broad Front against the established political parties. While the Tupamaros supported the Broad Front, OPR-33 used its armed units to win the strike at the Portland Cement Company, where workers with anarcho-syndicalist tendencies demanded higher wages. Rodney Arismendi, secretary-general of the Communist Party, denounced the anarcho-syndicalists as adventurers for allegedly playing into the hands of reactionaries and ignoring the principal task of electing a new president, senators and deputies. But the Broad Front lost the elections, while the workers at Portland Cement won the strike. Moreover, the railroad workers also triumphed against the bosses, thanks to the armed backing of OPR-33 with the support of the Workers-Student Resistance (ROE) and the Uruguayan Anarchist Federation (FAU).

OPR-33 and ROE also spurred a series of successful strikes in the metallurgical, rubber and clothing industries. The strike at SERAL, a footwear manufacturer, lasted more than a year. Where the Communist-controlled unions failed, OPR-33 and ROE succeeded. The anarcho-syndicalists initiated the strike at SERAL: they endured in hunger, asked for collections in the streets of Montevideo and mobilised popular support. But the owner, an ex-worker, could not be moved. Finally his son disappeared. OPR-33 was apparently behind the operation but, unlike the Tupamaros, admitted to nothing. No ransom was asked; words were unnecessary. In view of the circumstances it was tacitly understood that the owner, Malguero, could recover his son by negotiating with the workers. In this way the most difficult strike in Uruguay was won: the workers were compensated for lost pay; their union was recognised as the only legal bargaining agent. Thus during the first six months of 1972, when the Tupamaros were being detained by the hundreds, Malaguero’s son was lost but reappeared with the resolution of the strike at SERAL. Despite the success of the repressive forces in uncovering the people’s prisons and hideouts of the Tupamaros, the boy could not be found. Here was an altogether different style of guerrilla warfare from that of the Tupamaros’ – and also more effective.

The strike against the Frigorifico Modelo was won through a similar operation. In the midst of the strike the firm’s president Fernandez Llado, disappeared. Thus a second company was coipelled to negotiate. In no instance has OPR-33 been pressured to execute hostages. For it has not made demands of its own, but has applied force only to obtain what hundreds of exploited workers have already been asking for. In this way, little by little, it may continue to win support from the workers until even the reformist trade unions fall into revolutionary hands. Once revolutionaries are in command of their own house, then they are ready for revolutionary action in depth: the occupation of factories that operate at less than full capacity; the transformation of these into producer’s cooperatives or self-managed enterprises;p and a preparation for the seizure of political power. For what purpose? To establish a new kind of socialist society in which the people rather than bureaucrats or guerrilla leaders are the beneficiaries.

(10) MIR, ERP and the Tupamaros. The Tupamaros were the first group of urban guerrillas to teach the world how to initiate an insurrection in the cities with few supporters and modest means. But their superb tactics have been nullified by a mediocre strategy and a questionable politics.

Like OPR-33, the Chilean Movement of the Revolutioanry Left (MIR) and the Argenitine People’s Revolutionary Army (ERP) offer new models of urban guerrilla warfare in which strategy and politics combine to reinforce the Tupamaros’ tactics. The Chilean and Argentine organisations show great initiative in combat, a clar-cut program of national a social liberation, the capacity to mobilise large masses and a virtual absence of petty-bourgeois tendencies. They are openly critical of Right-wing nationalism and the opportunism of Social Democrats and Communists. Without such criticism, without liberating themselves from a naroow professional outlook, urban guerrillas can succeed in tactical engagements; but they cannot develop a revolutionary movement capable of winning power, if not for themselvs as bureaucrats, then for the people they represent.

In 1972 MIR had the most effective revolutionary organisation in Latin America. Its leading cadres are directly responsible to the rank and file through a system of direct democracy; its politics are clear and unambiguous; it proposes at any moment only what it can actually accomplish. Nothing escapes the political analysis and synthesis of the MIR cadres. They are Chile’s major revolutionary reserve. In the event Allende’s government is overthrown, only they are presently equipped to fight for liberation under conditions of repression. They are acid critics of demagogy and adventurism. Their proposals are well reasoned and concrete with respect both to immediate issues and the future.

The ERP is another model worth imitating. In Rosario it seized the British consul and the manager of Swift for the purpose of settling a major strike. IT has prepared the ground for surmounting the traditional trade-union tactics of the Peronist labor bureaucracy, the pro-Moscow Communists and genteel socialists. Even the tragic finale of Sallustro, president of Argentine Fiat, is an example of blood spilled not so much by the ERP as by the Argentine military. For the dictatorship countermanded the negotiations between the Fiat managment and workers as the price of his release.

The Tupamaros faced their gravest crisis during the first havelf of 1972, when the repressive forces detained several hundred of them. That so many fell was due not to lack of secrecy, but to absence of autonomy. Their supreme command is centralised: it knows all, says all, does lal. Nothing can be more fatal to a guerrilla organisation than lack of self-direction under conditions in which the guerrillas cannot be continually united and in which each group or command has to adapt to the tactical situation at hand without waiting, as a conventional army does, for orders from above. Excessive centralisation of authority makes an organisation rigid and vulnerable: once the repressive forces discover a single thread they can begin looking for the spool.

The Tupamaros acted precipitately in attacking the newly elected government of President Bordaberry. They provoked the as yet untested government to declare a state of war. Repression was escalated in the crudest forms: punitive expeditions, legalised terrorism, physical tortures. A formal democracy gave way to dissimulated dictatorship. Far better had the Tupamaros waited for the economic and social crisis to discredit the new regime. The prime necessities are in scarce supply; there is not enough meat, milk, sugar, kerosene to satisfy demand. Nonetheless, the government is strong because the revolutionaries’ rhetoric is weak, and they have not mastered the art of mobilising popular discontent on these basic issues.

A revolutionary organisation must demonstrate that it knows more that its bourgeois rivals in power. To displace the bourgeoisie and bureaucracy, it must convince the public of their incompetence, a task which cannot be done overnight. It must show how greater levels of productivity can be achieved compatible with human freedom, how the scientific-technological revolution can be advanced, how agriculture can be fully mechanised and electrified, how industrial integration can be achieved, how culture can be made to serve economic and technological growth, how atomic energy can be utilised, how the socialism of self-management can be introduced. If a revolutionary leadership fails to demonstrate humane qualities, scientific knowledge and social, political and economic skills, it may commit blunders by initiating an insurrection before fully mobilising popular support. Then is the time for military intervention. Thus in Peru the guerrillas were exterminated by the developmentalist generals who now pass for revolutionaries; and in Brazil the military waged a preventative coup, mortgaged their country to foreign capital, reduced corporate taxes, outlawed industrial unrest and depressed real wages in order to stimulate economic growth.

From the Tupamaros we can learn from both their exploits and mistakes – magnifying their strengths and concealing their weaknesses can be of service to dogmatists and sectarians, not revolutionaries. The Tupamaros have served as the best revolutionary academy in the world on the subject of urban guerrilla warfare; they have taught more through actions than all the revolutionary theories abstracted from concrete situations. But their brilliance in matters of tactics has not been matched by their strategy and politics. Thus the revolutionary ideal must combine the tactical proficiency of the Tupamaros with the mass strategy of OPR-33 and the politics of Chilean MIR – a synthesis most nearly approximated by the Argentine ERP.

On Being Inclusive 6

My critic suggests:

“…my problem with Keith Preston’s approach is not that he suggests identifying and allying with criminalized, marginalized, or lumpen people. My problem is, first, that he has what I consider a disastrously selective view of whose criminalization and marginalization counts as legitimate libertarian concern (=). And, secondly, that he has the wrong idea about what the process of building such an alliance, and the terms on which allies might ally themselves with each other, looks like.

How “selective” am I? These are some the planks in the American Revolutionary Vanguard Twenty-Five Point Program:

1. Recognizing that the United States of America is rapidly degenerating into a totalitarian police state domestically and steadily being brought under the rule of a global corporate state internationally, American Revolutionary Vanguard is established for building a unified resistance front among all groups, organizations and movements opposed to the common enemies.

2. American Revolutionary Vanguard is non-partisan, non-ideological, non-racial and non-denominational. Our allies and supporters may come from any political party, ideological background, ethnic group or religion. We make no distinction on the basis of gender, nationality, sexual identity, physical disabilities, cultural identity, age or class origins.

4. American Revolutionary Vanguard seeks to network with and form alliances with all groups and individuals engaged in active resistance including decentralists, non-supremacist separatists, constitutionalists, autonomists, patriots, populists, anti-corporate libertarians, anarchists, sovereigns, common law advocates, regionalists, anti-state conservatives, non-statist nationalists, agorists, mutualists, syndicalists, individualists, guild socialists, council communists, individualist anarchists, collectivist anarchists, national anarchists, municipalists, Georgists, farmer liberationists, agrarians, radical traditionalists, micronationalists, Luddites, radical environmentalists, deep ecologists, non-reactionary third postionists, geonomists, geolibertarians, libertarian socialists, non-racist militias, anarcha-feminists, libertarian feminists, queer activists, anti-globalists and non-statist class struggle advocates of every kind.

10. American Revolutionary Vanguard supports the development of cooperatives and guilds for the provision of affordable health care to the poor and workers, care for the sick and elderly, provision of reliable information to consumers and the organizing of tenants in opposition to slumlords and public housing authorities without reliance on statist, classist “zoning” laws, “building codes”, “land use” regulations and other forms of government interference.

14. American Revolutionary Vanguard works for the creation of special organizations for the defense and protection of youth, students, runaways, the homeless, the mentally ill, street vendors and other small-time enteprenuers, prisoners, addicts and prostitutes. These classes of persons are the most victimized and brutalized by the present system and are therefore in need of special assistance and recognition of their plight.

15. American Revolutionary Vanguard works for the abolition of all laws criminalizing consensual adult behaviors including drug laws, gun laws, sex laws, prohibition of alternative medical treatments, prohibition of suicide, seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws, zoning laws, involuntary civil committment and drinking ages. Only acts of physical aggression against other people and their possessions can justly be considered crimes.

16. American Revolutionary Vanguard supports the abolition of jails and prisons which are simply the modern version of slavery. Persons who do minor harms to others should be required to compensate the victims in some way with economic sanctions being the primary means of enforcement. Serious criminals should be sent to separate, penal communities where they will work ordinary jobs, live in ordinary housing, wear ordinary clothes, etc. but pay restitution to compensate victims and finance whatever supervision they may require.

22. American Revolutionary Vanguard seeks dialogue and mutually advantageous cooperation with non-political outlaw organizations including street gangs, motorcycle clubs and prison gangs. We applaud those organizations of this type who have negotiated truces among themselves and who have sought to take up political struggle. We seek similar dialogue and cooperation with non-political, non-governmental clubs, leagues, orders, guilds, unions, fraternities and sororities of every kind.

24.American Revolutionary Vanguard opposes all military aggression by the government of the United States against other nations. The natural allies of American revolutionaries are nationalist, separatist, anti-globalist, populist, anarchist, libertarian and class struggle movements throughout the world. The peoples of the earth who desire sovereignty for themselves are asked to support the struggle of domestic American revolutionaries, whether they be Arabic or Islamic nationalists, European separatists, anarchists or anti-globalists, indigenous peoples everwhere and Latin American rebel forces.

It’s a little hard to imagine what could be more inclusive than this. In the essay “Liberty and Populism” I wrote:

“…our core creed must be “Anarchy First!” applied within context of decentralism, populism and libertarianism. Here is a set of potential “first principles” for an anarchist-led libertarian-populism:

  1. Minimal and decentralized government organized on the basis of community sovereignty and federalism.
  2. A worker-based, cooperative economy functioning independently of the state, the corporate infrastructure and central banking.
  3. A radically civil libertarian legal system ordered on the basis of individual sovereignty, individual rights and restitutive justice.
  4. A neutralist, non-interventionist foreign policy and a military defense system composed of decentralized, voluntary militia confederations.
  5. A system of cultural pluralism organized on the basis of voluntary association, civil society, localism, regionalism, decentralism and mutual aid.
  6. The achievement of the above through an all-fronts strategy of grassroots local organizing, local electoral action, secession, civil disobedience, militant strikes and boycotts, organized tax resistance, alternative infrastructure and armed struggle.”

“…we have not even begun to touch on the possibilities for building a radical movement rooted in part in marginalized social groups ignored, despised or persecuted by the establishment. These elements include the handicapped, the mentally ill, students, youth, prostitutes and other sex workers, prisoners, prisoner’s rights activists, advocates for the rights of the criminally accused, the homeless and homeless activists, anti-police activists, advocates of alternative medicine, drug users, the families of drug war prisoners, immigrants, lumpen economic elements (jitney cab drivers, peddlers, street vendors), gang members and many others too numerous to name. On these and other similar issues, our positions should be to the left of the ACLU. Adopting this approach will bring with it the opportunity to politically penetrate the rather large lumpenproletarian class that exists in the US with little or no political representation. At the same time, the last thing we should wish to do is emulate the mistakes of the new left by adopting an ideology of victimology and positioning ourselves as antagonists of the broader working masses. Nothing could be more self-defeating. The defense of marginal populations way beyond any efforts in this area offered by the left establishment should be part of our program, but only part. Our main focus should be on the working class itself, the kinds of folks who work in the vast array of service industries that comprise the bulk of the US economy.”

“…It is of the utmost importance that the working masses view us as the champions of their economic interests. Nothing less will be sufficient. Our populist coalition must include rank and file blue collar workers, working class taxpayers, union members, small businessmen, farmers, the self-employed, the urban poor, single moms and the homeless. We do this not by promising entitlement rights to all, but by eliminating state-imposed obstacles to economic self-determination and self-sufficiency, placing state or state-corporate industries and services directly into the hands of the workers and consumers, developing alternative economic arrangements independently of the state, eliminating taxes from the bottom up and gradually phasing out archaic state-assistance programs, with poverty relief and social security programs being the last to go once the corporate state has been fully dismantled. This is precisely the opposite of the “cut taxes and regulations at the top, eliminate subsidies to the bottom” approach favored by the right-wing corporatists. Our approach should be “cut taxes and regulations at the bottom, eliminate subsidies to the top”. On these matters, authentic fiscal conservatives and authentic class war militants should be able to agree. We should describe our economic program as neither “conservative” nor “socialist” but as simple “economic justice”.

“There are indeed many areas where the radical Left and the radical Right have much in common. One obvious area of possible collaboration would be opposition to imperialist warfare and military interventionism on behalf of ruling class interests. Another is on libertarian-populist economic issues of the type mentioned above. There is certainly no reason why the libertarian-left cannot endorse the civil liberties issues of the right such as freedom of religious practice, the right to have homeschools, Second Amendment rights against the gun-grabbers, personal property rights against eminent domain and asset forfeiture laws, opposition to the use of anti-racketeering laws to harass anti-abortion activists, abusively anti-male “child support” and other divorce-related laws, speech codes, self-defense rights, tax resistance, intrusive zoning, licensing, or environmental laws and so on.

Once again, it is difficult to imagine what could possibly be more inclusive than what is outlined above. Racism?

