Palin, Protests, Leftism, Lumpenism and Why "Nihlistic Strasserite Keith Preston-Style Thuggery" is Necessary 5

It is becoming much clearer why the Neoconservative-led Republican Party establishment chose Sarah Palin as its VP candidate. There seems to be four primary reasons for this. First, the female factor. Palin may well be appealing to Hillary fans who had their heart set on a female candidate. Second, the social conservatism/Republican base issue. Sarah appeals to all of the core Republican rank-and-file political interest groups: pro-lifers, pro-gunners, evangelical Christians, fiscal conservatives, “free market libertarians”, paleocons, and other such milieus. Third, Sarah Palin comes from outside the ranks of the elite. Rumor has it Mitt Romney was originally scheduled to be McCain’s VP until all the brouhaha about his seven houses came along: http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/how_palin_got_picked/

Lastly, the Washington Times has reported that Mrs. Palin has an Israeli flag on the wall of her governor’s office:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/04/palins-evangelical-faith-drives-pro-israel-view/

No wonder the Neocons, who are essentially nothing more than the “Israel First Party”, found her to be such an appealing VP prospect. Here’s uber-neocon Bill Kristol, son of Neconservative godfather Irving Kristol, offering his endorsement of Palin two months before she was selected:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSy8sNiH9-0

So the fix is in. Palin is indeed the Neocons’ dream, a political outsider capable of appealing to the Republican base, crossing over to Democratic and Independent women, and willing to function as a useful idiot for the “Zion Uber Alles” agenda of the Neocons. It fits perfectly. The day Palin was named as McCain’s running mate I saw her on television praising McCain for his supposedly prescient warnings of the supposedly renewed Russian threat which are supposedly legitimated by the Russo-Georgian conflict. What a crock. A serious foreign policy thinker would at least consider the irreducible minimum of serious international questions to be dealt with. These include:

1. The need to reverse the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations’ efforts to encircle Russia by incorporating former Warsaw Pact nations and Russian border states into NATO. What is the current need for NATO, anyway? The original purpose of the alliance was to prevent Soviet incursion into Western Europe by taking advantage of the military weakness of these nations following WW2. The European countries are wealthy enough to provide for their own military defense. If they refuse to do so, that is their problem.

2. The domination of American Middle East policy by a handful of narrow special interests, primarily the Israel Lobby, the armaments industry and “Big Oil”.

3. The need to end the war in Iraq, which was initiated under fraudulent pretenses.

4. The impending loss of the war in Afghanistan.

5. Efforts by the Bush administration to destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan.

6. Efforts by the Neocons to provoke war with Iran under the pretense of combatting Iran’s grossly exaggerated nuclear capabilities.

7. The need to recognize Palestinian independence.

8. The financial dependence of the US on Russian, Chinese and Japanese banks.

9. The dramatic fall of the value of the dollar, now known as the peso north of the Rio Grande.

These are just the beginnners. There is no evidence that Sarah Palin knows anything or cares anything about any of these matters, but then neither does her running mate or her competitors. Therefore, the accusations made that she is “unqualified” are true but irrelevant.

ARV associate and ATS webmaster Jeremy Weiland of Social Memory Complex http://blog.6thdensity.net/ has done a very good job keeping the rest of us informed concerning the protests at the Republican convention and the incidents of police brutality, harrassment and arbitary arrest that are taking place there. While these unfortunate people no doubt deserve our support, e.g., contributing to bail funds, writing letters of protest to newspaper, jamming phone lines, etc., these incidents also remind me of why I generally look askance at such protests. Forty years ago, anti-Vietnam War protestors staged a rally at the Democratic convention in Chicago that turned into a streetfight between protestors and cops. This was in the days before SWAT teams and paramilitary policing. I have long predicted that the present US ruling class/regime-the product of Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush-would never again allow civil unrest of the kind that transpired in the 1960s to take place. Today, the likes of Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and Tom Hayden would suffer the fate of the folks at Waco in 1993. The only exceptions are those situations like the L.A. riots of 1992 and the New Orleans hurricanes of 2005 where the state simply loses control. As Jeremy as written:http://richmond.leftlibertarian.org/2008/9/3/goodbye-to-protest

“there are important lessons being learned on site about how the Seattle model has been rendered ineffective by the Miami model. Essentially, as I argue at my blog, we need to realize that protest is dead:

So if we’re in a police state now, what do we do? Obviously, there was a point at which the citizens of Germany in the ’30s gave up on speaking out. There was a point at which the Soviet citizens stopped protesting the Bolshevik treachery. Throughout history, people who found themselves under a totalitarian government had to face a terrible fact: that the modes of democratic society were no longer tenable.

But to admit to yourself the horrible truth, that we have lost our country, that is the truly difficult thing. Keep in mind, however, that it has always been through denial, self-deception, and lack of honesty on the part of the people that totalitarianism has gained a foothold. We must be courageous, pragmatic, and most of all careful. The rules have changed, and if we’re going to play this game we do well to use our time-outs to strategize, not simply to feel sorry for ourselves. In other words, as much as I hate to say it, we’re going to have to unlearn the bad habits of citizenship in a democratic republic.

It’s time for the activist movement to modify their tactics to reflect the new environment. Flaunting our outrage in the hopes of media attention and citizen backlash has failed. Throwing our bodies on the gears of the machine has not slowed it, let alone stopped it. Protesting every violation of our rights just demonstrates in spades how vulnerable and dependent we are. Demonstrating and organizing just provide easy targets for agent provocateurs, infiltration, and extralegal, preemptive harassment.”

I actually gave up on protest demonstrations years ago, viewing them primarily as theatrical events and social gatherings rather than serious political actions. Most of the participants in such efforts typically come from the Left, which serves as yet another powerful bit of evidence that the Left has not progressed intellectually or tactically in forty years. More than ever, we are in need of a “third way” beyond the Neoconservative/Zionist/Trotskyite/Jacobin jingoism of what passes for the Right and the cultural Marxism/60s nostalgism of what passes for the Left. The Right maintains its position by offering jingoistic nationalism and pandering to right-wing political interest groups and presenting itself as the party of “hard-working, tax-paying, decent, real Americans” versus all of those hippie and Hollywood weirdos and homos. The Left maintains its position by pretending to be the party of all of the oppressed or allegedly oppressed-the poor, the elderly, workers, women, racial minorities, gays and others. Of course, both factions are really just the different sides of the coin of state-capitalism who disagree slightly on the best way to go about managing the global corporate empire. From where will a “third force” arise?

The American Right is not really a “right” at all but a kind of neo-Jacobinism. The American Left is a hopelessly archaic relic from past times with no sense of direction whatsoever, and with all of its core constituent groups being solidly integrated into the ranks of the middle to upper middle classes. It is time to look beyond the “conservative” paradigm of nationalism, economic conservatism and “traditional values” and the “liberal” orientation towards the welfare state and 1960s-style cultural politics. I have in the past suggested the need for a “revolutionary right that out-lefts the left” or perhaps a “revolutionary left that is so far left it is on the right.” I have long believed that the key to the development of a revolutionary outlook that bridges the radical right with the radical left is to appeal to the lumpenproletarian classes across conventional cultural and ideological boundaries. With this idea in mind, my attention was recently called to the following description of my own approach:

http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/06/16/all_i/#comment-20080618004609

“Forget smashing the state- if you could just get together a visible left-libertarian movement which really does have participation from women, people of colour, etc., which really does care about actual individualism and being able to live as you desire, which can gain respect from the left and force recognition from the vulgar and reactionary libertarian right, which distinguishes itself clearly from nihilistic Strasserist Keith Preston-style thuggery, and which really has something to offer as a social and mutual aid network for people who care about their lives being their own…”

For those who don’t know, a “Strasserite” is more or less a follower of the Strasser brothers, Otto and Gregor, who were left-wing rivals to Hitler in the early days of the National Socialist movement in Germany. No, I’m not really a Strasserite, but from the above comments one gets a good idea of where the Left’s cultural politics eventually lead. “Forget smashing the state”, indeed. Forget smashing the empire that has slaughtered millions worldwide and threatens nuclear war. Forget smashing the police state that has become a modern slavocracy. Forget the Third Worldization of the American economy. Who cares about all of that so long as we can chase butterflies in the park, just so long as a more than proportional number of the butterfly-chasers originate from all of the Officially Oppressed demographic groupings?

No, my friends, it is time for war. We have two highly successful models to draw upon-Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Nepal’s Peoples’ War Group, two factions as ideologically different as they could be but providing shining examples of what real revolutionary politics actually looks like. Of course, this does not mean that we simply go out and start shooting. We’ll leave that to students and postal workers. The pan-secessionist movement is growing. Dozens of separatist organizations have appeared and more are no doubt on the horizon. Our natural constituencies are the lumpen masses ignored by the Right and Left of the establishment. Our role models are our friends from Lebanon, Nepal and elsewhere. The fourth generation forces are on the rise worldwide. Rot in Hell, Neocons and Leftoids, we’re done with you.

