Operational Thinking for Survival Reply

Lawrence Dennis’s much neglected and long-forgotten masterpiece from 1969. Available from Amazon.

Operational Thinking for Survival by Lawrence Dennis - Hardcover ...

“Operational Thinking for Survival” is Lawrence Dennis’s 1969 follow up book to his 1940 book “The Dynamics of War and Revolution”. It would be worth the while of the modern reader of either book to read the other and thus obtain a more comprehensive picture of Dennis’s thought. And reading Dennis’s thought is worthwhile as he is both learned and incisive and completely outside of the well worn paths left by the big batallions of mainstream liberal and conservative commentators. As a young diplomat Dennis protested US gun boat diplomacy in Nicaragua and went on to provide a radical corporatist critique of America’s foreign and economic policies in from the late 1930s. An isolationist and radical right dissident he ended up charged with sedition by Roosevelt administration, the trial was drawn out and eventually collapsed in a farce. Following the war Dennis became a right wing critic of both McCarthyism and the Cold War.

In “The Dynamics of War and Revolution” Dennis made several predictions for the upcoming decades. These included his belief that America would enter WW2 and that the returning troops would face a renewed depression. Mass unemployment would be unsustainable and both traditional capitalism and democracy would be in peril and ultimately pushed aside as a new technocratic elite emerged from the expanded war industry sector. The technocrats would restore employment and stability through ‘pyramid building’ projects. Elsewhere new pan-continental powers would dominate the planet and the British Empire would meet it’s demise.


The Life and Thought of Friedrich Nietzsche Reply

A good documentary on Nietzsche. The primary weakness that is demonstrated by most anarchists and leftists is their failure to confront Nietzsche’s critique of modern liberal-humanism generally and leftism specifically as forms of secularized theocratic neo-Abrahamism, which is why we find so much zeal among leftists for rooting out heretics and the morally impure while destroying relics of the “pagan” past.


Kevin Michael Grace explains Trump’s presidency Reply

A paleoconservative commentator explains why Trumpism represents an insurgency by the old bourgeoisie and its allies against the managerial elite. I frequently find the work of reactionaries and traditional conservatives interesting because they offer many cogent critiques of the contemporary ruling class, given that their vantage point is that of outsiders, even if I reject their “turn back the clock” ethos.

Kevin Michael Grace elucidates Trump’s presidency through the prism of Sam Francis’ posthumous magnum opus: Leviathan and Its Enemies

Ben Shapiro Vs Tucker Carlson | Capitalism & Populism Reply

This video is over a year old, but it’s a good description of the neoliberal vs. populist division that is growing on the US right, just like there is a growing division between neoliberals and social democrats on the US left. The consequences of the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama neoliberal paradigm are now obvious enough and have been since at least 2008, which is why populist-reformist movements have developed since then, e.g. Tea Party, Occupy, Sandernistas, Trumpians, AOC’s social democracy, Carlson’s “national conservatism,” etc. Regrettably, none of these movements have been able to get past the fixation on electoralism, reformism, statism, the capitalism/socialism false dichotomy, and culture war tribalism.

Some commentators, like the folks at Rising, keep calling for a realignment pitting left/right populists against left/right neoliberals, but that ain’t happening. Too much cultural tribal conflict is in the way. Instead, as the Democratic neoliberals and Republican neoliberals continue to try to out-scumbag each other, and left/right populists continue to fail, more extreme movements from the left and right will likely develop (for which creepy groups like the Antifa and Proud Boys are prototypes). I don’t think it will become a Weimar-like scenario with the liberal-capitalist center being threatened with outright communism from the left and fascism from the right. It will probably be more like Latin America or South Asia where the entrenched oligarchy holds its position against the impoverished masses, with left and right extremists engaging in terrorism on the margins. In other words, the US is becoming less of a modern post-scarcity middle-class oriented bourgeois society (as Sanders and Carlson are constantly lamenting), and more of a traditional society with a traditional class hierarchy in terms of wealth distribution.  The good news is that it will largely be the end of the US international empire in the long run as multipolarity continues to develop.


A Reminder of Why I am an Anarchist 1

The current public health/economic crisis is definitely a reminder of why I am an anarchist. Thus far, the responses to the situation by the various factions of the state/ruling class/power elite have been as follows:

Republicans: “The ruling class is suffering. Let’s bail them out! Maybe give a little bit of stuff to the peasants as well so they don’t pitchfork us.”

