A Point of View: A time when violence is normal Reply

From BBC

Chaos and carnage hover over the novels of Cormac McCarthy and the writings of thinker Thomas Hobbes. It's not a love of domination that makes people violent, but the need for safety, says philosopher John Gray.

(Spoiler alert: Key plot details revealed below)

"War is god".

This is the sermon preached by "the judge", one of the central characters in Blood Meridian, a visionary novel by the American writer Cormac McCarthy.

Set in the Texas-Mexico borderlands in the mid-19th Century, the book records the experience of a runaway, a teenage boy described throughout as "the kid", who falls in with a gang of bandits who make a predatory living by killing the region's Apache Indians in order to claim a bounty on the scalps.

More…

Maoists used “human shields” in forest encounter Reply

khabarsouthasia.com
Chandan Das in Jamshedpur for Khabar South Asia

In this June 2010 file photo, government-backed troops stand guard as women walk in a Chhattisgarh village. India's home ministry says Maoist insurgents, known as Naxals, used women and minors as human shields during a recent encounter with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and state police. [Rupak De Chowdhuri/Reuters]

In this June 2010 file photo, government-backed troops stand guard as women walk in a Chhattisgarh village. India’s home ministry says Maoist insurgents, known as Naxals, used women and minors as human shields during a recent encounter with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and state police. [Rupak De Chowdhuri/Reuters]

More…

Foucault and Fourth Generation Warfare: Towards a Genealogy of War and Conflict Reply

smallwarsjournal.com
by Alex Verschoor-Kirss

Abstract: The tendency within the study of military history is to assume a general continuity and regularity to warfare that can be discovered and analyzed with enough backwards-looking study. This approach, however, yields untenable theories of warfare, such as that of “fourth generation warfare,” which institutionally blind the military establishment to the way in which warfare and conflict has been historically discontinuous. The theories of French philosopher Michel Foucault, with their emphasis on a “genealogical” method based on the questioning of supposed universals, provide a potentially transformative way for looking at military history. Through emphasizing historical discontinuities in its form of analysis adopting a Foucauldian approach at the very least provides a needed injection of creativity into the study of warfare and strategy.

The discipline of military history has often been charged with being anachronistic. Less often have these charges been fully explored to their resultant conclusions. Rather than representing a solely academic issue, the tendency to read military history as a smoothly contoured and progressive arc governed by a transhistoric and transcultural notion of military strategy has grave practical ramifications. The general focus on continuity within the study of military history, and its assumption of basic universals such as ‘warfare’ and ‘strategy’ institutionally blinds the military establishment to the multiplicity of ways in which warfare and conflict has been historically discontinuous. This blindness is then paid for in wasted resources and, more tragically, human lives, as backward looking military strategies and planning goes awry.

More…

Mayoral candidate’s house shot up by La Familia drug cartel, warned to withdraw from race or family dies Reply

washingtonpost.com
Associated Press, Published: June 28

EMILIANO ZAPATA, Mexico — Before the sun climbed above the hills around this central Mexican town, Saul Garcia and his family awoke to the sound of bullets piercing the front gate. A masked motorcyclist had opened fire on their brick home, leaving behind a poster signed by the La Familia drug cartel, warning the mayoral candidate to withdraw from the race or the gang would kill him, his wife and three children.

Garcia, a candidate for the local Social Democratic Party, didn’t pull out. A state police officer now follows Garcia 24 hours a day while he courts voters on the steep and narrow streets of Emiliano Zapata, a suburb of Cuernavaca in the state of Morelos.

More…

Left-Anarchist Accidentally Blows Himself Up With Incendiary Device (Mexico) Reply

from vivalaanarquia, translated by waronsociety:

Two explosions in different parts of the south of Mexico City happened in the night hours. The first at 501 Picacho Ajusco, corner of Cartos (Ampliación Miguel Hidalgo neighborhood). An homemade explosive device went off at 11:37 PM Tuesday June 26 in a payment area of the Federal Commission of Electricity (CFE). The ceiling, furniture and windows were broken, and an ATM was damaged.

At 12:40 AM today (June 27), at the corner of Vicente Guerrero and Londres in the Carmen neighborhood, the compañero Mario Antonio López Fernández, 27 years old, was wounded when an incendiary device exploded on him. The compa sustained serious burns on his stomach and arms.

More…

Nepal on the brink of another ‘people’s war’ Reply

dw.de

Political turmoil continues in Nepal after the break-up of the main party, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Mohan Vaidya ‘Kiran,’ former senior-vice chairman of the party, tells DW about his political plan.