What If the Israeli Lobby was the Islamic Lobby? Reply

Weekend Edition
August 30 / 31, 2008

Part One

What If the Israeli Lobby was the Islamic Lobby?

By B. R. GOWANI

What if:

Abu Faisal was White House press secretary (instead of Ari Fleischer)

Altaf Adham was deputy national security advisor
(instead of Elliott Abrams)

Sofian Bishr was Supreme Court Justice instead of Stephen Breyer

Tarf Kaukab was Nightline host (instead of Ted Koppel)

Dawud Bushr was New York Times columnist (instead of David
Brooks)

Rukan Badar Ghiyath was Supreme Court Justice
(instead of Ruth Bader Ginsburg)

Thamer Furud was New York Times columnist (instead of Thomas Friedman)

Laith Keid was host of Larry King show (instead of Larry King)

Yousuf “Yo” Luqman was US Senator from
Connecticut (instead of Joseph “Joe” Lieberman)

Zuhaa Midlaj was New York Times reporter (instead of Judith Miller)

Dawud Fouad was Bush’s speechwriter (instead of David Frum)

Lu’ay Labib was Cheney’s Chief of Staff (instead of Lewis Libby)

Polat Walif-Rizk was Rumsfeld’s Deputy Secretary
of Defense (instead of Paul Wolfowitz)

Mahdi Parvez was editor of The New Republic
magazine (instead of Martin Peretz)

Basil Kishwar was the editor of The Weekly
Standard instead of (Bill Kristol)

Ali Wisam was the famous Nobel Peace laureate (instead of Elie Wiesel)

Jaafer Ghawth-Badr was a staff writer at New
Yorker (instead of Jeffrey Goldberg)

Rifat Pir was the Chairman of the Defense Policy
Board AdvisoryCommittee (instead of Richard Perle)

Yaman Sikandar was the famous filmmaker (instead of Steven Spielberg)

Ibrahim Faqih-Ma’n was the head of the
Anti-Defamation League (instead of Abraham Foxman)

Alam Daoud-Vida was the famous lawyer (instead of Alan Dershowitz)

Imagine the above Muslims in key positions. There are 2 per cent Jews in the US and the same percentage of Muslims. Now consider for a moment that both communities have exchanged places as it happens on that TV show “Wife Swap.” Here not only wives but the entire community exchanges places. Or a still better example would be the 1970 film “Watermelon Man” in which a white man wakes up in the morning and discovers he has turned into a black person. Blackness becomes his fate.

However, first let us check out the power Jews have in the United States in order to imagine how things would have been different if the Muslims had exactly the same power.

This article, however, realizes that Jews are not a monolithic group. For instance: 75 per cent of Americans supported the war in 2003 in US, whereas the Jewish support was at 50 per cent.

Like many other Jews, the billionaire George Soros favors a dialogue between the Hamas (the elected government in the Palestinian territories) and the Israelis:

“… Israel, with the strong backing of the United States, refused to recognize the democratically elected Hamas government and withheld payment of the millions in taxes collected by the Israelis on its behalf. This caused great economic hardship and undermined the ability of the government to function. But it did
not reduce popular support for Hamas among Palestinians, and it reinforced the position of Islamic and other extremists who oppose negotiations with Israel….”

There have always been Jewish people and institutions who have tried to work for some peaceful solution of the Palestinian/Israeli problem but the Jewish Lobby and pro Israel individuals have always succeeded in silencing or marginalizing those voices.

Bill and Kathleen Christison explain how the word “anti-Semite” is abused:

“Anyone who has the temerity to suggest any Israeli instigation of, or even involvement in, Bush administration war planning is inevitably labeled somewhere along the way as an anti-Semite. Just whisper the word `domination’ anywhere in the vicinity of the word `Israel,’ as in `U.S.-Israeli domination of the Middle East’ or `the U.S. drive to assure global domination and guarantee security for Israel,’ and some leftist who otherwise opposes going to war against Iraq will trot out charges of promoting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the old czarist forgery that asserted a Jewish plan for world domination.”

A Few Clarifications

Before proceeding any further, it is important to remember the historic injustices suffered by the Jewish people. The past has not been especially nice to the Jews; rather it has been extremely cruel­, mainly, in the form of European Christianity. The atrocious climax reached between 1939 and 1945 under Nazi Germany. Between five to six million Jews were murdered. But since then, although there have been some instances of
targeting Jewish people and desecrating their cemeteries in Europe and elsewhere, these have not in any way affected their survival and growth as a distinct religious and cultural entity. And economically they are one of the few most powerful groups in the world.

In addition: There are many interest groups or lobbies in the United States who are doing immense harm to people within and without, and the dominant corporate press is one of those groups. People who want to register their protest or recommend changes are at the mercy of the media managers. So, the Jewish Lobby is not the only one exerting influence. Nevertheless, the Lobby’s power is enormous and it has wielded it
in such a devastating way that the whole of Middle East has been burning for quite a long time now ­ and in turn it affects the entire world.

There is, of course, a convergence of the US interest to control the oil; and, the Israeli interest to be the sole regional power. If one thinks from that perspective, then without doubt the US would have been in a better shape if it would have avoided the 2003 complete destruction of the almost-destroyed Iraq of 1991 and if it had left Saddam Hussein pitted against Iran. Not only would this have saved the US billions of
dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives but would have preserved its hegemony a little longer.

Anti-Arab, anti-Palestine, anti-Iran, anti-Muslim?

When a corporation exploits its workers it is
called an exploiter. When a member of the
majority discriminates against a member of the
minority then she/he is called a racist. When a
male discriminates against a woman he is called a
sexist. When one person discriminates another on
the basis of religion then that person is called
a communalist. When anyone hates or kills a Jew
(simply because he is a Jew), that person is
called an anti-Semite. When a Muslim kills
someone in the name of Islam, he is called a
Muslim fundamentalist/militant/fanatic/etc.

What would you call those influential Jews,
individuals and those belonging to the Lobby, in
the US who played an important role in the war to
destroy an Arab country of Iraq without any
reason or are now pushing for a war against Iran?

They are beardless, suited, booted. They are not
overtly religious like Taliban and so we can’t
call them Jewsratics or Jews who are Israel
Fanatics. However, their religion is Israel and
so the appropriate word (for their world
devastating pro Israel stand) should be “Israel
Fanatics” or “Isratics.” These Isratics are on a
revenge path for past injustices.

The victims are now the victimizers. Their
victims are not the white Europeans but the Palestinians and other Arabs.

And the Isratics are equipped with a WMD or word
of mass destruction, and so the moment anyone
points out their control over the US Congress,
government, news media, etc. she/he will be labeled an “anti-Semite.”

Holocaust

Auschwitz, located in Poland, (then under German
control) was the largest of the many
concentration camps where the Jews were
transported and were murdered using all sorts of
inhuman methods. Other communities suffered too.

For the organized Jewry, the “Holocaust” has
become a profitable enterprise, as Norman
Finkelstein’s insightful study, “The Holocaust
Industry,” makes clear. Just one example: The
Swiss banks’ offer of $600 million was rejected
by the Jewish leaders and so in August 1998, they
agreed to pay $1.25 billion. A press release by
Swiss banks explained “the aim of the additional
payment” “is to avert the threat of [US]
sanctions as well as long and costly court
proceedings.” Back in March, Edgar Bronfman,
president of World Jewish Congress had warned the
Swiss banks: “If the Swiss are going to keep
digging their heels in, then I’ll have to ask all
US shareholders to suspend their dealings with
the Swiss [emphasis mine].” Finkelstein reminds
us that the United States is equally guilty of
the three categories (Swiss denial of asylum to
refugees, claimants to inactive Swiss bank
accounts, and victims of slave labor which proved
advantageous to the Swiss) for which the Swiss
had to pay; whereas, the US has not even been
threatened, let alone charged.

“Many” lawyers were charging $600 an hour for
filing claims, and one lawyer wanted $2,400 for
reading Tom Bower’s book “Nazi Gold.”

Many other European governments, including
Germany, have also paid huge sums of money to organized Jewry.

The US itself has never paid any money to the
Native Indians, the blacks, and many others. One
may wonder as to why the US government threatens
other governments or their institutions to pay reparations to the Jews!

(In 1986, the World Court ordered the US to pay
$17 billion to Nicaragua for multiple crimes. The US ignored the verdict.)

Most interesting to note: Finkelstein says, “The
Holocaust’s mystery, Wiesel avows, is
`noncommunicable;’ `we cannot even talk about
it.’ Thus, for his standard fee of $25,000 (plus
chauffeured limousine), Wiesel lectures that the
`secret of Auschwitz’s `truth lies in silence.'”

Daniel McGowan provides a good portrait of this peace laureate.

