PC Leftoid Therapeutism Goes Insane 1

The University of Delaware forces students to undergo PC brainwashing under the guise of therapy, or “treatments.” Read all about it.

This is the “totalitarian humanism” I have been warning about in the past. The totalitarian Left has spent decades working to gain control of the universities. Now, what’s going to happen when they finally gain control of the state, the police, the legal system, the army, etc.?  This is the Cultural Marxist Revolution in full operation.

[Update: Apparently, exposure has forced the university to drop the program. See here. But they’ll be back. These cretins view this as a Long March.]

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan)

Updated News Digest November 29, 2009 Reply

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

Quotes of the Week:

“That all men are equal is a proposition to which, at ordinary times, no sane individual has ever given his assent.”

                                                                                          -Aldous Huxley

I don’t fight for lost causes, I fight for causes not yet won!”

                                                                                        -Chris Donnellan

“Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion… while Truth again reverts to a new minority.”
                                                                                            -Søren Aabye Kierkegaard

“The only kind of freedom that the mob can imagine is freedom to annoy and oppress its betters, and that is precisely the kind that we mainly have.”                    

                                                                                     -Henry Louis Mencken

“The doctrine of equality! There exists no more poisonous poison: For it seems to be preached by justice itself, while it is the end of justice.”

                                                                               -Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

“Democracy…is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.”


“Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”

                                                                                     -Alexis de Tocqueville

Who Will Protest Obama’s War? by Justin Raimondo

Fourth Generation Warfare Comes to a Town Near You (hat tip to BANA)

Why They Hate Us by Stephen Walt

WASPs and Foreign Policy: The Empire Didn’t Begin with the Neocons by Paul Gottfried

Americans’ View of the World from David Kramer

The Nature of Modern Imperialism by Alan McKinnon

The Real Unemployment Rate is 17.5% by Jeff Cox

Neither Capitalism nor Communism: For a Third Position on Health Care

Get Ready for the Obama/GOP Alliance by Jeff Cohen

The Pot Calls the Kettle Black: Corrupt U.S.-U.K. Criticize Afghanistan by Eric Margolis

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s Trial Will Convict Us All  by Paul Craig Roberts

The Department of Gomer Pyle by Don Cooper

Support Your Local Sexual Predator by William Norman Grigg

Uncovering the Hidden History of Cooperation, Cooperative Movements, and Communalism in America by Kevin Carson (see Carson interview)

Mission Creep: Counter-Insurgency in Salinas by William S. Lind

The American Coup D’etat of 1947 (hat tip to Ray Mangum)

55% of Americans are Populist, 7% Support the Political Class from Rasmussen

The Anarch vs the Anarchist by Wayne John Sturgeon

Libertarian and Marxist Class Analysis by Lew Rockwell

Another World Was Possible by Kevin Carson

The Federal Reserve and the Power Elite by Charles Burris

Uber-PIG Joe Arpaio’s Amerika  by William Norman Grigg

The Democrats’ War Tax by Justin Raimondo

Letter of Imprisoned Revolutionary Anarchist from Infoshop.Org

America’s Supermax Prisons Do Torture by Kiilu Nyasha

The Next Liberal Fad: A Stolen Generation of Black Children? by Steve Sailer

How Israel Became a Night Unto the Nations by Yoel Marcus

Obama’s Worsening Civil Liberties Record by Glenn Greenwald

If Obama is a Pragmatist, Then What Was Bush? by Nick Baumann

The American Cause  by Daniel Larison

Dumb and Dumber Wars by Jeff Huber

Terror Lists Won’t Save Us by Ivan Eland

Are Conservatives Coming Around on Civil Liberties by Jacob Hornberger

The Extreme Secrecy of the Federal Courts by Glenn Greenwald

Battlefield in the War of Ideas by Eugene Robinson

A Reasoned Argument Against Mass Immigration by Brenda Walker

Is the Church Militant Back? by Pat Buchanan

My Thanksgiving Prayer by Chuck Baldwin

Census Worker’s Death Was Suicide-Not “Hate” by Robert De Brus

Greek Anarchists Attacked with Explosives from Infoshop.Org

Family and Friends of Victim Protest Outside Home of Murderous PIG from Infoshop.Org

A Good Reason Not to Celebrate Thanksgiving by Red Phillips

The Case of Lynn Stewart by Marjorie Cohn

The Bush-Blair Conspiracy by Dave Lindorff

Climategate? by Dr. Tim Ball

Glaring Proof that Hitler Made It Out of the Bunker from David Kramer

Obama Rejects Landmine Treaty by Desmond Butler

WASP Establishment and the Holocaust by Charles Burris

Obama Sells Out to the Neocons by Patrick Krey

Returning to a Secret Country by John Pilger

The Cost of War Is Higher Than You Think by Philip Giraldi

What Exactly is the Job in Afghanistan? by Jeff Huber

Obama Supporter Quits Gitmo Post by Glenn Greenwald

The Empire Has No Idea What It’s Doing Gareth Porter interviewed by Scott Horton

Japan’s Native People Fight for Survival from France24

Philip Blond: Red Tory Philosopher by Michael White

Sarah Palin is George W. Bush in a Skirt by James Edwards

Secession and State Militias by Russ Longcore

One Thing Stops Mass Murderers-A Gun by Vin Suprynowicz

Decentralization and Operational Secession by Gary North

Eco-Fanatics Devastate Tribal Peoples 

Is Global Warming Settled Science? by James Taranto

Israel’s Illegal Settlements in America by Grant Smith

The Auld Triangle Goes Jingle Jangle by Alexander Cockburn

Planning for Poverty? by Carl Ginsburg

Obama as LBJ by Franklin Spinney

The Devastating Consequences of the Corporate Health Insurance Bill by Shamus Cooke