Mohan Vaidya “Kiran” is the former senior-vice chairman of the Nepal’s main party, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and is founder of the split-off Nepal Communist Party (Maoist) faction.

DW: There are reports that you have parted ways from Nepal’s Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). Is this true?

Mohan Vaidya Kiran: Yes, this news is correct. The party was not talking about the interests of the common man. The achievements of the People’s War (the Nepali Civil War) that was fought for ten years have been forgotten by the party. Dreams of people were not fulfilled. That is the reason we have parted our ways and have formed a new party.

What will be the name of your party?

The name of my party is Nepal Communist Party (Maoist).

More…

How I Accidentally Kickstarted the Domestic Drone Boom Reply

wired.com
Chris Anderson

At last year’s Paris Air Show, some of the hottest aircraft were the autonomous unmanned helicopters—a few of them small enough to carry in one hand—that would allow military buyers to put a camera in the sky anywhere, anytime. Manufactured by major defense contractors, and ranging in design from a single-bladed camcopter to four-bladed multicopters, these drones were being sold as the future of warfare at prices in the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In May, at a different trade show, similar aircraft were once again the most buzzed-about items on display. But this wasn’t another exhibition of military hardware; instead, it was the Hobby Expo China in Beijing, where Chinese manufacturers demo their newest and coolest toys. Companies like Shenzhen-based DJI Innovations are selling drones with the same capability as the military ones, sometimes for less than $1,000. These Chinese firms, in turn, are competing with even cheaper drones created by amateurs around the world, who share their designs for free in communities online. It’s safe to say that drones are the first technology in history where the toy industry and hobbyists are beating the military-industrial complex at its own game.

More…

‘With leaders in jail, Red squads led by teenagers now’ Reply

10-15 red squads commanded by teenagers.

And they say anarchists are scary.

———————–

timesofindia
Sanjay Ojha

RANCHI: With the arrest of a large number of senior CPI(Maoist) leaders, including some central committee members, the rebel organization have handed over commands of squad and areas to teenagers. A number of the new squad leaders and area commanders are in late teens or in the 20-21 age group.

IG (ops) SN Pradhan said security agencies operating in the state had definite information that there were currently no less than 10-15 such Maoist squads commanded by teenagers. “The vacuum has been created following continuous operations by security forces in the state and arrest of top rebel leaders from squad leaders to central committee members,” said Pradhan. Some of the top Maoist leaders who are currently in jails include Pramod Mishra, Rama Krishna, Narayan Sanyal, Akhilesh Yadav, Pramod Kumar and Pradeep.

“Our efforts are to further put pressure on the Maoists and make them leaderless so that they are not left with people who can allure children, especially girls, to their fold. In the last few years the Maoists have been recruiting teenagers and our effort will be to arrest those people who are behind the recruitment drive. We expect that in the near future the rebels will not be able to allure children to their fold,” said an optimistic Pradhan.

More…

71 elected representatives resign in Gadchiroli due to Naxal threat Reply

indianexpress.com

71 elected representatives in the East Maharashtra district have resigned from their posts, apparently due to Naxal threat.

Talking to reporters in Gadchiroli on Wednesday evening, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Gadchiroli Zilla Parishad (ZP) Sumant Bhange said 71 elected representatives have resigned in the last one month.

Of these representatives, one is Zilla Parishad member, four Panchayat Samiti members and 66 village Panchayat members, he said.

While he did not elaborate on the reason behind the mass resignations, sources said that the public representatives have done so under pressure from the Naxals who have pockets of influence in Gadchiroli, the worst Maoist-affected district in Maharashtra, which saw a major Naxal attack in March in which a dozen CRPF personnel were killed.

Maoists had warned the elected representatives to give up their posts or face dire consequences. Naxals had kidnapped a former ZP member from Etapalli taluka last month.

Earlier, they killed a senior NCP leader from Etapalli in broad daylight. In the past, Maoists have kidnapped several village sarpanches. Some were killed and others were released after warning by the extremists.

European anarchists could target Olympics, police and security officials fear Reply

By Tom Whitehead

Violent groups who clashed with police in Greece and Spain over austerity cuts could launch an attack on the summer Games to ensure worldwide publicity, it is feared.

The Italian group, the Informal Anarchist Federation, has already threatened to wage a “low-intensity war” against the Olympics.

That group, known by its Italian initials FAI, has also been linked with a failed mail bomb attack on a German bank.