Neoliberals: “Let’s see if we can be even bigger scumbags that the Republicans! Aim high!”

Conventional Democrats: “We can use this bailout thing to get some more loot for our preferred categories of parasites!”

Libertarians: “Do nothing! Let the state-corporate economy take care of it. That’s how the free market works!

Leftists: “Expand the welfare state! Nationalize the means of production! New Class Uber Alles!”

As I have said before, the appropriate anarchist response to this situation is to initiate a debt strike (i.e. no more payments to state-supported institutions, e.g. banks, corporations, landlords, universities, utility companies, medical-industrial-complex, etc.) and demand reparations from the state/ruling class (i.e. reclamation/liberation of previously looted resources).

And we don’t want just forty acres and a mule. We want the whole damn plantation.

The Wall Street Trilogy: A History Reply

The global banking cartels have been the international ruling class since the early modern era when landed wealth began to give way to monetary and merchant wealth as the basis of class rule. The old bourgeoisie of the Enlightenment/classical liberal/Industrial Revolution periods were simply the national-elites of capitalist countries during the rise of modernity. When classical capitalism collapsed in the early to middle 20th century (as Marx more or less predicted), the managerial revolution emerged to replace the old bourgeoisie as the new national-elites, while remaining subordinate to the international financier/rentier class. The state-centric movements (fascism, national socialism, communism, social democracy, Fabianism, progressivism) that comprised the managerial revolution in different industrialized countries (Italy, Germany, Russia, England, America, Japan, etc.) represented cooptations of various elitist-reformist and/or revolutionary-extremist forces for the purpose of saving the global financial system. Antony Sutton was run out of academic and respectable “conservative” circles for pointing this out.

Available at Amazon.

Now available for the first time in one volume: Three of the most revealing studies showing how Wall Street financiers, international bankers, and corporations manipulated world affairs during the early 20th century. Original introduction by Global Alliance Publications, Inc. summarizes the powerful book series. In this trilogy, Professor Anthony C. Sutton presents extensive research tracing the support and financial backing of world-changing events by Wall Street including the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Franklin Delano Roosevelt s presidency, Hitler s rise to power, World War II and the beginnings of corporate socialism. Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution Learn how major corporations made deals to capture huge Russian markets over a decade before the U.S. even recognized the Soviet regime. And, how closet socialism permeated the top levels of business only to later expand across many facets of society under the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, all to benefit the interests of Wall Street. Wall Street and FDR Other histories gloss over Franklin Delano Roosevelt s years on Wall Street, but Sutton reveals his destructive speculation, behind the scenes use of political influence for profit, and the corporations and elite businessmen who made his rise to the Presidency possible. Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler Hitler rose to power through subsidies by international bankers and Wall Street financiers. Sutton presents original documents and eyewitness accounts to show how World War II was well-planned and extremely profitable for top financial insiders. Read how the directors and executives of J.P. Morgan, General Electric, Standard Oil, International Telephone and Telegraph, Chase and Manhattan banks and many other members of the business elite all played a role in financing and promoting one of the most destructive wars in history. Throughout the 20th century, bankers and executives from institutions even more relevant today, including Morgan banking, used their resources to shape the global structure of events in order to maximize profit and maintain their level of world influence. Given that these companies still exert influence in our political system and our society as a whole, Professor Sutton s conclusions are just as relevant today as they were when he originally published his findings.

The War within the Democratic Party: The Managerial Elite vs. the New Class? Reply

Anyone who is familiar with my writings knows that I am a vengeful hater of the neocons. However, one thing the neocon godfather Irving Kristol (father of Bill Kristol, of “benevolent global hegemony” scumbaggery fame) may have gotten right is his analysis of what the called the “new class.” Kristol was an opponent of James Burham’s managerial revolution theory (because as a Trotskyist-turned-right-wing social democrat Kristol was a fan of the FDR-era managerial revolution) but advanced the view that the Great Society/New Left-era produced a “new class” (which the uber-Zionist, Russia-hating socially conservative Kristol despised) that was an insurgent force within the US state. I actually think there is something to be said for Kristol’s perspective on the new class. But I would be inclined to argue that Burnham was correct in his assessment of the managerial revolution’s dethronement of the old bourgeoise, with the new class subsequently being an insurgency within the lower strata of the managerial elite. The present-day battle between neoliberals (overlords of the managerial apparatus) and social democrats (administrators of the managerial apparatus) makes a lof sense when viewed in this context. Dan McCarthy explains Kristol’s theory in the article below.