The matter of implementing such a settlement to America’s historic ethnic divides brings with it certain complications. The “pro-white” aspects of the settlement proposed above would be simple enough to enact. It is merely a matter of repealing particular laws (like antidiscrimination statutes) and policies (like affirmative action) and ending subsidies to particular interests (like “minority set asides”). The “pro-black” aspects of the settlement are a little more difficult. On the question of sovereignty, various black nationalist factions have proposed widely divergent ideas. It would seem that the best approach would be one that involved the least amount of disruption possible. Some years ago, the Peoples’ Democratic Uhuru Movement proposed that the majority black section of St. Petersburg, Florida be separated from the rest of the city into a sovereign municipality. There is no reason why such an arrangement could not be put into place in all American cities with sizable black sections. The only serious criticism of this approach is that the disconnected black communities might degenerate into Bantustans of the type the former South Africa was famous for. At least a partial solution to this problem would be for sovereign black muncipalities and their satellite towns and villages to be federated into larger “black nationalist” states on a national or regional basis. There is certainly sufficient precedent for such a territorially disconnected nation. One need only think of the United Kingdom at its height with its scattered island states and protectorates.

Civil liberties, police powers, and incarcerated persons?

It is well-known that the United States maintains the world’s largest prison population. More than one quarter of all the world’s prisoners reside in US prisons. A grossly disproportionate number of these are blacks or other minorities. A comprehensive amnesty program is essential to any serious effort to dismantle the US Leviathan state. As a model for amnesty, we might look to that implemented by Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, prior to the commencement of the current war. Most prisoners were given full amnesty, foreign spies excepted. Thieves were pardoned on the condition of victim restitution. Even violent criminals had their sentences communted if the victim or the victim’s mother agreed to a pardon. If this was good enough for Saddam Hussein, it ought to be good enough for anti-state radicals in North America. Under such a general amnesty, the only remaining prisoners would be those who refused to compensate victims or whose crimes were serious enough to discourage the victim from granting a pardon. The rest of the prison population, from tax evaders to drug vendors to owners of “illegal” firearms to those convicted of violations of arcane regulatory statutes, would simply be cleared out. Likewise, those imprisoned for self-defense, whether against common criminals or the government (for example, Leonard Peltier, the surviving Branch Davidians or those resisting “no-knock” raids) should also be granted amnesty. Additionally, panels of legal experts should be commissioned to review the cases of those convicted of even the most serious crimes. Given the notorious incompetence of the US legal system, it is likely a significant number of these are innocent.

On crime, I propose the following approach: We should be tough on crime, but equally tough on cops, courts and laws. On the issues of legal restrictions on the investigative and arrest powers of the police, the powers of the courts to prosecute the accused and impose sentences, and the powers of penal institutions to hold incarcerated persons and the conditions they are held under, we should take positions as “liberal” as those of the ACLU, the National Lawyers Guild and beyond. However, when it comes to the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, to use them in defense against criminals and to form private organizations (neighborhood watches, militias, posses, private security guard services, vigilance committees and common law courts) for the purpose of mutual self-protection against crime (including government crime), we should take positions as “conservative” as the Gun Owners of America, the Michigan Militia and beyond.

Now, we would not want to interfere with general free speech rights by prohibiting panhandling. Nor would we want to interfere with geuninely poor or disabled people, runaways kids or others who wish to be peaceful beggars. Nor do we want to kowtow to bourgeoise elements who object to the presence of such lumpen elements as an “eyesore”, “blight” or, more specifically, a perceived threat to real estate values. We certainly do not want to turn public streets into “Official Police Property”.

The perspective offered here is far more “liberal” than anything put forth by the Democratic Party or even the Green Party in many instances. Indeed, this outlook could be classified as “rightist” only in the sense that it rejects univeralism, utopianism, and radical egalitarianism, and the necessarily and inevitably totalitarian nature of these. As for the question of “what the process of building such an alliance, and the terms on which allies might ally themselves with each other, looks like”, this is from “Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire“:

Indeed, domestic American politics tends to be driven by single-issue movements and organizations rather than ideological ones. Raw ideology pushers tend to find little success in US politics. With this consideration in mind, the question becomes one of how to best formulate a successful single-issue anti-state movement. Several possible constituents for such a movement have already been discussed. The emergence of a single issue anti-state party or organization that included the agendas of each of the various localist and regionalist movements would likely be a good start. There is no reason why there cannot be a party, or alliance of parties, that simultaneously favors the independence of Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Texas, the South, numerous local communities, and religion/ethnicity based separatists like the Nation of Islam, Christian Identity, Aztlan, indigneous peoples and others. Such advocacy of regional/local autonomy should be accompanied by an emphasis on populist structural changes. Norman Mailer’s suggestion of decentralizing the governments of large metropolitan areas down to the neighborhood level coincides nicely with the objective of sovereign townships or county supremacy found in the patriot/constitutionalist milieu.

The efforts of the American Civil Liberties Union to defend the civil rights of all sorts of groups who come under attack from the state, ranging from neo-nazis to pornographers, might also be emulated. There are many such groups who are currently ignored by mainstream political organizations. These include home schoolers, “cults” or marginal religious denominations, intentional communities, so-called “hate” groups, prisoners and their families, opponents of the war on drugs, gun rights militants, tax resisters and many others. It is important to remember that a movement for political decentralization should employ a decentralized strategy. This means that the same tactics will not be appropriate in all situations. For example, anarchists working in urban or metropolitan areas should naturally take a political line that is considerable further to the left than anarchists working in rural areas or among more conservative population groups. The anti-racist/feminist/gay rights cultural paradigm that dominates the modern left might well be applicable in those communities that it is suited for, such as large cities with huge minority populations and where the prevailing values are cosmospolitan in nature. However, this would clearly not be an appropriate model for rural Kansas. For anarchists to persistently push “the right to bear arms” in liberal Connecticutt would probably be a waste of time. For anarchists to agitate for gay causes in small Tennessee towns would likewise be rather futile. So-called “extremists” from all points on the political spectrum might be rallied as the core constituents of the anti-System forces.

It is essential to remember that the anarchist movement itself (properly and constructively organized) is not necessarily a mass movement per se but only the intellectual and activist vanguard of a broader populist movement containing many different tendencies. The role of the anarchists is serve as the coordinating mediators conceived of by Mark Gillespie or the principled militants envisioned by Mikhail Bakunin. The decentralized organizational efforts of the anarchists would necessarily involve a scenario where the character of the anti-System movement varied considerably in its specific ideological, cultural, religious or ethnic orientation on a geographical or institutional basis. Across the American heartland, in the Deep South and in the mountainous regions, the anarchists might assemble a coalition of tax resisters, home schoolers, gun nuts, conspiracy theorists, pro-lifers, Christian fundamentalists, common law enthusiasts, farmers rights advocates, land rights advocates, “cults”, racists, libertarians, militiamen and other elements common to the political culture of rightwing populism. In large metropolitan centers, inner-cities, border areas and coastal regions, a similar coalition might include militants and separatists from the various minority groups, advocates for all sorts of class based social issues (gentrification, housing, environment), gays and other “sexual minorities”, all sorts of countercultural groups, students, street gangs and other official outlaws, communists, left-wing “anarchists” and others.

Among the affluent elements of American society, such as the realm of suburbia, it is probably best if the ranks of the revolutionaries draw heavily from the youth population. Opposition to the great oppressor of youth-the state’s school systems-might be the key issue. It is also important to note that class distinctions in modern liberal democratic states are somewhat more blurred than they may have been in previous times. Any authentic populist revolutionary movement would naturally have to include persons from all class levels. The task of the genuine anarchists, who will always be a small minority, even in Official Anarchist circles, is to coordinate and guide formal and informal alliances among such disparate groups. The kinds of issue and ideology based constituent groups being described here would provide the grassroots base for the broader anarchist agenda. But there remains the question of how to appeal to the broader public. A party/organization that combined local and regional autonomy, defense of social groups under attack by the state, recruited disparate elements from the cultural fringes as its activist/support base and maintained a decentralized infrastructure would also have to develop a populist program for the masses.

What my enemies and critics really object to is my refusal to endorse their program of cultural leftist universalism synthesized with mass immigration (which are incompatible goals anyway, and not particularly radical or anti-establishment goals) and not any lack of “inclusivity.”

Gottfried Smashes the Neocons Head-On Reply

This is great stuff.

Picking Apart Washington’s Scum 

“As everyone and his cousin knows, the neocons are my least favorite “Washington insiders” and they divide generally into two categories, the ill-mannered, touchy Jews and their groveling or adulatory Christian assistants.”

That’s a priceless line there.

The Stupid and Evil Party 

As the “sensitivity” net widens and as unauthorized questions about race, gender, and lifestyle are put outside the limits of “sensitive” dialogue, we will suffer as an already diminished free society. While there is plenty of blame to go around for this situation, the GOP has done its part here, in its desperate hunger for minority votes. As a right-of-center party, which it sometimes claims to be, it should be fighting for economic freedom, distributed governing powers, and an end to the war against discrimination, understood as making us speak like graduates of a multicultural indoctrination session. Now the GOP has moved out in front as an advocate of leftwing thought and speech control.

PC Purists

Presumably being a Republican, no matter what the party leaders say, identifies the party loyalist as a white Southerner. One might also observe, as Lew Rockwell has many times, that the South is full of military installations and disproportionately represented among military forces. Given such a connection, white Southerners with fading historical memories don’t seem to care about supporting a party that condemns the display of Confederate flags and praises the glories of Reconstruction. After all, the GOP is good at providing military build-ups and military engagements.

The GOP may go from waffling into strongly backing affirmative action as well as speech control in the name of sensitivity. Providing it can hold on to the business interests it serves, offer military opportunities for certain constituents, and pacify the Religious Right by allying itself with the Zionist Right and critics of abortion rights, the GOP could possibly move to the left on minority outreach, without incurring any major defections in its ranks.

Every day I run into people who were once Republicans but are now disgusted by how the GOP has betrayed the American heritage of freedom. I trust this disgust will become even more widespread and that it will generate support for an alternative party, one that is serious about a return to small, decentralized government and about opposing the tyranny of Political Correctness. Needless to say, I don’t expect the Republican leadership to help forge such a party. They are the opposition that would have to be dealt with if such an alternative can prevail.

Does Immigration Limitation Require a Police State? 13

Says one of my critics:

“…my problem with Keith Preston’s approach is not that he suggests identifying and allying with criminalized, marginalized, or lumpen people. My problem is, first, that he has what I consider a disastrously selective view of whose criminalization and marginalization counts as legitimate libertarian concern (=). And, secondly, that he has the wrong idea about what the process of building such an alliance, and the terms on which allies might ally themselves with each other, looks like.

(=) Hence, for example, his bizarre efforts coddle pseudo-populist Right-wingers who support the immigration police state and the mass criminalization of people without papers. Whereas on my view, if you’re concerned about identifying with the most criminalized, marginalized, exploited and oppressed, it would be harder to find a better place to start than with standing up for the rights of “illegal alien” workers confronting the border Stasi without government papers.”

The first problem here is the fact that the Stasi were oriented towards keeping people inside the German Democratic Republic, rather than keeping immigrants out, and repressing political dissent among East Germany’s captive native population. Beyond that, however, is the wider question of whether immigration limitation by itself requires a police state. No doubt there are plenty of anti-immigration enthusiasts who would like nothing better than a police state hunt-down of suspected illegal immigrants. No doubt the militarization of U.S. law enforcement generated by the various “Wars on…” (pick one) drugs, crime, guns, gangs, terrorism, vice, cults, racism, sexism, poverty, urban blight, child abuse, animal abuse, et. al. ad nauseum has at times included police state tactics in immigration enforcement as well (see the shenanigans of Uber-PIG Joe Arpaio).

But is a fascist police state essential to the restriction or limitation of immigration? Iceland  and Switzerland are among the most restrictive of the European nations concerning their immigration policies. Yet both of these are widely considered to be among the most progressive and libertarian of all nations anywhere. Iceland has no standing army, and bars nuclear weapons from its territory. Neither of them maintains the death penalty, and neither will extradite fugitives to the U.S. who may face capital punishment. Some years ago, an Icelandic court refused to extradite a fugitive to the U.S. because of the conditions found in U.S prisons. Switzerland is one of the world’s most non-belligerent nations. There are certainly no signs of fascism here.

Does immigration restriction even require a state of any kind? If the Spanish anarchist militias had been triumphant in the civil war, could they not have proceeded to safeguard the borders of the Spanish territory following victory? The Hezbollah militia of Lebanon is a non-state entity, yet it is an effective fighting force. Hezbollah is not only capable of guarding the Lebanese border, but of repelling an actual Israeli occupation. Likewise, the Armed Forces of the Colombian Revolution are a non-state entity, yet they have at times successfully held substantial portions of Colombian territory. Could not the FARC also safeguard its territorial boundaries?

What about all of the different kinds of territories within the United States itself where entry is restricted? These include industrial parks, office complexes, shopping centers, schools and universities, recreational facilities, country clubs, gated communities, stadiums, private neighborhoods, airports, bars and nightclubs, and private homes. All of these territories impose at least some degree of limitations on who may or may not enter. Those who do not buy a ticket are forbidden from entering theaters and stadiums. Those who do not pay a cover charge or have an ID are refused admission to bars. Those without a membership are denied entry to private clubs. Entry into schools is typically restricted to students, parents, employees, and others with authorized business. Even ordinary commercial facilities impose some minimal requirements for entry: “Shirts and Shoes Required”; “No Smoking”; “No Playing Loud Music”; “No Pets or Animals”; “No Rude or Aggressive Behavior.”

Of course, it might be argued that all of the aforementioned are private or semi-private institutions and organizations, as opposed to public streets, sidewalks, thoroughfares, lands, waterways, and airways. Yet most of these things are currently owned not by “the public” but by the state, which anarchists and the most radical libertarians ostensibly consider to be illegitimate. If the state were to disappear, into whose hands would such “public” areas fall? The anarcho-capitalist solution is to place these in the hands of private landowners, whether individual or collective in nature. The geo-anarchists prefer land trusts. Left-anarchists and libertarian-municipalists would prefer community control on the basis of some kind of Athenian model “direct democracy.” Syndicalists might prefer that all public services be put under “workers’ control,” meaning that, for instance, public streets and highways would be under the management of the highway workers’ and street maintenance workers’ unions. Mutualists might prefer “consumer control,” meaning, for instance, airports might be managed by, say, associations of frequent flyers or consumers of airline services. Whatever model or combination of models one prefers, it is quite possible that at least some of these kinds of entities would enact entry requirements at least as restrictive as those currently in existence.

There are other possibilities. Upon the demise of the state, perhaps all public properties and areas could be ceded to “squatters’ rights.” The first person to show up and pitch a tent on a piece of land in Yellowstone Park gets to keep the lot. Perhaps all public areas could simply be declared “No Man’s Lands” akin to present day Antarctica or remote desert or mountainous regions. Perhaps these might be areas where everything is a free-for-all, and where even ordinary criminal laws do not apply. I confess that if such a proposal came up for vote in a national referendum, the nihilist in me might well take over and I might not be able to resist the impulse to vote in favor of it. But how many people really think this would be a desirable state of affairs?

Either way, from where can the principle be deduced that a stateless or near-stateless society, nation, or territory would necessarily maintain unrestricted entry? Even if public areas were “No Man’s Lands” could not a xenophobic militia simply organize and drive away unwanted migrants? In contemporary Western-model societies, much of the mass immigration we presently observe is not simply occurring according to natural patterns of population movement, but is actively encouraged, promoted, and subsidized by the state. See here and here for some examples of how this works. I suspect this trend could be reversed if the support given to mass immigration by state and corporate policies was simply ended. Much of this immigration is economic in nature. Take away the economic incentives, and the overall amount of immigration should diminish. Indeed, there are some signs that the present economic situation is having such an effect.