The hacking group Anonymous has also warned it intends to target the global event.

One security expert last night said anarchist groups on the Continent are increasingly supporting one another and may team up with UK counterparts this summer.

Valentina Soria, a counter-terrorism research analyst at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), warned they will look to provoke the police and the situation could “turn nasty”.

More…

American National Militia Reply

ANMilitia

This is different than most sites.

It is designed for and dedicated to present and upcoming events.

Due to patriot efforts, Americans are at a crossroads. We, as a people, are living in extraordinary times. These are the times that try mans  souls…

Each of us knows the patriotic feelings that are at a height few are familiar with. In recent years the freedom idea has flooded the internet with everything from no drivers license and straw men to sovereignty, all of it being loaded with legalities and filings…

I dedicate this site to my Oath of Service.

I solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of The United States of America against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

Although the things here will be slanted towards the military, I offer that any true patriot of any background is welcome. There will be information available through this site, individuals, and directives of various nature to inform and instruct.

It is time for all good men to come to the aid of their countrymen.

More…

Mexican Cartel Declares War on Cheetos Reply

wired.com
Robert Beckhusen

The logo for Sabritas, a Mexican snack chip subsidiary of PepsiCo, which saw dozens of vehicles and five warehouses burned by a drug cartel this month. Photo: chrizar/Flickr

Mexican drug cartels are not strictly drug cartels. One of their fastest-growing markets is extortion of private citizens and businesses. Don’t pay, and you can be threatened — or worse. But largely, the cartels target small businesses and individuals, and stay away from the larger industries. Now several arson attacks over the weekend against a Mexican snack chip subsidiary might be the first time the cartels have targeted a multinational corporation.

More…

How to Create an Occupy Tribe Reply

By John Robb

Hat tip to NATA-NY.

There’s no question that the Occupy groups have done a great job with constructing the outlines ofresilient communities in the heart of many of our most dense urban areas.

People pitch in to do work. They are considerate despite the difficulty of the arrangement. Food gets served. The area gets cleaned. There is entertainment. There’s innovation (equipment, tech, workarounds). There is education (lots of seminars being taught). There is open, participatory governance. All of this is great and this experience will definitely pay off over the next decade as the global economy deteriorates, panics, fails. It will make building resilient communities easier (there are lots of ways to build a resilient community, we’re trying to document all of the ways how on MiiU).

However, is this experience building a tribal identity? An Occupy tribe? Something that can eventually (there’s lots to do in the short to medium term) go beyond protest and build something new? One even strong enough to create new resilient economic and social networks that step into the breach as the current one fails?

More…

Occupy: Nucleus of the New Society? Reply

By Kevin Carson

Many Occupy supporters on the Left express concern that it could be coopted by the mainstream institutional Left and harnessed to a political agenda of NPR liberalism. The recent prominence of Van Johnson’s Rebuild the Dream and MoveOn.org seems to provide at least superficial justification for such fears. But those fears are groundless — mainly because there’s no official Occupy “movement” to be coopted.

Sure, liberals are free to use the Occupy label to promote their agenda. That is, after all, what Occupy’s all about: A brand, or platform, ready-made for adoption on a modular basis by anyone who sees fit to use it. The more different groups using the Occupy brand, each with its own anti-corporate agenda, the better. It’s not a zero sum game.

The beauty of Occupy is that its module/platform architecture, and its openness to anyone who wants to create a new node for their own purposes, make it an ideal laboratory for experimentation in revolutionary praxis. Any local node is free to try out new ways of doing things, and to share its experience with others; the new techniques are freely available to any other node in the network that finds them useful. No permission, no administrative coordination to make sure everybody’s on the same page, is needed at any step in the process.

It’s the same kind of stigmergic platform as Wikipedia, a Linux developer group … or Al Qaeda Iraq. Self-selected individuals and local groups make contributions to praxis entirely on their own initiative, the smallest contribution can be leveraged with no transaction cost, and all contributions immediately become the common property of the entire movement.

I’ve hoped for some time that Occupy would cease to be mainly a protest movement and instead become mainly a school of living. That is, that — like the neighborhood assemblies in Argentina ten years ago — it would become a venue for local communities to disseminate the skills and technologies for building counter-institutions and a counter-economy that could flourish outside the decaying neoliberal system.

Some early signs in this direction were teach-ins like those of Juliet Schor (author of Plenitude) and Michel Bauwens of the Foundation for P2P Alternatives. Another was the “Occupy Our Homes” campaign, which offered some promise of evolving into a nationwide squatter movement to reclaim vacant housing. The term for things like this is “prefigurative politics”: That is, rather than attempting to pressure the power structure of the existing society for reforms, they exemplify the successor society in formation.

