centralisation of the power of the state and therefore in their view an impediment to progress. The words liberty, equality, fraternity meant very little more than the paper they were written on. In their name the guilds that dominated the Middle Ages were abolished giving way to the capitalist wage system. We have accepted the idea that employment is a decent goal for the unemployed, without confronting the fact that employment is the lowest form of economic activity: that is, a man reduced to mechanical functions,
deprived of the capacity to fully enjoy the fruits of his work. This fact is today ignored, neither understood nor realised by the modern analysts within the new economic ethos. And yet this man, who is a slave by most standards of the past, is considered free because it says so in the constitution” (Vadillo, op. cit., pp. 142-143).
Los Angeles Times
Â Letters to the Editor
Re: The extreme-right way to make a buck,” by Tim Rutten, LA Times, Aug. 16, 2008
Â Dear Sirs,
The title of Mr. Rutten’s piece suggests that the surest way for a conservative scholar to become rich is by embracing an extreme right philosophy. This proposition does not sound convincing given that Rutten’s target, Dr Jerome Corsi, in his book The Obama Nation, discusses a topic which defies the canons of political correctness and which, in addition, could easily fall under the legal category of hate speech. In Europe, Dr Corsi would likely be subjected to thought police scrutiny, his tenure revoked, and his circle of friends would shrink to ground zero.
Also, Corsi was to be interviewed by a relatively small radio station, the “Political Cesspool” from Memphis, whose source of income is very frugal. Having been myself a Political Cesspool guest, I was amazed at the quasi monastic modesty and genuine courtesy of its staff. Its main host, Mr. James Edwards and his guests, debate issues ranging from ante-bellum Southern literature to international politics, including the rising tide of political censorship in Americ. The Southern Poverty Law Centre, which Mr Rutten cites as his source, would have us believe that the Political Cesspool is run by baseball club wielding skinheads, sporting swastikas and harassing minorities. This is not true. Labeling a person “white supremacist,” if he or she opposes the multicultural experiment, is the ugliest form of hate speech in which apparently the SPLC excels. Feigned multicultural conviviality, as recent history shows, always yields opposite results regardless of someone’s racialist or ecumenical beliefs. What happened in the Balkans yesterday is happening today in the Caucuses and will likely be tomorrow’s scenario in LA. Both Mr. Rutten and myself had some foreboding of race riots in April 1992. Note being able to reside on my professorial salary in a gated community in south LA, I decided to search for safer pastures, i.e. my “in-group” of my native and racially homogenous Croatia.
Â Pursuant to the prevailing codes of intellectual duplicity Mr. Corsi and scores of other thought criminals in the USA and Europe, who lost their jobs or who are often maligned as racists, would have been better off had they not rocked the boat of political rectitude, and had they wisely avoided guilt by association. Instead, there are brave enough to tackle the topics that secretly preoccupy the minds of millions of white Europeans and Americans; uncontrolled non-European immigration and US military over-extension around the globe. Alas in the land of the brave and its appendage the European Union, modern Soviet-style ukases of political correctness prevent hundreds of “right wing” intellectuals from being heard.
Which purported right wing scholar, which white supremacist — as modern masters of discourse, dub their traditional conservative opponents — would not be happy to have access to the mainstream media or even catch a glimpse of his photo next to some op-ed in a big mainstream journal? This opportunity is rarely granted to them. They can only go on air at some small radio shows like Political Cesspool, a rare conservative outpost still resisting the onslaught of left-leaning intellectual mendacity.
On a personal level let me add the following. Having spent a good portion of my life both in communist multicultural Yugoslavia and in the capitalist West, including America, I pride myself on knowing rather well how these two systems work. The advantage of communism was that its party hacks and scribes lied so brazenly, they themselves had a hard time believing in their Communist Kingdom Come stories. By contrast the liberal discourse, coached in the fine semantics of human rights and masquerading as free speech, is more difficult to decipher. Its meta-language relies on generic expressions that are successfully deployed against would-be dissidents. Dreaded, shut-up words, such as “Nazi”, “anti-Semite”, and “white supremacist” float over dissenting opinion like an intellectual death sentence. Among academics in America and in Europe the intellectual ostracism of opponents is total. A professor without tenure must comply with an inventory of bizarre legal and verbal constructs of Bolshevik provenance, such as “ethnic sensitivity training,” “affirmative action,” “diversity,” etc, just to keep his job.
The author of the article might have avoided hasty conclusions about the right wing scene. May it come true, though, one day when he writes that “American publishing houses decided that there’s money to be made in funding right-wing boutique imprints…” Alas, with the current leftist-liberal cultural hegemony this is far likely for now.
Â Dr. Tom Sunic
Â Tel. 00385-1- 6261-55
Â cell: 00385-91-793-9454
(Tom Sunic is a former US professor in political science, author and translator). His latest book is Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, 2007. He currently resides in Croatia.
Quote of the Week:
“In 2042, the Republican Party platform will include a plan for comprehensive reform of the US’s national health care program. Republican Congressmen will engage in furious debate in an attempt to limit the penalties for discrimination against homosexuals to fines rather than imprisonment.
Anybody who really merits the moniker “conservative” had better prepare to be a revolutionary at this point.”
Afghanistan: Where Empire Goes to Die by Michael Scheuer
Jackbooted Airport Thugs by Emily Feder
Neocon Crybabies by Steven LaTulippe
The U.S. Government is Corrupt from Top to Bottom by Charley Reese
Russophobia: A Political Pathology by Justin Raimondo
War in Georgia Shows US Foreign Policy is a Bust by Sheldon Richman
Who Started Cold War Two? by Pat Buchanan
For Most People, College is a Waste of Time by Charles Murray
Back in the U.S.S.R. by Daniel Koffler
Antiwar Conservatism by Dylan Waco
Georgia Versus Mother Russia…Another Neocon Scam? by Werner Scott
What is the White House Smoking? by Eric Margolis
Ambivalence of War by Charley Reese
George, Stay Out of Georgia by Bill Lind
Are You Ready for Nuclear War? by Paul Craig Roberts
Constitutions and Organic Bases by Shawn Wilbur
Blood in August: On Avoiding World War Three by John Zmirak
What Will a White Minority Mean for America? by Steve Sailor
Russia Threatens Nukes from AnarchoNation
“Sweet Neo Con” by The Rolling Stones
America’s Outrageous War Economy by Paul B. Farrell
Western Political Correctness Obscures Communist Atrocities by John Markley
I Resign from the Imperialist-loving Mount Pelerin Society by Paul Craig Roberts
Back in the USSA by William Norman Grigg
Gore Vidal: The Last Republican by Bill Kauffman
What Libertarianism is Not by Johnny Kramer
The Narrative Versus the News by Justin Raimondo
Rice Goes Deeper Into the Absurd by Glenn Greenwald
War: Why Your Gas is so Expensive Scott Horton Interviews Greg Palast
US Role in Georgia Cannot Be Ignored by Stephen Zunes
Musharraf Out, Like Nixon; Bush Still In, Like Flynn by Ray McGovern
Why Is Norman Finkelstein Not Allowed to Teach? by David Klein
Norman Finkelstein: A Pariah in ExileÂ by Stewart Ain
The Pyramid of the Capitalist System by Francois Tremblay
America’s New Economic Plan…Nationalize Banks? Werner Scott
Extending NATO to Russia’s Borders is Insane by Thomas Sowell
Thoughtful Anarchy by John Steele
International Criminal Court Should Leave Georgia Alone by Helen Rittelmeyer
China’s Religious Problem-And Ours by Grant Havers
Scalia on the Loose by Daniel Koffler
The Paradoxical Nature of the Geopolitics of Secession by Thomas N. Taylor
The Military Commissions, So Far by Joanne Mariner
The Middle Kingdom’s Middle Way by Jean-Louis Rocca
All Experts Agree-Legalize Drugs by Julian Critchley
The Shape of Cuba’s Reforms by Saul Landau and Nelson P. Valdes
The Futility of Hope by James Leroy Wilson
Soldier Worship by Laurence Vance
The State’s Legitimacy Crisis by Bill Lind
Bizarro Imperialism by Justin Raimondo
Afghanistan Invasion Going From Bad to Worse by Werner Scott
More Mischief from the Gangsters in Blue by Rad Geek
Why Not Let the Republicans Deals with this Mess? by Dave Lindorff
Quote of the Week:
“What are kingdoms but great robber bands? What are robber bands but small kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men, is ruled by the command of a leader, and is held together by a social pact. Plunder is divided in accordance with an agreed-upon law. If this evil increases by the inclusion of dissolute men to the extent that it takes over territory, establishes headquarters, occupies cities and subdues peoples, it publicly assumes the title of kingdom!”