I’m not going to go into the problems with allowing mass immigration from the Third World into the West. I’ve already written about that in the past and have really said all I have to say about the matter. See here and here. Critics already understand the potentially rather severe consequences of this. Proponents of mass immigration generally make it clear that they don’t care about the consequences. But when Islamic revolutionary parties start becoming competitive in European elections, and there’s a replay of the Mexican War complete with good old fashioned ethnic cleansing in the U.S. Southwest, don’t say us dirty, rotten, fascist, racist, nationalist, right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic bigots didn’t warn you. 

Some interesting articles on immigration:

How Can An Armenian-American Oppose Immigration? It’s Easy! by John Attarian

Liberalism and America’s Immigration Policy by John Attarian

Beyond Open or Closed Borders by Laurence Vance

Immigration Symposium by David Gordon

Nader on Immigration by Matt Welch

An American Indian View of Immigration by David Yeagley

From the Great Society to the Great Betrayal by Rob Freeman

Switzerland: A Model for America on Immigration by Srdja Trifkovic

Updated News Digest January 10, 2010 Reply

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

Community Organizing and National-Anarchism presentation by Andrew Yeoman

Tribal Anarchism Video Series Parts One, Two, Three, Four

United Anarchism Vs United Nationism 

Quotes of the Week:

“Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They are conflicts between two rights.”

“Governments have never learned anything from history, or acted on principles deducted from it.”

“Mere goodness can achieve little against the power of nature.”

“Nothing great in the world has ever been accomplished without passion.”

“Once the state has been founded, there can no longer be any heroes. They come on the scene only in uncivilized conditions.”

                                                                         -Georg Wihelm Friedrich Hegel
First Circle: Liberty Has Been Lost by Paul Craig Roberts

Faith in the System is at an All-Time Low by David Brooks

Interview: Taylor Somers of Occident from Amerika.Org

Feminist Gulag: No Prosecution Necessary by Stephen Baskerville

The American Elite by William Blum

Small Government Conservatives Who Worship the State by Kevin Carson

Full-Spectrum Civilian Disarmament by William Norman Grigg

Three Cheers for the Swiss by Paul Green

Fake “Journalist” Defends a Forgery by Justin Raimondo

Nuclear Poker With Iran by Pat Buchanan

The War on Terrorism Is About Scaring People, Not Protecting Them by Gary Younge

The Pictures of War You Aren’t Supposed to See by Chris Hedges

The Long War: Who’s Winning?…It Ain’t America by Justin Raimondo

Robert Owen: Welsh Radical and Co-operative Pioneer by Troy Southgate

A War We Can’t Afford by Doug Bandow

Serial Catastrophes in Afghanistan Threaten Obama Policy by Juan Cole

The Fear Decade: We’ve Embraced Our Inner Coward by Ted Rall

They Hate Us for Our Freedom by Glenn Greenwald

Gerald Celente’s Predictions for 2010 by Amy Judd

Protect the Children: Shut Down the Schools by Jerome Kohn

Our Prole-Inducing Public Schools by R.C. Murray

Understanding the “Unserious Empire” by Karen Kwiatkowski

New Hampshire Looks to Nullify Federal Gun Laws by Michael Boldin

Stop the Western Left Before It Kills Again by Robert Lindsay

Are U.S. Forces Executing Afghan Kids? by Dave Lindorff

The Ugly Fortress  by Patrick Cockburn

Revenge and Retaliation in Gaza by Lynda Brayer

How China’s Attempts to Censor the Internet Are Failing from Techdirt

Bummer by Cheryl Cline

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves by Thomas Knapp

You Are In Control by John Robb

Presidential Lunacy by Walter Williams

Yet Another Reason to Secede by Patrick Samuels

The CIA, Narcotics, and the Underworld Doug Valentine interviewed by Susan Mazur

The Food Crisis for Dummies by Eric deCarbonnel

CIA Killings Spell Defeat in Afghanistan by Doug Valentine

First It Was Cigarettes, Now It’s Food by J.H. Huebert

Your Kids Belong to Us by William Norman Grigg

France to Ban “Psychological Violence” by David Kramer

Marijuana Reform for Czechs by Manuel Lora

Drones to Patrol the Skies Above American Cities by Charles Featherstone

Joan Rivers Barred from Flying by David Kramer

More Than 40,000 New Laws by Manuel Lora

Old Blackwater Keeps On Rollin’ by Jeff Huber

Where’s the Beef, Mr. Murdoch? by Philip Giraldi

Counterterrorism in Shambles; Why? by Ray McGovern and Coleen Howley

A Dual System of Justice by Jacob Hornberger

Good Morning, Yemen? by Leon Hadar

Another Iranian Revolution? Not Likely by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett

Bodyscanning Captain Underpants by Julian Sanchez

Civilian Trials and the So-Called Rule of Law by Glenn Greenwald

History Will Judge War on Terror Architects by Olivia Ward

Getting Away With Torture by David Cole

Vanunu: Our Duty to Speak Up by Duncan Campbell

Peter Hitchens and the British National Party by Bede

Ron Paul Slaps Down Dick Cheney by Red Phillips

Steve Forbes to Endorse Rand Paul by Red Phillips

The War on Afghanistan’s Environment by Josh Frank

The Media Vultures by Ramzy Baroud

Panic in Needle Park: Return of the Fear Mongers by Anthony Papa

When Does It Become Genocide? by Nadia Hijab

Dennis Steele for Vermont Governor in 2010 by Matthew Cropp

More Than Left and Right by James Leroy Wilson

Rapists on Patrol by Rad Geek

From Anarcho-Capitalist to Libertarian Socialist by Francois Tremblay

The Sheriff is Coming! The Sheriff is Coming! by Katherine Mangu-Ward

That’ll Show ‘Em by Kevin Carson

Ben Franklin on Patents  by Sheldon Richman

The Backfiring of the Surveillance State by Glenn Greenwald

The Collapse of Elite Authority from Armed and Dangerous

Only the Guilty Need Fear-But We’re All Guilty by Kevin Carson

Anarchy 2010: The Time Is Now by Alex R. Knight III

The Coming Food Shortage by Arthur Sim

It’s Illegal Not to Be a Government Victim by Bill Sardi

33 Conspiracy Stories That Turned Out to Be True by Jonathan Elinoff

The CIA, AFL-CIO, and Drug Smuggling by Doug Valentine

The Big Blue Crime Wave by William Norman Grigg

Heroin High School by James Ostrowski

Perverted Police by William Norman Grigg

John Stockwell vs the CIA by Lew Rockwell

Anarcho-Africa by John James

Yet Again: Don’t Call 911 and Don’t Help the PIGS by William Norman Grigg

Our Stupid Foreign Policy by Jack Hunter

More Cause and Effect In Our Ever Expanding War by Glenn Greenwald

The Naked Truth About Airport Scanners by Steve Chapman

What’s the Difference Between Obama’s Anti-Terrorism Policies and Bush’s? by Jacob Sullum

Afghan Nobody Faces Trial By Military Commission by Andy Worthington

Acting Responsible  by Alexander Cockburn

How the Teamsters Beat Goldman-Sachs by Andrew Cockburn

Giving the Homeless the Cold Shoulder by Walter Brasch

Pakistan and the Afghan Insurgency by Brian M. Downing

Naked Empire by Saul Landau

Officer Involvement from Rad Geek

Chomsky’s Augustinian Anarchism by Roderick Long

Conservatism vs the Past from Rad Geek

The Broken Logic of Statism by Don Cooper

Resistance Is Not Futile by Josh Eboch

Big Government and Big Business: Cojoined Twins by Thomas Knapp

Why Africa Has Gone to Hell by James Jackson

Democracy: Another God That Failed by Pat Buchanan

“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

They Hate Us for Our Foreign Policy Michael Scheuer interviewed by Scott Horton

Afghanistan and Vietnam Daniel Ellsberg interviewed by Scott Horton

The Permanent Crisis Eric Margolis interviewed by Scott Horton

The Forged Iranian Nuclear Documents George Maschke interviewed by Scott Horton

America, Get It Together Cindy Sheehan interviewed by Scott Horton

How Not to Run a World Empire Philip Giraldi interviewed by Scott Horton

Hastert and Heroin Sibel Edmonds interviewed by Scott Horton


How To Flex Your Rights During Police Encounters 

“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

Long Time by Angel

Jet Boy by the New York Dolls

Delilah by the Sensational Alex Harvey Band

Please Don’t Judas Me  by Nazareth

Strange Band by Family

Lord Have Mercy On My Soul (Halls of Karma) by Black Oak Arkansas with Ruby Starr

Burnin’ Whiskey by Ruby Starr and Grey Ghost

D.O.A.  by Bloodrock

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Small Town America’s Growing Voice of Rage Is a Force to Be Reckoned With 

Pareto Redux 

“Racist”-A Word Invented by Leon Trotsky

Pray for Michael Brewer 

No, Obama Isn’t a “Far Leftist” 

Hemp Oil and Cancer 

An Introduction to American Third Position 

Window Cleaning Chemical Injected Into Fast Food Hamburger Meat 

Tolkien and Politics 

U.S. Maoist Says Revolution Is Near 

The Mind-Expanding Harvard Psychedelic Club 

Lawrence Welk Meets Velvet Underground 

Americans Job Satisfaction Falls to Record Low

Keeping the Ruling Junta in Power 

Real Video Footage of Custer Veterans 

Obama-Bernanke Recovery Is Actually a Dangerous Bubble

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

“The king is most wounded by ridicule.” -Thomas Hobbes

Black Liberation Army (A European's View) 1


The Black Liberation Army (BLA) was a rare phenomenon in the annals of modern American terrorism: a group that intended to kill and did kill multiple times, and that killed with guns rather than bombs. Beginning in 1971 the BLA went to war against the police in several big cities across the country. Its members ambushed patrolmen and assaulted police stations in an effort to expel the “pigs” from their communities. In turn the BLA guerrillas were intensively hunted, and many were killed or wounded in shoot-outs with the authorities. Even from jail they continued the war, organizing escape attempts and freeing captured comrades. In later years remnants of the BLA robbed banks and armored cars, shooting guards and police officers who resisted. Their last job left a bloody mess at an on-ramp to the New York State Thruway on October 21, 1981.


Rule number six of the Black Panther Party (BPP) stated that “No party member can join any other army force, other than the Black Liberation Army.” The rules were drawn up in 1968, about two years after the founding of the Panthers, and BLA clandestine units were probably first established in that year. But these were self-defense squads; they did not engage in offensive actions at the start or issue communiqués. While some Black Panthers were involved in police shootings by the late 1960s, or engaged in crime or fought with rival groups, this violence did not rise to the level of terrorism. The BLA only turned to terrorism when the Black Panther Party was coming apart, in the first months of 1971.  The split occurred when Huey Newton, Minister of Defense of the BPP, expelled Eldridge Cleaver and his followers in the New York branch of the party. The rift in part reflected philosophical differences — Newton was pulling back from armed struggle in 1971 while Cleaver believed that the war had already begun. But the clash also stemmed from personal jealousies, and it was intensified by government manipulation. The FBI’s COINTELPRO (Counter-Intelligence Program) initiative spread false rumors within the party and inflamed the suspicions of the two camps. Newton ousted the Cleaver faction on February 26, 1971, and the two groupings soon drew blood from one another. On March 9 the West Coast Panthers assassinated Robert Webb, a Cleaver loyalist. The East Coast Panthers retaliated on April 17, killing Samuel Napier, the circulation manager of Newton’s paper. Napier was bound, shot, and then set on fire by men who would begin a war with the police a few weeks later in the name of the BLA.

These men were loyal to Cleaver, but Cleaver did not direct the BLA or participate in its actions. At the time he was living in exile in Algeria as head of the International Section of the Panthers. He would return to the United States in 1975, become a born-again Christian a year later, and eventually join the Republican Party. But in 1971 Cleaver and his allies believed that “we have to fight a revolutionary struggle for the violent overthrow of the United States government and the total destruction of the racist, capitalist, imperialist, neo-colonialist power structure.” Blacks were living in Babylon, slaves to a fascist despot bent on the genocidal destruction of peoples of color across the globe. They had to fight back, “forcing all those responsible for oppression to realize that they too can bleed, they too can feel our pain. Only when this is realized … will we be conceded our right to self-determination.”  A prison poem by one of the captured BLA guerrillas suggests the logic of armed struggle:

i believe a people wronged
are duty bound to make it right
valid claims long gone unanswered
justifies the fight.
“Liberation and Land”
is my slogan
war without terms
on the ruling class
no pie for me, you see
i want some ass
Off the Pigs!

War without terms commenced on May 19, 1971, the birth date of Malcolm X. Two officers guarding the residence of the prosecutor in the Panther 21 trial were lured into a trap. A car drove the wrong way down the street and the squad car gave chase. A few blocks away someone in the fleeing vehicle opened fire with an automatic weapon, seriously wounding both officers. Two days later the press received the first communiqué from the BLA:

The armed goons of the racist government will again meet the guns of oppressed third world peoples as long as they occupy our community and murder our brothers and sisters in the name of American law and order. Just as the fascist marines and Army occupy Vietnam in the name of democracy and murder Vietnamese people in the name of American imperialism are confronted with the guns of the Vietnamese liberation army, the domestic armed forces of racism and oppression will be confronted with the guns of the black liberation army, who will meet out in the tradition of Malcolm and all true revolutionaries real justice.

That very day, May 21, the BLA struck again. Two patrolmen were ambushed outside a public housing development in Harlem, struck from behind and at close range with automatic-weapons fire. Both were killed. One of the officers was black — a traitor to his people according to the BLA.
Two weeks later, on June 5, there was a break in the case. Four men were arrested during an armed robbery at a private social club in the Bronx. Three of the men were BLA members and had been indicted for the murder of Sam Napier. Ballistic tests on their submachine gun revealed that it had been used in the May 19 shooting. The next attacks claimed by the BLA came in late August, after the death of “Soledad Brother” George Jackson during a prison breakout. Jackson was an articulate and fiery advocate of armed struggle, revered by far-left revolutionaries. Although three guards had their throats slit during Jackson’s escape attempt, his advocates insisted that Jackson had been set up or killed in cold blood.

Weatherman bombed the California State Department of Corrections after Jackson’s slaying, harming no one, but the BLA wanted blood. Several BLA members belonged to the Panther 21, and the Panther 21 had chastised Weatherman for its bloodless terrorism. The Panther defendants insisted that “just to be ready to die does not make a revolutionist.” Militants “MUST be ready to KILL to change conditions. Revolution is ARMED STRUGGLE — revolution is VIOLENCE — revolution is WAR — revolution is BLOODSHED.”

Acting on this philosophy, a black man walked into the Ingleside police station in San Francisco on the night of August 29, 1971, and fired a shot-gun blast into the chest of the desk sergeant, killing him instantly. Outside, his accomplices peppered the station with gun fire, wounding a female clerk. Two days later the authorities received a note claiming the assault in the name of the BLA. A communiqué published in Cleaver’s journal Right On warned that “if one drop of Black Blood is shed, the sons and daughters of Malcolm will rise and pig blood will flow like a river wherever pigs exist. Woe unto those who cannot swim.”

But it is not clear whether the San Francisco assailants were connected with the New York BLA. The Black Liberation Army was not a disciplined and hierarchical unit able to coordinate attacks across the country. Rather, it was a concept and a name which black militants could employ to communicate their agenda and express solidarity with other African Americans engaged in armed struggle. The label was not trade-marked and the BLA issued no membership cards. You were in the BLA if you took up the gun and used it in the name of the organization.