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

Tomislav Sunic Discusses Carl Schmitt

Iggy and the Stooges with James Williamson for the First Time Since 1974

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Anti-Egalitarian International 

Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy

Renters Becoming Latest Victims as Foreclosure Crisis Widens 

Wall Street’s New Gilded Age by Niall Ferguson

Russian Homeless Resort to Cannibalism 

The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons by Ian Angus

The Second Wave of the Financial Tsunami 

Life Without Father and Disappearing Dads 

America’s Economic Pain Brings Hunger Pangs 

America’s Shadow Economy Is Bigger Than You Think 

15 Signs American Is Coming Apart at the Seams 

The Rise of Vertical Farms 

Homelessness in New York City at an All-Time High 

An Alternative to Globalization 

Bodies Go Unburied in Detroit 

The Pending Collapse of the U.S.A. 

Economic Crisis Is Getting Bloody-Violent Deaths Now Follow Evictions 

Reagan Did Not End the Cold War 

Avoiding Mass Starvation 

The Influence of Nietzsche

Former Soviet States: Battleground for Global Domination 

Global Warming Rigged?

More Than 200,000 Animals Sacrificed in Nepal Festival 

Man Discovers Charles Manson Is His Real Dad

If You’ve Done Nothing Wrong You Have Everything to Worry About

Inmate Pushed Judge to Order Electrolysis for Transgender Surgery

The Inevitable Failure of Suburbia 

Nine Points of Inland Empire National-Anarchists 

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

The Coolest Band You’ve Probably Never Heard of Performs Live in 1977

The PC Left is the New Moral Majority 1

So says a free speech attorney. This statement is particularly pertinent:

“Just when the decency police and moral values group have been all but defeated in the courts–both of law and public opinion–a new threat has emerged from our left flank: political correctness,” he continued. “The leftist thought police are now wanting to impose their view of propriety on modern cultural discourse. We’re now seeing objections to racial slurs and sexist video game content that feminists and minority groups take offense to. Now without taking a position on the propriety on that content in modern video games, this trend is just as damaging to free expression rights.”

Walters pointed out legislation pending in New York that aims to prohibit sales to minors of games that have various degrees of profanity, racist stereotypes, derogatory language, and/or actions toward a specific group of persons as setting a dangerous precedent.

“Think about that for a minute. Would we ever in a million years tolerate the government passing a law that movies cannot have profanity, racial jokes, or derogatory language? That would eliminate practically every movie made,” he said.

The good news is that this should produce plenty of rebellious youth eager to join an anti-PC “alternative-anarchist” movement. PC is the theocracy of liberalism.

H. L. Mencken: Anarchist of the Right? 2

by Anne Ollivier-Mellio

[Keith: I translated this from the original French using online translation technology, so it’s a bit of a rough read in places. I eschewed further editing, so as to avoid additional deviations from the original.]

Mencken: anarchist of the right? Oxymoron or mere provocation? Is there not some irony in wanting to classify it, his whole life, tried to remain unclassifiable, shuffling cards, prohibiting anyone from the catalog? Described as skeptical, iconoclastic satire, turns literary critic, columnist and editor, is found at the crossroads between journalism and literature, philosophy and publishing. And if the breadcrumb to the contemporary reader to find his bearings in this maze, was simply politics? And if Mencken was, among other things, one of the most famous of American anarchism? Of course, not anarchism left of Emma Goldman (1870-1940) or Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921), his Russian mentor, but anarchism synthesizing large American values and that of the right.