More…

5/9/12 – Latest on the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency Reply

Maoist army is 46K strong and winning

Abductions: Maoists On Top In Every Scenario – Analysis

Gang supplying mobile phone SIM cards to Maoists busted in UP

Naxals making inroads into Kerala, Karnataka

Low-level government officials at Naxal meets?

RDX recovered from Maoist hideout

Maoist in Assam now equipped with sophisticated weapon

Maoists abduct, kill policeman in Odisha

Maoists release kidnapped Indian official

Rebel road block: High profile abductions leave officials in a tough spot

Naxal commander arrested in Gadchiroli

Quote of the Day Reply

Hat tip to MRDA. Dain is an old acquaintance of mine from the U.S. libertarian milieu.

“I’m personally interested in the tradition of libertine individualist elitism. The nether region where John Henry Mackay, Max Stirner and HL Mencken meet. These people don’t truck much with liberal pieties and Stirner’s “spooks,” but nor do they give a shit about upholding tradition, conservative or otherwise.”

–Dain Fitzgerald

The above quote describes my own outlook pretty well, with the caveat that such sentiments are not enough to build a movement that is actually subversive to the state for the simple reason that most people are not libertines, individualists, or elites and are not going to be. Such an outlook, I believe, is appropriate if not perfect for the cultural and intellectual leadership of the Anarchist movement, but at the ground and middle levels we need something else. Hence, the ARV/ATS emphasis on populism, anti-globalism, neo-tribalism, rejection of the left/right paradigm, cultivating an array of interest groups who are under attack by the state as constituents, lumpenproletarianism, pan-secessionism, fourth generation warfare, etc.

Samir Khan: Proud to be an American traitor Reply

From CNN.

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

Samir Khan was proud to be a traitor. In a way, he was among the most dangerous of al Qaeda terrorists. By turning his back on the country he grew up in, he gained credibility and coupled that with his intimate knowledge of Western culture to become a driving force behind a powerful al Qaeda propaganda machine.

The one-time North Carolina resident, who U.S. and Yemeni officials say waskilled with Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone strike Friday morning, used his knowledge of computers to help produce a glossy, Western-style magazine called Inspire that touted the edicts of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP.

Just what motivates a man who has spent much of his life growing up in the United States to wage jihad against it? Many of the answers are provided by Khan himself in an article he penned for Inspire titled, “I Am Proud to Be a Traitor to America.”

In the article, Khan details his journey from North Carolina to Yemen, writing that “Washington’s imperialism” was something he could no longer tolerate. “What they have done and continue to do in the Muslim lands is what I felt, totally unacceptable to my religion.”
More…

Ad Hominem Argument: A Classic Example 5

Carol Moore is someone who deserves credit for helping to publicize the secessionist cause. See her website here. Unfortunately, she has delivered a classic example of an ad hominem argument against Yours Truly in response to my suggestions that the radical Left should seriously consider the possibility of adopting a secessionist outlook. You can see Ms. Moore’s response here. Here it is in full:

While Preston’s article seems rational, if you look at the list of articles he’s published he also promotes “National Anarchism” which is against “miscengenation” and promotes (as opposed to merely accepting) separation of the races. He also promotes revolutionary violence, including by Tim McVeigh. FYI.

The ad hominem part of this is obvious. What Carol is saying amounts to is: “Yes, Keith Preston makes reasonable arguments as to why the radical Left should consider secession, but he’s also a bad guy, so this refutes or at least dimishes his arguments.”  A response to the charges is in order:

“…he also promotes “National Anarchism”…”

Guilty but proud. See my discussions of National-Anarchism and related views here, here, and here. National-Anarchism is a freshingly interesting and vibrant current when compared with the dull conformists and predictable lefto-losers associated with the mainstream anarchist movement.

“…which is against “miscengenation”…”

There’s no “n” in this term, but as something of a serial miscegenator myself I don’t really care what views National-Anarchists may or may not hold on “miscegenation.” See John Derbyshire on this one. I don’t really adhere to any of the Christian taboos about “adultery” or “fornication” either, but I’ve also promoted Christian secessionist or separatist groups in the past. I’ve even promoted Mormon polygamists. To demonstrate the absurdity of this kind argument against the National-Anarchists, imagine if a Muslim, an Orthodox Jew or a Seventh Day Adventist were to make an argument like this: “Yes, Preston makes reasonable arguments in favor of secession by Muslims, Jews, and Adventists, but he also promotes individuals and groups that eat pork, drink alcohol, and refrain from keeping the Sabbath…..”