The Law is an Ass by Becky Akers
You Belong to the State by Tom Woods
The American Police State by Bill Anderson
The Bogus Mythology of WW2 by Eric Margolis
Viva South Ossetia! by Justin Raimondo
America’s Israel-Occupied Media by Philip Giraldi
The American Military Crisis by Andrew Bacevich and Tom Engelhardt
Georgia: The Messy Truth by Brendan O’Neill
Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran by Lord Stirling
From Stupid to Moronic to Evil by Paul Craig Roberts
The Problem is Still Privilege by Jeremy Weiland
The Theory of Property by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
New England Groups Look to Secede by Jim Kozubek
Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy?Â by Robert Scheer
The Case Against the FedÂ by Murray Rothbard
Poor Little Georgia-Not!Â by Justin Raimondo
The Seeds of Another Cold War?Â by Anthony Gregory
Playing With Fire in the CaucasusÂ by Doug Bandow
Israeli Arms Sales to Georgia Raise New ConcernsÂ by Peter Hirschberg
Neocons Now Love International LawÂ by Robert Parry
Hypocrite BushÂ by Matthew Rothschild
Neocon Hypocrisy on Georgia and IraqÂ by Jacob Hornberger
Solzhenitsyn in AmericaÂ by Jeffrey Hart
Not Every Violation of the Law is a CrimeÂ by Jeremy Weiland
The Temperance Movement’s Effect on Drug UseÂ by Radley Balko
International SensitivityÂ by Rad Geek
The Political Economy of DistributismÂ by John Medaille
What’s Behind the War in Georgia?Â by Larry Gambone
After Multiculturalism: The Politics of Race and the Dialectics of LibertyÂ by Chris Sciabarra
The Twilight of National SovereigntyÂ by Paul Gottfried
China’s Island of StabilityÂ by John Derbyshire
The Tyranny of LiberalismÂ by Jim Kalb
Is the Conservative Movement Worth Conserving?Â by Austin Bramwell
Blowback from Bear-BaitingÂ by Patrick Buchanan
Raping the MilitaryÂ Â Â by Jared Taylor
Mikheil Saalashvili: War Criminal by Justin Raimondo
America’s Destructive Asian EmpireÂ Scott Horton interviews Eric Margolis
Old Man Hayek Had a FarmÂ by Jim Henley
National Anarchism and National SocialismÂ by Bay Area National Anarchist
Robotism: Learned HelplessnessÂ by Thomas N. Naylor
JFK Blown Away…What Else Do I Have to Say?Â by AnarchoNation
Secession TalesÂ by Bill Buppert
Don’t Blame Food Stamp RecipientsÂ by Greg Perry
On Thin IceÂ by Ted Galen Carpenter
The Neocons Do GeorgiaÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
“President Bush, Will You Please Shut Up?”Â by Paul Craig Roberts
The Daily Show Live from the White HouseÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
The Israel-Georgia-Washington NetworkÂ by Richard Spencer
How to Perform a Citizen’s Arrest of a Bush Administration OfficialÂ by Nathan Robinson
Anglo-Saxon Ethnocentrism and the Weakness of “White Nationalism”Â from AnarchoNation
Quote of the Week:
“I sometimes wonder if Americans have enough sense to justify their continued existence as an independent country.”Â Â Â Â Â Â -Paul Craig Roberts
Death, the Drug War and Corey MayeÂ by William Anderson
Don’t Call the Cops. Ever.Â by Dan Spielberg
The End of the RepublicÂ by Charley Reese
US Threatens Instability in PakistanÂ by Eric Margolis
Is China a Model for US Conservatives?Â by Jacob Hornberger
Losing AfghanistanÂ by Leon Hadar
Israel and IdentityÂ by Grant Havers
Grand New Party, Same Old Illusions Part TwoÂ by Austin Bramwell
Recuperated Enterprises-Theirs and OursÂ by Kevin Carson
When You Have to Leave America to be FreeÂ by Charles Davis
U.S. Army Private LaVena Lynn Johnson R.I.P.Â by Elizabeth Higgs
Leave the United States If You CanÂ by Wendy McElroy
Marx in the MorningÂ by Brad Spangler
Marching Off Into TyrannyÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
Mr. Obama, Welcome to the Big LeagueÂ by Pat Buchanan
How the West (Except for the U.S.) Ended SlaveryÂ Tom DiLorenzo
Hiroshima and NagasakiÂ by Ralph Raico
The Looming Federal Default: Sooner or Later?Â by Gary North
Iran and Al-QaedaÂ Michael Scheuer interviewed by Scott Horton
George Soros: Philanthropist Spook by Heather Coffin
The National Revolutionary Faction and the National Autonomous ZoneÂ by Bay Area National Anarchists
Are Women Smarter Than Men?Â by Larry Gambone
Gentrification=Stealing Poor Peoples’ HomesÂ Â by Francois Tremblay
CIA/Drugs vs Saddam/Al-QaedaÂ by Dylan Waco
Gangs: Something to DoÂ from AnarchoNation
God Forbid You Hesitate Before Opening Fire on a Target You Cannot See!Â by Jeremy Weiland
Bush’s War on Terror-Silly But SeriousÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
Killing Women and Children FirstÂ by John Zmirak
Pre-Crime and Pre-Emptive Civilian DisarmamentÂ by William Norman Grigg
Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign PolicyÂ by Murray Rothbard
Discovering SinÂ by Charley Reese
Rogue JurorÂ by Thomas R. Eddlem
Thinking About SecessionÂ by William Buppert
Obama and the EmpireÂ by William Blum
Was the Constitution Really Meant to Constrain Government?Â by Sheldon Richman
Why Do Chinese, Russians Like Their Governments So Much?Â by Pat Buchanan
Multiculturalist MalaiseÂ by Ilana Mercer
Version 2.0 (March 2002)
James J. Hughes, Ph.D.
Originally Presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the
Society for Social Studies of Science
November 1-4, 2001
Transhumanism is an emergent philosophical movement which says that humans can and should become more than human through technological enhancements. Contemporary transhumanism has grown out of white, male, affluent, American Internet culture, and its political perspective has generally been a militant version of the libertarianism typical of that culture. Nonetheless transhumanists are becoming more diverse, with some building a broad liberal democratic philosophic foundation in the World Transhumanist Association. A variety of left futurist trends and projects are discussed as a proto-“democratic transhumanism.” The essay also discusses the reaction of transhumanists to a small group of neo-Nazis who have attempted to attach themselves to the transhumanist movement. For the transhumanist movement to grow and become a serious challenge to their opposites, the bio-Luddites, they will need to distance themselves from their elitist anarcho-capitalist roots and clarify commitments to liberal democratic institutions, values and public policies. By embracing political engagement and the use of government to address equity, safety and efficacy concerns about transhuman technologies, transhumanists are in a better position to attract a larger, broader audience.
Quote of the week:
SOMEWHERE there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brethren: here there are states.
A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears unto me, for now will I say unto you my word concerning the death of peoples.
A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.”
It is a lie! Creators were they who created peoples, and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -Friedrich Nietzsche
There Is No Statute of Limitations on MurderÂ Vincent Bugliosi Speaks to the House Judiciary Committee
Plug the Plug on the War StateÂ by Charley Reese
Daniel Ellsberg’s Lesson for Our TimeÂ by James Bovard
Christopher Hitchens vs Waterboarding: Waters WinsÂ Â by Francois Tremblay
McCain More Hawkish Than Bush?Â from Thus Spoke Bellinsky
Exit Strategies Â by Pat Buchanan
Batman: Anarcho-Fascist or Unassimilated Jew?Â by Richard Spencer
Republican HypocritesÂ by Paul Gottfried
The Birth of an ObsessionÂ by Paul Gottfried
The Military-Industrial ComplexÂ by Chalmers Johnson
The Death of Rachel HoffmanÂ by Paul Armentano
Call for a Chicago Student StrikeÂ How About a Nationwide Student Strike??!!
Obama Plans to Make Afghanistan into VietnamÂ by Pat Buchanan
Twenty Years for Pot PossessionÂ by Paul Armentano
A Peoples’ Court for America?Â by Jacob Hornberger
Foundations for the New EconomyÂ by Kevin Carson
Feudalism vs Anarchism?Â by John Zmirak
The Public-Private Imperial Police StateÂ Interview with Chalmers Johnson
Is the Surge Working?Â byÂ Justin Raimondo
Choosing a King in NovemberÂ Â Glenn Greenwald Interviews Daniel Ellsberg
The Father of LiesÂ by Philip Giraldi
In Praise of InequalityÂ by Richard Spencer
Against Trademarks Â by Stephan Kinsella
The Unfortunate Case of Herbert SpencerÂ by Damon W. Root
Remembering Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn Â by Enrico Peppe
He Ventured Forth to Bring Light into the WorldÂ by Gerard Baker
Hegemony Everywhere But At HomeÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
The Believer: Obama Gets the Left Closer to GodÂ by Daniel Flynn
Egoism vs Natural Rights TheoryÂ by Wendy McElroy
Whitey Need Not ApplyÂ by Pat Buchanan
Authentic Black ConservatismÂ by Dylan Waco
Federal SlaveryÂ by William Norman Grigg
“Common Knowledge” About World War TwoÂ by Richard Spencer
Was Wilhelm Just Another W? Â Â by Paul Gottfried
A Free Market Agenda for Healthcare ReformÂ by Kevin Carson
Jewish NeoconservativesÂ by Daniel Koffler
Demagoguery WorksÂ by Charley Reese
Of all the contemporary scholars and theorists of the state of which I am aware, the one whose work I find by far the most compelling is the Dutch-Israeli military historianÂ Martin Van Creveld. It is his position that the conventional nation-state system that emerged from the time of the Treaty of Westphalia is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, for a variety of reasons. Van Creveld outlined his theories in a lecture to the Mises Institute some years ago. The text of it can be viewed here:
A recent work that has gotten some attention in the mainstream press is Bill Bishop’s The Big Sort, aÂ book that describes how Americans are in the process of mutually self-segregating along cultural, political, economic, ethnic, racial and religious lines, not only on the basis of the well-known “red state/blue state” divide but also on a more localized, neighborhood basis.
Now comes a new poll from the highly respected Zogby International polling group, commissioned by the Middlebury Institute, that indicates support for secession is much higher than many, including myself, would have suspected. What do the numbers show?