“He is a multi-millionaire, but carefully
cultivates the image of a perpetually disheveled
professor. Although he has won the Nobel Peace
Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the
Guardian of Zion Medal, and the Oprah Book Award,
many people in Israel resent the way he has used
the Holocaust to make his living. Some Israelis
refer to him as a `sho’an.’ The word `sho’a’ is
Hebrew for Holocaust; with the suffix it
indicates a professional specializing in the
subject. So it is both funny and derogatory, not
unlike Norman Finkelstein referring to Wiesel as
the `resident clown’ of the Holocaust circus.”

Wiesel was awarded a Noble Peace Prize in 1986.
In 1983, according to the Norwegian Nobel
Committee’s secretary, his name was recommended
by half of the US Congress.

Noam Chomsky says that in the US, Wiesel is
respected as a “secular saint” and is considered a “critic of fascism.”

However, the saint keeps his mouth shut where Israel’s crimes are involved:

“I support Israel, period. I identify with
Israel, period. I never attack; never criticize
Israel when I am not in Israel.”

This so called harbinger of peace was in the
White House on February 27, 2003 to see the
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
President George Bush was also there. Wiesel
echoed the same old nonsense of comparing Germany
of the late 1930s with 2003’s Iraq. In simple
words he wanted Bush to start a war. He said:
“It’s a moral issue. In the name of morality how
can we not intervene.” “I’m against silence.” So
he wanted Bush to scream out loud with weapons.

Further, there are people like the late Nahum
Goldmann, President of the World Jewish Congress,
who have criticized those who exploited the Jewish tragedy:

“We will have to understand that Jewish suffering
during the Holocaust no longer will serve as a
protection, and we certainly must refrain from
using the argument of the Holocaust to justify
whatever we may do. To use the Holocaust as an
excuse for the bombing of Lebanon, for instance,
as Menachem Begin does, is a kind of “Hillul
Hashem” [sacrilege], a banalization of the sacred
tragedy of the Shoah [Holocaust], which must not
be misused to justify politically doubtful and
morally indefensible policies.”

The letter H in the word “Holocaust” is in
capital letter because many influential Jewish
leaders firmly believe that theirs is the unique
tragedy. In other words, they have a copyright
over the word “Holocaust” and thus the millions
of Native Indians, African slaves, Armenians
(victims of Turks), the Congolese (victims of
Belgium), the Bengalis of East Pakistan, later
Bangladesh, (victims of West Pakistan, now
Pakistan), Roma and Sinti people or gypsies
(victims of Nazi Germany), and others can’t claim
their tragedies as holocaust.

Robert Fisk tells us that the word holocaust has
been in currency since the 18th century. The
British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, as a
matter fact, used it for the Armenians:

“In 1915 the Turkish Government began and
ruthlessly carried out the infamous general
massacre and deportation of Armenians in Asia
Minor.” The “war criminals,” that is the Turks,
massacred “uncounted thousands of helpless
Armenians – men, women and children together;
whole districts blotted out in one administrative
holocaust – these were beyond human redress.”

Money Talks, Politicians Walk

It is the power of the influential Isratics. And
they are everywhere in the US. The third richest
man in the US (and the richest Jew in the world)
and the owner of two of Las Vegas’s huge casino
resorts, the Palazzo and the Venetian, Sheldon
Adelson, opposes the two-state (Israel/Palestine)
solution. In October 2007, during Republican
donors’ visit to the White House, he warned
President George Bush that the policy which
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is pursuing
in the Middle East would ruin him.

His both arms around Adelson and his wife’s
shoulders, Bush replied: “You tell your Prime
Minister [Israel’s Ehud Olmert] that I need to
know what’s right for your people­because at the
end of the day it’s going to be my policy, not
Condi’s. But I can’t be more Catholic than the Pope.”

AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee)

The Jewish Lobby is made up of several Jewish
groups. The Israel Lobby includes some pro Israel
Evangelical Christians and Christian Zionists.
AIPAC is one of the most important of the Jewish groups.

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in 2005 that AIPAC’s
“leaders can be immoderately frank about the
group’s influence.” Years back, while dining with
AIPAC’s Steve Rosen, Goldberg asked if the 1992
incident involving the then AIPAC President David
Steiner had hurt the AIPAC’s influence. “A half
smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a
napkin across the table. `You see this napkin?’
he said. `In twenty-four hours, we could have the
signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.'”

The above conversation is not an isolated incident.

On October 22, 1992, New York businessman Haim
(Harry) Katz [HK] recorded his conversation with
AIPAC President David Steiner [DS] without his
knowledge. Later, when the conversation became
public, Steiner resigned. Excerpts of that conversation:

DS: Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees
which a fabulous thing, $3 billion was in
foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a
billion dollars in other goodies that people don’t even know about.

DS: … I said look Jim [Baker, Papa Bush’s
Secretary of State], “You don’t want a fight
before the election. It’s going to hurt Bush….

HK: … But you met with Baker. . .

DS: Personally.

HK: Personally. Because you know, he’s the one
who cursed, who cursed the Jews.

(When the Jewish influence in the US was
mentioned at a government meeting on Middle East,
Baker supposedly said, “Fuck the Jews. They don’t
vote for us [Republicans] anyway.”)

DS: Of course, do you think I’m ever going to forgive him for that?

DS: Do you think I could ever forgive Bush for
what he did September 12th [1991] a year ago?
What he said about the Jews for lobbying in Washington?

(Bush Sr. had said: I was “up against some
powerful political forces . . . I heard today
there was something like 1,000 lobbyists on the
Hill working on the other side of the question.
We’ve got one lonely little guy down here doing it.”)

HK: … I thought [presidential candidate Rose]
Perot did marvelous in the debates.

DS: He doesn’t know how to govern. He’s not going
to make it. And there was an incident where his
daughter was going out with a Jewish professor at
school and he said, “I wouldn’t have my daughter marry a Jew.”

DS: … you ought to think about coming to some
of these things. I’ll have a dinner this fall.
I’ll have 18-20 senators there. I run programs in
Washington. We just had a, I had at Ted Kennedy’s
house last month kosher dinner. I brought
foremost caterers down. I had 60 people on the
couch for dinner. Last year, I did it in Al Gore’s house.

DS: I personally am not allowed, as president of
AIPAC, to get involved in the presidential
campaign, because I have to deal with whoever wins.

HK: … what will he [Bill Clinton] do for Israel, better than Bush…

DS: … Gore is very committed to us.
(Gore once said: “I have a 100 percent voting
record for Israel, even though there wasn’t one
synagogue in my congressional district.” And this
person had lectured Jesse Jackson for meeting Yasser Arafat.)

DS: I’ve known Bill for seven, eight years …
One of my friends is Hillary Clinton’s scheduler,
one of my officer’s daughters works there. We
gave two employees from AIPAC leave of absences
to work on the campaign. I mean, we have a dozen
people in that campaign, in the headquarters.

DS: Let me tell you the problem with the $10
billion in loan guarantees, right? We only have
the first year. We have authorization from
Congress, but it’s at the discretion of the
president every year thereafter, so if Bush is
there, he could say, you know, use it as a club,
you know. `If you don’t give up Syria, I won’t
give you the money. If you don’t give up the Golan Heights.’

DS: … A girl who worked for me at AIPAC stood
up for them [Clintons] at their wedding. Hillary
lived with her…. We have never had that with Bush…

DS: … He’s got something in his heart for the
Jews, he has Jewish friends. Bush has no Jewish friends.

DS: Reagan had something . . . He knew Jews from
the film industry; he was one of the best guys
for us. He had an emotional thing for the Jews.
Bush doesn’t have it…. Bush is, there’s a man
with no principles. Absolutely no principles.

HK: … I wish we had a Jewish candidate for president.

DS: I don’t think the country’s ready.

HK: … I think Joe Lieberman would have, uh,
would have, if he wasn’t Jewish….
(Lieberman was Albert Gore’s running mate in the
2000 presidential elections.)

DS: I’d like to see him on the Supreme Court.

HK: If Clinton is elected, has he told you who
he’s going to put on the Supreme Court?

DS: We’re talking now…. We’re more interested
right now, in the secretary of state and the
secretary of National Security Agency. That’s more important to us.

HK: If Clinton is elected, who do you think will be secretary of state?

DS: I’ve got a list…. I’m not allowed to talk about it.

John Mersheimer and Steven Walt point out the use
of pro-Israel congressional staffers as one more
source for the Lobby. They quote former AIPAC chief Morris Amitay:

“There are a lot of guys at the working level up
here” – on Capitol Hill – “who happen to be
Jewish, who are willing . . . to look at certain
issues in terms of their Jewishness . . . These
are all guys who are in a position to make the
decision in these areas for those senators . . .
You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.”

A former AIPAC staff member Douglas Bloomfield
sheds light on how the congresspersons conduct their research:

“It is common for members of Congress and their
staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need
information, before calling the Library of
Congress, the Congressional Research Service,
committee staff or administration experts.”

“[AIPAC is] often called on to draft speeches,
work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform
research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes.”