The San Francisco BLA perpetrated other attacks during the last week in August. It fired a 66 mm. anti-tank gun at the Mission police station and firebombed a branch of Bank of America. Two militants pulled alongside a squad car and tried to spray it with an automatic weapon, but the gun jammed. They were captured and the pistol of one of the officers killed on May 21 in New York was found in their possession. Meanwhile the New York section of the BLA fled the city in late summer to escape the intense manhunt. They rented two houses in Atlanta, stockpiled weapons and explosives, produced false identification, and trained daily in the yards. They also robbed banks and stores to raise funds for the war. Three of them were captured on November 7 during a holdup in a supermarket; they were suspected of having killed an Atlanta police officer four days earlier. But before the investigation was concluded the three managed to escape from the DeKalb County jail on December 12.

After the arrests in Georgia, the Atlanta cell scattered. On November 11, several were stopped by a sheriff’s deputy in Catawba County, North Carolina. The deputy was shot and killed but four BLA suspects were captured after a chase. On December 20, a patrol car in Queens was demolished by a grenade as it pursued a BLA vehicle. The officers were not injured by the explosion but the suspects escaped. On the last day of December another BLA member was cornered by FBI agents at a Florida motel and gunned down in an exchange of fire.

But on January 28, 1972, the BLA once again took the offensive. Two NYPD officers were ambushed on the Lower East Side, cut down by submachine-gun fire. The assailants stood over the fallen officers and emptied their magazines into the bodies. Shortly thereafter the authorities received a communication from the George Jackson Squad of the Black Liberation Army:

No longer will black people tolerate Attica and oppression and exploitation and rape of our black community. This is the start of our spring offensive. There is more to come. We also dealt with the pigs in Brooklyn.

The last sentenced referred to two recent incidents in which officers had been wounded by unknown attackers. The BLA next showed up in St. Louis on February 15. A gun battle erupted during a routine traffic stop and one officer was wounded. Others returned fire, killing one suspect and wounding two more. A search of the car turned up one of the pistols taken from the officers who were ambushed on January 28.

But then the trail went cold for almost a year. January 1973, however, was a bloody month. On the twelfth a BLA suspect wounded two off-duty housing detectives in New York. Twelve days later the NYPD cornered three BLA members at a bar, killing two in the shoot-out. In retaliation, the BLA ambushed patrol cars on January 25 and 28, wounding four officers. In its communiqué the BLA urged black cops “not to take arms against us and refuse to be pitted in mortal combat against their own people, defending a system which has enslaved, still exploits, brutalizes and murders black people.”

Another huge manhunt followed, but suspects were only captured after a traffic stop on the New Jersey Turnpike on May 2, 1973. The BLA fugitives opened fire, killing one state trooper and wounding another. Other troopers returned fire, killing one man and wounding a woman. A third suspect escaped. The woman was a reputed leader of the BLA, Joanne Chesimard (Assata Shakur). The authorities dubbed her “the soul of the Black Liberation Army.” But the organization was not broken yet. On June 5, 1973, a BLA member was chased by transit authority police in the Bronx for jumping the turnstile. He drew a gun, killing one patrolman and wounding the other. But the dying officer returned fire and hit the suspect, who was captured shortly thereafter.

The first phase in the life of the BLA came to an end on November 15, 1973, when one of the last BLA fugitives was gunned down on a street in the Bronx. During the arrest he pulled a gun and wounded an FBI agent, two police officers, and a bystander before being killed in a hail of bullets. He was the seventh BLA member to be killed by the authorities. Nineteen others had been apprehended by then, including the only white associate of the group, Marilyn Buck. She purchased weapons and ammunition for the BLA at gun shows but was arrested in March 1973.

In 1974 a group in Jacksonville, Florida, began abducting and murdering white youths. The group took credit for the killings in the name of the Black Liberation Army, declaring that the victims were “executed and made to pay for the political crimes that have been perpetrated upon black people.” But this BLA was not connected with the New York BLA and the four members were caught and convicted for the murders in 1975.

Busting Out

The second phase in the BLA’s war was fought in courtrooms, jails, and prisons. Several BLA members were acquitted or had charges dismissed or reduced, but most were convicted and received long sentences. Many did not resign themselves to this new Babylonian captivity, however. They plotted with comrades on the outside and made numerous attempts to escape. Several were successful. One BLA prisoner escaped from a county hospital on September 27, 1973, but he was recaptured a week later. On December 27, four BLA sympathizers were caught trying to break into the Tombs through the sewer system. Another four tried again on April 17, 1974, using a small blow torch to cut through a steel partition in a visitor’s booth. The attempt failed and the four fled. Several were tracked to New Haven and captured on May 4 after a shoot-out in which two police officers were wounded. On August 5, 1974, a woman was caught trying to sneak a hacksaw blade in her shoe to a BLA convict. A week later that convict and two other prisoners overpowered their guards and tried to scale a fence at the Brooklyn House of Detention. The BLA prisoner was shot and recaptured.

On February 17, 1975, BLA commandos in wet suits paddled rafts to Rikers Island and tried to free 11 comrades held there, but the attempt failed. On May 12 sympathizers smuggled explosives, mace, knives, wrenches, and lock picks to three BLA members on trial in the New York Criminal Courts Building. The materials were hidden in large envelopes and sat on a courtroom table all day before being discovered in the holding pen. Two weeks later two more BLA members broke free from their cell and tried to climb down a wall at the Brooklyn House of Detention. The improvised rope broke and one escapee plunged 100 feet to his death. The other inmate was recaptured at the outer fence.

There were other attempts too. A prison uprising in New Jersey was organized by a BLA convict. Marilyn Buck walked away from a prison furlough and went back underground. But the most famous escape attempt liberated “the soul of the BLA,” Joanne Chesimard. Several armed men forced their way into the minimum security facility where she was being held and led her out safely. The getaway vehicles were driven by Buck and another white woman from the M-19 organization. Chesimard was then spirited out of the country and into exile in Cuba. Her escape was a media sensation.

The Family

The final phase of the BLA story involves the Family, a mixed group of BLA members, white revolutionaries, and ordinary criminals. They were not an assassination team, as the earlier BLA had been, but instead robbed banks and armored cars. Some of the proceeds from the robberies were funneled to black nationalist groups, but the rest of the money was distributed within the Family.

The Family was headed by Nathanael Burns (Sekou Odinga), one of the Panther 21, who had fled underground in 1969. He was involved in a plot to bomb a police station in New York that summer but the plan was foiled by an undercover agent, who replaced the plastic explosives with an oatmeal concoction. Burns joined Eldridge Cleaver in exile in Algiers. When Cleaver fell out of favor with the Algerians, Burns returned to the United States in January 1974, after most BLA members had been captured. But he remained committed to the cause and helped organize the liberation of Chesimard.
The Family began its robbery spree in December 1976. Its attempts were not always successful, but with practice the sophistication of its attacks grew. The Family recruited a small, white revolutionary organization into its operation. M-19 (May 19 Communist Organization) was formed by a handful of ex-Weathermen (David Gilbert, Kathy Boudin, Susan Rosenberg, and Judith Clark) who remained underground after that organization disintegrated in 1976. M-19 provided cover for the BLA core of the Family; the whites drove the getaway vehicles to fool the authorities, who would be looking for black men.

On June 2, 1981, the Family netted nearly $300,000 from an armored car in the Bronx. But they killed one guard during the robbery and wounded another. The carnage was even greater, however, in their last job. The plan was to rob an armored car at a mall in upstate New York. Some of the proceeds were to be used to bomb a Brooklyn police precinct where one of the BLA members had been held. The robbery started well but ended badly. The gang made off with $1.6 million in cash but killed a guard and wounded two others in the process. A few minutes later the getaway truck was stopped at a roadblock. The white radicals were driving and the blacks burst from the back of the truck with guns blazing. They killed two police officers and wounded another. One of their own was mortally wounded by the return fire, and Marilyn Buck shot herself while pulling a pistol from her boot. The team then piled into several cars, but the one with the cash crashed during the chase and four members of the Family were apprehended. Others were captured in the days to come. The Black Liberation Army had come to an end in a hail of bullets.


Over the course of a decade BLA members killed at least 14 guards or law enforcement officers and wounded more than 20. Nine of their own died in action and more than two dozen were convicted of various crimes. At its height the police believed that the BLA (or at least its New York branch) consisted of 25 or 30 hard-core activists and another 75 sympathizers. Sixteen people belonged to the Family, including the M-19 associates.
Although they had no faith in the criminal justice system, several BLA members were acquitted at trial. Joanne Chesimard’s first trial ended in a hung jury; in the second she was acquitted of bank robbery; but in the third she was convicted of first-degree murder for the shooting of the New Jersey State Trooper. Henry Brown was acquitted for the murder of two police officers in January 1972 but convicted of several other charges. Richard Moore was found guilty in 1973 for the first BLA shooting, but eventually his conviction was thrown out and he was paid a large cash settlement by the government.

All of those involved in the October 1981 Brinks armored car robbery received long prison sentences. A few in the second tier of the Family have been released in recent years, but many participants will not be eligible for parole for several more decades.

Nov 2, 2009 “Assata Shakur Liberation Day” marks 30 yrs of freedom for our Comrade Assata Shakur, Our Warrior was liberated from a NJ prison by Comrades In The Black Liberation Army click here to read more or here www.assatashakur.com

No One True Culture of Liberty 2

Tolerance is important but difficult to define and easily subverted.

Daniel McCarthy

Libertarians ought to support a culture of liberty. But what does that mean?

Many scholars of liberty—the sociologist Rodney Stark, to name one—have argued that Western Christianity is the original culture of liberty. It ended classical slavery, improved the status of women, recognized the sanctity of the individual soul, and set the stage for a proliferation of private property rights and the spirit of enterprise throughout Europe as nowhere else. From all that, it may not follow that Christian culture is still the womb of liberty today. But conservatives and culturally right-wing libertarians believe it is.

Progressives and culturally left-leaning libertarians tell another story, in which Christianity is a seedbed of intolerance and repression—often violent repression. Libertarians of all stripes are comfortable enough condemning aggressive violence categorically. (Though even here questions arise: Who defines aggression? Is violence against a fetus in the womb aggression, or is it a defense of your right to your own body?) What kind of culture leads to minimal aggression and maximum freedom is a matter of contention. Tolerance is probably an important attribute of any culture of liberty, but tolerance is harder to define than liberty itself.

Consider: If McCorp fires John Doe because he voices support for gay marriage, a libertarian who subscribes to a progressive view of the world might say McCorp has committed an act of intolerance against Doe. But if Cold Harbor Laboratory fires a molecular biologist (let’s call him “James Watson”) because he states a belief that Africans have weak cognitive abilities, the same progressive libertarian may not believe any act of intolerance has occurred—or, if one has, that Watson is the guilty party. After all, can you foster a culture of liberty in a society polluted by views like Watson’s? If that example seems too easy, consider the case of an otherwise qualified professor denied tenure because he’s a creationist, or because he’s a Republican.

Must a free society treat those who hold irrational or bigoted opinions the same way it treats those who have enlightened views? To do so, Herbert Marcuse warned, amounts to “repressive tolerance,” a kind of tolerance that allows fascist personality types to flourish and thereby undermines freedom. Right-wingers have their own list of views that must be suppressed (by force or by social stigma) in the name of freedom. Willmoore Kendall, for example, believed that public orthodoxy ought to trump free speech, since all liberties rest upon a cultural consensus. Thus, according to Kendall, Athens was right to execute Socrates, and 1950s America ought not to tolerate Communists. For disciples of Marcuse and Kendall, freedom really isn’t free.

Maybe a true culture of liberty has nothing to do with left-wing or right-wing orthodoxies. Rather than taking sides in culture wars over race, religion, sex, and subversion, libertarians —so this line of thinking goes—ought just to affirm a culture that supports property rights. In this case, the libertarian position regarding John Doe or James Watson should be to support employers whenever they fire anyone, since (unless a contract specifies otherwise) an em-ployer always has a right to dismiss subordinates. But even this culturally neutral standpoint does not have an uncontested claim to be the pure libertarian view. Those who take their cues from John Stuart Mill will argue that expressive liberty is at least as important as property rights. We therefore ought to defend employees with unpopular views against arbitrary dismissal, regardless of whether we find their opinions righteous or repugnant.

If Mill is patron saint of the expressive libertarians, Murray Rothbard is the champion of the propertarians. Kerry Howley’s essay makes the case for a substantive left-libertarianism. She suggests the Ed Feser of 2001 as spokesman for the culturally right-wing libertarians. Today Feser, who has continued to move rightward, or at least stateward, is not a libertarian at all, which might seem to prove Howley’s point. But I held views not far from Feser’s in 2001, and I have followed a different trajectory. That Feser and I can move in different directions from similar cultural presuppositions might prove the point I want to make: that there is no one true culture of liberty.

The idea that only traditional attitudes, never progressive ones, can be oppressive strikes me as naive. Cultural progressives are as apt as anyone to make the leap from stigmatizing to persecuting their enemies. Scapegoating has been as useful for the authoritarian left as for the authoritarian right: Witness the hysteria about white separatists and right-wing militias that recurs every time a tolerant Democratic administration succeeds an intolerant Republican one. Randy Weaver, no less than Matthew Shepard, can attest to the consequences of demonizing misfits.

Nor do progressive attitudes toward sex and race necessarily lead to a culture of liberty. In the 1920s the Soviet Union was less racist and more sexually open than the United States. Divorce and abortion were legal and readily available, and more than a few Bolsheviks practiced as well as preached free love. Yet that did not make Russia a more fertile soil for liberty. Workers’ orgies were no defense against the power of the Soviet state, which soon revoked the moral license it had granted.

To point out the inadequacies of cultural progressivism is not to excuse the flaws of cultural conservatives. Either side may be more or less libertarian in practice. Paradoxically, the nonlibertarian qualities of the mutually antagonistic left and right sometimes entail unexpected benefits for freedom. Some of the most effective centers of resistance to state power over the centuries, after all, have been nonindividualistic institutions such as labor unions, churches, guilds, and extended families. Conversely, when libertarians attack these organs of civil society in the name of freedom, they may only succeed in empowering the state—not always, but sometimes.

If some libertarians won’t tell you what freedom should look like beyond the absence of the state, don’t assume that these people must subscribe to a crabbed idea of liberty or else are smuggling their values behind a veil of cultural neutrality. These anti-statists may refuse to define the cultural content of libertopia because they believe deeply in the pluripotentiality of freedom—that freedom can mean the freedom to be a Mormon housewife as well as to be a postgendered television personality. Freedom, they realize, may even mean the freedom not to be free. Libertarianism does not demand that everyone subscribe to the same idea of the good life. By extension, libertarianism also should not demand that everyone subscribe to the same idea of liberty.

Thoroughgoing anti-statists understand that politics is not culture, even if culture—that is, how people live their lives—shapes politics. What follows from this is that in letting culture remain diverse, anti-statists accept that politics will be diverse too and will not always lead to outcomes that all libertarians like. The political theorist Chandran Kukathas explains this well in his paper “Two Constructions of Libertarianism.” In what he calls the “Union of Liberty,” everybody has to interpret the rules in the same way, under one centralized libertarian government. In the “Federation of Liberty,” there is a “meta-tolerance” toward different understandings of tolerance and liberty because it is understood that other people interpret political rules, including the fundamental libertarian rule of nonaggression, in different ways.