More than 20 per cent of American adults – one in every five – agrees that â€œany state or region has the right to peaceably secede from the United States and become an independent republic.â€ Another similar percentage (18.2 per cent) even says that they â€œwould support a secessionist effort in my state.â€
This is rather extraordinary. I would have predicted something like three percent agreeing on the “right to secede” with maybe one percent supporting such an effort.
The support for secession held true for every region in the country, though the percentage was slightly higher in the South (25.8) and the East (23.6). The figures were also consistent for every age group, but backing was strongest among younger adults, as high as 39.9 per cent in the 18-24 year category and 23.6 for 25-34 year olds.
Not much surprise here. Of course, support for secession is going to be highest in the South. The higher support among young people is consistent with Van Creveld’s view that the state is breaking down in partÂ because of its inability to hold on to the allegiance of younger people. The super-patriotic WW2 generation is starting to die out, and the older generation is now the Vietnam generation.
Broken down by race, the highest percentage agreeing with the right to secede was among Hispanics (42.6) and African-Americans (39.5), with â€œother and mixedâ€ accounting for 21.1 per cent and whites 17.1 per cent. On the question of giving support to secessionist efforts, slightly more blacks (32.7 per cent) than Hispanics (31.6) agreed, with 20.2 per cent â€œotherâ€ and 14.5 per cent white.
This is interesting. Apparently, many racial minorities do not regard secessionism as “racist”, despite the claims of professional “anti-racists” to the contrary. The higher support among Hispanics is possibly due to the influence of the reconquista movement, and it is also possible that the influence of groups like the Nation of Islam have much to do with the higher support among blacks. Indeed, the higher support in the South may ironically be due in part to the large black population in the South. Also, I have long believed that a genuine revolutionary movement would have to be rooted in the lumpenproletarian and underclass populations, and the racial minorities are disproportionately represented in these socio-economic groupings.
The currently faltering economy may have played a part in the endorsement of statesâ€™ right to secede, with 18.7 per cent of those considering themselves in the â€œinvestor classâ€ agreeing, along with 21.2 per cent of non-investors.
This is a bit confusing. How is an “investor” defined? An “investor” can be anyone who owns a single share of stock anywhere. A method of defining class positions more precisely might have indicated a wider gap between classes on this issue than what these numbers would indicate, although it is certainly possible support for secession can come from the affluent as well as the poor. The Lombard League of Northern Italy has considerable middle to upper-middle class support.
To gauge the extent to which support for secession comes from a sense that the country as it is now made up is not working, a separate question was asked about agreement that â€œthe United Statesâ€™ system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections.â€ As many as 44.3 per cent agreed strongly or somewhat, as against 29.9 per cent who strongly disagreed.
These are about the numbers I would have expected.
-32 percent of mainline liberals were sympathetic to secession as an idea.
-28 percent of “ultra-liberal” were supportive.
-17 percent of mainline conservatives were supportive.
This should dispel the myth of secession as a “right-wing extremist” movement. What this seems to indicate is that “conservatives” are hindered by jingoism and can’t bear to countenance an end to the empire, and the hard-core Left does not want to cede territory to the Right. Hence, the lower numbers of supporters among these than among “liberals”, a generic term that probably includes a wide assortment of people who are genuine liberals, moderates, non-jingoist paleoconservative types, libertarians, progressives, anti-authoritarian leftists, ecological radicals, counterculturalists, ACLU-types, populistsÂ or simply those who would classify themselves as “not a Republican”.
-38 percent of those with less than a high school diploma would support secession, while less than 10 percent of college graduates were pro-secession.
This probably represents a class division as much as anything else. The more educated tend to be more affluent, with a greater stake in preserving the system, and less inclined to sympathize with radicalism or upheaval.
-18 percent would support a secessionist effort in their state.
That’s roughly one in six. We need to double or preferably triple this percentage so as to give ourselves either a majority or a large, well-organized, vocalÂ minority. So how do we do this?
As I see it, supporters of secesssionist movements could probably be broken down into three basic categories:
1. Leaders and Activists. Many of these are likely to be people who are culturally and politically alienated from the mainstream to a much greater degree that the “average” person expressing political discontent. For instance, thus far the leadership of various secession groups has been drawn from the ranks of environmental radicals, anarchists, hard-core libertarians, neo-confederates or “southern nationalists”, members of the religious right who are to the right of the Republican Party, anti-establishment conservatives and others whose ideology is not exactly representative of prevailing opinion in American society at large. This is to be expected, as a greater degree of political alienation is naturally going to spawn greater support for something like secession.
2. Constituents. These would be those who support secessionist ideas and sympathize with secession movements in their own communities or regions, but are probably not as ideologically radical as many hard-core activists are. For instance, these people simply think the Empire has gotten too far out of hand with its war-mongering or civil liberties abuses, or its economic policies, or they might simply think it would be better if their town, county, city, state or region had more or complete autonomy over their own affairs.
3. Critical Mass. A “critical mass”, as I’m using the term here, would be those persons who either support secession, either actively or passively, or who do not actively oppose secession, out of a sense of immediate personal self-interest or some single issue they feel will be advanced under a secessionist regime. These people are not likely to be ideological radicals in any serious way, and may well be indifferent to higher political considerations like foreign policy, the overall state of the economy, and major social questions but feel, for example, that they will simply profit personally from the likelihood of lower taxes in the event of secession, or the greater availability of health care (whether public or private), or that some issue of importance to them personally, like the right to bear arms or abortion rights or the repeal of municipal zoning ordinances or legalized marijuana, will be advanced if secession takes place.
If one in six Americans would support a secession movement in their state, then it is important to have a secession movement in every state and also to identify those states where secesssion is likely to be the most popular (probably in the South and the East according to the Zogby poll). It is also important to begin cultivating leaders, activists, and constituents for such movements with the eventual goal of achieving a critical mass. Individual secession movements should orient their political programs towards the political and cultural environment they find themselves in. Most of the currently existing secession movements are doing this. The League of the South reflects the conservative values typical to many Southerners while the Second Vermont Republic represents the unusual liberal-libertarian hybrid that state is known for.
The need to reach a wider constituency can present certain conflicts. One of these involves the radical versus moderate dichotomy. Should secessionists “tone it down” in order to make secession more palatable to those with stronger residual attachments to the empire? Or should secessionists “turn up the volume” and adopt a more confrontational approach? I think a happy medium is in order. There is a such thing as trying to appeal to fence-straddlers to such a degree that the hard-core that acts as the real engine of any movement loses its morale in the face of perceived constant sell-outs. However, the inflammatory approach is not necessary advisable, either. Not only will this drive away potential converts, but it will be increasingly dangerous in the ever-degenerating political environment we find ourselves in. A certain amount of prudence is in order.
Another matter concerns the issue of ideological conflicts within particular secession movements, or between the leaders and activistsÂ of these movements and their prospective constituents. Here, a certain amount of prudence and pragmatism is necessary as well. Serious ideological conflicts can only be resolved with still more secession. Bishop’s The Big Sort indicates that Americans are naturally separating themselves not only on a regional but on a highly localized basis. Therefore, some degree of hard-core decentralization is in order. A realistic pan-secessionist movement will likely feature “red state” secessionist tendencies with “conservative” leadership and values, with serious territorial concessions made to others, while “blue state” secession movements will display “liberal” values, and make similar concessions out of necessity. Alan recently raised this issue in the Comments section:
“Most and perhaps all secessionist movements need to reduce their territorial claims and this certainly includes the LOS. They need to claim only a small contiguous area that avoids the big cities and probably the communities of color. SVR will probably have to reduce their territory as well, and Cascadia certainly must abandon itâ€™s claims on Idaho and Montana. There just arenâ€™t enough secessionists to build majorities in whole states and regions like that. Ideology is OT but territoy is certainly not and both LOS and Cascadian territorial claims are hugely excessive. Secessionists without excessive territorial claims include Christian Exodus, Free Town Project, and Liberty Districts.”
There is nothing inherently wrong withÂ a secession movement making seemingly extravagant territorial claims. After all, that’s the way it’s frequently done in business negotiations or in lawsuits. One party asks for an outlandish price or settlement and then negotiates their way down. Yet, as a practical matter, secession will only work if large numbers of people do not view it as forcing them under a political roof they find even more objectionable than the present system.
It is also important to distinguish the single-issue of secession from wider ideological agendas. An excellent role model on how to deal with this matter is conservative Christian and Texas Independence activist Larry Kilgore. Mr. Kilgore would be considered a “right-wing Christian theocrat” by the standards of all “mainstream” ideologies, yet he ran for the Senate in the Republican primary this year and received around 225,000 votes. He did so not as an ideological Christian theocrat but as a single-issue advocate of Texas independence, campaigning on a platform of using his position as Senator solely for the purpose of advocating and negotiating Texas independence if he were to be elected.
The issue of the relationship between “extremist” movements and secessionism is likely to be a sticky one. Some secession movements may be guided by ideological outlooks that are relatively middle of the road while others may seem bizarre or threatening to many people. The standard answer to objections raised by the participation of “extremists” should be that the worse their ideas or beliefs are, the better that they be separated from others. Also, persons with unusual beliefs are likely to be much more motivated to do the groundwork for a secession movement that someone who shares many beliefs with supporters of the System. As a hypothetical illustration, a secession movement in Oklahoma or Kentucky might have cults of polygamists, UFO believers, racists, or users of hallucinogenic drugs among its most hard core adherents. It may well be from the ranks of these people that the movement’s most dedicated activists and even some leaders are drawn. Yet it is unlikely that such groups would ever be numerically large enough to conquer significant pieces of territory. Instead, the scenario might be that a state secedes, and the “extremists” who comprise its hard-line activists congregate into a single town and set up a sovereign city-state while everyone else goes about their business as usual.