In his book on the right-wing anarchists in France, François Richard identifies three trends in anarchist thought. The anarchism of Max Stirner Gross (1806-1856), German thinker who rejects the generally accepted data humanistic tradition and promotes excessive individualism. Anarchism left inherited the philosophy of the Enlightenment, which seeks to empower people and the exercise of political power by all at the price of radical and violent actions (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin), and finally a Right anarchism or libertarian aristocracy, founded on a critical (or rejection) of democracy, a rejection of the egalitarian premise of 1789, a duty to revolt, hatred of intellectuals and a fierce defense of individual liberties (Richard 56). Very well represented in French literature, de Gobineau of Marcel Ayme through Leautaud, Celine, Bernanos or Anouilh, anarchism plunge right he also rooted in a uniquely American tradition of anti-statism, individualism extreme and fierce defense of individual liberties? 
In any case, what seems to support David De Leon in The American as Anarchist, work in which he studied the different forms of radicalism in the United States, and concludes that there is a current anarchist and right of current anarchist left the United States. We look for us to show that right-wing anarchism is perhaps one of the keys to better understand and perhaps try to classify the unclassifiable Mencken, without reducing or freezing his thought. By choosing this angle of attack will then be examined in turn led to his defense of individualism and freedoms, including freedom of expression, his critique of democracy in general and particularly the United States, its glorification of ‘individualism and opposition to the state. I finally try to evaluate ideas in light of the American libertarian tradition. To Mencken, the starting point for any discussion on freedom of thought remains the Founding Fathers. During the revolutionary period, they are the true defenders of individual freedoms. They do not believe in an egalitarian democracy, contrary to popular wisdom says, but want to establish a republic. They are wary of people, the populace (the mob) but rely on an enlightened minority, able to defend individual freedoms and equality with men before the law. In his essay on George Washington, Mencken writes: “George Washington Had No belief in the infallible wisdom of the common people, but Regarded as inflammatory dolt them and tried to save the Republic from them” (Chrestomathy 220).
To Mencken, love of freedom requires courage, ability to be autonomous (self-reliant) and entrepreneurship, qualities which are often destitute people. And to quote William Graham Sumner, famous Darwinist professor of economics at Yale, too, in the late nineteenth century clearly distinguishes democracy and republic. The republic is a form of self-government whose goal is not equality between men but civil liberties. It requires that we be vigilant and we will beat it when freedoms are under threat (Douglas 71). Mencken fully supports the ideas of Sumner, he considers the people too passive and too little attention to assaults on their liberties. When people fight, “he said, he does not name the key principles such as freedom, but to meet practical needs, immediate and material.  
Beyond principles, the reality will Mencken’s struggle for freedom of expression, a priority throughout his life. Certainly, we see expressed in his columns on topics as diverse as Puritanism, morality, religion, sex and politics. It withers mercilessly American heroes like Lincoln or Roosevelt. But he forgets the satire and irony, and rallying as soon as the individual freedoms of others, especially freedom of expression is threatened. Witness his stance in favor of the writer Theodore Dreiser, when it becomes the target of American censorship after the release of his 1915 book Genius (Bode 59-60, Hobson 151, Williams 73). In 1917 he took up the cause of the socialist Scott Nearing, dismissed from the University of Pennsylvania, because of its pacifist positions. He has no personal sympathy for Nearing but would primarily defend freedom of expression of this teacher, even a pacifist and socialist.  It is clean, Mencken later said, and if I had a son, I wish he could meet him.  In 1916 and 1917, he also takes a stand against censorship suffered almost all radical magazines (whether of the literary magazine The Seven Arts, was forced to cease publication after the release of anti-war articles Randolph Bourne, or The Masses, a magazine more politicized directed by Max Eastman, also censured by the Wilson government in autumn 1917). The fierce defense of freedom of expression animates still in the thirties when he denounced the dismissal of a teacher, Mr Blows, accused by the board of the university to be communist, or when it intervenes to support the visa application of anarchist (left!) Emma Goldman, then in exile in Europe. The anarchist deported to Russia by the U.S. government in 1919 after thirty-three years ago in the United States, was denied a visa by the authorities because of his ideas deemed seditious.
But freedom of expression has meaning only if one is willing to fight for his defense.
But Mencken, if committed on a personal level, doubts that his compatriots are capable of such a struggle. The people, in his view, unable to stand up for a cause as noble as freedom, because he strayed into its idiotic belief in democracy. The second theme occupies a prominent place in the political writings of Mencken. Plus an opponent of democracy, especially criticizing the excesses of the American system, he said officials from the tyranny of the majority of the emergence of movements such as fundamentalism or Prohibition or the pervasiveness of what ‘ he calls the moral puritan.
 The first aspect of his critique of democracy as political system is structured to reflect on Puritanism in the United States.  His target is not the Puritanism of New England in the seventeenth century because it does not arise as a historian of ideas but slayer this moral code (much more than Victorian puritan) still present in the United States at the turn of the century. His denunciation of the Puritan morality (rather than religious practice) is akin to that formulated by Van Wyck Brooks a few years ago in a book entitled Wine of the Puritans (1908). Both vilify this narrow moral code which stifles the individual and his instincts and weighed like a leaden pall over the entire American literature. “I’m against Puritanism to the last gasp,” he wrote to Dreiser in 1919 (Epstein 50). To Mencken, Puritanism and Democracy are intrinsically linked because they represent two sides of the same idea (Chrestomathy 183, Douglas 83). Both are rooted in hatred of the poor man for those who are superior. The Puritan as a Democrat (it must be understood by the individual in a democracy) are afraid of being surpassed by his peers. He believes so strongly in equality of men that do not tolerate those who want to advance, rising above the common lot.  And to sum up his thoughts in a phrase famously: “Democracy is a condition of life In which people are set to worrying Whether somebody, somewhere is enjoying things that they are not and take action to see that they do not. That is what Puritanism is also “(Douglas 83). Thus, the Puritan as the Democrat, fears excellence, hates art and those who create it, and hope that everything is measured against its own mediocrity. Precisely this race to the bottom that Mencken deplored in American society.
The mistake of the Americans is the belief that all men are equal in talent and ability, whereas the term gender as used by the Founding Fathers, refers only to equality with men before law. Hence the reluctance of the average American (the average man), obsessed by the idea of egalitarian democracy, to accept the geniuses, intellectuals and men of emergency. Besides Mencken believed in the existence of men of superior intelligence. Like Nietzsche, to whom he dedicated a book in 1908, he hates morality and bourgeois lifestyle (the booboisie!), And sees egalitarian drift of American democratic system the sign of the decline of a civilization. Progress (in whatever form) can only come from a creative elite and not the man in the street, whose goal is to ensure that their material comfort (12-13 Notes on Democracy ).
In his articles on democracy, Mencken did not yet pose a political philosopher, but a mere observer of American life. Its almost anthropological study leads him to conclude, as did Nietzsche, that democracy, more than any other political system, encourages the standardization of tastes and moral conformity and discourages the contrary originality, excellence and Imagination (Douglas 100).  To justify his position, he draws his examples from American history, and especially the withers Jacksonian period (1828-1836: under President Jackson that all white men become eligible to vote) and the populist movement (movement in the 1890s, denounced the plutocracy and demanded more rights for the masses), according to him responsible for the spread of democracy and its abuses.
But most of the examples from the past, the First World War Mencken offers food for thought on the evils of American democracy. In April 1917, the United States entered the war, and the Wilson government therefore seeks to silence all opposition to the conflict, they are pacifists, socialists or anarchists. One by one, all the radical magazines (whether more politicized journals as The Masses – 1911-1917 – or more interested in art as The Seven Arts – 1916-1917) fall under two laws , the Espionage Act and Sedition Act (passed in 1917 and 1918) and must stop their publication. Mencken, however, reluctant to support what he called “the red ink fraternity” (that is to say, radical intellectuals, Forgue 68), while denouncing censorship and the U.S. government. But he also openly condemned the democracy, the American people and his lack of courage. Indeed, public opinion strongly opposed the war until the end of 1916 (the Democratic Party had not he contributed to Wilson’s re-election hammering, “Wilson kept us out of the war ?), had continued to support Wilson after the outbreak of war the United States. The American people had accepted without hesitation Wilson’s argument that “this [was] a war to make the world safe for democracy”, even though individual liberties were shamefully violated and crushed the opposition. Is it just asks Mencken in a letter to Socialist Louis Untermeyer in 1917, about the inherent love of the American people for freedom? No, such a passion does not exist. He continued: “It is only an aristocracy that is ever tolerant. The masses are invariably cocksure, suspicious, furious and tyrannical. This is in fact the central objection to democracy: that it hinders progress by penalizing innovation and non conformity » (Forgue 109). 
Mencken remains convinced that only an aristocracy (elite) is capable of defending freedom of expression and to see a major issue (since it only has the affluence that allows it to be selfless and act for the defense of principles), while the masses, too preoccupied with defending an egalitarian democracy, have recently demonstrated their inability to react when individual liberties are at risk. Thus, the war had shown that one of the greatest dangers to democracy remained much the emergence of a “tyranny of the majority”, a term used by Alexis de Tocqueville [1] but that sums up perfectly the feeling of the Mencken early twenties. The mistake the Americans since the late nineteenth century had been pushing democracy in the extreme, to the point of forgetting the republican principles of the Founding Fathers: the equality of all before the law – not equal all at birth – and the duty of politicians to defend the res publica, that is to say the public, the public good, without seeking to flatter the masses by illusory promises.