Enough said on that point.

“…and promotes (as opposed to merely accepting) separation of the races…”

As an anarchist, what I actually advocate is a concept I call “separation of race and state” on the same model as the Jeffersonian idea of “separation of church and state.” If racial and ethnic integrationism of the kind favored by liberals and leftists can take place on its own without the coercive apparatus of the state to compel it, and without the economic pressures generated by state-capitalism and imperialism, then so be it. On the other hand, if the kind of racial separatism favored by “racial conservatives” (for lack of a better term) is indeed normal or natural, then that’s fine by me as well. My guess is that there would probably be some of both, with the degree of extremes on either end depending on other factors like local culture, institutional forms, ideological currents, economic factors, population size, geography, history, individual personalities and so forth. Imagine if Carol were to instead make an argument like: “Preston promotes (as to merely accepting) separation of the cultures and religions where hippies, Christian evangelicals, Catholics, goth-rockers and Jehovah’s Witnesses simply do their own thing-what a god-awful thing this is!”

What leftoids just can’t seem to accept is that some of us just flat out don’t give a damn if races are “separated” or not. Indeed, some the present-day “anti-racism” hysteria is starting to sound a lot like the anti-commie  panic of the 1950s or the “Satanic panic” of the 80s. If Joe McCarthy were alive today, no doubt he would be talking about the evil cabals of racists who’ve infiltrated American institutions. If Dana Carvey were just inventing his “Church Lady” character today, he’d have to make her a PC liberal: “Satan?…Racism!!!!!”

Enough said on that one.

He also promotes revolutionary violence,…”

It is quite unlikely that the existing regime, ruling class, and empire is going to let territories within the U.S.A simply walk away without a fight. So, on that great day of reckoning, it is indeed quite likely that secessionist movements will indeed need defense organizations of a “fourth generation” nature. See Hezbollah, Hamas, the FMLN, or the Peoples’ War Group. See 1776, 1861, or Spain 1936. Pacifism doesn’t interest me.

including by Tim McVeigh

McVeigh got an “A” for attitude but an “F” for tactics and good sense, in my book.

Enough said on that one.

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat 14

For some time now, I have argued for an alliance of left-wing anarchism and right-wing populism against the common enemies of imperialism and Big Brother statism. I have argued that the strategic application of such an alliance would be a pan-secessionist movement rooted in the traditions of the American Revolution and the later Southern War of Independence. Secessionism is often associated with political conservatism, given the greater regard of conservatives for American traditions like states’ rights and the conservative nature of the Southern secession of 1861. Indeed, pro-secessionist rumblings have emerged in the mainstream Right recently. Such developments are a welcome thing, of course, and no doubt a future pan-secessionist movement would have a strong right-wing and radical center constituency behind it. As the middle class continues to sink into the ranks of the underclass, and as the vast array of cultural groups associated with right-wing populism continue to come under attack by the forces of political correctness, no doubt an increasing number of people, including many former jingoists, members of the religious right and one-time neocon sympathizers, will realize that the centralized liberal-managerial regime is their enemy, and decide that a political exodus is their best bet. Certainly, a mass army of secessionists in the rural areas, small towns and red states will be a welcome addition to our cause.

However, I do not think that it is on the Right that the crucial political battles will be fought. The Right represents an agglomeration of political, cultural and demographic factions that are losing power and shrinking in size. Instead, the crucial battles will be fought on the Left. The dominant center-left that is now consolidating its position is a liberal Left that espouses liberal internationalism, universalism, humanism and human rights imperialism, and expresses itself in the form of the therapeutic-managerial-welfare state. However, there is an emerging radical Left that is oriented towards pluralism, postmodernism, cultural relativism, pro-Third Worldism and anti-Zionism. Eventually, there will be a sharp split between these two lefts, as the former is capable of cooptation by state-capitalism, but the latter is not. Take a look at these photos:

http://zombietime.com/gaza_war_protest/

Can a radical Left that is fervently anti-Israel and pro-Third World nationalism ever be reconciled with the American ruling class? It is highly unlikely. Furthermore, the spectacle of conservative Muslims, feminists, gays, transgendereds, Marxists, anarchists, leftists, nationalists, national-anarchists, Jews, anti-Semites, racialists, anti-racists, peaceniks and Hamas sympathizers marching against Zionism and U.S. imperialism is not only a potential ruling class nightmare,  but a manifestation of the kind of pluralistic, culturally relativist, cross-ideological alliances against the System that I have been arguing for in the past.