There is also the need to actually address issues that are of interest or concern to large numbers of people. Economic questions are foremost among these. What will be done about Social Security? Welfare recipients? Veterans? State-dependent business entities? Banking? Some like, Sean Gabb and Kevin Carson, have offered some viable and practical solutions to these matters. Race is another issue. Support for secession is apparently surprisingly high (relatively speaking) among the minorities. Perhaps an offer of reparations and sovereignty along the lines proposed by the Americans for Self-Determination Plan would push those numbers higher.
Of course, there is the wider consideration of how to proceed once the critical mass is finally achieved. In Democracy: The God That Failed, Hans-Hermann Hoppe offers some suggestions. Hoppe argues that “an important lesson must be learned by comparing the failed second American experiment with secession with the first one.”
The first American secession was facilitated significantly by the fact that at the center of power in Britain, public opinion concerning the secessionists was hardly unified. In fact, many prominent British figures such as Edmund Burke and Adam Smith, for instance, openly sympathized with the secessionists. Apart from purely ideological reasons, which rarely affect more than a handful of philosophical minds, this lack of a unified opposition to the the American secessionists in British public opinion can be attributed to two complementary factors. On the one hand, a multitude of regional and cultural-religious affiliations as well as of personal and family ties between Britain and the American colonies existed. On the other hand, the American events were considered far from home and the potential loss of the colonies as economically insignificant. To be sure, at the center of political power, which had shifted to the northern states of the U.S. by then, opposition to the secessionist Southern Confederacy was not unified, and the Confederate cause also had supporters in the North. However, fewer cultural bonds and kinship existed between the American North and South than had existed between Britain and the American colonists, and the secession of the Southern Confederacy involved about half the territory and a third of the entire population of the U.S. and thus struck Northerners as close to home and as a significant economic loss. Therefore, it was comparatively easier for the northern power elite to mold a unified front of “progressive” Yankee culture versus a culturally backwardÂ and “reactionary” Dixieland.
I’m not quite certain how the first part of Hoppe’s argument applies to the present political situation in the United States. To be sure, secession by regions of any size would be a significant and, from the perspective of the “power elite”, unacceptable economic loss. That much is understood. However, it is far less clear that cultural homogeneity of the type shared by American colonists and Englishmen in the eighteenth century is currently present. If anything, the “cultural divide” is wider today than it was at the onset of the Civil War in 1861. The Confederate Constitution was virtually identical to the U.S. Constitution minus certain points of economic contention. Then as now, the South was a hotbed for religious fundamentalism, but there was a thriving evangelicalism in the North that would be considered “fundamentalist” by today’s standards. Slavery was certainly a major point of contention, yet most whites of the time, North or South, were certainly “racist” by modern standards and not a few opponents of slavery actually favored repatriation of the slaves to Africa. It is likely there are fewer “cultural bonds and kinship” among Americans today than there were in 1861. The Civil War was toÂ a large degree a war between left-wing evangelical Christians and right-wing evangelical Christians and anti-slavery racists and pro-slavery racists. Other than that and some regional economic differences pitting southern agriculture against northern industry, the Union and the Confederacy were virtally identical in terms of race, religion, preferred political and economic systems and, for the most part, culture.
Where Hoppe’s analysis is more solid relates to his pointÂ about the efforts of the northern elite to depict the “war between the states” as a battle of enlightened progressives and backward reactionaries. This is precisely how groups like the SPLC attempt to depict anti-government movements today. It doesn’t appear to work very well if the statistics gathered by Zogby are accurate, as sympathy for secession appears to be higher among the “left-wing” constituents like racial minorities, young people, the poor, the less educated and “liberals”, though there’s no doubt plenty of secessionist sentiment among the “far right” (those so far right as to be outside the Republican Party)Â as well. Hoppe offers his own ideas on how secession might be achieved:
” In light of these considerations, the, it appears strategically advisable not to attempt again what in 1861 failed so painfully: for contiguous states or even the entire South trying to break away from the tyranny of Washington, D.C. Rather, a modern liberal-libertarian strategy of secession should take its cues from the European Middle Ages when, from about the twelfth until well into the seventeenth century (with the emergence of a modern central state), Europe was characterized by the existence of hundreds of free and independent cities, interspersed into a predominately feudal social structure. By choosing this model and striving to create a U.S. punctuated by a large and increasing number of territorially disconnected free cities-a multitude of Hong Kongs, Singapores, Monacos and Liechtensteins strewn out over the entire continent-two otherwise unattainable but central objectives can be accomplished. First, besides recognizing the fact that the liberal-libertarian potential is distributed highly unevenly across the country, such a strategy of piecemeal withdrawal renders secession less threatening politically, socially and economically. Second, by pursuing this strategy simultaneously at a great number of locations all over the country, it becomes exceedinly difficult for the central state to create a unified opposition in public opinion to the secessionists which would secure the level of popular support and voluntary cooperation necessary for a successful crackdown.”
I would agree thatÂ a strategy of secession by scattered units rather than by a contiguous geographical region is more viable for a number of reasons. First, such an arrangement is more conducive to the prevention of the emergence of yet another tyrannical central state following secession from the present tyrannical central state. Second, such an approach is likely more compatible with the need to accommodate the kinds of cultural and ideological diversity that would be found in a modern pan-secessionist effort. Third, as Hoppe recognizes, secessionist potential varies widely from location to location. Fourth, the current process of self-separation Americans are undergoing is just as much a matter of conflict between cities and counties, races and ethnic groups, social classes and religious, cultural or “moral” outlooks as it is a conflict between regions.
However, I am not convinced that the present ruling class would be any less offended by secession on the part of scattered clusters of city-states than it would by secession by a unified block of states in the South, West, East or on the West Coast. Yes, the latter may end up suffering the same fate as the Confederacy, but the former may well suffer the same fate as the people at Waco in 1993. This is an empire that claims the right to interfere in the internal politics of remote African nations. The overlords of this system will certainly not let, say, Chicago or Dallas or even Kennesaw County simply say, “So long, feds, we ain’t payin’ you no more taxes.”
Secession will likely need to be doneÂ by clusters of insurgent city-states of the type Hoppe suggests, and these may well reflect an amazing variety of beliefs and cultural systems, but they will need to be at least somewhat supportive of one another in the political and military realm (though not necessarily in the wider cultural or ideological realm) if they are to avoid the fate of the Tibetans at the hands of the Chinese.
Quote of the Week:
“Soledad Oâ€™Brien, at the beginning of CNNâ€™s â€œBlack in America:Â Reclaiming the Dream,â€ cited as evidence of the at least partial fulfillment of Dr. Kingâ€™s dream that â€œSome are CEOs.Â Some are Secretaries of State.â€
Well, I have a dream of my own:Â To strangle the last CEO with the entrails of the last Secretary of State.
Seriously, thereâ€™s something really nauseating about a model of â€œProgressiveâ€ politics thatâ€™s perfectly willing to leave the present structures of political and economic power intact, so long as the board rooms and cabinets contain a representative selection of races and genders (â€look like America,â€ as Slick Willie put it).
As a white man, I can tell you, I derive very little satisfaction from the knowledge that Iâ€™m being screwed over by people who look like me.Â Instead of worrying about the racial and gender makeup of the board rooms and cabinets, Iâ€™d like to tear them down.”
Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â -Kevin Carson
When You SeeÂ a Turtle Sitting on a FencepostÂ by Kevin Carson
James Dobson: Neocon StoogeÂ by Dylan Waco
The Mother of All MessesÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
A Brazen EvilÂ by Justin Raimondo
How Good Was the Good War?Â by Thomas E. Woods Jr.
Obama: The Democratic War PresidentÂ by Eric Margolis
The State is Above the LawÂ by Glenn Greenwald
A Tattoo for Every Politician’s ForeheadÂ by Charley Reese
Children in GuantanamoÂ from AnarchoNation
The Un-Tied States of AmericaÂ by Chellis Glendenning
Who Really Rules?Â by Paul Gottfried
The Rebellion in OklahomaÂ by Walter Williams
The Religious Right is AWOL From the Real WarÂ Â by Chuck Baldwin
Thoughts on the Canadian Genocide and the “Apology”Â byÂ Larry Gambone
Videos from 15th London New Right Conference:
WarÂ by Soren Renner
CosmotheismÂ by Larry Nunn
ImperiumÂ by Norman Lowell
On CarlyleÂ by Jonathon Bowden
The State vs. GuerrillasÂ by Bill Lind
Obama on the BrinkÂ by Robert Scheer
Are You Ready to Face the Facts About Israel?Â by Paul Craig Roberts
Honorable Exit From EmpireÂ by Pat Buchanan
Labor Struggle in a Free MarketÂ by Kevin Carson
Obama Will Probably Win Â by Christopher Roach
Grand New Party, Same Old IllusionsÂ by Austin Bramwell
Having an Agenda: The Black Libertarian’s Greatest Fear?Â by Wilton Alston
Quagmire ExchangeÂ by Charley Reese
Abetting Police Aggression: The COPS EffectÂ by William Norman Grigg
Hitchens on the Sectarian LeftÂ by Alexander Linklater
Pim Fortuyn and the Next European LiberalismÂ from BraveNewWorldWatch
If we were Soviet or East European citizens in the 1950s, 60s or 70s, and we were attempting to build a revolutionary underground, classical criticisms of the state would certainly be helpful. For instance, the Augustinian view of the state as a “robber band writ large”. However, we would be selling ourselves short by simply criticizing “the state” as an entity unto itself without focusing the nature of the particular kind of state we wished to resist. For this, we would need to look further than simple critiques of statism qua statism and delve deeper into criticisms of Marxist states as particular manifestations of the state. Further, we would need to critique the ideological underpinnings of Marxist states: the ideologies of Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Hoxhaism, etc.