A senior congressional staffer, writing under the
pen name George Sunderland, here on the
CounterPunch site, explains how the politicians
attending the annual AIPAC meetings act:

“Command performances before AIPAC have become
standard features in the life of a Washington
elected official, like filing FEC reports and
hitting on interns. The stylized panegyrics
delivered at the annual AIPAC meeting have all
the probative value of the Dniepropetrovsk
Soviet’s birthday greeting to [the Soviet leader,
Joseph] Stalin, because the actual content is
unimportant; what is crucial is that the
politician in question be seen to be genuflecting
before the AIPAC board. In fact, to make things
easier, the speeches are sometimes written by an
AIPAC employee, with cosmetic changes inserted by
a member of the Senator’s or Congressman’s own staff.”

Talking to the New York Sun in January 2003,
Howard Kohr said, “Quietly lobbying Congress to
approve the use of force in Iraq was one of
AIPAC’s successes over the past year.”

Occasionally AIPAC is not successful. In 1981, it
vehemently opposed the US sale of AWACS (Airborne
Warning and Control System) to Saudi Arabia but
failed to block the sale. Former President Gerald
Ford was infuriated at the AIPAC antics and
called a Republican senator and fumed: “Are we
going to let the fucking Jews run American foreign policy?”

Reagan announced the AWACS sale on national
television with these words: “It is not the
business of other nations to make American foreign policy.”

But Edward Tivnan sees this sale as not much of a victory:

“… AIPAC had taken on the President of the
United States, and almost, as Ronald Reagan
himself had claimed, embarrassed him in front of
the whole world. (What kind of President couldn’t
sale five airplanes to a small Arab country,
particularly one sitting on billions of dollars
of oil crucial to American prosperity?) … ”

Abraham Foxman

In March 2003, Collin Powell had said: “It is not
driven by any small cabal that is buried away
somewhere, that is telling President Bush or me
or Vice President Cheney or [National Security
Adviser Condoleezza] Rice or other members of the
administration what our policies should be.”

But the reality is exactly opposite.

Foxman, National Director of Anti-Defamation
League, is a very important figure; his power can
be gauged by the meeting he had with Colin
Powell, the US Secretary of State, i.e., foreign minister,

“`In his [Powell’s] own State Department there
was a keen awareness of the strength of the
Jewish lobbyists. Secretaries of State did not
usually meet with lobbyists, but both Jewish
officials and Jews that did not officially
represent specific groups from Abe Foxman of the
Anti-Defamation League to Ronald Lauder, could
meet with Powell on short notice…. At the State
Department, Foxman had an aura of omnipotence. He
was held responsible for the appointment of
[Martin S.] Indyk as Undersecretary of State
under Clinton, and was thought to have played a
role in the appointments of Secretaries of State
[Warren] Christopher and [Madeline] Albright.
Powell related to Foxman almost as if he were
someone to whom he must capitulate. Once Foxman
told one of his deputies that Powell was the weak
link. When the Secretary of State heard this he
began to worry. He knew that in Washington a
confrontation with the Jewish lobby would make
his life difficult. Once he arranged a meeting
with Foxman, but the busy Foxman postponed the
meeting three times. When they eventually met,
the head of the Anti-Defamation League apologized
to the Secretary of State [for the
postponements]. “You call, we come,” replied
Powell, paraphrasing a well known advertisement
for a freight company. That statement had much
more meaning than just a humorous polite reply.'”
(from Raviv Drucker and Ofer Shelah, Boomerang…).

Nevertheless, one has to accept the fact that
even though Powell had been a part of governments
during the 1991 Iraq War and the 2003 Iraq War,
he was not in favor of war. One can argue that in
that case he should have quit his position and
thus boosting the morale of the anti-war movement.

Once on a visit to Jerusalem, he stood his
ground, when he refused to comply with Sharon’s order.

Sharon: I don’t want you to go to Damascus
[Syria]. I don’t think it serves the interests of
peace, and we don’t like it here in Israel when you go to Damascus.

Powell: Ariel, thank you very much but I am going
anyway. I am Secretary of State of the United
States of America and not the foreign minister of Israel.

Powell was fed up with the neo-cons pushing for
war and called them the “fucking crazies.”

It is obvious that it is the Israel Lobby’s power
that enabled Sharon to order Powell; otherwise,
in reality, he was just a premier of a tiny
country ­ although in military means, the fourth
most powerful country in the world.

To be continued Monday

Updated News Digest September 7, 2008 1

Quotes of the Week:

“You guys want a simple way to make distinct the real ‘working man’ socialists from the “liberal” nanny statists?

It’s simple really. Ask them how they want to tax labor income. If they want to tax it (especially if they want to tax it at a high rate), they’re not for the working man at all.

See, here in Denmark, we have a kind of socialists called “social democrats”, who on one hand say that they are “a worker party”, and on the other, want to maintain a 40+% marginal taxation on low to medium incomes.

A workers party that does all in its power to eradicate the economic autonomy of the actual workers?”

                                                                                         -Peter Bjorn Perls

 “Cops may look back fondly on the days when we conveniently gathered in one place to peacefully oppose the establishment. The alternative – insurgency – is a lot messier for cops. Iraq is a great example. It’s in THEIR interests to respect proportionality.”

                                                                                         -Jeremy Weiland

“Why do men go to zoos?”-H.L. Mencken, when asked why he took so keen an interest in politics when he despised most politicians

American Police State is Not Even Controversial  by Glenn Greenwald

Neocon Party A Versus Neocon Party B   by Karen Kwiatkowski

The Georgia Crisis Turns Dangerous by Eric Margolis

We Who Dared to Say No to War by Tom Woods and Murray Polner

Pot versus The Superbug by Paul Armentano

Palin Was a Member of the Alaskan Independence Party

Smash the Warfare State Lew Rockwell interviewed by Scott Horton

A Chinese View of Human Rights in Britain

America: Zionist Colony

That’s How You Do It! by Jeremy Weiland

They’re Not Going to Stop Pushing the Envelope by Jeremy Weiland

Libertarianism Through Thick and Thin by Charles Johnson

The RNC Protests, as told by the mainstream and alternative media by Thus Spoke Bellinsky

Agorists at the Front by Brad Spangler

“The Limits of Power” and Conservative Realism by Dylan Waco

The Militarized Police State Continues Apace by Mona

A Prisoner’s Tale of Abuse by Stanley Howard

Police Terrorists Trained to Hate Anarchists

The Calamity of Bush’s Conservatism by Lew Rockwell

The Alliance Between the Government, the Power Elite and Organized Crime by Charles A. Harris

The Federal Reserve: Lifeblood of the Empire by Tom Woods

Recessions and Career Opportunities by Gary North

September Surprise? by Justin Raimondo

Bush Pushes for More Police Power by Nat Hentoff

Tortured in Egypt, Rendered to Guantanamo: Innocent Pakistani Heads Home After Six Years

Hezbollah Military Video

Anarchist Traffic Guru

The Real Wrecking Crew-Neoconservatives, Not “Conservatives” by Paul Craig Roberts

Bill Kauffman at the Ron Paul Convention

What Liberals and Libertarians Share by Cernig

Someone Should Tell Rudy… by Dylan Waco

Romney: China is “Adam Smith on Steroids” from Sheldon Richman

How to Implement Mutual Aid for Tax Resistance by Francois Tremblay

Country First, John McCain, USA, USA, USA by Jeremy Weiland

Bail Money Urgently Needed by Jeremy Weiland

Cops May Yet Come to Regret Their Hostility by Jeremy Weiland

This Is What a Police State Looks Like by Rad Geek

Goodbye to Protest by Jeremy Weiland/Richmond Left Libertarian Alliance

Some Humor Among the Fuming by Jeremy Weiland

Responding to Totalitarianism on Demand by Jeremy Weiland

The Real Problem With Palin by James LeRoy Wilson

Technology and the Future of Liberty

Thank God, She Has No Foreign Policy Experience! Sarah Palin’s Clean Slate by Mike Gravel

The Victims of the Israel Lobby by B.R. Gowani

What If the Israel Lobby Was the African-American Lobby? by B.R. Gowani

RNC 8 Charged as Terrorists Under State Patriot Act

America, Support Your Patriot Youth  by Brad Spangler

Populist Conservatism Needs a Home by Jeremy Weiland

East-West: Origins of a Crisis by Nikolas Gvosdev

More on Palin by Paul Gottfried

Palin, Buchanan and Israel by Matthew Roberts

Sarah Palin Has an Israeli Flag in Her Office (Now We Know Why the Neocons Handpicked Her!)