But if this harsh criticism of democracy can Mencken put together a Micberth (born in 1945, this writer and pamphleteer, is considered one of the leaders of the French right-wing anarchism. His critique of the contemporary including democracy leads to write: “Equality: not know, I know some constant amount, while others laziness, filth, vice and demean themselves poor, Richard 57), his apology for the ‘individual approaches also the right-wing anarchists. He has repeatedly criticized this “tyrannical majority” herd instinct “Democratic man is quite unable to think of himself as a free individual, he must belong to a group or shake with fear and loneliness, and the group, of course, must have its leaders, “he wrote in 1926 (Chrestomathy 157). Mencken was an individualist who opposes any allegiance to a group or party. He reproached Dreiser, where it feeds yet sympathetic, his left drift (during WWI) but he will acknowledge especially to serve a group, the radical intellectuals of Greenwich Village. A decade later, he sent the same complaint to the many intellectuals who look to the communist movement. This is not the fascination of these intellectuals to the communist ideology that shocking (he wrote in effect: “If I were younger and on my own, I would be sorely tempted, I suspect, to take a look at Russia . Though most communists [are] laughable, communism [is] at least an interesting idea … quite as sensitive as democracy, “Hobson 387), their subservience to the group, their renunciation of individual combat. Individualism is indeed a fundamental value for Mencken.
Yet this desire to be free and independent group does not make him shut up in an intellectual ivory tower. Instead, he led many battles individually, refusing, like many right-wing anarchists, “to bend at all considered particularly despicable conformism” (Richard 47).
Among the battles Mencken include that he is waging against what he calls comstockery.  Comstock was a member of Congress who had pushed through a law in 1873 – known as the Comstock law – prohibiting “the mailing, transporting or importing of anything lewd, lascivious or obscene” (Parrish 143). The influence of the Comstock Act on American morality was still strong in the twenties and comstockery become a favorite target of Mencken, who committed to showing the absurdity, hypocrisy and anachronistic. Many papers in his Chrestomathy under “Morals” in the form of attack more or less veiled moral code of the legacy of the nineteenth century ( “The Lady of Joy,” “The Sex Uproar,” “Art and Sex , 48, 54, 61). It says for example these lines tasty:
One of the favorite notions of the Puritan mullahs who specialize in pornography is that the sex instinct, if suitably repressed, may be “sublimated,” as they say, into idealism, and especially aesthetic. That concept is to be found in all their books, they ground it upon the theory that the enforcement of chastity by a huge force of spies, stool pigeons and police would convert the Republic into a nation of moral aesthetes. All this of course is simply pious fudge. (61)
But his struggle against the moral hypocrisy and narrow is matched only one he waged against Prohibition (passed in 1919, it remains in force until 1933) or against Southern Methodist in the United States (185 ) and fundamentalists [2]. Ultimately, Mencken never stop, his whole life, fighting through American society. Like the anarchists of the right, he acts independently of any group or party, for his crusade is personal. Like them, he believes that “fertility intellectual and moral greatness inevitably require a personal attitude of opposition towards what might be called the socio-cultural consensus” (Richard 48).
Finally, Mencken conducts a final battle which relates to certain anarchists right: not content to criticize democracy, we have seen, he also accuses of having contributed to the increased role of federal States United, a phenomenon he sees as responsible for a large drift of American political system. The federal government had gradually acquired more responsibilities throughout the nineteenth century the Civil War who played a significant role in this development), but mainly in the twentieth century through the Progressive movement (1901-1914 ) and the New Deal (in the thirties) he sees his role increase dramatically. The progressive movement is driven by reformers from the middle class. Given the inequalities of American society led since the Civil War, by a minority of plutocrats, the middle class American is looking for solutions to improve the plight of the poorest in order to minimize social protest. This improvement is through better social protection and distribution of wealth more equitable, the federal government should be able to put in place. After a moment the arguments progressives rallied during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1908), Mencken never stop criticizing the progressivism of Woodrow Wilson from 1912. He believes, like the English philosopher William Godwin, the function of government should be duplicated and limited to protecting the individual against the attacks of his fellow citizens and foreign policy. He writes: “The government is in essence not a mere organization of ordinary men like the Ku Klux Klan, the U.S. Steel Corporation or Columbia University, but has transcended organism composed of aloof and impersonal powers, wholly devoid of self interest “(Douglas 118).  For him, the increased federal role that inevitably affects the autonomy and individual freedom, so dear to Americans. In the thirties, he did not condemn the New Deal, in which he receives one of the most serious damage to American values (independence and anti-statism). Overall, he believes that the independence and autonomy of the individual decrease as the role of government increases. 
But this criticism added another complaint: the government, in its current form, Mencken wrote in the thirties, only serves the interests of the people, the populace, the man in the street, at the expense of ‘aristocracy of the elite, the superior man. His essay on the nature of government begins to elsewhere in these terms: All government is a conspiracy against the superior man, its permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior in law against the man who is superior in fact, if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both.( Chrestomathy 145)
Found in his analysis of Government (145-153) the same distrust of the masses, the same fear that the autonomy of the individual harmed, and even condoning (suggested) of the elite – is ie the exceptional men but also all those who seek to rise, to grow in short, out of their mediocrity. Should we conclude that as an anarchist Mencken was right, as suggested by the somewhat provocative title of this study? If one refers to the definition given by Francois Richard in his book, Mencken seems to refuse, like the French right-wing anarchists, democratic and egalitarian assumption that the underlying. Like them, he sees the revolt as a duty as much moral and intellectual. This revolt is both “an act of self defense intelligence, an infallible test of the quality of people” (Richard 47).  He said he agreed that “without the virtue of disobedience, which alone can defeat the Democratic regimentation, there is no dynamic life possible, realization of being in its totality” (Richard 51) . Consciousness must stop guide the individual to dictate his conduct, and civil disobedience can be a virtue. For thus it never ceases to proclaim, there are good and bad laws, and these deserve only contempt and disobedience (for example, he criticized the arrest of radicals during the First World War and segregation in Baltimore After the Second). In addition, he poses as the defender of the individual, the cornerstone of the social system.
Far from any ideology, doctrine or party, the touchstone of action remains, for Mencken, his personal convictions, first and foremost, the idea that human equality is a delusion, and that only an aristocracy (of outstanding men) is capable of advancing society.  Finally, he deplores the increasing federal role, including when it tries to curb unemployment and fight poverty and distress of Americans during the Depression. Yet despite what appears to bind to anarchism right, Mencken remains a figure difficult to assess in the context of American intellectual.
In his book, De Leon is trying to show that Americans are all, in essence, libertarian (as he deems less provocative than that of “anarchist”). It seeks to explain the causes of what may seem in the eyes of an outsider, an anomaly of history, and proposes a taxonomy of the various currents libertarian (anarchist) in the United States. It firstly analyzes anarchism on the right, in its most extreme form is to deny the existence of the state.  This tradition makes the individual and autonomy the cornerstone of the social system. This current anarchist, who may well live with the capitalist system, is represented by Benjamin Tucker (1854-1939) or by philosophers Transcendentalists, Thoreau and Emerson. In an essay remained famous, “The American Scholar” (1837), it is also to consider the individual as a “sovereign state” (De Leon 9).
De Leon then studied what he calls the leftist anarchism (including Johann Most and Emma Goldman are probably the most famous representatives in the U.S.) that it offers an alternative to capitalism. This second course offers a critique of institutional authority, calls the local decision-making and wants to promote solidarity and mutual assistance, where the term “anarchism” community “. If it is ruled not want to classify Mencken in the latter course, it is not necessarily easier to classify in the first. Certainly, it could hardly be indifferent to the words of Benjamin Tucker accusing the government of attacking bloated civil liberties. But would it not also a William James applauded the aftermath of the Dreyfus Affair when he wrote: “We, intellectuals, must all work to keep our precious birthright of individualism … Every great institution is perforce a means of corruption” (De Leon 45)? And would not it also agrees with this phrase from the sociologist C. Wright Mills, who said in the fifties: “I can not give unconditional loyalties to any institution, man, state, nation or movement. My loyalties are conditioned upon my own convictions and my own values » (De Leon 14) ? Neither James nor Mills were however anarchists in the strict sense, Americans are reluctant to adopt any form of authority, where individualism and spirit of independence and self-reliance are important values. Perhaps we should then conclude, like De Leon, the American is in essence an anarchist who, in various forms, continues to express its rejection of centralized power and its commitment to individual liberties, or his civil disobedience? In light of this analysis, Mencken appears to be the solitary figure in the American cultural landscape.  Anarchism of Mencken, he is undoubtedly more individualistic and community, would it ultimately more typically American, the less original they had assumed at the beginning of the study? 
Perhaps then we should try to appreciate this singular spirit differently. In his calls for civil disobedience, Mencken arises heir to Thoreau (author of an essay entitled “Resistance to Civil Government” (1849), in which he criticized the war (1846-1848) that the United States have waged against Mexico and its citizens called for civil disobedience). In his criticism of big government and state prerogatives, Mencken echoed Benjamin Tucker.
Finally, his stubborn defense of individual liberties including freedom of expression can bring both the anarchists of the right than a Emma Goldman, for which he also had the greatest respect. Its originality is perhaps something else. His impassioned defense of American values – freedom, autonomy and anti-statism – if sincerely held, is not exceptional, but it is imbued with his reading of youth. For Mencken, as we know, spent his childhood and adolescence, that is to say, the 1890s, to devour books.  His insatiable curiosity has led Mark Twain to Nietzsche, from Henry Adams, William Sumner and Herbert Spencer – the father of social Darwinism. It would take too long to explain here in detail the impact of these thinkers and writers on Mencken. Nevertheless Mencken’s anarchism, it is undeniable, is strongly imbued with the ideas of Nietzsche on democracy and its nihilism, printed by the social Darwinism of Spencer, influenced by the great liberal economic theories – laissez-faire – in short, all influenced by the dominant values of America where he grew up. And perhaps eventually the ability to make a synthesis between the great American values and common ideas in vogue at the turn of the century, making this Mencken empêcheur think in circles.