The legitimizing ideological superstructure of the present regime and ruling class, i.e., liberalism, is antithetical to both paleoconservatism from the Right and cultural relativism from the Left, but there is sufficient enough overlap between these latter two as to make strategic alliances possible. We see the beginnings of this in the current alliance between bioregionalist and Green decentralist left-wing secessionists and conservative Christian right-wing secessionists. As left-liberalism continues to become an increasingly status quo and upper middle class ideology, the radical Left will find itself increasingly alienated from liberalism. The more deeply entrenched political correctness becomes, the more it will alienate even many of its former sympathizers.

The real political war of the future will be between not only the liberal-left and the postmodern left, but between the totalitarian and anarchistic left, and the New Class and the underclass. Just as the U.S. Civil War sometimes found members of the same family on different sides of the fence, so will the future political war find members of constituent groups from the contemporary Right and contemporary Left on both sides. If the battle is between liberal universalism and relativist pluralism at the intellectual level, then the natural political expression of the latter would be some kind of decentralized anarcho-pluralism, with its popular form resembling something like left-conservatism or pan-secessionism.

Although most of the actual secessionist movements at present are rooted in the red states or the more maverick blue states like Vermont and New Hampshire, a serious pan-secessionist movement will need to be first and foremost oriented towards the large metropolitan areas. This is where the majority of the U.S. population resides. It is where the plutocratic elites, state bureaucracies and New Class managerialists are located, and it is also where the lumpenproletarian masses are located. The large cities are where the paramilitary police forces are located and they are where most of the residents of the prison-industrial complex originate from.

The goal of a serious pan-secessionist movement whose aim is to overthrow the empire for real should be to obtain political preeminence in large cities as a first order of business. Cities tend to be dominated by the aforementioned plutocratic elites, and by landlords, developers, and well-heeled civic and business interests. These elements are for the most part bought into the System, and can therefore never be converted to our side. So strategically speaking, an urban secessionist strategy will generally have the flavor of plutocratic/bureaucratic elites vs Everyone Else. Recognition of this fact implies the necessity of a class-based radical movement rooted in the lumpenproletariat, petite bourgeoisie, lower respectable poor, lower middle class, bohemians and de classe elements. The goal is to obtain a political majority capable of seizing power at the municipal level in large metro areas. Once political preeminence was obtained in a fair number of cities, a formal alliance of municipal secessionist movements could be formed, and these could form a wider alliance with secessionists among the Red Staters, Greens, indigenous people and so forth. In “Liberty and Populism” I wrote:

We need to abandon the bourgeoise identity politics that have grown out of the new left. The legacy of this has been to create a constituency for the left-wing of capital among elite members of traditional minority groups including educated professionals among blacks, feminists and homosexuals, middle-class ecology enthusiasts and animal-lovers and so on. The best approach here would be to attempt to pull the rank-and-file elements of the traditional minorities out from under their bourgeoise leadership. This means that anarchist revolutionaries such as ourselves would need to seek out common ground with nationalist and separatist elements among the non-white ethnic groups against the black bourgeoise of the NAACP, poor and working class women against the upper-middle class feminist groups like NOW and the gay counter-culture (complete with its transsexual, hermaphrodite and “transgendered” elements) against the more establishment-friendly gay middle-class.

Indeed, 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.

There are several reasons for these positions. The first is rooted in recognition that as the Left has abandoned class-based politics in favor of the cultural politics of the left-wing of the upper middle class, it is only natural that we should step in to fill the void. The second is rooted in recognition of a wide assortment of outgroups that have never made it into the Left’s pantheon of the oppressed/victimological coalition, and the possibility of recruiting from these groups in order to increase our own numbers. The third is to undermine liberalism’s claimed monopoly on do-gooderism. A pan-secessionist movement that is seen as the simultaneous champion of the ordinary working poor and the marginalized and persecuted such as the homeless, punk rock squatter kids, mental patients, drug addicts, prisoners, et.al. will have a much easier time of deflecting the “fascism and racism” labels that will ultimately be thrown in our direction. The fourth is to undermine liberalism by splintering its constituent groups.