Join the Middlebury Institute Discussion List

The Senator Most Likely to Start a Nuclear War by Jeffrey St. Clair

What If the Israeli Lobby was the Islamic Lobby? by B.R. Gowani

Amy Goodman: Why We Were Falsely Arrested

Anarchists: We aren’t the terrorists, cops and Republicans are

L.A. Times Interview with Alexander Dugin

Don’t Talk to the Cops, Part 2,522

Beyond Distributism-new book from Tom Woods

Reform or Else!-The Cultural Revolution in Sixteenth Century England by Murray Rothbard

Czarist America by Mike Rozeff

The Fictional Crime of “Money-Laundering” by Gary Barnett

Today is Jury Rights Day: Do You Know Yours? by Vin Suprynowicz

Sarah Palin: The Xena of the War Party by Justin Raimondo

The Hothead and the Finger on the Button by Doug Bandow

Palin Meets with AIPAC-Expresses “Heartfelt Support for Israel”

Distant Drums Mar Palin’s Party by Pat Buchanan

Chomsky’s Augustinian Anarchism by Roderick T. Long

No Matter How Cynical I Get, It’s Just Never Enough to Keep Up by Libby Spencer

This Is What a Police State Looks Like, Part 2 by Rad Geek

Emergency Action to Free All Political Prisoners by Rad Geek

William Gillis at the RNC Welcoming Committee Press Conference

In Defense of Vermont’s Secession from the Union by Keith Brunner

It’s Time for a Declaration of Independence from Israel by Chris Hedges

Democrats Determined to Lose by Bill Anderson

Terrorist SWAT PIGS Let Off the Hook

Where Have I Seen Sarah Palin Before? by Arash Kamangeer

Murray Bookchin and Bugs Bunny: Found at Last by Joel Schlosberg

Anarcho-Primitivism Explained

Our Dear Leader by Rad Geek

Permission to Correct the Mistakes of Government Denied by Jeremy Weiland

Learning Our Lessons by Shawn Wilbur

Don’t Worry, She Supports Israel by Sheldon Richman

Free All Political Prisoners by Rad Geek

Agorism and the Revolutionary Redistribution of Property by Brad Spangler

Updated News Digest August 31, 2008 2

Quote of the Week:

“We can expect as little from society as from the state. Salvation lies with the individual.”

                                                                                                             -Ernst Junger

 

Neocon Leader Bill Kristol Calls on McCain to pick Lieberman as his Running Mate (Dog?)

Fed-Bank-Wall Street Fraud

Biden for Vice-Dictator by Glenn Greenwald

When the Cure is Worse Than the Disease by Bill Sardi

World War Looms by Simon Jenkins

You Can’t Trust the FDIC by Doug French

Tribal Syndicates Block Sale of Amazonian Lands

The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto

Russell Kirk, the Canon and the Conservative Movement by Gerald Russello

Did Somebody Say Elitism? by Taki Theodoracopulos

Mika Etchebehere, POUM Militia Captain by Larry Gambone

The Long Silence: American Jews and the Palestinians by Howard Lisnoff

New Issue of “Republic” Magazine Is Out! (Thanks to Flavio Goncalves)

Traitors Beware: A History of Robert DePugh’s Minutemen by Eric Beckemeier (Thanks to Ean Frick)

Anarcho-Syndicalism in Brazil

Black Fez Manifesto by Hakim Bey

Toward Secession by Richard Kostelanetz

Big-Tittied Terrorists

Democrats Claim Racism is the Only Reason Obama Will Lose (Go figure!)

Driving With Air Fresheners is Suspicious

Foreign Lobbyists and the Making of US Foreign Policy by Justin Raimondo

The Hideous Horror of the Biden Selection by Arthur Silber

Pushing Russia Into the Cold by Pat Buchanan

War with Russia is on the Agenda by Paul Craig Roberts

On Obama’s Move to the Center by Joe Bageant

McCain-The Ugliest American

Strip-Search Nation by Dave Lindorff

The Politics of Avoidance by Ralph Nader

Saakashvili: The gun went off by itself while I was just holding it  by Steve Sailer

Milwaukee City Government Steals Disabled Man’s Home

Failed States and Other Good News by William Norman Grigg

Bush’ Armada of Aggression by Gary North

The Militarized States of America by Fred Reed

Both Parties Want Dictatorship by Lew Rockwell

Obama’s Cheney by Justin Raimondo

Obama’s Fascist Security Corps by Dario McDarby

What If Obama Loses? by Pat Buchanan

The Obama Transformation: From Antiwar Leftist to Liberal Hawk by Richard Spencer

How to Make Health Care Anarchistically Better by Francois Tremblay

McCain’s Useful Fools by Libby Spencer

Poison As Food, Poison As Antidote by Roderick T. Long

How the Chicago Boys Wrecked the Economy by Mike Whitney

Berkeley Activists Attacked by PIGS

Anarchists Attack Wells Fargo in Minneapolis

Three Greek Anarchists Arrested in Big Kidnapping Case

Jailed Cuban Punk Rocker to Stand Trial Friday

Goodbye by Charley Reese (he’s retiring)

When Desertion is a Duty by William Norman Grigg

Massive Police Raids on Protestors in Minneapolis by Glenn Greenwald

A Map of US Military Presence All Over the World

A Better Question Might Be, “How Isn’t It Fascism?” by Tom Harrington

America’s Unwelcome Advances by Chalmers Johnson

Stunning Statistics on Prison Labor by Francois Tremblay

Paleos for Palin? Not This One by Dylan Waco

The Ethics of the Homestead Strike by Shawn Wilbur

This is the Face of Fascism by Mona

Obama’s Speech, McCain’s Palinomy by Alexander Cockburn

Missouri Police Kill Motorist for Driving Poorly 

Sufic Notes on Proudhon, Rothbard and Anarchism 5

(Thanks, Sean!) 

[These are my musings from correspondence with a like-minded proprietor of a homepage, which I thought some here would find interesting. -SJ]:
 
Sufic Notes on Proudhon, Rothbard and Anarchism
 
I concur with your disavowal from the false dialectic of Left and Right: We have transcended beyond that limited spectrum and have arrived at a Third Position, one which seeks a comprehensive solution outside the dominant framework. We should not remain conditioned to this evolutionist dialectic which views everything based upon an ill-defined spectrum of “right” and “left”. Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi has written on this matter under his Scottish birth-name:
 
“The false dialectic of capital and communism, right and left, has for decades veiled from thinking people the possibility of grasping that what happened after 1945 was not only the collapse of the final phase of christian culture but the rise of a syncretic pseudo-culture, grafted onto the ruins of the old. A juden-kultur disguised as the previous model, but replacing it with a set of new values and expression whose unique driving force was the thrust of the market economy in its moments of expansion” (Ian Dallas, Oedipus and Dionysus, Freibourg Books, 1992).
 
I would also agree with your admiration for anarchism, purely in its classical sense and not the modern (mis)understanding. True anarchism is the anarchism of the Syndicalists and not the Cultural Marxists who have hijacked the movement to promote “alternative lifestyles” and the Cult of Political Correctness. It is a harmless nuisance which the elite tolerates since it does nothing to disrupt their power-structures.
 
Economics the Enemy of Anarchists
 
Proudhon’s maxim that “Anarchy is Order” brings to the surface a deep metaphysical reality latent until then. For he recognized that economics was a new religion and that economic ideas would become deified on an altar of ritualistic servitude. The masses are conditioned to believe that usury and taxation are two necessities of life (i.e., the old adage that nothing is certain except for death and taxes, and the fact that the Federal Reserve’s manipulation of interest rates is accepted as a gospel truth by those in awe of the economists).
 
Umar Ibrahim Vadillo has pointed out that the deification of economics has an esoteric underpinning. The rise of the State cannot be divorced from the rise of the modern bank. The two have a symbiotic relation, as both derive from esoteric origins. The State serves to perpetuate Finance, and vice versa. To increase their hold upon the society, they have reduced the temporal power of religions so that the latter serve to provide theological justification for the State. To quote Proudhon:
 
“The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them….What capital does to labor, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason” (Les confessions d’un revolutionnaire, Paris: Garnier, 1851, p. 271). 
 
Nihilism and Violence for its own Sake
 
Proudhon shunned nihilism, warning in no uncertain terms about the need for political movements to adopt a political agenda. He was reluctant to support the revolutionaries of 1848 at first, due to their violence. He came to oppose the new revolutionary regime, since it sacrificed socio-economic reforms for political reform. History demonstrates that revolutions have always succeeded when they had a clear program outlined and failed when they worshipped violence. Proudhon understood this danger of political movements:
 
“He saw that their intellectual paralysis was the cause of helpless nihilist terrorism. Political idealism, once put in place, enforces an increasing separation between the outside world and the membership. In order to create a sense of progress among the membership, the critique of the outside world, seen as part of education, has to aggressively increase in magnitude week after week. This tendency, once adopted, leads inevitably to an absurd dualism consisting of an utterly demonised outside world and an undeserved assumption of pure goodness on their own part. This is what Carl Schmitt (d. 1985) defined as political theology. One side of this nihilistic philosophy produces helpless terrorism and suicidal strategies” (Vadillo, The Esoteric Deviation in Islam, CapeTown: Madinah Press, 2003, pp. 534-535).
 