So it is with those of us who would resist the present day regimes of the West. Most manifestations of the state except one are considered illegitimate in modern societies. Very few people take seriously the supposed philosophical justifications for monarchy, theocracy, aristocracy, fascism, communism, or military dictatorship. Only “democracy” is considered legitimate, and not just any kind of democracy. Iran is arguably just as democratic in the political sphere as any of the Western countries, yet it is considered a pariah nation. Instead, “democracy” must be fused with “the free-market” (state-capitalism), “the public sector” (the welfare state), “multiculturalism” (state-enforcement of compulsory racial/ethnic/cultural integrationism), state-regulation of “public health” (the therapeutic state) and a number of other things.
Additionally, the Western nations have, over the past 30-50 years, undergone a de jour cultural and social revolution and a de facto revolution in politics, law, education and a number of other institutions. Fifty years ago, racism was nearly universal and frequently mandatory. Today, it is regarded as the ultimate horror. A friend of mine’s sixtyish mother was told as a young girl that her aspirations to become a physician were inappropriate, “as boys become doctors, girls become nurses”. Such sentiments would be considered laughable today, even by most social conservatives. A generation ago, homosexuality was a serious felony. Five years ago, the US Supreme Court declared it to be a constitutional right. Abortion and pornography were once criminally prohibited vices, akin to drug use at the present time, yet these have likewise been declared constitutional rights.
No doubt many people, including myself, would consider most of these changes to be positive in nature. No one wants to return to Jim Crow, or endorse crass sexism, or hail the persecution of homosexuals by the state. And the rights of free speech, freedom of the press and privacy are essential to keeping the state at bay. But that brings us to another interesting matter. As all of this supposed liberation and breakdown of oppressive social structures has occurred, the state has become increasingly ruthless and pernicious in its expression. For instance, the US Constitution allows for the prosecution of only three federal crimes-treason, piracy and counterfeiting. Today, there are over 3,000 federal crimes and forty percent of these have been created since 1970. Prior to the mid-1980s, drugs were illegal, with drug crimes being treated in a manner comparable to serious property offenses like burglary or grand larceny. Today, even the most minor players in drug offenses are frequently sentenced to greater periods of incarceration than even some who commit violent crimes.Â Asset forfeiture laws were originally used to go after the holdings of members of drug trafficking cartels. Today, such laws apply to 140 other types of “crimes”. The US prison population has increased a dozen times over since the 1960s. Paramilitary policing was a new phenomenon in the 1970s, and originally intended as a means of dealing with either civil unrest or particularly difficult matters of law enforcement like hostage situations. Today, paramilitary policing is normal, even for routine police work, like execution of a search warrant. Even at the height of the Nixon era, the idea that a president would claim the right to unilaterally suspend habeus corpus and imprison suspects indefinitely in secret prisons without trial would have been considered absurd.
As the state has grown more pernicious, so has the economic position of the working class declined as US elites have adopted the Third World economic model. The American state, for the first time, is openly proclaiming a policy of reserving the right to wage “preemptive war” against virtually any other state it wishes, for any reason, at any time. Further, the cultural revolution of the past generation is being used as the foundation of a whole new kind of authoritarianism. Babies are now accused of “racism” for disliking exotic ethnic foods. A university janitor is reprimanded for reading a book about the Ku Klux Klan during his break time, even though the book in question was anti-Klan. A mother is arrested for spanking a child even when no evidence of genuine abuse exists.
One thing that is rather interesting about this new totalitarian humanism that seeks to establish a Big Brother state to make sure no one is ever being abused or discriminated against is its arbitrariness. Spanking a child is “child abuse” yet the US federal government can roll over dozens of children with tanks at Waco and no one from the System raises an eyebrow. “Racism” is regarded as the ultimate horrorshow, yet the single policy that inflicts the greatest amount of harm upon black communities, the War on Drugs, continues unabated.
It is this totalitarian humanism that is the foundation of modern state tyrannies. Just as we need the traditional critiques of statism found in the works of various historic thinkers, just as we need a coherent critique of the relationship between “big government” and “big business” of the kind that Kevin Carson has developed, so do we need a similar critique of totalitarian humanism and its tentacles like cultural Marxism and the therapeutic state.
The overwhelming majority of North American and probably European “radicals” still proceed as if it were perpetually 1968, if not 1928. Just as the simultaneous rise of the global economy and the decreased viability of the welfare state has mandated a search for new economic alternatives, so does the rise of totalitarian humanism necessitate a critique of this phenomenon beyond what most “radicals” could ever offer. A primary barrier to the formulation and dissemination of such a critique is the fact that most “radicals” essentially share the same value system as the proponents of totalitarian humanism. Yes, many liberals and leftists, for instance, oppose some of the excesses of Bush and cronies concerning civil liberties, but most of them also hold to the view that state-enforced multiculturalism, state-regulated “public health”, state interference in private institutions and local communities to prevent or deter illiberal social practices are legitimate and share the view of the current ruling class that racism, sexism, gay discrimination, fundamentalism, xenophobia, carrying a handgun, failing to attend public schools until age eighteen, etc. are the ultimate sins. Perhaps this explains why the antiwar movement has been utterly impotent and ineffective in opposing the neocons’ wars,i.e., because they share they same fundamental values of spreading “enlightenment”, “democracy”, “equality”, yet may have some reservations about the neocons’ methodology (like American unilateralism and defiance of international law). And, of course, some, like Christopher Hitchens, do not possess even those qualms.
One reason I find tendencies like the national-anarchists or the left-conservatives or the national-Maoists or the neo-secessionists to be rather refreshing is that they represent an outlook that genuinely rejects establishment values. After all, what would be more frightening to the American ruling class and political establishment: A bunch of college students, middle class leftists and hippies marching in the streets in a manner that looks more like a rock concert protesting global warming, racism, and Third World honor killings or a disciplined, orderly march of hard-core revolutionaries drawn from the ranks of inner-city gangbanger/ghetto types,Â Appalachian rednecks, or ex-convicts and other genuinely lumpen elements carrying banners with menacing slogans like “Death to the System!”, wearing all-black and red outfits and demanding overthrow of the government, smashing the ruling class and dissolution of the system into separatist/secessionist communities?
I know which team I’d pick.
Quote of the Week:
“Â Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
– Thomas Paine
Proudhon Seminar: What is Property?Â Ch. 2 notes, Pt. 1 by Shawn Wilbur
Proudhon Seminar: What is Property?Â Ch. 1 notes, by Shawn Wilbur
Bush Acts Like an Oaf at Gang of Eight ConferenceÂ by Eric Margolis
A Phony Crisisâ€”and a Real One, On The Path To War With IranÂ by Pat Buchanan
Enabling Tyrannyâ€”Brigitte Bardot And Other VictimsÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
Police Quotas Motivate Unfair Treatment from Left Conservative Blog
The Lesser Evil Just Keeps Getting More EvilÂ by Kevin Carson
Â All You Need to Know About ObamaÂ Â by Brad Spangler
Why They’re Called “Cockroach Caucuses”Â by Kevin Carson
“Have Nothing to Do with Conquest”Â by Michael Scheuer
Conservative Confusion on Iran by Philip Giraldi
Just Another Drug War RantÂ by Kevin Carson
You Say You Want a RevolutionÂ by Kevin Carson
One Million Terrorists?Â Â by Paul Craig Roberts
Nothing Honorable About the Vietnam WarÂ by Ted Rall
John McCain is the Candidate of Mars, God of WarÂ by Doug Bandow
Little War Criminals Get Punished, Big Ones Don’tÂ by Paul Craig Roberts
America’s First Affirmative Action CandidateÂ by Pat Buchanan
Is There Sovereignty Beyond the State?Â by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
The Myth of the Conservative Legal Movement Â Â Â by Kevin R. C. Gutzman
Housing and SquattingÂ Â Â Â Â from AnarchoNation
Notes on the Revolution MarchÂ Â Â Â Â from Social Memory Complex
Drug War HogwashÂ Â Â Â by Charley Reese
Panarchy: A Means to Jeffersonian IdealsÂ by Mike Rozeff
We’re in a World Economic CrisisÂ by William Norman Grigg
Text of a speech from Adam Kokesh of Iraq Veterans Against the War
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Text of speech delivered 080712 at the west lawn of the capitol:
When I joined the Marines at a little strip mall in Santa Fe, and when I was in boot camp in San Diego, and when I was dodging mortars in Fallujah, I could not have imagined that I would one day share a stage with such renowned speakers. However, to march shoulder to shoulder, and to stand in solidarity with you, is a far greater honor.
It has been said that when in the course of human events, an oppression so revolts its subjects, it becomes necessary to alter or abolish the means of that tyranny. Is it that time when our Bill of Rights is defiled every day? When our adventures abroad threaten our security at home? When the Federal Reserve keeps our free nation enslaved by debt? When the people of the world tremble under the thumb of corporate imperialism? And now our nation is drifting dangerously from freedom to fascism. So I have to ask, is it time? The time is now, the threat is clear, the bands of tyranny are tightening around America, and it is our duty to resist!