The danger of the Federation of Liberty is that it permits violations of liberty, perhaps even outright slavery. The danger of the Union of Liberty, however, is much worse. The trouble is not only a universal state but a universal orthodoxy, a tyranny of the supermajority that threatens to destroy the individual personality. In culture, even tolerance, justice, and liberty can be carried too far. One must be permitted some room for error, psychological space for entertaining thoughts other than “libertarian” thoughts.

Consider the plight of Alex in the Anthony Burgess novel and Stanley Kubrick film A Clockwork Orange. By any standard—left, right, Millian, or Rothbardian—Alex is no libertarian. He’s a vandal, a murderer, a rapist (ipso facto a misogynist). He’s guilty of every crime. So why do so many of us sympathize with him? Our feeling for Alex derives from something deeper than mere horror at his eyes being pried open in the film’s famous torture scene. We have a right to, or better still a love for, what is inside our own skulls. If mental content, even good values like nonaggression, can be poured into Alex’s conscience as if he were nothing more than a vessel, the same could happen to any of us. Not only the state but also our culture must not press its demands so far into the individual conscience, whether by “justified” coercion (in the case of the killer Alex) or by any other means.

Our moral imperfections are our last guarantee of liberty against the benevolent system builders who would have all men and women speak with one voice and assent to one idea. Cultures of liberty tend to be bric-a-brac, full of unresolved tensions between competing ideas. Freedom does not depend upon universalizing the “right”—or left—values. It’s the other way around: A clash of values is what makes even mental liberty possible.

Daniel McCarthy (mccarthydp@gmail.com) is senior editor of The American Conservative.

The Bong and the Rifle Reply

The Bong and the Rifle

This article is way too heavy for many people.

Not all stoners are passive in their loathing of the War on Drugs–the pot-loving Green Panthers are preparing for armed struggle and the possibility of a separate stoner nation. Sound like the plot of Kurt Russel’s next post-apocalyptic flick? Read on

By Cletus Nelson

The tactics used by activists to voice their dissent against the prohibition of marijuana have changed very little since the 1960s. Despite the fact that the drive to legalize cannabis began in an environment that spawned such violent, armed groups as the Weather Underground and the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA), today’s hemp advocates are firm adherents to the peaceful protest.

Each year a myriad of non-threatening marches, candle-light vigils, demonstrations, and sit-ins are held in the hope of ending the herb’s illegal status. Although the tireless efforts of these many tie-dyed warriors are to be commended, the war against America’s pot smokers keeps escalating.

Casualties of war

The government’s own statistics betray this fact. Consider the FBI’s 1995 Uniform Crime Report, which shows a record 600,000 Americans arrested on marijuana charges. Of these, 86 percent were charged with the simple possession of a substance that has caused far fewer fatalities–zero, to be exact–than alcohol, tobacco, prescription medications, or aspirin.

Will Foster is a living example of a victim of the hysterical anti-pot crusade popular among politicians. The father of three and successful owner of his own software company sits in an Oklahoma prison after being handed a 93-year sentence for the “crime” of growing a few plants to help assuage his painful arthritic condition. High Times magazine reports that over 25 percent of the 1,630,000 prisoners in America’s prisons and jails are doing time for drug crimes, with the majority of these non-violent offenders serving sentences for growing or possessing marijuana.

“In 1994, at least 25 marijuana users were killed by police officers or died while in custody,” hemp activist Ed Rosenthal notes in “Why Marijuana Should be Legal.” This statistic alone gives evidence that these laws which were originally intended to protect the health of the public have long since strayed from their dubious goal. As the criminal prohibition of a herb that has yet to be linked to a single death continues, those who aren’t arrested (or dead) often live in constant fear of anonymous tips, urine tests, asset forfeiture, and other components of the “zero tolerance” juggernaut that continues to victimize law-abiding citizens.

Fighting the police state

Today, many a casual smoker must fearfully wonder if a paramilitary team of black clad “no-knock ninjas” brandishing semi-automatic weapons will break down their door in a dramatic pre-dawn raid. Out of this miasma of fear, oppression, and intolerance emerge the Green Panthers.

Shifting their focus from protest to resistance, the Panthers–referred to as the “fanged mouthpiece” of the hemp movement–are adjusting their tactics to a drug policy they predict will one day devolve into outright bloodshed on the cannabis using community. They openly reject the posture of non-violence and pacifism adopted by their ideological peers and have given up trying to “change the system.” This loosely based cadre of activists is boldly choosing to move in a different direction.

When a militia … isn’t a militia

Fiercely asserting their Second Amendment right to bear arms, the Panthers represent an interesting social phenomenon: They are the first marijuana group preparing to openly espouse armed rebellion against federal drug policy. Their strong defensive position is not unlike today’s burgeoning patriot movement. Although the two may share a common mistrust of the federal government and a firm belief in the right to own and bear arms, Terry Mitchell, one of the founding members of the Panthers, finds the comparison inaccurate.

“We found with very few exceptions–[members of] the militia movement think the drug war is a good idea,” he scoffs. The WACO siege, a rallying cry for militia groups, registers little with these new-model pot heads who have a strident dislike of drug war supporters. “As a group the Panthers have very little sympathy for them [Branch Davidians] because they were anti-druggies–Heaven’s Gate, too,” Mitchell says. Opinions such as these have not endeared him to local patriot groups and he says they have threatened his life on four different occasions.

However, they aren’t dealing with your typical bong-toking peacenik. “I can shoot the asshole out of a rat at a thousand yards,” snaps the native Texan.

Pipe bombers?

Headquartered in Cincinnati, OH, these hard-liners are mainly recognized by drug policy activists for their incendiary publication Revolutionary Times. However, if events occur as they predict, they may be the forward guard in a revolution among the nation’s tokers. The Panthers foresee a time when stoners will be forced to take up arms for their right to use what they call the holy herb.

“The actual dynamics of an armed struggle haven’t formed up yet,” says the 47-year-old activist. Articulate, well-read, and politically astute, Mitchell is emblematic of a growing segment of society who at one time “played by the rules,” but now view the Washington establishment as corrupt, and any attempts to change the system futile. Far from a backwoods political neophyte, the ex-’60s radical carries extensive experience as National Director of the Libertarian Party and in 1988 served as Assistant Director for the Washington, D.C. office of the National Organization for the Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML).

Armed pot-riots

The Panther finds no ethical dilemma in activists arming themselves. “We think an armed society is a polite society,” he says in his rich Texas twang which crackles over the phone like machine-gun fire. Mitchell believes the virulent anti-gun stance found among the modern left is unrealistic in the post-WACO 1990s.

“That actually is some hangover politics from the ’60s,” he observes. Above all, Mitchell says the Panthers hope to sound a much needed wake-up call to those who still believe these pernicious laws can be reformed.

“What we’re trying to convey to the pot movement is that the system isn’t the one we grew up with. ..the Tenth Amendment is a myth,” he says bitterly.

Birth of a movement

The genesis of the Panther weltanschaung began ironically in the backyard of the nation’s most powerful drug war hawks. Some eight years ago, a small core of firebrands gathered in Washington, D.C., hoping to provide a “new wrinkle” to end the senseless criminalization and harassment of America’s estimated 10,000,000 pot smokers.

Seeking to provide tools, strategy and political focus to other groups across the nation, they began to study the tactics used by fellow dissidents with other agendas.

“We had to get out the narrow focus of the pot movement,” Mitchell says. Analyzing the methods of such successful political factions as Aids Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP), Queer Nation, and Earth First!, Panther experts came to an interesting conclusion: The entrenched powers had quickly learned how to nullify these confrontational tactics, which the Panthers are convinced have become obsolete.

“Our enemies learn real fast–you try these methods of direct action now and you’ll get zilch,” he says heatedly.

Birth of a nation?

Their continued studies led the Panthers to come upon what Mitchell calls an “endgame strategy”: secession. “Once the US starts to rumble like the old Soviet Union did, that is when our people have the biggest opportunity in our cultural history,” Mitchell says enthusiastically.

He envisions a day when a repressive federal government will declare martial law, and the nation will be plunged into civil war–not unlike the post-Cold War conflicts that arose in many nations, such as the former Yugoslavia. When this time comes, the Panthers plan to be prepared.

The armed pot smokers and their supporters hope to stake out a coastal strip of land 20 miles from the Pacific Ocean beginning due north of San Francisco and extending 10 miles south of Portland. If they succeed, they will create what they call the first “Stoner Homeland.”

The nation will be based on libertarian values, community-based government and the Gross National Product will be high quality marijuana, and the many other products which can be produced with the versatile Cannabis sativa plant. Mitchell is a fatalist who is convinced this is the only choice left for the pot community.

“If we don’t win, nothing is lost. We were marked for extermination anyway,” he says.

A trend toward secession

Today’s post-modern mindset may find such an idea laughable, but a number of similar movements already dot the national landscape. The Nation of Islam, the Aryan Nations, and the well-publicized Republic of Texas are the most visible examples of the many divergent factions who view secession within America’s borders as the only antidote to an oppressive federal government.

The national Libertarian Party has noted this growing trend; their 1998 platform includes a plank calling for the “right to political secession–by political entities, private groups, or individuals.”

The Panther’s designated homeland was chosen for a number of reasons other than the high-quality buds indigenous to the region. Mitchell’s previous experience with NORML and the Libertarian party gave him insight into the marijuana-sympathetic demographics of the Pacific Northwest. While examining databases for both organizations, he found that the majority of the nation’s libertarians and card-carrying members of the pot legalization lobby reside in this small section of the country.

There is already a steady flow of bud smokers who have been relocating to the Pacific Northwest since the 1960s to escape draconian marijuana laws in their respective states. Terry believes the recent increase in arrests has exacerbated this trend.

“According to our sources in the areas, the migration has sped up considerably over the past five years due to the Drug War– with property seizures being the way they are, they have fewer things to move anyway,” he comments.

The new prospective country already has its own set of by-laws based on the U.S. Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and other landmark documents.

“Some of the best forward thinking minds came up with the by-laws,” he says.

Will the armed Panthers expect resistance from the government when they declare their sovereignty? Mitchell doesn’t expect it to be an obstacle.

“When our roadblocks go up on the highways and our voices start coming over the radios and televisions … we expect most of the cops and National Guard will have left their non-paying jobs and there won’t be much trouble with them,” he says optimistically. Those who choose to remain and possibly obstruct the new homeland will be promptly asked to leave.

“This will probably not be pretty,” Mitchell says. “But it is a political imperative. This calls for leadership that has nerves of steel and an iron determination not to be stopped,” he adds.

Maintaining the network

Currently, the Panthers believe the first step in achieving their homeland is providing vital intelligence to other dissident groups who stand opposed to the War on Pot. Their efforts include their unique “diagram of the war on drugs.”

Posted on their website, the chart tracks major anti-drug policy from the United Nations Office of Drug Control Policy in Vienna, Austria all the way down to what they term “snitch groups,” like the Girl Scouts of America and Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Mitchell says the schematic that alleges the United Nation micro-manages US anti-narcotic policy was originally met with skepticism by the reform community.

However, Terry points out that Global Days, a series of demonstrations held worldwide in June to protest the UN’s role in drug prohibition, was directly influenced by their efforts. ”

“A lot of people thought we had made it up–now we’re starting to see a real focus,” he says.

The information war

Gleaning information from teachers, scientists, police officers, military veterans, prisoners, and others, the Panthers publish Revolutionary Times (formerly the Revolutionary Toker), providing excellent coverage of the drug war. The small periodical scooped Time magazine and their non-mainstream competition last year when it reported on experiments conducted on behalf of law enforcement in the use of allegedly “non lethal” weapons, such as infra-sound technology.

Their publishing house, Panther Press, sells important survival materials for the ’90s pot smoker. Like a pot-focused Paladin Press, the Panthers distribute publications on building resistance groups, surviving police encounters, “guerrilla growing,” cold weather survival, and other vital resources for renegade bud smokers. They also furnish free legal referrals for busted potheads, and their POW support project raises the awareness of the prison population by sending free copies of Revolutionary Times to inmates.

On toward a “Stoner Homeland

These many activities lend credibility to a group of activists who appear to take themselves and their mission seriously. Could we one day see a stoner homeland enriched by hemp-related commerce flying their own flag–a white field bearing a large green pot leaf?

Mitchell hopes that if enough people get involved, America’s “last outcasts” will join them in fighting for their “light at the end of the tunnel.”

“I believe that the odds for the pot culture are better now than they ever have been for the formation of an independent Homeland,” he says. Mitchell grimly foretells a day when many will be faced with the choice of joining the Panthers or death.

“It’s either gonna be a Stoner Homeland or a stoners last stand,” he warns.

The Cincinnati Race Riots: Shades of Things to Come Reply

The Cincinnati Race Riots

Shades Of Things To Come

April 9 to 14, 2001

When the history of the 21st century is written, the record will undoubtedly show that one of the main sparks that led to Civil War II was the race riot in Cincinnati Ohio, in April of 2001.

This report is to inform readers of the intense nature of these events, in order that you may understand the full width and depth of the actions of both sides in this rioting. There is little in this report that has been published before, and is not just another article on the rioting. This riot was not some spontaneous event, which took its own course. Once it began, organized elements leapt to the fore and took command of the situation. It was far better organized than any previous riot.

Let it be said, first and foremost, that this was a full-fledged spasm of race war. It was short-lived, but it was intense and extremely dangerous to everyone involved. The details of which are listed below:

One of the most unusual effects of the discord was that it kept on going, seemingly without end. There were new rioters stepping into the fray, almost as fast as the police could snatch them off the street. The emotional charge of the riots was unchanged from beginning to end. The depth of rage in most of the rioters was beyond measure. Report after report came through local media of white people, when screaming for a reason they were being stomped by their black attackers, were told, “It’s because you’re white.” And, “This is a race thing.” These reports were seen and heard by hundreds of thousands of people on local news channels.

What started the riot? A young black man, Timothy Thomas, is wanted on 14 misdemeanor warrants, and had successfully run and escaped arrest on two previous occasions. Police chase him into a near pitch-black alley in Cincinnati’s worst neighborhood. Wearing the current down-to-your-knees, look-like-a-convict fashion, the guy is running holding his pants up. This puts his hands at waist level. Combine this hand position with a dark alley and a winded cop, and you’ve got a recipe for disaster. Essentially, that’s what happened. Yikes! POW! This is all said at the risk of defending the Cincinnati police, who are not “nice guys” either.

Two things happened on the first night of the riots:

Aside from the spontaneous explosion of rioting, there was a meeting held at a downtown church, The New Friendship Baptist Church, where ministers of the local black churches, the New Black Panthers, the Black United Front, family of the man killed by police, a local elected official, and a crowd of supporters gathered to compose themselves and plan a strategy.

Reverend Damon Lynch, of the Black United Front condemned the violence on the one hand, and encouraged it on the other: “The government will not change until we stand up in numbers,” and “Only through chaos will change come.”

Cincinnati beat cops, who ordinarily patrol the area were allowed entry to the church. The cops were invited to speak, but after stating, “The problem is not with the police, it’s with the parents,” the police were shouted down and run off with chants of “Pigs out of the building!”

Attendees then decided to march down to the site of the rioting with the ministers, the elected official and several nuns in the lead. They were met by a line of police who instructed them to stop, turn around and go back. After the ministers refused to leave, stating that they wanted to try and cool things down, police held a loaded shotgun to the head of the politician (Roland Heyne) and the order to leave repeated. Only then did the marchers obey the police and return to the church.