By Daniel McCarthy

The American Conservative

Shock gave way to relief this summer as America’s political establishment—rattled by Donald Trump’s success in winning the Republican nomination—reassured itself of his inevitable defeat come November. For a moment Trump seemed to have created a new style of politics, one that threatened to mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. But in the weeks following the Democratic National Convention, as Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers remained comfortably ahead of Trump’s, pundits discounted the risk of class war.

Trump’s voters were not really so hard hit anyway, a report by Gallup claimed. “His supporters are less educated and more likely to work in blue collar occupations,” wrote Jonathan Rothwell, a senior economist at the polling firm, “but they earn relative[ly] high household incomes, and living in areas more exposed to trade or immigration does not increase Trump support.” Trump’s voters were most strongly characterized by their “racial isolation”: they live in places with little ethnic diversity. Thus race, not class, explains the 2016 election—or so outlets like Vox and the Washington Post concluded.

But there’s another side to the Trump phenomenon that is less about Trump or his voters than about the elites they are against. Resistance to the bipartisan establishment keeps growing, and even if Trump loses to Clinton in a landslide, he has carried the rebellion further than ever before by winning a major party’s nomination.


The Left Is Angry Over MSNBC Fake News: Call For Resignations And A New News Network Reply

The ongoing falling out between the Left and the neoliberals is a great thing to behold. This is the real future of the Left/Right battle in the US, i.e. social democrats vs neoliberals with the neoconservative-turned-faux populist Republicans increasingly becoming a fringe right-wing party as their demographic base continues to shrink, although look for the GOP to move leftward on some issues (probably with some centrist-liberal/quasi-populist/business-labor coalition Christian Democrat-like economic gestures) as they try to play the neoliberals and social democrats against each other.

By Dana Sanchez



Some MSNBC commentators are under fire by the left for harsh criticism of Sen. Bernie Sanders, with at least one call on social media for a national TV network that serves “the actual left.”

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews is facing calls to resign after he compared Bernie Sanders’ victory in the Nevada caucus to the Nazi invasion of France, Newsweek reported. Sanders won the Nevada Democratic caucuses with 47 percent of the vote.

There were calls for MSNBC to stop comparing the campaign of a Jewish presidential candidate whose family members were wiped out by the Nazis to the Third Reich.


1919: When the Bolsheviks Turned on the Workers Reply


One hundred years ago in Russia, thousands of workers were on strike in the city of Astrakhan and at the Putilov factory in Petrograd, the capital of the revolution. Strikes at the Putilov factory had been one of the principal sparks that set off the February Revolution in 1917, ending the tsarist regime. Now, the bosses were party bureaucrats, and the workers were striking against a socialist government. How would the dictatorship of the proletariat respond?

Following up on our book about the Bolshevik seizure of power, The Russian Counterrevolution, we look back a hundred years to observe the anniversary of the Bolshevik slaughter of the Putilov factory workers who had helped to bring them to power. Today, when many people who did not live through actually existing socialism are propagating a sanitized version of events, it is essential to understand that the Bolsheviks meted out some of their bloodiest repression not to capitalist counterrevolutionaries, but to striking workers, anarchists, and fellow socialists. Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

If you find any of this difficult to believe, please, by all means, check our citations, consult the bibliography at the end, and investigate for yourself.


The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement Reply

I have a chapter in this book where I argued that the postwar conservative movement was nothing other than a front for the military-industrial complex and right-wing of the US ruling class (the Sunbelt industries that were in conflict with the “northeastern establishment”). The other authors were all veterans of the conservative movement who realized that William F. Buckley functioned as a gatekeeper whose purpose was to ensure that the actual US right-wing did not interfere with corporate and CIA objectives, leading to the eventual alliance between the Buckleyites and neoconservatives (right-wing social democrats/Trotskyists). The thrust of my argument is that the anti-“big government” rhetoric of what the paleocons called “Conservativism, Inc.” was never anything more than a ruse whose purpose was to recruit the old bourgeoisie, the petite bourgeoisie, and what Sam Francis calls the “post-bourgeois proletariat” as useful idiots for the Empire. An earlier draft of my contribution is available here. Another article where I make essentially the same argument is available here. As I concluded the latter article:

“Indeed, given the phenomenal success of the ‘conservatives’ in expanding military spending and military interventionism, and their phenomenal failure everything else, one might be tempted to argue that the former was the only issue that ever really mattered all along, and that the grassroots economic, fiscal, social, cultural, religious and patriotic conservatives who comprised the activist base and key voting blocks were, to use an ironic Leninist term, nothing more than “useful idiots.”