Proudhon understood clearly that the socio-economic reforms were more pertinent than the political reform, as reforms at this realm would naturally lead to those at the political realm. In this regard, it is quite interesting that all those screaming for “change” in this country likewise talk merely in political terms, ignoring any consideration for monetary reform or changing the economic structures at a fundamental level. Rather, they all serve to perpetuate the State just like their alleged opposite.
 
His opposition to nihilism also has relevance to our own opposition to the neo-Takfiri heresy. They scream at the top of their lungs about “Jihad” and declaring takfir of the governments, but they offer no program once they (hypothetically) come to power. In this sense the program of the Jihadi movements is nihilistic: an endless cycle of violence seemingly for the sake of violence, hence their focus on martyrdom. So rather than providing real solutions to remedy the situation, it is actually an escape from realities.
 
Usury and Wage-Labor
 
Proudhon opposed anyone who earned their income from rent, interest, and wage labor. He recognized that the workers create a productive capacity greater than their individual sum, but they don’t come to benefit from their own labor. Here the materialist device of “freedom” comes to play: Exercise your “freedom” to enter into a subservient work position or your “freedom” to not work, at which case the conditions of the society will ensure that you lose the basic human freedoms.
 
This is why successive opponents of the State have called for a return to the Guild-System, which they now understood was the only structure which could transform the society and eliminate the State. The workers of the Guilds were far more “free” (to use the modern rhetoric) than the workers in this age of “rights”, where employment is the new framework of relations and wages become the only fruits of labor. This fact has been expressed by Vadillo:
 
“The slave is now called the employee. This employee belongs to a class of employees. Freedom, as understood by medieval guilds which upheld a social ethos in which the master/apprentice relationship dominated the degrading employer/employee relationship of today, was already superior to what was being aimed at under the banner of rights. But guilds became viewed as centres of resistance to the
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).
 
Private Property
 
I would finally concur with your point about an individual’s right to hold property. The “property” that was condemned by Proudhon was solely the type that was used and abused according to the whims of the one holding it, while true private ownership of land possesses it so as to maintain economic independence. He championed the rights of the small landowners against the State, for which he was criticized by Marx (who actually sought to increase the power of the State against the workers). Proudhon recognized “property is the only power that can act as a counterweight to the State” (Theory of Property).
 
The right of private ownership of property was already recognized before even the creation of human beings as was noted by the Qur’an: “Wa iz’ qaala Rabbuka lil-Malaa’ikati, ‘Inni jaa’ilunfil-ardi Khalifah'” (Sura al-Baqara, verse 30). “Behold, they Lord said to the angels, ‘I will create a vicegerent on earth.'”
 
This verse speaks about successive generations upon the earth, but more importantly it mentions that we have been entrusted with the land as an awqaf. This was also exemplified in the Guilds, which ensured a social network of welfare for the members and through which they could find their livelihood. We recognize that any elimination of the State means the evolution (excuse the word) of decentralized Guilds and communities as the new structure of our societies.
 
Rothbard as a Complement to Proudhon
 
The importance of private property as a protection of individual rights at the expense of the State was studied by Murray Rothbard. He was in many senses a complement to Proudhon, providing further intellectual framework for anarchism in a mass-industrialized society. This is the importance of Anarcho-Capitalists or Anarcho-Libertarians, who covered up the faults of the Anarcho-Syndicalists in monetary issues and closed these gaps within anarchism.
 
Rothbard defined property as that which is acquired and transferred without any interference from the State. It should only be acquired through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud. He defined the self-ownership principle:
 
“The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another’s person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or ‘mixes his labor with’. From these twin axioms – self ownership and ‘homesteading’ – stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles” (Rothbard, “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution,” Cato Journal, Spring 1982, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 55-99). 
 
This matter of property represents the fundamental difference between the modern Cultural Marxist, PC form of “anarchism” and the pure anti-Statism of the individualist anarchists. The former propose the abolition of private property, which would certainly increase the authority of the State and make people vulnerable to its inherent excesses. On the other hand, Anarchism by its very nature is voluntarist. In true nihilist fashion, the anarcho-communists advocated the abolition of money (see Rothbard, “The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists,” The Libertarian Forum, January 1, 1970), but this is another matter entirely. What is the meaning behind anarchism?
 
“I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights” (Rothbard, Society and State). 
 
Sufism and the End of Metaphysics
 
These individual rights mentioned by Rothbard were already protected by Islam. We have transcended these other forms of thinking about the world, including the heresies of fundamentalists and modernists alike. Our belief is an-archic, in the sense that it reflects the culmination of the Heideggerian understanding that metaphysical foundations of thinking have been eliminated.
 
We understand that with the end of philosophy, Islam is the only force which can take over the gauntlet to roll back the power of the State. The other religions have already been subverted by the Global Capitalist world-view which have relegated them to mere theologies without any relevance on the social, economic and political realms. Hence, all have acknowledged the superiority of Economics – except for Islam.
 
Islam stands as a distinct alternative to the process of deconstruction which has reduced other religions to a position that will not disrupt the Capitalist order. Jean Baudrillard condemned this trend towards a relativism which defines itself in terms of political correctness and the cult of victimology, confiding to the Catholic conservative Rene Girard that “the whole world, including China and Japan, is implicated in the postmodern fragmentation and uprootedness that leaves values behind. There is one exception: Islam. It stands as a challenge to the radical indifference sweeping the world” (Global Viewpoint, 11 May 2005).
 
The potential role of Islam, in its purest Sufi understanding, to reverse these trends has been recognized by a number of truth-seekers who have submitted to the truly “anarchist” understanding that there is no Might nor Power except Allah – La Hawla wa la Quwata illa-billah. There is no Force except the Lord, hence our submission is only to Him because we find in this Tawhid the key to realizing our liberation from both our own soul (nafs) and the coercive pressures of others.
 
Sufi masters have always challenged the powers that be, whether they be tyrants or invaders. The ranks of liberation struggles have always been illuminated with their example. There is a lengthy story where Harun al-Rashid sought out a true teacher who was not a sycophant. He found such a teacher in Fuzail, who told him when the former asked if he could enter: “There is no such thing as authority. If you enter by force, you know what you are doing.”
 
There is much behind the aphorism “Anarchy is Order”. The Islamic conception of order is structuring one’s life according to the transcendent Divine Will, not according to the concepts of authority and control now dominant in this world. This understanding of Islam attracted such anarchists as Isabelle Eberhardt, Ivan Agueli, and Gustave-Henri Jossot, each of whom found its fullest expression in the Sufi tariqas. I have found that this structure is manifested in the Shadhili-Darqawi movement Murabitun, whose communities are quite de-centralized and have forged an alternative at all levels to the dominant Capitalist order.

Dr. Tomislav Sunic Writes to the Los Angeles Times Reply

Los Angeles Times
 Letters to the Editor
 letters@…
 timothy.rutten@…

 
Re: The extreme-right way to make a buck,” by Tim Rutten, LA Times, Aug. 16, 2008

 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.

 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.
 
Sincerely,
 Dr. Tom Sunic
 http://doctorsunic.netfirms.com
 Croatia
 Tel. 00385-1- 6261-55
 cell: 00385-91-793-9454
 tom.sunic@…
 
(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.

Updated News Digest August 24, 2008 Reply

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.”

  –“Senor Doug”

 

Afghanistan: Where Empire Goes to Die by Michael Scheuer

Jackbooted Airport Thugs by Emily Feder

ATF Hoodlums Attack Gun Store Owner

Buffalo PIGS Terrorize Family

Fat Children To Be Taken From Parents?

Texas School District to Arm Staff

Neocon Crybabies by Steven LaTulippe

The U.S. Government is Corrupt from Top to Bottom by Charley Reese

Warp Speed, Mr. Sulu?

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

Neocon Michael Ledeen Labels Italy a Terrorist Nation

“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 Exile   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

Yellow Peril!-How the Beijing Olympics Became the Most Politicized Show on Earth by Brendan O’Neill

Drug Legalization as a Defensive Measure

Berlin: Seven Banks Attacked in Protest of Energy Companies

The Politics of Prisons

Thoughtful Anarchy by John Steele

Martial Law in America

International Criminal Court Should Leave Georgia Alone  by Helen Rittelmeyer

China’s Religious Problem-And Ours by Grant Havers

And None Dare Call It Treason-McCain Advisor’s Georgia Connection by Pat Buchanan

Scalia on the Loose by Daniel Koffler

The Paradoxical Nature of the Geopolitics of Secession by Thomas N. Taylor

Interview with Pam Africa and Ramona Africa

The Anarchists Are Coming

National Day of Action Against Electoral Politics

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

Why Not to Trust Your School

For or Against? Attitudes Towards Capitalism in German or Italian Fascism by Troy Southgate

Street Justice: Good or Evil?