As fifty people stood on the steps of the church, five police cars roared by with their lights blinking. From the police cars a barrage of rubber bullets flew into the side and doors of the building, ricocheting and bouncing around. Miraculously, no one was hit. Absolutely none of this was reported in the news. One witness said she counted twenty shotgun blasts.

How could anyone in their right mind say that such actions by the police could possibly help the situation? If anything, it undoubtedly worsened everything.

Welcome to Somalia:

Most astonishing was the use of tactics out of Chechnya and Somalia used on the streets of Cincinnati. These included:

Confiscating needed equipment by the rioters: Need a cell phone? Smash somebody using one upside the head and take it. Need a pickup truck to turn into a “technical” like the ones used in Somalia? Just carjack one and use it. The transition from cars to pickup trucks was quick.

Featured in the April 11, 2001 Cincinnati Enquirer was a photo of seven rioters, some of them masked, in the back of a small truck. Add AK-47s and you’ve got a scene right out of Mogadishu. This time rioters used only pistols, shotguns and Molotovs.

The future of rioting

Willingness to destroy the infrastructure in order to accomplish their goals:

As in Grozny, Chechnya, repeated attempts were made to black out areas of the city by building fires in dumpsters beneath power lines, or rolling them under the lines and then setting the fire. These sort of fires received much greater attention by fire fighters than ordinary dumpster fires which were frequently left to burn themselves out. Had rioters been able to blackout downtown, their ability to move about unchallenged and fire weapons into police lines and into emergency vehicles would have been greatly enhanced. None of their attempts to knock out electricity were successful.

On the tactical level, the rioting had three distinct characteristics:

            Crowd actions: These were led by organized core groups of fifty or more people. These groups got larger as they moved along, and increased in violent activities as well. These crowds perpetrated the largest numbers of assaults against businesses and police lines.

            Squad size actions: These consisted mainly of groups of 6 to 20 young black men, who would mask themselves with bandanas and assault motorists with bottles and rocks. At least two reports per day were heard on police radios of young black men, with their faces hidden with bandanas, dropping heavy stones from overpasses on US I-75 onto the highway. There were no reports of any injuries or accidents.

            Individual actions: This was, by far, the most unpredictable element of the rioting. It consisted of individuals who, while walking alone along a sidewalk or driving alone, would spot white city workers or pedestrians, and then draw a pistol and open fire. One young man, interviewed on local news, was sitting in his jeep at a light, when a young black man looked him in the eye and threw a bottle, full power, toward his face. The bottle struck the roll bar of the jeep and showered the white man’s face with glass. He was cut in several places but escaped, shaken at being attacked because of the color of his skin.

The rioters were often indiscriminate about which businesses they attacked. Picked to the bone the first night were the popular hip hop fashion stores known as Deveroes. Before the riots, their advertising slogan was, “Everybody knows where you get your clothes, Deveroes.” Today it goes like this: “Everybody knows where you LOOT your clothes…” The owners, like other businessmen, will get nothing in the way of insurance coverage for damages caused by civil unrest.

Use of Weapons by Rioters:

The weapons of choice were automatic pistols and shotguns. Reports of gunfire began immediately after the riot began, and continued through the lifting of the curfew. Calibers of the guns varied widely, from the .22 caliber used to slightly wound a Cincinnati cop, all the way to 12 gauge shotguns. Rocks, bottles, fists, feet, knives and bricks were also used. One brick was thrown through the window of a business with such violent force that it stuck in the back wall like tornado damage. Flame weapons ranged from matches to Molotovs.

Use of Weapons by Police:

The police broke out almost everything in their arsenal. Cops roamed the streets armed with everything from M-16 rifles to MP-5 machineguns. All the non-lethal stuff was used, sprays, 12 gauge “beanbags” and rubber bullets, 40 mm teargas grenades and 40mm rubber bullets. No use, or even deployment, of the two armored cars owned by Cinci PD or the M113 armored personnel carrier owned by the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office was reported. At first we were somewhat confused at the lack of use of armored vehicles in the face of such a crowd. Then it dawned on us that this crowd was politically too sophisticated to use such vehicles. To bring them out would have resulted in the burned-out hulls of three tanks on what became sea of broken glass and debris. This crowd would have quickly destroyed them with Molotovs.

Who was involved?

On the first day and night, there were mainly angry individuals, but there were obvious local black leaders from the Black United Front, a suit and tie organization, local New Black Panthers, in their black military fatigues and berets, and some local select black ministers in the crowd. It is important here to note that the New Black Panthers broke with their tradition of bringing rifles and shotguns to demonstrations. This time they brandished no weapons. They had assessed the situation and determined that if they had pulled their guns, the Cincinnati cops would call their bluff and open up on them. My guess is that their guns were not far out of reach. The Black Panthers also openly displayed their military ranks on their uniforms. The highest rank we saw was a four star general. The Black Panthers were also the pallbearers at Thomas’ funeral.

4 Star General, Malik Zulu Shabazz, New Black Panthers

By the second day, local Nation of Islam (NOI) coordinators were seen at meetings and on the street. NOI has put over ten years into organizing and propagandizing in the Cincinnati area. NOI maintains a visible presence with well-dressed representatives selling their newspaper Final Call every week on street corners during evening rush hour. If one takes a moment to read their paper or examine their website, under the heading of “What Do Muslims Want?” you will find their list of demands—which includes a separate black homeland. The NOI doesn’t want integration or inclusion they want separation and exclusion. To them the riot wasn’t about righting wrongs; it was about taking the next step toward Civil War II.

On the third and following days more white “outside agitators” were in evidence in the crowds, throwing bottles and rocks at police lines and making sure they got photographed for the nightly news. These activists came primarily from the anti-TABD crowd who had protested the World Trade Organization meeting a few months before. They drove the local cops crazy for a few days and made a number of enemies. When some of them returned from Lexington to mix it up again, they were spotted by Cincinnati’s “Red Squad” (the political arm of the police) and immediately shot with beanbag projectiles. Their case against the cops will be before the court in a few weeks.

News Media Use of White Faces:

Most everyone outside the Cincinnati area was treated to tightly edited footage of what appeared to be integrated crowds of blacks and whites. What actually happened was that a few local white Socialist and Communist activists joined in the rioting and later were reinforced by white leftist activists from outside the city and even the region. The national media then set to work editing the footage to make it look very much unlike what it really was—a RACE RIOT.

What couldn’t be edited to pure Political Correctness was footage of exclusively black crowds rampaging about the inner city and lining streets flinging rocks and bottles at passing cars. This sort of footage did make it through the PC police. There just weren’t enough white leftists to homogenize the riot entirely. As days followed, the presence of militants, black and white, from outside the Cincinnati area grew.

Tactics used by the police:

The order from city hall to the police was to give a lot of latitude to the rioters, in order to not have additional casualties and further enflame the situation. For example, the black men doing “doughnuts” in the middle of the streets were simply ticketed for reckless driving and released. Ordinarily, they would have been arrested.

Police had observation positions high in office buildings downtown, as well as in low buildings in outlying areas.

Every helicopter in the inventory was used to its maximum. One was used specifically to follow the green Navigator SUV carrying Black Panther officers, as it ducked into Kentucky to lose its police tail. It ventured twenty miles downriver before crossing back into Ohio. They were never out of visual sight of the police.

After the Cincinnati SWAT officer was bruised by the .22 shell hitting his belt buckle, curfew was instituted and the cops got very serious. Not complying with curfew in hot zones got you quickly arrested and jailed.

Tactics used by the Fire Department:

Sniper fire and attacks by rioters on fire crews resulted in the use of police cars leading fire engines into the downtown and other hot areas. No police cars–no fire service. At one point, fires were so widespread that the fire chief radioed one of his fire company leaders and said, “You be very selective about which fires you put out. We’re stretched very thin.”

Tactics used by rioters:

Snipers were used, but not in the usual method. Instead of being up in buildings, most of the snipers simply fired from behind cars, around corners, and even when partially obscured by crowds.

Cars were used extensively. For every crowd of fifty core activists, there were up to ten cars working in unison. Often the cars would “do doughnuts” in the street to attract police, who would then be pelted with rocks and bottles.

We were witness to the use of command and control vehicles not only by the police, but by the New Black Panthers as well. The vehicles allowed the leaders of the militant groups to move between hotspots to coordinate action.

“Technicals” were used, but not as much. This we think is because of the lack of small trucks in the black community. There are many, many more small cars, but the rioters didn’t like having to deal with the doors. The obvious new favorite is the small truck.

Pincer movements were reportedly used against lines of police. The tactic was for a large crowd of rioters to send out a small squad of men to assault a police line and then flee to a chosen spot. The larger crowd would then split into a pincer shape and surround the cops, who would then have to fight their way out.

A citizen ban radio propaganda station was used for several weeks prior to the riots. Operating on channel 6, “Da’ Gangsta’” preached an emotionally charged diatribe every night, about how to “Dress up in body armor and go toe to toe wid’ da’ man.” After the rioting started, he disappeared from the airwaves.

On the last couple of days of the riots, information circulated through the black community that the cities of Dayton, Columbus, and Los Angeles were ready to join in the chaos. Black activists claimed that they were networked enough to actually spread the war nationally.

Racial beatings:

Before the city at large had become aware of how bad the situation had become, whites in cars, going home from work in the downtown area, found themselves dragged out and beaten. We even had our own Reginald Denny, with a semi driver pulled from his rig and stomped. The two worst incidents involved two, good looking young white couples that had driven over from Kentucky to visit a relative living downtown. Every window of their car was pulverized, and baseball bats and flying glass had injured the two young women. Worse still was the attack on the elderly white couple that were pulled from their car and beaten bloody.

Anyone who would justify, trivialize, or explain away such attacks is a heartless freak who deserves an ass whipping of their own.

Ethnic intimidation:

Once again our police scanner paid off. We heard reports of cars stopping in front of white people’s houses, with black men getting out and going up to the front door and confronting the homeowners. In some cases, a call had been placed to confirm that the people were home before rioters appeared at their doors.

Also heard were reports of shots fired directly into white residences.

Ethnic intimidation is listed as one of the main elements in Ethnic Cleansing.

Fair-Weather rioters:

On two occasions, weather intervened in such a way as to completely shut the crowds down and drive them indoors. On the first night of the rioting, we overheard the local Fire Chief talking with the Assistant Fire Chief about the night’s arson attempts. According to the Chief, there had been SIXTY attempts to burn down buildings in the downtown area, but the short intense rainstorms had put them out. After all the bad luck with trying to start buildings on fire, the crowds didn’t put much energy into arson the rest of the week.

On Saturday night, following the funeral of Timothy Thomas, things began getting ugly right at the 8 PM curfew. But then a cold front blew in with a driving cold rain in the lead. The chill factor dropped to 45 degrees and the streets were swept clean. Cold, wet people don’t like to riot.

In the days since the riots, much has been revealed:

The rioting resulted in over 800 arrests. While much effort has been put into comparing this riot with the 1968 riot following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., this was far bigger. There were 200 arrests following the King shooting.

The police helicopters were so taxed during the rioting, that the only machines flying today are the air ambulances used by local hospitals. Police helicopters are currently undergoing serious maintenance.

Timothy Thomas’ mother, said on the local news that if the policeman who shot her son was not “charged, tried, convicted and executed…well, this is the calm before the storm.” Had anyone else made such a statement, they would have been charged with making a terrorist threat, a felony in Ohio.

Race relations inside the Cincinnati Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) are so bad that black police officers are quitting. The black officers will confine their fraternal activities to their own organization, The Sentinels. The logo for the Sentinels is a black Africa superimposed over a red triangle, superimposed over a badge.

Some downtown merchants have elected to leave their windows boarded up until after the trial of the police officer, in fear that rioting may erupt before or upon the verdict.

Twelve moving vans were seen today in the Over The Rhine part of downtown, moving out white residents. 

The first city council meeting since the first day of rioting was held on Tuesday, April 17. At this meeting, the local leader of the New Black Panthers looked the mayor in the eyes and said, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” In other words, it’s ethnic cleansing time.

A final observation:

What amazes me the most is the dance that the local and the national media have done around these riots. When the media finally had to break down and warn Caucasians to stay out of riot areas, newscasters did so, but with a strange sense of embarrassment. They cushioned and couched their phrases so as to not offend their black audience while trying to warn their white audience of the dangers of being on Cincinnati streets. Here’s how one newscaster put it, “Unfortunately we have received reports that white people are being pulled from their cars and beaten.” It was as though newscasters were issuing the warnings under pressure.

 If you ask any average black man on the street what was transpiring the week of April 14th and you will hear the reply, “It was a race war.” But watching the news treated you to a completely different story, “There are problems with community relations and arrest procedures.” The blacks are using the correct term; the media is deliberately trying to fool the public.

What actually transpired was the first spasm of race war that has now started. It was declared by Al Sharpton following the contentious election of George W. Bush, when Sharpton said, “There’s going to be a war. I don’t know if it’s going to be violent or not, but there’s going to be a war.” The war has started and we’re all in it. Your uniform is your skin, and nothing you can do will change your color. The depth of hatred expressed and acted out during this week of rioting was shocking beyond belief. The level of violence and destruction was incredibly intense and often indiscriminate. Had the line of thunderstorms not prevented the sixty attempts to ignite buildings on the first night, the downtown area of Cincinnati would be gone today. Had the cold rain not blown in on Saturday night and swept the rioters off the streets, soldiers would be lining them today.

This entire situation begs the question: What will you do when you are confronted by someone of another race who doesn’t respond to all your “love?” What will you do when you say, “I love you brother,” and he replies, “Tough shit! Time for you to die!” Don’t laugh. It happened here in Cincinnati this week. Had those white Marxists run into a group of blacks who didn’t know them or share their politics, they would have found out for themselves what many inner city blacks think of diversity.

Let us not forget what the Black Panther said, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” My guess is, this really is the calm before the storm. With summer ahead, and that means a dry season here, we probably won’t have the good fortune of well-timed thunderstorms and cold fronts. Cincinnati is bracing for a long, hot, deadly summer.

Additional Resources:

For information on Thomas and the other Cincinnati police shooting victims see:


To see the first hate-crime related article on this riot:


This article contains the threat to spread rioting nationwide:



Report prepared by Terry Mitchell, with the help of eyewitnesses, victims, and insiders.

The L.A. Riots of 1992: What Really Happened 4


A brief account of the six days of rioting which set Los Angeles aflame following the acquittal of four police officers who were filmed beating black motorist Rodney King.

“There’s a difference between frustration with the law and direct assaults upon our legal system.”
– George Bush Snr., May 3rd, 1992.

The first rocks started to fly as the four LAPD officers who beat Rodney King and the jury who acquitted them were leaving the courtroom in suburban Simi Valley. Subsequent to the acquittal, on the afternoon of April 29th 1992, thousands of people began pouring into the streets of Los Angeles. In a few hours rioting spread across the LA metropolitan area. Conditions rapidly approached the level of civil war. The police withdrew from the main areas of fighting, ceding the streets to the insurgent poor. Systematic burnings of capitalist enterprises commenced. More than 5,500 buildings burned. People shot at cops on the street and at media and police helicopters. Seventeen government buildings were destroyed.

The Los Angeles Times was attacked and looted. A vast canopy of smoke from the buildings covered the LA Basin. Flights out of LA airport were cancelled and incoming flights had to be diverted due to the smoke and sniper fire.