Note that I am not implying anything politically correct here. For instance, while we might uphold the legitimate rights of gay organizations, businesses or individuals that come under attack by the state, and practice non-discrimination within the context  of our own alternative infrastructure radical organizations, this does not mean that we will allow “gay rights” organizations allied with the liberal enemy to dictate who can or cannot be a part of our own movement. Being a primarily lower class movement, it is only natural that many people with conservative views on sex, morality, religion and the like will also be included within our ranks. Likewise, we may support organizational efforts set up to provide genuine assistance to transgendered people (even the Iranians do this), drug addicts, the handicapped, people with AIDS or other special populations, but we do not insist on the universalization of liberalism. For instance, we might also be just as supportive of skinhead squatters as leftist punk rock squatters, national-anarchists as leftist-anarchists, separatist tendencies among redneck white communities along with black separatists. More broadly, the radical movement would vehemently defend all victims of political correctness wherever they can be found just as strongly as we might defend victims of police brutality. We would defend students harassed by school authorities for carrying Bibles or other religious artifacts just as quickly as we would defend students harassed in a similar fashion for wearing “Goth” clothing. While in urban areas at least, we would take an liberal-left-libertarian, ACLU-like approach to cultural and social matters, with some exceptions like our own defense of the right to bear arms, unlike left-liberals we would recognize that controversial social questions like abortion and gay marriage are best handled at the local level according to community standards. While our own worker, tenants, squatter, and prisoner defense organizations would out of necessity be inclusive of both natives and immigrants, even illegal immigrants in some instances, this does not mean we would necessarily accept carte blanche immigration as a matter of principle.

The question of race is a particularly interesting and challenging one. African-American anarchist Mark Gillespie offered this assessment:

Whether you are a homo-leftist-anarcho-syndicalist-voluntary-eco-feminist or a racist-ultra right-wing-neo-conservative-constitutionalist-patriot, both agree that the State, in its current form, is detrimental to their views and lifestyles. In this “society”, these groups are kept from uniting by the activity of the state and its media. However, we know that in anarchy, diversity of views is a strength, not a weakness. We have allowed the State to divide us based upon the most trivial things.

The fact is that, under anarchy, all of these different groups may “have it their way”. If the an-caps want a completely free market economy for themselves and the an-socs want to combine in communes, they can do this better under anarchy than they can now. If the Homo-an-syn-fem (hell of a moniker, yes?) wants to separate from the Neo-con-con-pat or vice versa, they can and do it more peaceably than they can under statism. This is the best weapon of an anarchist vanguard. We can and should embrace the different elements that make up this country. Think about this. If we can embrace just two major groups under the anarchist banner, we could send the statists home, without a shot. The major ethnic groups in this country are the New Worlders (Aboriginal Americans, Blacks and Spanish/Aboriginals) and the Old Worlders (people of mostly European descent). These groups are kept at each other’s throats and socially separated by negative media reports and by institutionalized racism. Reports of rampant crime, lack of morals and mob violence send shivers down the spines of the average, patriotic, “law-abiding”, traditionalist citizens, amongst the Old Worlders. Historic wrongs, appeals to end needed restorative services in the community and a envy for those who seem to do better than them, keeps New Worlders in the grip of a fear that the statists work hard to instill. Neither one of these groups are necessarily wrong, but, their fears and hatred, spread and protected by the weapons of the state, virtually ensures that these two major groups will meet together, only when they are pointing guns at each other.

The New Worlders make up a combined 25.7 percent of the nation’s population (approximately 72 million people). Let’s assume that the mostly Old Worlder patriot movement makes up about 3 percent of the white population (approximately 6.5 million). With these numbers, and a properly educated and motivated anarchist vanguard, there are at least 32 different states that are immediately vulnerable to a takeover and disbanding of the state government (based upon a population of less than 5 million/state) and any state in the union is vulnerable to a gradual takeover.

Something like 32 states and maybe 50 major cities sounds about right. I’m also inclined towards the view that an anti-state, pan-secessionist revolutionary movement would actually have a disproportionately high number of racial and ethnic minorities. Of course, even this would not stop our enemies from throwing the “racist and fascist” label in our direction. Of course, the proper response to such accusations would not be persistent denial and attempts at clarification but a simple middle finger. But while we should not treat the politically correct classes with anything but contempt, it does seem natural that a pan-secessionist alliance would indeed include many ethnic sub-tendencies, for instance, blacks in inner-cities, indigenous people in Hawaii, Alaska, the western plains or on reservations, Puerto Ricans independencias, Muslim or Arab enclaves in Michigan, Hasidic, Asian neighborhoods in large cities, or Indian Quebecois separatists, majority Aztlan local communities in the Southwest,  and perhaps even revolutionary organizations within Mexico itself.  Indeed, the pan-secessionist revolutionary organizations might even form tactical alliances with insurgent forces in Central and South American countries or in the Middle East such as Hezbollah or the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front. After all, it is the empire that is our common enemy. None of this is inconsistent with our insistence on the sovereignty of nations against imperialism, communities against statism, and individuals within the context of freedom of association.