Available at Amazon.

A central crucible in the evolution of the American Right has been “the purge”-that is, the expulsion, often in an explicit fashion, of views or individuals deemed outside the bounds of “respectability.” Victims include the John Birch Society, Peter Brimelow, John Derbyshire, Sam Francis, Revilo P. Oliver, Murray Rothbard, foreign-policy makers deemed “isolationists,” immigration reformers, and many others. This essay collection is an attempt to better understand conservative ideology (often euphemized as “timeless principles”) and how it functioned within its historic context and responded to power, shifting conceptions of authority, and societal changes. Through the purges, we can glimpse what conservatism is not, those aspects of itself it has attempted to deny, mask, leave behind, and forget, and the ways in which memories can be reconstructed around new orthodoxies. Contributors include Peter Brimelow, Lee Congdon, John Derbyshire, Samuel T. Francis, Paul Gottfried, James Kalb, Keith Preston, William Regnery, and Richard Spencer.


BOOK: Leviathan & Its Enemies – Intro Reply

A good discussion of a great book.

As long as I’ve been politically aware, I’ve been anarchist. I’ve never been anything else. I’ve always despised both left and right totalitarians (fascists, nazis, communists) as well as mainstream liberals and conservatives. When it comes to other fringe ideologies, I’ve generally thought libertarians were the best on the state but weak on some economic questions (the state, economic power, and other forms of institutional power cannot be separated from each other in the neat and tidy way many libertarians claim). The Left is pretty good at critiquing traditional forms of oppression and authoritarianism (feudalism, theocracy, monarchy, capitalism, fascism, racism, sexism, et. al.) but they have a woefully inadequate understanding of power itself, which is why leftist revolutions almost always produce new tyrannies (and often extreme ones). I am much more of a cultural cosmopolitan and anti-traditional than the paleoconservatives, but the serious paleoconservatives like the late Sam Francis, or Machiavellian elite theorists like Pareto, Michels, and Mosca, present a much better critique of how modern institutions and systems of power actually work.

Covid Will Not Kill Social Justice Warriors Reply

Beware of the wolves, left and right.

By Rod Dreher

The American Conservative

James Lindsay is a mathematician and academic gadfly who has made his name outside of academic circles as a harsh and witty critic of “critical social justice” theory, and of its progressive crusaders. Along with colleagues Helen Pluckrose and Peter Boghossian, Lindsay pranked “grievance studies” journals by submitting fake papers that made absurd — but politically correct — claims, and were accepted for publication. More recently, Lindsay is the founder of New Discourses, a website that aims to be “a home for the politically homeless, especially for those who feel like they’ve been displaced from their political homes because of the movement sometimes called “Critical Social Justice” and the myriad negative effects it has had on our political environments, both on the left and on the right.”

Lindsay is a man of the political left, and an atheist. He is also one of the smartest analysts of what Critical Social Justice means for our society. His 2018 Areo essay explaining why critical social justice is a religion is a fundamental text for understanding this phenomenon. I wrote Lindsay the other day and put a series of questions to him about the future of critical social justice in a time of pandemic. Dare we hope that the hard material realities of plague and economic collapse will shove these loonies permanently to the margins? Here’s our interview:


Why are Millennials and Zoomers going socialist? Reply

I have long argued that in the future the domestic politics of the US will increasingly resemble those of the European Union, with neoliberals solidly representing the right, social democrats representing the left, and a comparatively small but loud right-wing populist tendency. Every cultural, demographic, generational, and partisan trend indicates this. It’s an exaggeration (a big one) to claim Millennials are “going socialist.” They’re going progressive liberal/social democratic (which probably puts them slightly to the left of Eisenhower on economics). We’re seeing that emerge now with the social democrats vs neoliberals rivalry in the Democrapic Party, and the Repugnicans embracing faux populism for the sake of their own survival. Some of the widest class divisions in the US are in the deep red zones, which is why Tom Cotton (Zionist Stooge-Arkansas), Mitch McConnell (All Purposes Scumbag-Kentucky), and Mitt Romney (Plutocratic Corporatist-Utah) are now suddenly joining the Yang Gang during a time of economic crisis.