Afghanistan Invasion Going From Bad to Worse by Werner Scott

More Mischief from the Gangsters in Blue by Rad Geek

Texas Truant Students to be Tracked by GPS Anklets

Why Not Let the Republicans Deals with this Mess? by Dave Lindorff

Biden: “I Am A Zionist”

Please Donate to Antiwar.Com!

Updated News Digest August 17, 2008 Reply

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!”

-St. Augustine

Child Protection or Child Persecution?

Entire Arkansas Town Placed Under Curfew/House Arrest in the Name of the Drug War

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

Bill Kauffman interviewed by The Southern Avenger

From Stupid to Moronic to Evil by Paul Craig Roberts

Obama and Cindy McCain Should Be Drug War Felons

The Problem is Still Privilege by Jeremy Weiland

The Theory of Property by Pierre Joseph Proudhon

Queens City Councilman Wants NYC to Secede

New England Groups Look to Secede by Jim Kozubek

Jon Stewart Interviews The Big Sort‘s Bill Bishop

Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy?  by Robert Scheer

The Case Against the Fed by Murray Rothbard

Poor Little Georgia-Not! by Justin Raimondo

The Seeds of Another Cold War? by Anthony Gregory

Playing With Fire in the Caucasus by Doug Bandow

Israeli Arms Sales to Georgia Raise New Concerns by Peter Hirschberg

Neocons Now Love International Law by Robert Parry

Hypocrite Bush by Matthew Rothschild

Neocon Hypocrisy on Georgia and Iraq by Jacob Hornberger

Solzhenitsyn in America by Jeffrey Hart

Not Every Violation of the Law is a Crime by Jeremy Weiland

The Temperance Movement’s Effect on Drug Use by Radley Balko

Guardian Angels to Patrol Oakland Streets

International Sensitivity by Rad Geek

The Political Economy of Distributism by John Medaille

What’s Behind the War in Georgia? by Larry Gambone

After Multiculturalism: The Politics of Race and the Dialectics of Liberty by Chris Sciabarra

The Twilight of National Sovereignty by Paul Gottfried

China’s Island of Stability by John Derbyshire

The Tyranny of Liberalism by Jim Kalb

Is the Conservative Movement Worth Conserving?  by Austin Bramwell

Blowback from Bear-Baiting by Patrick Buchanan

Raping the Military     by Jared Taylor

Mikheil Saalashvili: War Criminal by Justin Raimondo

America’s Destructive Asian Empire Scott Horton interviews Eric Margolis

Old Man Hayek Had a Farm by Jim Henley

National Anarchism and National Socialism by Bay Area National Anarchist

Sometimes I Would Rather Be on the Outside Looking In Edd Merritt

Robotism: Learned Helplessness by Thomas N. Naylor

JFK Blown Away…What Else Do I Have to Say? by AnarchoNation

Secession Tales by Bill Buppert

Don’t Blame Food Stamp Recipients by Greg Perry

On Thin Ice by Ted Galen Carpenter

The Neocons Do Georgia by Paul Craig Roberts

“President Bush, Will You Please Shut Up?”  by Paul Craig Roberts

The Daily Show Live from the White House by Paul Craig Roberts

The Israel-Georgia-Washington Network by Richard Spencer

How to Perform a Citizen’s Arrest of a Bush Administration Official by Nathan Robinson

Anglo-Saxon Ethnocentrism and the Weakness of “White Nationalism” from AnarchoNation

Twelve-Year Old Girl Tells the Truth About Georgia

How Houston Gets Along Without Zoning

Green Party Presidential Candidate Cynthia McKinney Speaks to the Nation of Islam

Updated News Digest August 10, 2008 Reply

Quote of the Week:

“I sometimes wonder if Americans have enough sense to justify their continued existence as an independent country.”       -Paul Craig Roberts

R.I.P. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Death, the Drug War and Corey Maye  by William Anderson

Don’t Call the Cops. Ever. by Dan Spielberg

The End of the Republic  by Charley Reese

US Threatens Instability in Pakistan by Eric Margolis

Is China a Model for US Conservatives? by Jacob Hornberger

Losing Afghanistan  by Leon Hadar

Korea Reveals US Massacres in the 1950s

Israel and Identity  by Grant Havers

Grand New Party, Same Old Illusions Part Two  by Austin Bramwell

Recuperated Enterprises-Theirs and Ours  by Kevin Carson

Mary Kate Olsen Stands Up to the PIGS

When You Have to Leave America to be Free by Charles Davis

U.S. Army Private LaVena Lynn Johnson R.I.P.  by Elizabeth Higgs

Leave the United States If You Can by Wendy McElroy

Marx in the Morning by Brad Spangler

Marching Off Into Tyranny by Paul Craig Roberts

Mr. Obama, Welcome to the Big League by Pat Buchanan

Blackwater Thugs Get into the Drug War Business

How the West (Except for the U.S.) Ended Slavery  Tom DiLorenzo

Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Ralph Raico

The Looming Federal Default: Sooner or Later?  by Gary North

Iran and Al-Qaeda Michael Scheuer interviewed by Scott Horton

George Soros: Philanthropist Spook by Heather Coffin

The National Revolutionary Faction and the National Autonomous Zone  by Bay Area National Anarchists

Are Women Smarter Than Men?  by Larry Gambone

Gentrification=Stealing Poor Peoples’ Homes  by Francois Tremblay

CIA/Drugs vs Saddam/Al-Qaeda by Dylan Waco

Gangs: Something to Do from AnarchoNation

God Forbid You Hesitate Before Opening Fire on a Target You Cannot See!  by Jeremy Weiland

Bush’s War on Terror-Silly But Serious by Paul Craig Roberts

Killing Women and Children First  by John Zmirak

Pre-Crime and Pre-Emptive Civilian Disarmament  by William Norman Grigg

Drug PIGS Raid Maryland Mayor’s Home, Kill Dogs

Man Arrested for Threatening to Assassinate Obama, Also Threatens Bush

The Top 50 Political Websites

Tasers to be Used in Public Schools?

Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy  by Murray Rothbard

Discovering Sin by Charley Reese

Rogue Juror by Thomas R. Eddlem

Thinking About Secession by William Buppert

Obama and the Empire by William Blum

Was the Constitution Really Meant to Constrain Government? by Sheldon Richman

Hundreds of Banks Will Fail

Why Do Chinese, Russians Like Their Governments So Much?  by Pat Buchanan

Multiculturalist Malaise by Ilana Mercer

The Politics of Transhumanism 3

changesurfer.com

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
Cambridge, MA
November 1-4, 2001

For more information please contact:
James Hughes Ph.D.
Public Policy Studies, Trinity College,
71 Vernon St., Hartford CT, 06106, 860-297-2376,
jhughes@changesurfer.com, www.changesurfer.com

Abstract

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.

More…

Updated News Digest August 3, 2008 Reply

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.              

                                                                 -Friedrich Nietzsche

ACLU Obtains Key Memos Authorizing CIA Torture Methods

There Is No Statute of Limitations on Murder  Vincent Bugliosi Speaks to the House Judiciary Committee

Plug the Plug on the War State  by Charley Reese

Daniel Ellsberg’s Lesson for Our Time  by James Bovard

Book Review-Reclaiming the American Right by Justin Raimondo  by Dylan Waco

Christopher Hitchens vs Waterboarding: Waters Wins   by Francois Tremblay

McCain More Hawkish Than Bush? from Thus Spoke Bellinsky

Exit Strategies  by Pat Buchanan

Batman: Anarcho-Fascist or Unassimilated Jew?  by Richard Spencer

Republican Hypocrites  by Paul Gottfried

The Birth of an Obsession by Paul Gottfried

Founder of Utopian Commune Dies at 77

The Military-Industrial Complex  by Chalmers Johnson

The War Party’s Credo: Power Before Profits-why the left’s analysis of imperialism is inadequate by Justin Raimondo

The Death of Rachel Hoffman  by Paul Armentano

Call for a Chicago Student Strike How About a Nationwide Student Strike??!!