· Bode, Carl. The New Mencken Letters . New York: The Dial P, 1977.
· Cain, William E.  “A Lost Voice of Dissent.HL Mencken in Our Time. “Sewanee Review. (Spring 1996): 229-47.
· De Leon, David. The American as Anarchist . Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.
· Douglas, George H. HL Mencken, Critic of American Life . Hamden, Conn.: Archon, 1978.
· Epstein, Joseph. “Rediscovering Mencken”. Commentary (April 1977): 47-52.
· Forgue, Guy Jean, ed. Letters of HL Mencken . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1961.
· Hobson, Fred. Mencken, a Life . New York: Random House, 1994.
· Mencken, Henry Louis. Notes on Democracy . New York: Octagon, 1977.
· —. A Mencken Chrestomathy . New York: Vintage, 1982.
· Parrish, Michael E. Anxious Decades, in America in Prosperity and Depression, 1920-1941. New York: Norton, 1992.
· Richard, François. Les Anarchistes de droite . [1991]. Paris : PUF, 1997.
· Williams, William HA HL Mencken Revisited. New York: Twayne, 1998.
[1] In Democracy in America, it analyzes the U.S. political system as he had seen during his trip to the United States in 1831. In the chapter entitled “The tyranny of the majority”, he explains how the desire to create a democracy eventually led the U.S. to plebiscite the majority opinion to stifle all dissent, protest or simply original.
[2]In the twenties, they defended a literal interpretation of the Bible, going to ban the teaching of Darwinian theory – evolutionary – in some states. Scopes, a biology professor who had agreed to defy the fundamentalists and teaching Darwin’s theories in Tennessee, was tried in 1925. The Scopes trial – or Monkey Trial – was an opportunity for Mencken to deploy all its verve and fun of the fundamentalists and their figurehead, the old populist politician William J. Bryan ( Chrestomathy 246).