As empowered patriots, let us take stock of our commitment to the ideals upon which this country is founded. America without her freedoms is like a body without a soul. The challenge before the Freedom Movement is no less, than to bring about a revolution of values, inspire a renaissance of American politics, and breathe new life into the tortured body of our nation. We will meet that challenge with courage and love, and as always, we the people, will prevail!
To rally the troops of the Revolutionary Army in the winter of 1776, Thomas Paine said, â€œThese are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot, will in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.â€
As Iraq Veterans Against the War, we are resisting an occupation that we once risked our lives for. We swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, but we found out the hard way that the greatest enemies of the Constitution are not to be found in the sands of some far off land, but rather right here at home! We are your new winter soldiers and we are still defending America.
We bring the values, skills, and commitment that make us warriors to the fight before us today. We are working to end the war by strategically withdrawing our material support and inspiring others to do the same. By advocating for veterans, we honor those who served, and empower soldiers to become successful civilians. With Truth In Recruiting, we are inspiring a generation of young Americans to find a better way to serve this country than dying for empire. By supporting those who are actively resisting, we inspire further resistance, and ensure that soldiers still have the right, as is their duty, to disobey illegal orders.
During the siege of Fallujah, a young Lance Corporal was shot through the side of his flak jacket in a firefight to the west of the city. The bullet hit an artery near his spine. My team was called to help get him to the field hospital at Camp Taqadum. He was on a stretcher in the humvee in front of me, and I watched the Corpsman treating the external wound in a frightened, hurried panic, as the dust from the hot road swirled around us. When we got there, I carried him in as he moaned and writhed in pain, barely conscious. He flailed his arm off the stretcher, and as I put it back by his side I told him, â€œDon’t worry. You made it. You’re gonna be OK.â€ But he died only minutes later from the internal bleeding.
I have to live with that memory every day, but I have learned from it. I will not tell you that the band-aids applied by Republicans and Democrats will heal us. I will not pretend that everything is just going to be ok while we are bled dry by tyrants. And if it takes the last full measure of devotion, I will not allow the same fate to befall this country!
This young movement, is getting past the external wounds to the greater evils plaguing this nation. We know, that the greatest threat to American security is the current corruption of our government! No politician has ever ended a war. Civil rights were won in this country not by any legislator, but by a movement. I have great hope for America, but not because of an election. No, my hope comes from you!
Our tragic love affair with the state, has led us to put far too much trust in a government that we hoped could improve our lives, but has instead come to run our lives for us. We have become, as a people, like a frightened, battered, beat down victim of an abusive relationship. A servile, unquestioning, obedient people, will always produce tyrants. We must, as a nation, once again, embrace defiance, rebellion, and resistance!
Every day more and more Americans are avoiding unenforceable taxes, leaving government jobs out of disgust, and sending their kids to college instead of combat. But our efforts as a movement must become unified and deliberate to fully withdraw our compliance and support. Be it with your lives, labor, or tax dollars, stop investing in your own oppression! Guard your communities from the police state! Do not waste a single vote, or a single dollar, on the two-party system! Do not be content merely to grumble and to march while they are using fear, force, and violence as weapons of oppression. We must embrace the opportunity to resist civilly while we still can!
We are compelled to be here for many different reasons, and there is strength in our diversity. As within Iraq Veterans Against the War and Veterans For Peace, we do not need to be uniform to be unified. Take a look at the thoughtful, passionate people around you on this field, and throughout this country. Do not leave here without meeting a new brother or sister in the struggle. Take with you the inspiration to share your passion with someone who does not know they are yet part of our movement. Seek out where you can be most effective in the cause of liberty.
Challenge our force fed culture of unquestioning conformity and compliance. Embrace a world that is not defined by the politics of fear, our obedience producing schools, or the false prophets of the corporate media. As we have been awakened, we must stir the sleeping masses. As the forces of oppression are diligent, so must we toil. As they are committed, we must surpass them. As they step up their efforts, we must rise up to defeat them as a unified movement!
We have been labeled rebels, traitors, enemies of the state. All terms King George would have used to vilify our founders. I, for one, will always rebel against oppression, a traitor only to tyranny, and I would be remiss to not be the enemy of a state, that so blatantly tramples our freedoms.
American values have been nearly vanquished by consumerism, militarism, and authoritarianism. Yellow ribbons and lapel pins will not save this country. When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. The utmost manifestation of love and devotion to America, is today as it always has been, resistance of tyranny! Resist we must, and resist we will! We will not be silent! We will not obey! We will not let our government destroy our humanity! We will not wait another moment in fear to stand up for what we know to be right! It is time the government starts fearing the people again! It is time that we meet oppression with resistance!
They cannot stop us! Humanity marches on. You can fight it, or fight for it. When we say revolution, we say it with love. As we march onward from this place where we have pledged to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor, let us embrace the struggle, cherish the fight, and live in that love. The passion of our hearts will be raised with our fists!
Thanks to Josh Rhodes for digging this up:
Meeting Spain’s last anarchist
Hours after flying on a rickety 19-seater propeller plane and landing on a dirt strip, you get to the village of San Buenaventura in the heart of the Bolivian Amazon.
Here, in a simple one-storey brick house next to a row of wooden shacks, is the home of Antonio Garcia Baron.
He is the only survivor still alive of the anarchist Durruti column which held Francoist forces at bay in Madrid during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and the founder of an anarchist community in the heart of the jungle.
Mr Baron, 87, was wearing a hat and heavy dark glasses. He later explained that they were to protect his eyes, which were damaged when he drank a cup of coffee containing poison nine years ago.
It was, he said, the last of more than 100 attempts on his life, which began in Paris, where he moved in 1945 after five years in the Mauthausen Nazi concentration camp, and continued in Bolivia, his home since the early 1950s.
He was keen to share his views on 20th Century Spanish history with a wider audience.
“The Spanish press has covered up that the (Catholic) Church masterminded the death of two million Republicans during the civil war, not one million as they maintain,” Mr Baron said before launching into one of his many anecdotes.
“I told Himmler (the head of the Nazi SS) when he visited the Mauthausen quarry on 27 April, 1941, what a great couple the (Nazis) made with the Church.
“He replied that it was true, but that after the war I would see all the cardinals with the Pope marching there, pointing at the chimney of the crematorium.”
On the walls of Mr Baron’s house is a picture of him taken in the camp. Next to it is a blue triangle with the number 3422 and letter S inside, marking the prisoners considered stateless.
“Spain took away my nationality when I entered Mauthausen, they wanted the Nazis to exterminate us in silence. The Spanish government has offered to return my nationality but why should I request something that was stolen from me and 150,000 others?” he said angrily.
Mr Baron arrived in Bolivia on the advice of his friend, the French anarchist writer Gaston Leval.
“I asked him for a sparsely populated place, without services like water and electricity, where people lived like 100 years ago – because where you have civilisation you’ll find priests.”
Some 400 people, mostly Guarani Indians, lived there at the time, but in fact also a German priest.
“He was a tough nut to crack. He learnt of my arrival and told everyone that I was a criminal. They fled and made the sign of the cross whenever they saw me, but two months later I started speaking and they realised I was a good person, so it backfired on him.”
Convinced that the priest still spied on him, a few years later he decided to leave and create a mini-anarchist state in the middle of the jungle, 60km (37 miles) and three hours by boat from San Buenaventura along the Quiquibey River.
With him was his Bolivian wife Irma, now 71.
They raised chicken, ducks and pigs and grew corn and rice which they took twice a year to the village in exchange for other products, always rejecting money.
Life was tough and a few years ago Mr Baron lost his right hand while hunting a jaguar.
For the first five years, until they began having children, they were alone. Later a group of some 30 nomadic Indians arrived and decided to stay, hunting and fishing for a living, also never using money.
“We enjoyed freedom in all of its senses, no-one asked us for anything or told us not to do this or that,” he recounted as his wife smiled, sitting in a chair at the back of the room.
Recently they moved back to the village for health reasons and to be closer to their children. They live with a daughter, 47, while their other three children, Violeta, 52, Iris, 31, and 27-year-old Marco Antonio work in Spain.
They also share the few simple rooms arranged around an internal patio with three Cuban doctors who are part of a contingent sent to help provide medical care in Bolivia.
The hours passed and it was time to take the small plane back to La Paz before the torrential rain isolated the area again.
Only then, as time was running out, did Mr Baron begin speaking in detail about Mauthausen and the war – as if wishing to fulfil a promise to fallen comrades.
How the Nazis threw prisoners from a cliff, how some of them clung to the mesh wire to avoid their inevitable death, how the Jews were targeted for harsh treatment and did not survive long.
His memory also took him to Dunkirk where he had arrived in 1940, before he was caught and imprisoned in Mauthausen.
“I arrived in the morning but the British fleet was some 6km from the coast. I asked a young English soldier if it would return.
“I saw that he was eating with a spoon in one hand and firing an anti-aircraft gun with the other,” he laughed.
“‘Eat if you wish’, I told him. ‘Do you know how to use it?’ he asked since I didn’t have military uniform and was very young.
“‘Don’t worry,’ I said. I grabbed the gun and shot down two planes. He was dumbstruck.
“I’ll never forget the determination of the British fighting stranded on the beach.”