Image result for electoral map if only millennials voted

The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World 3

For who are not familiar with James Burham’s 1941 classic, it is a must read if you want to understand modern institutions.

The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World by [Burnham, James]

‘Burnham has real intellectual courage, and writes about real issues.’ – George Orwell

Burnham’s claim was that capitalism was dead, but that it was being replaced not by socialism, but a new economic system he called “managerialism”; rule by managers.

Written in 1941, this is the book that theorised how the world was moving into the hands of the ‘managers’. Burnham explains how Capitalism had virtually lost its control, and would be displaced not by labour, nor by socialism, but by the rule of administartors in business and in government.

This revolution, he posited, is as broad as the world and as comprehensive as human society, asking “Why is ‘totalitarianism’ not the issue?” “Can civilization be destroyed?” And “Why is the New Deal something bigger than Roosevelt can handle?”

In a volume extraordinary for its dispassionate handling of those and other fundamental questions, James Burnham explores fully the implications of the managerial revolution.

Praise for James Burnham:

‘The stoic, detached, empirical, hard-boiled, penetrating, realist mind of James Burnham is something to behold, to admire, to emulate.’ – National Review

‘James Burnham was an astonishing writer. Subtle, passionate, and irritatingly well-read.’ – New Criterion

‘The immense significance of Burnham’s approach is potential. We can ignore it only at the risk of being disarmed by the future course of events.’ – Irving Kristol

James Burnham
was an American popular political theorist. Burnham was a radical activist in the 1930s and an important factional leader of the American Trotskyist movement. In later years, as his thinking developed, he left Marxism and turned to conservatism, serving as a public intellectual of the conservative movement. He also wrote regularly for the conservative publication National Review on a variety of topics.

Leviathan and Its Enemies: Mass Organization and Managerial Power in Twentieth-Century America Reply

For those looking for an interesting book to read during the shutdown, I would suggest Sam Francis’ “Leviathan and Its Enemies.” It’s long (around 750 pages) but it’s the best modern work that I know of explaining how the modern American political and economic system actually works. Francis was a staunch paleoconservative (who flirted with white nationalism), and so plenty of leftists, libertarians, and anarchists will probably want to dismiss his ideas, much to their loss. But this work, written in the 1990s, and posthumously published only a few years ago, is a must-read for someone who wants to understand the dynamics of class conflict within the framework of American institutional structures. This book is basically right-wing Marxism, and Francis explains why both the 1960s New Left and the 1980s New Right failed to overturn the rule of the managerial elite that came to power in the US in the 20th century, replacing the classical 19th-century bourgeoisie in the process. His own preference was for Buchananite right-wing populism of the kind we’re seeing implicitly rising today with figures like Trump and Tucker Carlson (which I am sure will fail as well due to the shrinking demographics of its constituency). You don’t have to agree with Francis’ underlying philosophy or ideological preferences to benefit from the historical and institutional analysis he provides. The book is available from Amazon. The only other scholarly writer I know of who discusses these topics in-depth is Joel Kotkin.

Leviathan and Its Enemies: Mass Organization and Managerial Power in Twentieth-Century America by [Francis, Samuel T]

Leviathan and Its Enemies* is Samuel T. Francis’s magnum opus on political theory and the history of the modern world, which had been lost to the world after his untimely death in 2005 and is published here for the first time. This edition includes new introductory and critical essays by Jerry Woodruff, Fran Griffin, and Paul E. Gottfried. In his Introduction, Jerry Woodruff writes, “Following [James] Burnham, Sam believed a new ruling elite emerged in 20th-century. . . . the growth of giant corporations, the expansion of government power and bureaucracy, and the widespread emergence of mass organizations gave birth to a powerful class of skilled professionals to guide and manage the vast operations of the means of economic production, which, on a smaller scale, were once in the hands of private entrepreneurs and their families. As a result, the old ruling bourgeois elite, along with its political and social institutions and its view of society and politics, were replaced by a new “managerial elite,” with a world outlook that set out to remake society according to its own interests, and which was hostile to any bourgeois remnants in conflict with that project.

Progressives SHOCKED That Trump Supports Their Aid Package Idea And Democrats Oppose Them Reply

On the political spectrum, populism is to the left of neoliberalism, and social democracy is to the left of populism, which makes the Democratic establishment the “new conservatives,” with the Trumpians being to the left of them, and the Bernie, etc. progressives/social democrats being to the left of Trump.