© Cairn.info 2009

Updated News Digest November 22, 2009 Reply

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

Quotes of the Week:

The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.”

“The first forty years of life give us the text; the next thirty supply the commentary on it.”

“We can come to look upon the deaths of our enemies with as much regret as we feel for those of our friends, namely, when we miss their existence as witnesses to our success.”

                                                                            -Arthur Schopenhauer

War: Our Chief Industry by Justin Raimondo

Obama and Liberal Chickenhawks Michael Hasting interviewed by Scott Horton


Edward Abbey, Conservative Anarchist by Bill Croke

A Short Discussion With a Stranger by Luke SD

Police State U.S.A. by Tom Engelhardt and Alfred McCoy

Internet Under Siege by Philip Giraldi

Pathology and Ideology: Hasan and Anarchist Assassin Leon Czolgosz by Evan Matthew Daniel

The Trial of the Century by Justin Raimondo

Israel Lobby Still Pushing Iran War by Philip Giraldi

Why Do They Hate Us? Israel!! Ray McGovern interviewed by Scott Horton

History Promises Disaster in Afghanistan for Blind America by John MacArthur

The Myth of Racist Kids (thanks, Ean!)

A Visit to Christiania by two Tasmanian National-Anarchists

Inspiration from Maine by Christopher Ketcham (thanks, Peter!)

War After Economic Bust? by Ryan Huang

Why the Democrats Now Dominate American Politics by Peter Beinart

Red Taliban by Siddharth Srivastava

Cultural Marxists Attempt to Censor Heidegger by Patricia Cohen

Black-On-Black Slavery from the BBC

The Seattle Quality of the Copenhagen Mobilization by Naomi Klein

The Stag Party Is Over by Mike Payne

Newt Gingrich Takes Out Another Contract on America by Harrison Bergeron 2

New Publications on Greece’s 2008 Revolt from Infoshop.Org

The Principality of Hutt River 

Class Struggle in the Service Sector from Infoshop.Org

Confronting the Prison-Industrial Complex from Angola 3 News

Crisis of the Capitalist System: Where Do We Go From Here? by Immanuel Wallerstein