In response to my statement “Is the Left salvagable? In and of itself, it does not appear to be,”, Jeremy raises some helpful points concerning the defintions of “left” and “right”:
That begs the question: what is this “Left”? If it is merely establishmentarianism with a cultural attachment to civil disobedience and protest, then one wonders whether the term â€œleftâ€ even applies. And so when you characterize the entire Left by its most objectionable qualities, it does give me pause. This is a very broad movement, with a wide variety of personalities.
And at least historically speaking, it seems like the Right has a much more basic need to align with established norms and power than the Left (whether we’re using it in the traditional anti-establishment sense or in the modern, pejorative sense you employ). I’m all for transcending left and right, but not as an alternative to performing a much needed analysis of the current political conditions.
I’m not accusing you of laziness, but merely suggesting that we make sure we qualify our generalizations of convenience as such. There’s no need to turn anybody off by attacking their label of preference, is there? I’ve always liked the tack you’ve seemed to take where you out-left the left, and out-right the right, demonstrating that they lack the conviction of their own principles. This is the way to get serious people to think seriously about their own motivations. We transcend the political poles by not by dispensing with them but by clarifying what they were originally intended to represent.
In strictly historical terms, virtually all people in modern societies (those of the West and others with similar politico-economic systems) are “leftists”. The “right”, properly understood in its historical context, was the ideology of defense of the monarchy, theocracy and aristocracy: “Throne and Altar”. Such sentiments are marginalized to say the least in liberal democracies, particularly the United States, which has no “throne and altar” tradition of its own. In other words, nearly all Americans and most Westerners in general start with the American or French Revolutions and move leftward from there, often considerably leftward. The closest thing the United States has to a “right-wing” is the so-called “religious right”, which is rather liberal by historical and even contemporary world standards. For instance, compare the “religious right” in America versus that in Saudi Arabia.
Most contemporary “right-wing” ideologies are historically on the Left. For instance, the godfather of modern philosophical “conservatism”, Edmund Burke, was a Whig who opposed British imperialism in Ireland, America and even India. American “conservatism” owes much to the classical liberalism of Locke and Adam Smith. The neoconservatives are an outgrowth of either Cold War liberalism or Trotskyism (depending on who you ask or which neoconservative you’re talking about). “Right-wing” libertarianism is really the radical classical liberalism of Herbert Spencer. American “right-wing populism” is distinctively rooted in the American republican tradition and owes very little to European royalism to say the least.
The mainstream Republican-oriented right is really a kind of “right-wing liberalism”, and therefore historically on the left, particularly since the neocon takeover of the right. What is now called “liberalism” in the US is really social democracy, and this is very much a centrist, if not reactionary, position in modern societies. American “liberalism” and European “social democracy” both maintain roughly the same levels of state intervention into the economy, though the European social welfare system is slightly more extensive (and mad possible only by the absence of a large military-industrial complex of the kind found in the USA). This system, whether European or American, is becoming an archaism, given the fiscal difficulties of modern welfare states.
The Left established itself as the party of the welfare state several generations ago. That’s why a distinction was initially made between the Old Left and the New Left. As we all know, the New Left abandoned class politics for a cultural politics that is now relatively status quo. At the same time, as all of this cultural “liberation” has occurred, the grip of political totalitarianism has tightened. The “Campus Progress” group I mentioned in the previous post seemed, from the contents of DeAnna’s review, to represent a wide cross-section of the Left, from the mainstream Democratic-oriented left to The Nation to the radical gay/trans,etc. left to the Weathermen-friendly. Yet I also noticed from the content of that article that most of the issues covered involved the same cultural politics that has defined the Left since the 60s.
The fundamental problem I see with the Left is that not only does it not offer anything new, but does not take many fundamentally anti-establishment positions. Of course, if we wish to define “left” in the historic sense of opposition to the status quo, then it would seem that most of the currents I previously identified as “revolutionary right” would also be the true “left”. This would certainly include the “left-libertarian” tendency that Jeremy leans towards, particularly considering that many liberals and leftists consider libertarianism to be just a variant of fascism. It would certainly include Dylan Waco and Daniel Bein’s “left-conservatism”. Of course, it would include “national-anarchism” or the “national-Maoism” of the Patriotic Workers’ Party.
The problem I see is that most orthodox leftists would consider all of these positions to be heresy. If the “left” is the orthodox left, then are all of these genuine anti-establishment positions on the left, or are they something entirely new, or are they just a “left to the left of the left”? I remember Sam Dolgoff saying once that “there’s the left and then there’s the further left and then the even further left, and then there’s an even further left and that left is me.”
Maybe that’s what we are.
I wrote in the “Liberty and Populism” article that the real struggle in modern times is a continuation of the historic battle between Marxism and Anarchism, with Marxism representing the status quo, whether right-wing liberalism/Trotskyism in the form of the Neocons, centrist totalitarian humanism of the US Democratic Party and the ruling classes of the European nations, the crypto-Stalinist cultural Marxism of the PC Left, the post-Maoism of the Chinese Communist Party, et.al.
I suppose the true left is whatever is resisting all of this. Are religious conservatives standing up to totalitarian humanism by opening home schools leftist or rightists? Are gun nut militias left or right? Are the cultural nationalists of Vlaams Bloc advocating an independent Flanders left or right?
It’s a complicated question.
NA23 offers this suggestion:
The key is the breaking down of the Left/Right dichotomy with a real social alternative. We have to disrupt the labels and stereotypes held by the left, right and the media. This can only be done succesfully through frequent street actions and public involvement, on as many issues as is possible.
The strategy of tension and the disruption of dogmas through confusion.
This may well be correct, as it has been the National-Anarchists of Australia and New Zealand that have been achieving the highest level of recognition so far as “neither left nor right” movements go, and they have been doing it through street actions.
What the folks in Australia have shown is that even a small group that acts correctlyÂ can make something of an impact.Â A few years ago, I was having a conversation with a non-political acquaintance who told me that most leftist demonstrations he had observed appeared to be nothing more than chaotic, incoherent nonsense with a bunch of people swarming around and heading off into all sorts of different directions and often carrying signs (usually exhibiting the quality of what a third-grader with a box of crayons might produce) with slogans that were irrelevant to the purpose of the protest itself, for instance, “Save the Whales” signs being carried at an antiwar demo. I suggested in response that it would be more effective if a group of protestors simply marched in an organized way, carrying one big banner that was professionally done and that got the message across, with relevant literature available to give out to interested passersby.
From the photos of the New Right Aus/Nz actions, it appears that this is precisely what they do. Hence, their effectiveness. Also, notice that many of them are wearing black outfits and some are wearing masks (warning: wearing a mask in public is illegal in some US jurisdictions). This is good as it gives the marchers an appearance of seriousness that counterbalances the hippy-dippy, hysterical leftoid image of protest demonstrations.
So how would we do what our Australian/Nz friends are doing in the USA? NA23’s position of adopting such tactics towards many issues seems appropriate. No doubt different issues will be more significant in certain places and at certain times. On the secession question itself, image a demo similar to that depicted inÂ these NA-NR Aus/NZ photos outside of federal buildings in the capital cities of individual states demanding autonomy for regions and cities. Imagine such demos outside courthouses, jails and police stations demanding an end to the police state and the legal racket and prison-industrial complex built up around it. Imagine demos outside the headquarters ofÂ corporations, banks and businesses institutions involved inÂ nefarious activities. Imagine such a demo outside military recruitmentÂ centers handing outÂ antiwar literature making serious arguments as opposed to the usual “No Blood for Oil” leftoid crap.Â Â There could be similar actions against the eradication of low income housing, or against corporate welfare-funded development projects, and many other targets.
What would be particularly advantageous is if anti-System groups from opposite ends of the political or cultural spectrum could get in the habit of marching together against common enemies, not out of a sense of brotherly love, but out of recognition of common enemies. For instance, religious fundamentalists and environmentalists demanding an end to the feds’ harassment of pro-life, environmental or animal rights groups. Left-wing anarchists, black nationalists and white nationalists marching over, say, police brutality or housing issues (yes, such groups have actually engaged in joint actions in the past). Homosexuals and motorcycle gangs marching in protest over harassment of gay bars and biker bars by zoning and liquor licensing boards.
You get the idea.
Of course, any such actions have the potential for violence as well as legal complications. Go in with your eyes open. Consult with lawyers, train your people in how to deal with the police when arrested, do your homework, etc.
Maybe we can reclaim the good name of protest.
Jeremy raises an interesting question in the Comments section:
I don’t think the Left is so utterly irretrievable as you seem to, but a line must be drawn in the sand when it comes to revolutionary potential. Many on the Left (and Right, no doubt) will be found wanting.
And Mike offers a few important observations as well:
The analysis of today’s “liberalism” as totalitarianism is spot on. I would only add that there is a like tendency of thought from those on the â€œconservativeâ€ side of the political sphere that would likewise recognize no limitation or boundary to the use of state power to create their utopia.
Over at the Ancien’ Regimer page Taki’s Mag Kevin DeAnna has a piece that is highly relevant to this issue:
Most of DeAnna’s piece is an attack on the Left, but look at what he says about what passes for the mainstream “Right”:
In contrast, the majority of young CPAC attendees believed the purpose of political action was wearing a suit and preparing for a career. It is the difference between activists and politicos. Many Beltway conservatives are not activists and despise those who engage in protests or think of political alternatives beyond voting for Team Red. A mainstream conservative organization awarding young activists for direct action is simply unconceivable. Conservative organizations systematically funnel them into the dead end of Republican business as usual. Culture is largely ignored. The result is a youth “movement” that is actually less committed and effective than the older conservative grassroots. Campus Progress is building activists and the campus Right is building politicians and politicos.