The rioting was the single most violent episode of social unrest in the US in the twentieth century, far outstripping the urban revolts of the 1960s both in sheer destructiveness and in the fact that the riots were a multiracial revolt of the poor. In the initial phase of the LA riots, the police were rapidly overwhelmed and retreated, and the military did not appear until the rioting had abated.

The New York Times noted:

“Some areas took on the atmosphere of a street party as black, white, Hispanic and Asian residents mingled to share in a carnival of looting. As the greatly outnumbered police looked on, people of all ages (and genders), some carrying small children, wandered in and out of supermarkets with shopping bags and armloads of shoes, liquor, radios, groceries, wigs, auto parts, gumball machines and guns”.

The 30,000 square foot military enlistment centre for all nine counties of Southern California was burned to the ground on the first night. The state portrayed the rioting as an episode of indiscriminate mayhem where rioters attacked each other like sharks in a feeding frenzy.

While most media coverage and subsequent histories have focussed on a few negative events, such as the horrific beating of truck driver Reginald Denny, in fact crimes against people, such as rape and drive-by shootings, virtually disappeared as previously atomised working people of different colours and ethnicities came together in mass collective violence, proletarian shopping [looting] and a potlatch of destruction. There were far fewer rapes and muggings during the period than there are in LA under the normal rule of law. on a conservative estimate, more than 100,000 rebel poor in the greater LA area have now collectively experienced, in arson, looting and violence against the police, the intelligent use of violence as a political weapon. The number of participants in the uprising is well into the six-figure range. We know this because there were around 11,000 arrests (5,000 black, 5,500 Latino, 600 white) and the vast majority of participants got away scot-free.

Following the lead of events in the nation’s cultural capital, mass spontaneous rioting spread to several dozen cities across the US. In San Francisco more than a hundred stores were looted and rich areas were attacked. One of the large posh hotels had its windows smashed by a gang of youths chanting “The Rich Must Die”. Protesters marched o­nto the Interstate Freeway, causing a massive tailback affecting several hundred thousand car commuters. In San Jose, students looted and attacked police cruisers. Police were shot at in Tampa, Florida, and in Las Vegas, armed rioters burned a state parole and probation office. Armed confrontations between the police and locals continued in Las Vegas for the next 18 days. In Seattle a burning police car was pushed into police ranks and there was loads of looting, smashing and burning in downtown Seattle. Similar events happened all over the US.

On May 2nd, 5,000 LAPD, 1,000 Sheriff’s Deputies, 950 County Marshals and 2,300 Highway Patrol cops, accompanied by 9,975 National Guard troops, 3,500 Army troops and Marines with armoured vehicles and 1,000 Federal Marshals, FBI agents and Border Patrol SWAT teams moved in to restore order and guard the shopping malls. Hundreds were wounded. Most of the people killed in the uprising were killed in the repression of the revolt. After much fighting and the largest mass arrest in US history the LA 92 insurrection came to a close.

Edited by libcom from an article in Anarchy – A Journal of Desire Armed, No.34, Autumn 1992. Photo by Hyungwon Kang (kang.org)

You're a Phone Call Away From Saving a Life 1


by Ian Huyett

Last year, in a disturbing reminder of Israel’s ruthless assault on the USS Liberty, Israeli warships rammed an unarmed vessel in open violation of international maritime law. The Dignity, whose passengers included US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, was carrying food and medical supplies to the besieged population of Gaza. Imprisoned in the Gaza strip, 1.5 million Palestinian civilians have suffered unimaginable terror at the hands of an occupier that has made clear it has no regard for the sanctity of life.
For decades, Israel has used it’s powerful lobby to manipulate and control American foreign policy at the expense of our tax dollars and lives. Our pitiful government has looked the other way while Israeli agents have conducted campaigns of espionage and terrorism against American citizens. The Israeli regime is no more a friend to the American people then it is to the people of Gaza. It’s in the best interest of all nations to unite against Israeli policy.
As you read these words, UK politician George Galloway and a humanitarian convoy of 250 vehicles, crewed by 500 courageous people from 20 countries around the world, is stranded in Aqaba, Jordan. Just as Israel intends to use the United States to disable the potential threat of an awakening Iran, it is using the government of Egypt to prevent these nonpartisan activists from delivering medical supplies to the victims of the world’s first silent genocide.
If the Egyptian government cannot stand up to Israeli pressure, it can’t be expected to stand up to cries for justice from around the world. Contact your local Egyptian embassy and demand that the convoy be allowed to pass.
A nation establishes embassies to better international relations. Tell the government of Egypt how said relations might be effected if Egypt not only allows tragedy to occur, but denies relief to those who’ve managed to survive it.

Updated News Digest December 27, 2009 2

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

Community Organizing and National-Anarchism presentation by Andrew Yeoman

Tribal Anarchism Video Series Parts One, Two, Three, Four

Quotes of the Week:

“Formerly, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake medicine for magic.”

“The system isn’t stupid, but the people in it are.”

“Punishment is now unfashionable… because it creates moral distinctions among men, which, to the democratic mind, are odious. We prefer a meaningless collective guilt to a meaningful individual responsibility.”

People often say that this or that person has not yet found himself. But the self is not something one finds, it is something one creates.”

                                                                                                            -Thomas Szasz

The Troops Protect Our Freedom, and Other Lies I Learned in School by Kevin Carson

America Under Barack Obama Nat Hentoff interviewed by John Whitehead

Uncivil Liberties: The Empire’s War On Its Citizens by Carolyn Baker

Relocating Guantanamo by Paul Craig Roberts

Obama in the Shark Tank by Ralph Nader

From Bush to Obama: A Seamless Transition on the War by Ralph Nader

Vices Are Not Crimes by Murray Rothbard

Who Mourns the Murdered Mundanes? by William Norman Grigg

Is Revolution in the Air? by Justin Raimondo

Stunning Statistics About the War That Everyone Should Know by Jeremy Scahill

Pakistan’s Refugee Disaster by Stewart J. Lawrence

New World Order: How the 1989 Panama Invasion Set the Course for the Future of U.S. Foreign Policy by Ted Galen Carpenter

The Case Against Iran Sanctions by David Henderson

Elliot Abrams and “Neocon-ing” Obama by Robert Parry

U.S. Turburlence Buffets Pakistan by Eric Margolis

Time to End the Neocon Con Game by Bruce Cameron

Weapon of Monetary Destruction by Lew Rockwell

Automatic for the People: The AK-47 by C.J. Maloney

PIGS Murder Mentally Ill Man by William Norman Grigg

Afghan Affair More Than “Nitpicking” by Linda McQuaid

A Fistful of Dynamite by Daniel McCarthy

The Travails of the Young War Criminal by Gwynne Dwyer

One War Obama May Curtail by Kelley B. Vlahos

Motivation for Jihad by Charles Pena

PIG Brandishes Gun on Snowball Throwers by William Norman Grigg

PIGS Engage in Gang Assault on High School Student by William Norman Grigg

Rush Limbaugh Is a Turdball from the Huffington Post

Spanish Anarchist Arrested for Letter Bomb from Infoshop.Org

A Left-Environmentalist Expresses Skepticism of Global Warming  by David Crowe

The Thin Blue Line Is Cracking Up by Aaron David Ward

Obama, You Should Have Listened to MacArthur by Eric Margolis

The Recession Is Over, But the Depression Has Just Begun by Edward Harrison

The Nullification-10th Amendment Movement Is Growing by Thomas Woods

Blow It Out Your Ass, Supreme Court!! 

The Awards by Justin Raimondo

Mondragon Collective Opens Sacco and Vanzetti Grocery Store in Winnipeg from Infoshop.Org

The New Prohibitionists  by Caleb Stegall

Sexual Politics in the Age of Obama by David Rosen

America’s Party  by Pat Buchanan

War Against Christmas 2009: A Jewish Perspective by Marcus Epstein

From the Great Society to the Great Betrayal  by Rob Freeman

Libertarians and Junk Science by Kevin Carson

God of War? by Jeff Taylor

The Humane Vision of Ivan Illich by Chase Madar

Losing the Bill of Rights by Jacob Hornberger

Bring Back the Bad Guys by Jeff Huber

Gun Sales Up, Murder Rates Down 

Sean Hannity: Paid Shill for the Merchants of Death by Martin Hill

Hyperinflation and Rioting in the Streets John Williams interviewed by Phil Maymin

The Empire Recruits Worldwide by Rick Rozoff

Does the New World Order Leave Anywhere to Run? by Janet Daley

Dr. Mengele Reappears in Israel by David Kramer

10-Year-Old Busted for Distributing Peppermint Oil by David Kramer

My Christmas Prayer for the Little Town of Bethlehem by Ron Holland

French Kids Protest School Dress Codes from Infoshop.Org

Disappointments in Samarra by Alexander Cockburn

What It Takes to Build A Movement by Mark Rudd

The Year’s Best Books by Ralph Nader

Palestinians on the Brink of Explosion by Nicola Nasser

War and Peace by Pat Buchanan

“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

50,000 U.S. Troops Have Quit Their Jobs Michael Prysner and James Circello interviewed by Scott Horton

The Bipartisan Empire Glenn Greenwald interviewed by Scott Horton

Political Prisoner Denied Medical Care Candace Gorman interviewed by Scott Horton

The GULAG by Matthew Raphael Johnson

The Middle Ages by Matthew Raphael Johnson

The New Right vs the Political Left Alex Kurtagic interviewed by Tom Sunic

“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

Holiday in Cambodia by the Dead Kennedys

Emerald by Thin Lizzy

Great Big Coffin/Looking for Mary  by Screaming Lord Sutch

Ladys Boy by Twisted Sister

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

U.S. Military Suicides Outnumber Out Number Soldiers Killed by Enemy in 2009 

Evangelical Church Opens Doors to Gays 

Jimmy Page’s Soundtrack to Kenneth Anger’s Lucifer Rising 

Bill Ayers: Americans Must Rise Up Against War 

Bill Ayers: “Life in a Bubble Will Explode in America’s Face” 

Rapper AKIR: America Is Definitely a Police State 

Ron Paul on “Foolish” Troop Surge, “Audit the Fed” Bill and Competing Currencies

Communists Living the American Dream 

First World War in Color 

William McKinley 1892 Campaign Speech (in memory of Leon Czolgosz)

Israel’s Neo-Nazis 

The Haight Street Kids 

Saving the Indians 

Asian-Americans and Poverty 

The Military-Industrial Complex Always Gets What It Want 

Las Vegas Teacher Accused of Denying Holocaust 

U.S. Set for Drastic Changes as White America Becomes a Minority in 2042 

Dying Detroit 

Merry Christmas and a Rockin’ Yule from a National-Anarchist

Sixty Percent of Russians Nostalgic for the Soviet Union 

Distributism: The Roots of the Catholic Worker Movement

Economics of the Catholic Worker Movement

The Fraud of “Representative Democracy” 

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

“The king is most wounded by ridicule.” -Thomas Hobbes

Why the Radical Left Should Consider Secession 26

Kirkpatrick Sale of the Middlebury Institute recently observed that there is presently “more attention being paid to secession than any time since 1865” and predicts that “one of the American states will vote for its independence in the next 10 years.” Neo-secessionist sentiments are frequently stereotyped as a characteristic exhibited primarily by “right-wing extremists.” Yet there are serious reasons why genuine progressives should consider secession. Among the most compelling reasons why the Left should consider dissolving the U.S. into multiple nations, regions, or city-states are:

-Break-up of the U.S.A. means an end to the American empire that has killed millions of people throughout the world over the last sixty-five years, including perhaps two million Iraqis, three million Southeast Asians, hundreds of thousands of Central Americans, half a million Timorese, thousands of Afghanis, and many, many more.

-Without the support of the U.S., international capitalist organizations such as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, etc. would be much less powerful and influential.

-The demise of the federal regime would mean an end to U.S. aid to Israel, and a fighting chance for the Palestinians.

-The collapse of the U.S. federal system would mean an end to federal corporate-welfare, bank-welfare, and, above all, the death of the military-industrial complex.

-No more federal regime means no more DHS, FBI, CIA, DEA, BATF, Bureau of Prisons, Bureau of Indian Affairs, federal drug war, federal mandatory minimums, or the national police state built up around the war on terrorism. What could be more successful at overturning the “terror war” legislation of the last eight years than complete disintegration of the federal government itself?

-An end to federal corporate welfare means a severe weakening of Big Pharma, agribusiness, or local developers utilizing federal money in efforts at gentrification.

-The disintegration of the U.S. means not only the end of federal drug prohibition but an end to U.S. support for the international drug war and the America-centric structure of international drug prohibition, thereby allowing other nations to develop more progressive policies on this matter.

Some may object that progressives have at times appealed to federal power against local reactionaries (for instance, in cases of civil rights, abortion rights, and church/state separation issues) and that dissolution of the federal regime may also weaken gains in this area. However, it should be considered that the majority of the U.S. population resides in the 75 to 100 largest urban, metropolitian areas. If these areas-New York, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Chicago, Miami-were all independent city-states or micronations along the lines of Monaco, Luxemborg, or Singapore, genuine progressives would be in a much superior political position than at present. The major U.S. urban areas tend to be the most diverse culturally, racially, ethnically, and religiously. It is also in these areas where the majority of racial minorities, LGBT people, persons with countercultural values, and those with left-leaning political views tend to be concentrated. The majority of the underclass persons fed into the prison-industrial complex also originate from the large cities. It is in the major cities where most abortion services are located and where most abortions take place.

If these larger urban areas were separated from the states in which they are presently located and from the federal system, urban progressives would no longer need to share space politically with rural, small-town, or suburban reactionaries, conservatives, or religious fundamentalists. Therefore, it would be immensely easier for independent city-states of this kind to enact, for instance, single-payer health care, same-sex marriage, stem cell research or a living wage. It would also be easier to protect abortion rights from the influence of current state legislatures or the federal government. Likewise, it would be much more possible to decriminalize drugs, prostitution, gambling and other “consensual crimes” along the lines of New Zealand, Portugal, or the Netherlands at present. Such changes would severely weaken and undermine the police state and prison-industrial complex. The likely weakening of corporate power following the demise of federal and state corporate welfare would also provide a more level playing field for activists to take on landlords, developers, bankers, and other plutocratic interests on a municipal and regional level, and perhaps initiate economic alternatives like cooperatives, collectives, communes, LETS, mutuals, land trusts, and so forth. Meanwhile, social conservatives and other non-progressives who dissented from this prevailing liberal-libertarian-left paradigm could likewise achieve sovereignty for themselves in their exclusionary suburban enclaves, homogenous rural counties and towns, or sparsely populated red zones. Surely, this would be a better state of political affairs than the present system. If indeed secessionist sentiments are likely to grow in the years and decades ahead, why should progressives be left out?

A Subjective Interpretation of Hostility Between Entities in a Capitalist Society Reply

by Valerian of Inland Empire National-Anarchists

I wanted to write this article because for one thing I haven’t been active on this blog as I should and also because I’ve been thinking about this particular subject for a long time, especially since I opted for a world-view that I currently hold. This is not scholarship, a thesis, or a standard theory that I am trying to create; rather, this is just a commentary that I hope to shed light on since it relates to the Modern World as a whole but also because it’s highly reflective of the area I live in. Writing in the form of a commentary allows more freedom of expression and intellectual activity but at the same time it lacks any objective credibility in the eyes of 3rd parties because it doesn’t appeal or point to outside reference points or 1st person sources.  Though I don’t use any sort of references like this in the article I will say that my personal influences are Stoicism, Neoplatonism, Nouvelle Droite, Julius Evola,  and other intellectual forces and those influences will manifest themselves in particular ways in this article. I do highly recommend you read about my influences and look no further then the links that are to the right in this blog. Without further ado, here are my reflections.