We Need Health Care, Not Insurance by Carol Miller

Shining a Light on the Roots of Terrorism by Ray McGovern

Doctors Light Up by Norm Kent

Torture Resisters Arrested at Fort Huachuca by Brenda Norrell

The Ayn Rand I Knew by Ralph Raico

Reading the Af-Pak Tea Leaves by Jeff Huber

Obama’s Fractured Israel Policy by Daniel Larison

Obama Is Haunted By Gorbachev’s Ghost in Afghanistan by James Fergusson

Ex-Islamic Radicals on What Motivates and Impedes Extremism by Glenn Greenwald

To the Brink and Back Again  by Johann Hari

The New State Solution by Chris Hedges

Israeli Racists and the Demographic Demon by Uri Avnery

Why the McKrystal Plan Will Fail by Conn Hallinan

Obama’s China Junket by Mike Whitney

The Bogus Success of the Surge by Ray McGovern

The Historic Right to Nationhood by Ron Ridenour

A First Look at the Military Commissions Act by Joanne Mariner

With Enemies Like This, Who Needs Friends? by Kevin Carson

Why Anarchists Should Hurrah the Recession by Alex R. Night

First U.S. Marijuana Cafe Opens in Portland by Tom Johansmeyer

How to Buy a Used Firearm (and why you should) by Chuck Hawks

The U.S. Military Threatens the Entire Planet by Rick Rozoff

Against the Armies of Multiculturalism and Social Justice by Walter Block

Obama, Don’t Lecture China On Censorship by Dave Lindorff

Teuton and Gaul Will Never Fight Again by Eric Margolis

A Case for Secession-Introduction by Patrick Samuels

Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting by Doug Samuels

And You Thought Getting Into Harvard Was Tough by David Kramer

NEVER Call the Police for Help by William Norman Grigg

More Green Will Cost You More Green by David Kramer

Palin Drinks the Neocon Kool-Aid by James Ostrowski

Palin’s Paradox by Christopher Manion

Crooked Cops Shooting Fish in a Barrel by Karen De Coster

NEVER Ask the Police for Help, Continued by William Norman Grigg

Rothschild/Warburn Mouthpiece ADL Mouths Off by David Kramer

NEVER Talk to the Police: They’re Trained to Lie by William Norman Grigg

Afghanistan, Iraq Near Bottom of Corruption Index by Jim Lobe

The View from China by Robert Dreyfuss

Our National Cognitive Dissonance by Jeff Huber

I Fought the Law…And I Won by Steve Bierfeldt

An Anarchist’s Story: The Life of Ethel MacDonald by Chris Dolan

Steel Workers Consider Worker-Run Cooperatives by Andrew McLeod

Arianna’s PC Delta Force by David Nathan

Let’s Get Fiscal by Mike Whitney

Fear in Nicaragua by Danny Weil

Rush to Judgement on Terror Trials by Walter Brasch

Some Thoughts on Obamastan by Alex R. Knight

Common Sense Isn’t Common Anymore! by Dave Chappell

Father Abraham Had Many Sons by Thomas Knapp

Magazine Editor Questions Global Warming, Hysteria Ensues by James Delingpole

Sick of Military Double Speak? by Laurence Vance

PIG Tases 10 Year Old Girl 

Hitler, Bush, and Obama by Jacob Hornberger

Leviathan’s Orphans by William Norman Grigg

The War on Switzerland by Mike Rozeff

The Recession Creeps Across the Land by Stephen Carson

Private School Students Learn About Martial Law by William Norman Grigg

Lou Dobbs is Antiwar Now! by Karen De Coster

The Gitmo Trial: Why Now? by Justin Raimondo

Hey, I Know! Let’s Have a Show Trial! by Arthur Silber

Ditch Tribunals Entirely by Anthony Romero

Obama’s Extrajudical Killers by Nat Hentoff

Is Our Children Learning? by Pat Buchanan

It’s Show Trial Time! by Alexander Cockburn

Secession from Obamamerica by Zach Jones

It’s a War on the Poor! by James Brittain

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

Tomislav Sunic interviews Paul Gottfried

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Economic Crisis Is Getting Bloody

Potential for Criminal Behavior Evident at Age 3 

Ernst Junger 

National Liberal Part-The Third Way 

Red Toryism: A Lesson for the Left? 

American Indians Object to Loss of Identity 

Is France’s Identity Debate a Call to the Far Right? 

Mark Steyn and the Limits of Neoconservatism

Journal: Loyalty? from John Robb

Fort Hood: Pre-Westphalian Loyalties or Postal Rage? by John Robb

PIGS Taser Unarmed Man to Death 

Are There More Universes? from New Scientist

Somali Woman Stoned for Adultery 

U.S. Residents Fight for the Right to Hang Laundry 

When the Left Was Right from American Conservative

Conservative Ralph Nader by Jack Hunter

Wendell Berry: Against the Death Penalty

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage 

Top Ten Evil Human Experiments 

Strategies and Tactics at the World Trade Organization 

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

Are Men More Intelligent Than Women? 4

John Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn say yes, but Adrian Farnham says no. What do you think? Does it matter?

My position on this has always been to promote meritocracy. Whether women (or blacks or Mexicans or some other group) are on average less intelligent or not, if someone from a group whose average intelligence is lower than others can still rise according to their own abilities, then what does it matter? For instance, if women, blacks, or others are individually capable of being great scholars, scientists, inventors, or artists, and no one prevents them from doing so, then what else is there to be concerned about?

Are You An Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You! 7

by David Graeber

Chances are you have already heard something about who anarchists are and what they are supposed to believe. Chances are almost everything you have heard is nonsense. Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. It is really a very simple notion. But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous.

At their very simplest, anarchist beliefs turn on to two elementary assumptions. The first is that human beings are, under ordinary circumstances, about as reasonable and decent as they are allowed to be, and can organize themselves and their communities without needing to be told how. The second is that power corrupts. Most of all, anarchism is just a matter of having the courage to take the simple principles of common decency that we all live by, and to follow them through to their logical conclusions. Odd though this may seem, in most important ways you are probably already an anarchist — you just don’t realize it.

Let’s start by taking a few examples from everyday life.