In other words, the mainstream Republican-oriented “Right” is simply a movement of careerists and opportunists for whom political or party affiliation is simply seen as a career move. Well, duh, who would have ever thought that about Young Republican-types? This gets us to the difference between “conservatives” and a wide body of perspectives that might be called the “revolutionary Right”. What is a “conservative”? Roughly defined, a conservative is someone who wants to conserve a particular status quo (in the tradition of De Maistre) or is suspicious of change, or at least rapid or radical change (in the tradition of Burke). American conservatism also has a classical liberal strand to it, particularly the Lockean emphasis on property rights, though many right-wing histrionics over “property rights” amount to little more than an apology for the state-capitalist status quo (see Kevin Carson).
There is still another branch of “conservative” thinking, and one which I personally adhere to, that does not necessarily commit one to a particular ideological outlook in the political realm. This perspective draws on the realist tradition of Machiavelli and Hobbes and is found in modern thinkers like Carl Schmitt, Ernst Junger, Vilifredo Pareto,Â Georges Sorel, James Burnham, Lawrence Dennis, Robert Michaels and Gaetano Mosca. This point of view is elitist, anti-egalitarian, pessimist, anti-utopian, social Darwinian (or at least recognizes the inevitability of conflict), anti-humanist, cynical and espouses no small degree of moral skepticism. Unlike other brands of “conservatism”, this outlook does not commit one to the preservation of any particular status quo. One can be a “rightist” in the Machiavellian tradition, as I am, and also be an extreme revolutionary, as I also am.
The bottom line is that most of the American right-wing is a bunch of jingoistic flag-wavers or a bunch of middle-class people whining about taxes. Of course, we should want nothing to do with such people. Instead, we should seek to cultivate a “revolutionary right” that is far outside the mainstream “conservative” milieu. But what about the Left?
Back to Kevin DeAnna’s experience of attending the conference of some lefto-freakazoid outfit called “Campus Progress”. Here’s some of the better gems from DeAnna’s review:
I reported to registration to receive my official totebag, T shirt, and condoms. In the bustle, I was only able to grab three packs, but luckily, Students for a Sensible Drug Policy and NARAL were handing out prophylactics in the display area (unfortunately labeled “Screw the Drug War”). The Campus Progress National Conference had begun.
This is genuinely sad, because the drug war is a serious issue, a foundation of the exponential expansion of the American police state over the past twenty or so years, and a means by which the state has tyrannized millions and brought about all sorts of social wreckage in the process. However, the approach of these folks is to make opposition to the drug war look like just another PC joke issue like demands to change the names of sports teams named after American Indian tribes or the right of men to use women’s restrooms in public buildings.
New Republic editor James Kirchick made an appearance during the panel on gay rights,”his Barack Obama-style flag pin being the only American flag at the entire conference. At CP, Kirchick was the official representative of right-wing extremism in that he argued that gays should become “normal” by gaining entry to bourgeoisie institutions such as marriage and the family and disowning terms like “queer.” This prompted cries of disapproval.
We know we’re in the Twilight Zone when the “conservative” representative at a leftist conference is a neocon homo who did a hit piece on Ron Paul for the center-left New Republic.
Richard Kim of The Nation argued the queer agenda should be about pan-sexual liberation, including liberalizing divorce laws and pushing for acceptance of alternative family models beyond squares like Kirchick and his hypothetical partner. A matronly trans-queer named Mason rumbled in a deep baritone that before openly becoming “trans,” he had “no identity.”
If the purpose of radicalism or activism or whatever we want to call it is simply to promote one big fuck-fest, wouldn’t it be easier to forget about politics altogether and just open an adult film company?
The Young Democratic Socialists handed out a flyer featuring Martin Luther King stating, “We are saying that something is wrong with capitalism, there must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism” which would shock my movement colleagues who tell me every January that MLK was a conservative Republican.
Compared to these folks, MLK was a conservative Republican.
The fact that an organization that has hosted senators, presidents, and the current Democratic nominee shares space with racists, communists, and homosexual activists that consider gay marriage to be reactionary is newsworthy.
Gay marriage is reactionary. The radicals of yesteryear would denounce marriage as a bourgeois institution and burn their marriage certificates, and this was true not only of free-lovers, free-thinkers, anarchists and bohemians but even many old guard socialists of the Fabian ilk. Nowadays, we have gays running out to join the bourgeoisie. Well, actually, we don’t. In Holland and other countries where gay marriage is recognized, only a small number of homosexuals have taken advantage of this “opportunity”.
As Campus Progress also recruits and advertises at the even more radical National Conference on Organized Resistance, which openly promotes force against military recruitment centers, the links between Democratic Party leaders and violent extremists goes well beyond Obama living in the same neighborhood as Bill Ayers. Campus Progress’s magazine’s feature on the “Lessons of the Weather Underground” is no aberration.
Well, now we might actually be getting somewhere. All Hail Violent Extremists!
It is to Campus Progress that U.S. Congressman Keith Ellison can speak, in his own words, “vanguard to vanguard.” The tendency of attendees to speak of overthrowing the “system” and in the next sentence talking about the upcoming Obama Administration is exactly how activists should think. While participating in Democratic campaigns, Campus Progress and the activists that work with it are building a force independent of partisan efforts, but not irrelevant to it. They understand that the role of activists is to push politicians towards an independently defined agenda rather than serving as cannon fodder.
Hence, a common concern of many activists was how to avoid being “co-opted” by the Democratic establishment, even if that establishment is headed by the most liberal candidate in American history. Similarly, a comment during the civil rights panel about how any movement needs a “militant resistance” was met not with nervous glances but agreement to what all perceived to be an obvious point.
This is an illustration of the split between mainstream liberal totalitarian humanism and the more hard-core PC cultural Marxist Left. I don’t know that there are any significant doctrinal differences, except maybe on a few economic points, e.g., welfare-capitalism vs outright socialism/Marxism. It’s basically the same as the historic divisions between Social Democrats and Commies. How fast do we want to go, and all that.
Is the Left salvagable? In and of itself, it does not appear to be. Instead, it appears to be more along the lines of a demented cult whose counterparts on the Right might be folks like the followers of Rev. John Hagee. But before I get too self-righteous about it all, I should point out that as a pan-secessionist I would welcome the development of both “Campus Progress” lefto-freakazoid secession movements as well as John Hagee Fan Club secession movements. Also, I was an evangelical Christian with views not unlike Hagee’s until I was a teenager and I also participated extensively in lefto-freakazoid activities not unlike these “Campus Progress” loons for a few years when I was in my early twenties.
I basically see both “movement conservatism” and lefto-freakazoidism as useful transitional phases for superior people who will eventually move on to something more concrete. For instance, some of the better people in the paleo milieu – Tom Woods, James Wilson, Joe Sobran – came out of “the conservative movement” (forgive them, for they knew not what they were doing). And many in the “beyond left and right” milieu came out of the Left-myself, Ean Frick and a number of other folks around Attack the System. I think we should look at both movements – conservatism and leftism – as sinking ships that may contain rare individuals actually worthy of being thrown a life preserver or picked up by a rescue boat. Let the rest of them drown.
What do others think about this? Is the Left salvagable?
What does it mean when the Right is becoming more revolutionary minded than the Left? Nowadays, there are “left-conservatives”, “left-libertarians”, “left-secessionists”, “conservative revolutionaries”, “left-nationalists”, “national-syndicalists”, “national-anarchists”, “national-bolsheviks”, “national-maoists”, “left-populists”, “left-decentralists”, “national-communists” and lots of other labels that defy the left/right stereotype. What does is mean that the official Left has become a haven of moribund predictability regurgitating the most superficial cliches’?
What if a revolutionary Right emerged that was able to outmaneuver the totalitarian humanists of the Left by maintaining a more revolutionary position, absorbing untapped social energies ignored by the Left, undercutting the Left’s support base, and operating within a general populist framework?
There are a wide variety of lumpen elements and outgroups that are ignored or despised by the Left, despite the leftoids claim to be the champion of the oppressed and downtrodden? What about 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?
Who is it that stands for the workers and the poor? Is it the Left with its commitment to New Class managerial bureaucratic welfarism? Who stands for the people of rural American farming communities? Is is the cosmopolitan Left with its hostility to all things traditional? Who stands for the environment? Is it the middle class do-gooders of the Sierra Club? Or is it the ecological revolutionaries of the Earth Liberation Front?
What kind of economic outlook is more revolutionary? A Left offering more welfare statism or a revolutionary Right offering a negative income tax that by passes the bureaucratic middlemen of the welfare state, cutting taxes and regulation from the bottom up and eliminating corporate, bank and military welfare from the top down, and developing worker cooperatives, mutual banks, community development corporations, land trusts, kibbutzim and anarcho-syndicalist unions.
In the area of race relations, which is more revolutionary? More affirmative action, welfare, coercive intergrationism and multiculturalist propaganda? Or a system of reparations to America’s minority nationalities, political autonomy, cultural self-determination, economic development and self-sufficiency?
In foreign policy, what is more radical? “Human rights internationalism” or shutting down the American empire, dismantling the standing army and replacing the military-industrial complex with a decentralized militia confederation?
In criminal law, who has the more radical position? Liberals advocating civilian review boards and drug courts or revolutionaries favoring shutting down the police state and prison-industrial complex altogether along comprehensive prisoner amnesty?
As we build a movement towards such ends, look for the Left to attempt to obstruct our efforts at every turn.