An urban, lumpenproletarian revolutionary movement would be unlike anything that has come before. It would be socially conscious out of the recognition of the economic circumstances of the lower classes and the social conditions of a wide array of marginal population groups. Yet it would shun the political correctness of the liberal upper-middle class and cultural and intellectual elites, and no doubt have a conservative and libertarian as well as progressive dimension to its character.

Shutting Down the American Police State Reply

Consider these grim statistics:

-There are 36,000 paramilitary police raids on private homes in the United States on an annual basis.

-The United States has five percent of the world’s population but twenty-five percent of the world’s prisoners.

-One in thirty-one American adults is in prison, on probation or on parole.

Are Americans any more inherently inclined towards criminality than any other national grouping? Probably not. Instead, the problem is one of gross overcriminalization. The so-called War on Drugs is the most well-known example of this, but there are many others including the use of prisons to warehouse the mentally ill or the homeless and the modern debtor’s prison system of incarceration for economic “crimes” like bad checks, non-payment of child support (even when there is no means of payment), fines, tax code violations, traffic “offenses”, as well as a penal code that turns ordinary, single illegal acts into an infinite multitude of felonies. As Peter Brimelow explains:

“In the old days punishments were harsh, but they were not arbitrary. You could be hanged for stealing a sheep, but you would not also be charged with conspiracy to commit sheep stealing, willful evasion of taxes on stolen sheep and diminishing the civil rights of the sheep owner. Attacks on property? Asset forfeiture, aimed at drug dealers when radically extended by Congress in 1984 but now covering 140 other offenses, allows seizure on “probable cause” – i.e., at the discretion of police and prosecutors. Proceeds go to the seizing agency, creating a corrupting motive.”

Indeed, mass incarceration has become a big business for lawyers, judges, police, prison officials, private prison construction and management companies, prison guards unions, and a wide assortment of public sector and private sector interests engaged in profiteering from this overcriminalization system.

Rather than trying to counter this with all sorts of do-gooder politicking, it might be better to simply shut the whole thing down using action as radical as necessary. Ideally, a National Resistance Militia should form, committed only to the single issue of completely exterminating the police state-prison industrial complex-legal racket, and drawing from the ranks of anyone committed to such a goal. Theoretically, this could include conservative patriots, leftwing radicals, black separatists, white separatists, radical environmentalists, Christians, survivalists, anarchists, gun nuts, gangbangers and anyone else who recognizes the common enemy. Such a national resistance militia would then drive the police away on a locality by locality basis (remember the disappearing acts pulled by the Los Angeles and New Orleans police during the Rodney King riots in ’92 and Hurricane Katrina in ’05?). Such a militia would then provide assistance to communities and neighborhoods in setting up genuine citizen patrol systems to deter genuine crimes (robbery, burglary, mugging). Likewise a new legal system will be necessary. The actor Omar Sharif described how things work in Arab countries:

We, the Arabs… We are not like [regular countries],” he said, explaining why he warned Bush against encouraging democracy in Iraq. “We are sects. This is how we have always been.”

“People like me prefer to go to the neighborhood sheik. I like going to him, and he resolves all the problems. If someone stole from you, you take him to the neighborhood sheik, and you say, ‘This man stole from me.’ The sheik says to him, ‘Return the money, or never come back to the neighborhood.'”

For more serious crimes, there might need to be a system of common law courts with formalized rules of evidence, procedural rights for the accused, maximum penalties that can be imposed and a system of appeal. What about the huge American prison population? We might look no further than the general amnesty declared by Saddam Hussein prior to the beginning of the current war in Iraq in 2003:

Iraqi television has been showing pictures of joyful prisoners leaving jail, shortly after the authorities announced an unprecedented general amnesty.

A nationally televised statement from the Revolution Command Council, read by Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, said the “full and complete and final amnesty” applied to “any Iraqi imprisoned or arrested for political or any other reason”.

The amnesty was intended to thank the Iraqi people for their “unanimity” in last week’s presidential referendum, the statement said.

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein won 100% support in the poll, in which he was the only candidate.

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

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