The beginnings of hostility

Hostility, in a general sense, can be a position, emotion, idea, and view that sets itself in opposition to another position, emotion, idea, and view. The opposition doesn’t necessarily have to be embodied in any entity (human, cat, horse, spider, etc.) but can be inherent within the oppositional view itself; for example:

View A: Abortion is wrong because you’re murdering a fetus that has a soul and has inherent worth.

Opposition to View A: Abortion is not wrong because a fetus is still a part of the woman and the woman should have a right to get rid of a “thing” in her body she doesn’t want. The soul is also “non-existent” and therefore does not have inherent worth.

This is just one of many examples of oppositional views that are inherent in the Cosmos and especially more narrowly in society itself. Every view that is upheld always has an oppositional view that is directly opposite of it. Hostility is the manifestation of that opposition at various levels of intensity and degree. For this example, I am going to use a measurement of this hostility in 3 levels that in a sense corresponds to real world degrees of manifestation but it not necessarily an absolute measurement but just a way to systematize it.

A and B disagree about view C; A is for C and B is against C.

Level 1 manifestation of hostility

A and B disagree about C but still communicate and correspond with one another and they never let C be a subject of discussion between them.

Level 2 manifestation of hostility

A and B disagree about C and in turn stay away from each other and cease all communication and correspondence.

Level 3 manifestation of hostility

A and B disagree about C and in turn look to overpower, submit, eliminate on another. In a sense go to war with one another.

This is the nature of the cosmos itself and this view has many forms and manifestations in the philosophies of the Orient and Occident, Lao Zhu and Heraclitus, respectively, mentions this in their respective philosophies. An opposite is already manifested in relation to every  entity before existence itself is actualized. Another example:

A lion seeks to kill a gazelle and the gazelle seeks to prevent its elimination. The lion doesn’t rationalize or seek to systematize why he acts in this manner but it is inherent in his behavior. Hence, it is prior to its existence or else it could never come to manifestation.

Overcoming of hostility

An entity will seek to overcome hostility by a variety of means; by a dialectic process that involves both oppositional forces that in turn will create a 3rd force, a synthesis; an overpowering and submission of one force by another; a submission of one force to another; and the most fluid of them all, a unification of one force to another because of inherent unity between two forces.  The 1st and 4th means to an overcoming is the process of culture, race, ethnicity, commonalities, and consubstantiality itself. The 2nd and 3rd means is a process of warfare and violence itself; this is the process that is manifested to a high degree in a capitalist society itself.

Capitalism and its manifestation

Capitalism is an economic system which derives from the Enlightenment and in turn informs and influences the participants that live within the system. The Enlightenment posited man as an abstract with inherent universal qualities as the starting point for its manifestation in the temporal world. The universal qualities it seek to impose on man from the start is that man is a self-interested creature that seeks its own good and is endowed with natural reason from the start. Culture and ethnicity to them are just “accidents” and do not have any importance in their conceptions  and philosophy. Since Capitalism manifests itself all these presuppositions of man, the participants in Capitalism will manifest these qualities in turn. The Enlightenment is a falsity from the start because it creates a system out of abstraction and those manifestations that philosophers of the Enlightenment witnessed were ones that were infused by their own system. In fact English society, which a good portion of Enlightenment thought came from, manifested qualities that were pseudo-Capitalistic and Liberal which led to the universal abstraction of these values onto all humans and peoples around the world. The Anglo-Saxons themselves already lived in a culture of small government, individualism, and commerce that “laid the ground” for the Enlightenment itself.  From this chain of causality Capitalism and Liberalism in its various manifestations came into fruition. Hence a “culture”, system, and environment was developed that reflected these qualities and in turn qualified the participants in a mode of operation that corresponds with the environment.

Manifestations of hostility within Capitalist Society

In a specific sense, this relates to American society but in a  narrower sense, Southern California. The Enlightenment itself, when taken to a logical conclusion, manifests a society where culture, ethnicity, and in extreme forms, race, is seen as a non-factor and that individual gain and supremacy is the ultimate, albeit within a system of boundaries, laws, and other edicts that within themselves are Enlightenment based. Individuals are the real foundation of a capitalistic society and relationships are reduced to contracts, formal alliances, passing gestures, and superficial leanings. In this environment, individuals are “atomized” and the system is only structured by “universal” abstractions, a “culture” of individualism, and a market economy that participants have no choice but to participate in because it’s inherent within the system; alternative systems can be created but that will be for another article. The unifying principles that are not inherent within the system itself will be sought after through other channels: i.e. subcultures, common interests, race, ethnicity, culture, philosophy, etc. These principles will be held by various networks within the larger Capitalistic system and because the market economy itself is based on “competition” between various actors and groups, these differentiated groups and participants will be opposed to one another because of the amplification of  “competition”, which is really just a euphemism for warfare. Here is a good example:

Participant A likes Death Metal and hates Rap.

Participant A finds a network of participants that share in his fondness for Death Metal and hatred of rap; this network is Group A.

Participant B likes Rap and hates Death Metal.

Participant B finds a network of participants that share in his fondness for Rap and hatred of Death Metal; this network is Group B.

Group A and Group B live in a town that is part of the Capitalistic system.

The town is not defined by any common, unifying principles (race, ethnicity, culture) that infuse the members of the town.

Group A and Group B are not unified by any principles they both share in.

Group A and Group B are hostile to one another based on the opposition that both groups carry.

In Capitalism, groups, participants, networks, and other entities live in different realities from one another which in turn ceases any unity between these social forces. These “realities” inform, nourish, influence, potentialize the actions and directions of these different social forces. These social forces, because they follow different world-views, can not share in the same reality with one another and because there is no underlying unifying principles between them their will be a level of hostility between them. Liberalism actually seeks to create a unifying system that prevents differentiated social forces to come at war within one another but because Liberalism is qualified by chaos within it’s principles, i.e. individualism, multiculturalism, market competition, distrust of ethnocentric doctrines, etc., chaos has no choice but to manifest itself within reality. Alienation between these two forces creates an environment that is, at different levels, chaotic. Another example:

Group A has a world-view where Concept A is a supreme principle.

Group B has no understanding of Concept A, which in turn is utterly alien to Group B.

Within this alienation of understanding, Group B has no choice but to have an interpretation of Concept A.

Within the interpretation, there is a hostility to Concept A that Group A sees as absurd in turn is opposed to that interpretation.

Since there is no unifying principles (race, ethnicity, culture, religion, philosophy) between these groups then there is opposition between them, which is a result of chaos within the Liberal system where abstractions take precedence over real unity.

This chaos is typical of the Modern World and in a narrower sense to Southern California and it shouldn’t be a surprise for the population why there is so much tension, angst, misrepresentations, misinterpretations, crime, conflict, hostility, and chaos itself in the region. Southern California, as a region,  is not qualified by any transcendental principles which all members look towards; Christianity is manifested in different forms and denominations; Islam is making a presence in the region; a good portion of the population has no transcendental principles or philosophy that they hold onto;  alienation is created between these groups, chaos in turn is the underlying principle of this region as a whole.

With many different races, ethnicities, and cultures inhabiting a specific region, all these unified groups are in many different manifestations going to be alien to one another. It can be seen in the tension and nervousness of differentiated participants when they exchange correspondence and communication; their world-views do not correspond to one another. Another example:

Participant A and participant B exchange a monetary transaction at a restaurant.

Participant A believes in world-view C and Participant B believes in world-view D.

C and D will be manifested through various actions and behavioral traits.

Participant A and participant B will interpret these manifestation differently because their world-views do not correspond to one another.

These interpretations will create a sense of confusion and misunderstanding  between Participant A and B.

A synthesis can occur but because there is many disunities between the participants the synthesis itself will be interpreted differently by the participants. A unified interpretation of the Cosmos, with race, ethnicity, and culture as underlying factors, will mitigate and modify the conflicts that are manifested between participants because the degree of correspondences and manifestations will be able to unify with another and synthesize with one another. Greater degrees of unity and synthesization will be actualized as the commonalities are more in common between participants within any environment that is not marked by chaos but by order.

In this example I will use 4 manifestations of unity as measurements: Race, Ethnicity, Religion, and Taste.

Race will be A

thnicity will be B

Religion will be C

Taste will be D

Participants will be E and F

E and F share A,B,C,D=Unity is the greatest

E and F share A,B,C but not  D=Unity is great

E and F share A and B but not C and D=Unity is less

E and F share A but not B,C, and D=Unity is  lesser

E and F do not share A,B,C,D=Unity is non-existent

If E and F have no unity than synthesis will be non-existent because there is not a unifying system that both participants share and agree on and therefore make oppositional forces contained within an ordered, dialectical process.

The degrees of participation between entities in opposition and unity in the Cosmos is differentiated at greater and lesser levels. By bringing oppositional forces into a unified, integrated world-view with underlying principles that unite participants in the highest degree of manifestation this will allow creative energy, synthetic creations, and many more manifestations to be harnessed and nourished by the participants. By bringing participants into an environment where oppositional forces are given free rein and where chaos is the foundation for the environment then the participants will be in constant opposition through their actions with one another and synthesis and creative power is weakened and in some cases, non-existent.


Unity is something that is inherent and something that is sought for and realized through entities with one another. Hostility is the creation of alienation between forces that do not share a unifying principle. Capitalism itself is an environment, system, ideology that infuses hostility between participants because of the underlying principles that make the system itself. By living in an environment where hostility is manifested more abruptly and underlying order is lost then the environment itself manifests chaos and derision within many of the facets. This is the Modern World, this is what I am opposed to.



A Former Bail Bondsman Assesses the PIGS Reply

These comments are from a man who was a bail bondsman for 10 years, and acquired extensive experience dealing with police, courts, and district attorneys offices:

In my 55 years, I have had a few contacts with LEOs, sometimes as a victim and a few times as a minor suspect/traffic violator. Mostly, my exposure to LEOs has been in my role as a bail bondsman for over 10 years back in the late 80s. I have no personal axe to grind, and if I did, it’d be a quite old one. But I still pay attention and I have observed a marked deterioration over the years of the honor, dignity and humanity of police officers everywhere. Having to deal with them on a day to day basis was a large part of why I quit the bail bond business 20 years ago. My opinion then was that most of the people I was bailing out of jail were better human beings than the cops I knew at the time, and it’s only gotten worse.

In my own experiences, my status as victim or defendant didn’t seem to make much difference in the way I was treated or the professionalism displayed by the cop(s) involved. Ideally, it really shouldn’t. Having said that, about 60% of the time, the cops were either totally disrespectful assholes or corrupt, lying, arrogant bullies. 20% of the time, they were merely useless, incompetent and disinterested cowards(like the ones who watched me from the comfort of their cruiser while I got beat half to death in a parking lot by two guys, then just drove away), or the one who I had to literally beg to take fingerprints from the sprung bedroom window in my burglarized house. (I’m sure those prints never made it farther than the nearest trash can and I ultimately had to track down the perp myself with tricky “reward” posters for a particularly valuable piece of merchandise.)

Another 20% of the time, the cop(s) displayed the honesty and professionalism expected of them and it’s a sad testament that those were the ones I really remember because of their rarity. Unfortunately, with one exception, the last time that occurred was about 1985.

There is a problem with the cops nowadays that I lay squarely at the feet of the militarization that comes from our “drug war” mentality and a generation of kids who grew up watching S.W.A.T. and other popular entertainment that lionized law enforcement while demonizing the majority of the citizenry. There is a whole generation or two of people who grew up conflating the roles of police and the military. They didn’t understand the difference before they joined, and they either still don’t understand it, or don’t accept it after they graduate the academies.

Years ago, many cops entered the field as a service to communities that they, and generations of their families grew up in. A lot of them were following family traditions and it wasn’t unusual to see 3 generations of the same family on the beat in the same town or even neighborhood. Police work was a matter of family honor and tradition. Sure, there was still corruption, maybe even more than there is now. But compared to today, it was petty, at least at the street level. “Testilying” has become a fine art, a dance between DA’s and LEOs that 95% of gullible juries still swallow whole, and it’s more blatant and results in more serious consequences than ever before. Before, excepting the organized, racially motivated incidences, police violence typically took the form of Officer Jones delivering a beating to a local thug to elicit a confession or to teach him a lesson. And the thug usually knew he deserved it and the two would be on speaking terms the next weekend. Now it involves explosive violence, pursuit rage, lethal weapons and multiple assailants; and still that same old impenetrable Blue Wall refuses to yield.

We are a transient and mobile society now. There is an “us against them” mentality. Cops look on everyone as potentially hostile scum and jump to conclusions and generalizations with even more frequency than during the bad old days of the ’60’s when minorities were routinely abused and having long hair was tantamount to a “Harrass Me” sign pinned to your forehead.

I am convinced that today too many cops enter police work for all the wrong reasons and, with few exceptions, the departments do an abysmal job in weeding out the control freaks and those with anger management and other psychological problems. Maybe this is due to recruitment problems or maybe it’s the influence of police unions. The bad part of this is that, over time, it’s becoming the norm. This militarized, violent, “us against the world” mentality has been institutionalized. Cops do not see themselves as public servants charged with protecting a majority of the citizenry from predation by a minority of criminals. They see themselves as sharks circling around a vast school of “trash” fish, waiting for the first opportunity to thin the ranks. Or a pride of lions encircling a herd of gazelle with the aim of dispatching the ones they see, in their subjective and prejudiced opinions, as detrimental to the herd. And the ends justify any means. Planted evidence, testilying, coerced confessions, subornation of perjury, illegal searches, whatever it takes to nail a suspect they just “know” is guilty. In too many cities, the cops are seen by the citizens as no less than an occupying force. Even many of the totally law abiding are beginning to feel this way. Their level of disgust continues to rise every time they hear of a pack of flak-jacketed, jack-booted, helmeted storm troopers bashing down the door of some pathetic, unarmed crack-whore, or worse yet, a totally innocent citizen who happens to share a similar address to the one provided by some burned out informant making an illusionary attempt to cut a deal. Or maybe they watch as a middle aged woman on the side of the interstate frantically rushes to re-pack a van full of cargo, in a rainstorm, after being tricked into thinking she was legally obligated to consent to some trooper’s fishing expedition.

Too many cops today become cops as a power trip. Thousands of punks want to become police officers just because they’re too cowardly for military careers and too stupid to be good criminals.

For anyone else who thinks a college degree is helpful, think again. In my state, a degree is required to become a State Trooper. It is not required for my county’s deputies or my city’s police. Florida state troopers are perhaps the worst, most abusive, rednecked goons I’ve ever had the misfortune to know. And vice cops, most of which have degrees, are some of the most morally bankrupt, corrupt and despicable cowards you can imagine. Yes, cowards! Don’t believe the propaganda. Cops who answer domestic calls encounter 10X the danger of vice cops, or especially the jack-booted drug cop thugs. Your typical vice cop would tremble in his boots to answer a domestic disturbance call or to pull someone over in traffic. After dealing with these people for over 10 years, the only cops that I have any consistent level of respect for are homicide detectives. Most of them have some native intelligence and got off the street before they became cynical assholes or drank themselves to death.