Obama Plans to Make Afghanistan into Vietnam  by Pat Buchanan

Twenty Years for Pot Possession  by Paul Armentano

A Peoples’ Court for America?  by Jacob Hornberger

Foundations for the New Economy  by Kevin Carson

Feudalism vs Anarchism?  by John Zmirak

Feminazis Say No Platform with Weightists

The Public-Private Imperial Police State  Interview with Chalmers Johnson

Is the Surge Working?  by Justin Raimondo

Choosing a King in November   Glenn Greenwald Interviews Daniel Ellsberg

The Father of Lies  by Philip Giraldi

In Praise of Inequality  by Richard Spencer

Worthwhile Books

2008 Connecticutt Liberty Forum

Against Trademarks  by Stephan Kinsella

The Unfortunate Case of Herbert Spencer  by Damon W. Root

Cop Assaults Man on Bicycle

SWAT PIGS Who Terrorized Innocent Family Rewarded with Medals

Cops Shoot Cop in Long Beach

Ron Paul Defends Marijuana Legalization

Maryland PIGS Terrorize Family, Kill Two Dogs

Remembering Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn  by Enrico Peppe

Ecuador Resists Drug War

He Ventured Forth to Bring Light into the World  by Gerard Baker

Hegemony Everywhere But At Home by Paul Craig Roberts

The Believer: Obama Gets the Left Closer to God  by Daniel Flynn

Egoism vs Natural Rights Theory by Wendy McElroy

Whitey Need Not Apply  by Pat Buchanan

Authentic Black Conservatism  by Dylan Waco

Federal Slavery  by William Norman Grigg

“Common Knowledge” About World War Two  by Richard Spencer

Was Wilhelm Just Another W?    by Paul Gottfried

Central Banks Warn of Great Depression

A Free Market Agenda for Healthcare Reform  by Kevin Carson

Jewish Neoconservatives  by Daniel Koffler

Medical-Industrial Complex Supports Ban on Midwifery

McCain’s Police State and Military-Industrial Complex

Demagoguery Works  by Charley Reese

Achieving a Pan-Secessionist Critical Mass 9

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 historian 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:

http://mises.org/story/527

A recent work that has gotten some attention in the mainstream press is Bill Bishop’s The Big Sort, a 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 “any state or region has the right to peaceably secede from the United States and become an independent republic.” Another similar percentage (18.2 per cent) even says that they “would support a secessionist effort in my state.”

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 part 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 “other and mixed” 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 “other” 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 states’ right to secede, with 18.7 per cent of those considering themselves in the “investor class” 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 “the United States’ system is broken and cannot be fixed by traditional two-party politics and elections.” 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, populists 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, vocal 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 activists 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 it’s claims on Idaho and Montana. There just aren’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 with 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 backward andreactionary” 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 to 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 point 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) 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 that 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 done 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.

Updated News Digest July 27, 2008 1

Quote of the Week:

“Soledad O’Brien, at the beginning of CNN’s “Black in America:  Reclaiming the Dream,” cited as evidence of the at least partial fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream that “Some are CEOs.  Some are Secretaries of State.”

Well, I have a dream of my own:  To strangle the last CEO with the entrails of the last Secretary of State.

Seriously, there’s something really nauseating about a model of “Progressive” politics that’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 (”look like America,” as Slick Willie put it).

As a white man, I can tell you, I derive very little satisfaction from the knowledge that I’m being screwed over by people who look like me.  Instead of worrying about the racial and gender makeup of the board rooms and cabinets, I’d like to tear them down.”

                                                                                                           -Kevin Carson

End Refugee Immigration by Abolishing Imperialism 

When You See a Turtle Sitting on a Fencepost  by Kevin Carson

James Dobson: Neocon Stooge  by Dylan Waco

The Mother of All Messes  by Paul Craig Roberts

A Brazen Evil  by Justin Raimondo

How Good Was the Good War?  by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

Obama: The Democratic War President  by Eric Margolis

Good Alice, Bad Alice

The State is Above the Law  by Glenn Greenwald

A Tattoo for Every Politician’s Forehead  by Charley Reese

Children in Guantanamo  from AnarchoNation

The Un-Tied States of America  by Chellis Glendenning

Zogby Poll Finds a Nationwide Support for Secession

Who Really Rules?  by Paul Gottfried

Psychiatric Patient Dies in New York Hospital

The Rebellion in Oklahoma  by Walter Williams

Can the Hammer and Sickle Merge with the Pentagram?

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder: The Legal Framework for the Prosecution  -Vincent Bugliosi

The Religious Right is AWOL From the Real War   by Chuck Baldwin

Thoughts on the Canadian Genocide and the “Apology”  by Larry Gambone

 Man Dies After Cop Hits Him With Taser Nine Times

TSA Thugs Molest Woman, Assault Elderly Disabled Man

Who Killed the Constitution? Tom Woods Interviewed by Lew Rockwell

Now That the Ban is Lifted, Washington, D.C. Tries to Regulate Guns to Death

National-Anarchist Asia Tour 2008

Videos from 15th London New Right Conference:

War  by Soren Renner

Cosmotheism by Larry Nunn

Imperium  by Norman Lowell

On Carlyle  by Jonathon Bowden

The State vs. Guerrillas  by Bill Lind

Obama on the Brink  by Robert Scheer

Are You Ready to Face the Facts About Israel?  by Paul Craig Roberts

Honorable Exit From Empire  by Pat Buchanan

Labor Struggle in a Free Market  by Kevin Carson

Ron Paul vs the Corporate Police State

Obama Will Probably Win  by Christopher Roach

Grand New Party, Same Old Illusions  by Austin Bramwell

Memphis Cops Beat Up Transexual

Look at the State You’re In: Absaroka

Having an Agenda: The Black Libertarian’s Greatest Fear?  by Wilton Alston

Los Angeles Plans to Ban New Fast Food Restaurants 

Quagmire Exchange  by Charley Reese

Abetting Police Aggression: The COPS Effect by William Norman Grigg

Hitchens on the Sectarian Left  by Alexander Linklater

Pim Fortuyn and the Next European Liberalism from BraveNewWorldWatch

Why a Critique of the Totalitarian Humanist State is Essential to a Genuine Radicalism 3

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. 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, 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.

Updated News Digest July 20, 2008 Reply

Quote of the Week:

“ Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

– Thomas Paine

 

Strip Search a Thirteen-Year-Old and Keep Your Job

Proudhon Seminar: What is Property?  Ch. 2 notes, Pt. 1 by Shawn Wilbur

Gangsters in Blue

Proudhon Seminar: What is Property?  Ch. 1 notes, by Shawn Wilbur

Bush Acts Like an Oaf at Gang of Eight Conference  by Eric Margolis

 Iowa Mom Busted by Police for Spanking Child

Indiana University Janitor Reprimanded for Reading Anti-Ku Klux Klan Book

Take a Picture of a Cop, Go to Jail

A Phony Crisis—and a Real One, On The Path To War With Iran by Pat Buchanan

Enabling Tyranny—Brigitte Bardot And Other Victims by Paul Craig Roberts

Police Quotas Motivate Unfair Treatment from Left Conservative Blog

The Lesser Evil Just Keeps Getting More Evil by Kevin Carson

 All You Need to Know About Obama   by Brad Spangler

Why They’re Called “Cockroach Caucuses”  by Kevin Carson

Black Baltimore Drug Dealers Use “Far Right” Legal Theories

“Have Nothing to Do with Conquest”  by Michael Scheuer

Tom Woods Speaks at Ron Paul March

Conservative Confusion on Iran by Philip Giraldi

Just Another Drug War Rant  by Kevin Carson

You Say You Want a Revolution  by Kevin Carson

One Million Terrorists?   by Paul Craig Roberts

Nothing Honorable About the Vietnam War  by Ted Rall

John McCain is the Candidate of Mars, God of War  by Doug Bandow

Little War Criminals Get Punished, Big Ones Don’t  by Paul Craig Roberts

America’s First Affirmative Action Candidate  by Pat Buchanan

Is There Sovereignty Beyond the State?  by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

The Myth of the Conservative Legal Movement     by Kevin R. C. Gutzman

Housing and Squatting      from AnarchoNation

Notes on the Revolution March      from Social Memory Complex

Report Finds Horrendous Conditions at Chicago Jail

Military Court Upholds Free Speech for Soldiers

Heavy Metal Monk

Drug War Hogwash     by Charley Reese

Panarchy: A Means to Jeffersonian Ideals  by Mike Rozeff

We’re in a World Economic Crisis by William Norman Grigg

Blow it Out Your Ass, Phil Gramm!

Duty to Resist Reply

(Thanks, Jeremy)

Text of a speech from Adam Kokesh of Iraq Veterans Against the War

 

http://kokesh.blogspot.com/2008/07/duty-to-resist.html

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Duty to Resist

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, “These 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.”

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, “Don’t worry. You made it. You’re gonna be OK.” 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!

A Man Among Men Reply

Thanks to Josh Rhodes for digging this up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7420469.stm

Meeting Spain’s last anarchist

By Alfonso Daniels
San Buenaventura, Bolivia

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.

Stateless

He was keen to share his views on 20th Century Spanish history with a wider audience.

THE DURRUTI COLUMN
Column of anarchist fighters during Spanish Civil War
Led by Buenaventura Durruti until his death fighting Franco’s forces on outskirts of Madrid in November 1936
After defeat of Republican forces in 1939, many surviving members fled to France. Many interned in French prison camps.
After Nazis invaded, many imprisoned in concentration camps, others joined resistance

“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.

View of San Buenaventura

Mr Baron wanted to be as far from modern life as possible

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.

Dunkirk

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.

Mr Baron commissioned  paintings of a concentration camp victim to hang in his house

Paintings of scenes from the camp are a visual reminder of his past

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.”

Clarifying the Left/Right labels Reply

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 “left” 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.