* If there’s a line to get on a crowded bus, do you wait your turn and refrain from elbowing your way past others even in the absence of police?
If you answered “yes”, then you are used to acting like an anarchist! The most basic anarchist principle is self-organization: the assumption that human beings do not need to be threatened with prosecution in order to be able to come to reasonable understandings with each other, or to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Everyone believes they are capable of behaving reasonably themselves. If they think laws and police are necessary, it is only because they don’t believe that other people are. But if you think about it, don’t those people all feel exactly the same way about you? Anarchists argue that almost all the anti-social behavior which makes us think it’s necessary to have armies, police, prisons, and governments to control our lives, is actually caused by the systematic inequalities and injustice those armies, police, prisons and governments make possible. It’s all a vicious circle. If people are used to being treated like their opinions do not matter, they are likely to become angry and cynical, even violent — which of course makes it easy for those in power to say that their opinions do not matter. Once they understand that their opinions really do matter just as much as anyone else’s, they tend to become remarkably understanding. To cut a long story short:
anarchists believe that for the most part it is power itself, and the effects of power, that make people stupid and irresponsible.

* Are you a member of a club or sports team or any other voluntary organization where decisions are not imposed by one leader but made on the basis of general consent?

If you answered “yes”, then you belong to an organization which works on anarchist principles! Another basic anarchist principle is voluntary association. This is simply a matter of applying democratic principles to ordinary life. The only difference is that anarchists believe it should be possible to have a society in which everything could be organized along these lines, all groups based on the free consent of their members, and therefore, that all top-down, military styles of organization like armies or bureaucracies or large corporations, based on chains of command, would no longer be necessary. Perhaps you don’t believe that would be possible. Perhaps you do. But every time you reach an agreement by consensus, rather than threats, every time you make a voluntary arrangement with another person, come to an understanding, or reach a compromise by taking due consideration of the other person’s particular situation or needs, you are being an
anarchist — even if you don’t realize it.

Anarchism is just the way people act when they are free to do as they choose, and when they deal with others who are equally free — and therefore aware of the responsibility to others that entails. This leads to another crucial point: that while people can be reasonable and considerate when they are dealing with equals, human nature is such that they cannot be trusted to do so when given power over others. Give someone such power, they will almost invariably abuse it in some way or another.

* Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don’t really care about the public interest? Do you think we live in an economic system which is stupid and unfair?

If you answered “yes”, then you subscribe to the anarchist critique of today’s society — at least, in its broadest outlines. Anarchists believe that power corrupts and those who spend their entire lives seeking power are the very last people who should have it. Anarchists believe that our present economic system is more likely to reward people for selfish and unscrupulous behavior than for being decent, caring human beings. Most people feel that way. The only difference is that most people don’t think there’s anything that can be done about it, or anyway — and this is what the faithful servants of the powerful are always most likely to insist — anything that won’t end up making things even worse.

But what if that weren’t true?

And is there really any reason to believe this? When you can actually test them, most of the usual predictions about what would happen without states or capitalism turn out to be entirely untrue. For thousands of years people lived without governments. In many parts of the world people live outside of the control of governments today. They do not all kill each other. Mostly they just get on about their lives the same as anyone else would. Of course, in a complex, urban, technological society all this would be more complicated: but technology can also make all these problems a lot easier to solve. In fact, we have not even begun to think about what our lives could be like if technology were really marshaled to fit human needs. How many hours would we really need to work in order to maintain a functional society — that is, if we got rid of all the useless or destructive occupations like telemarketers, lawyers, prison guards, financial analysts, public
relations experts, bureaucrats and politicians, and turn our best scientific minds away from working on space weaponry or stock market systems to mechanizing away dangerous or annoying tasks like coal mining or cleaning the bathroom, and distribute the remaining work among everyone equally? Five hours a day? Four? Three? Two? Nobody knows because no one is even asking this kind of question. Anarchists think these are the very questions we should be asking.

* Do you really believe those things you tell your children (or that your parents told you)?

“It doesn’t matter who started it.” “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” “Clean up your own mess.” “Do unto others…” “Don’t be mean to people just because they’re different.” Perhaps we should decide whether we’re lying to our children when we tell them about right and wrong, or whether we’re willing to take our own injunctions seriously. Because if you take these moral principles to their logical conclusions, you arrive at anarchism.
Take the principle that two wrongs don’t make a right. If you really took it seriously, that alone would knock away almost the entire basis for war and the criminal justice system. The same goes for sharing: we’re always telling children that they have to learn to share, to be considerate of each other’s needs, to help each other; then we go off into the real world where we assume that everyone is naturally selfish and competitive. But an anarchist would point out: in fact, what we say to our children is right. Pretty much every great worthwhile achievement in human history, every discovery or accomplishment that’s improved our lives, has been based on cooperation and mutual aid; even now, most of us spend more of our money on our friends and families than on ourselves; while likely as not there will always be competitive people in the world, there’s no reason why society has to be based on encouraging such behavior, let alone making people compete over
the basic necessities of life. That only serves the interests of people in power, who want us to live in fear of one another. That’s why anarchists call for a society based not only on free association but mutual aid. The fact is that most children grow up believing in anarchist morality, and then gradually have to realize that the adult world doesn’t really work that way. That’s why so many become rebellious, or alienated, even suicidal as adolescents, and finally, resigned and bitter as adults; their only solace, often, being the ability to raise children of their own and pretend to them that the world is fair. But what if we really could start to build a world which really was at least founded on principles of justice? Wouldn’t that be the greatest gift to one’s children one could possibly give?

* Do you believe that human beings are fundamentally corrupt and evil, or that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters?

If you answered “yes”, then, well, it looks like you aren’t an anarchist after all. But if you answered “no”, then chances are you already subscribe to 90% of anarchist principles, and, likely as not, are living your life largely in accord with them. Every time you treat another human with consideration and respect, you are being an anarchist. Every time you work out your differences with others by coming to reasonable compromise, listening to what everyone has to say rather than letting one person decide for everyone else, you are being an anarchist. Every time you have the opportunity to force someone to do something, but decide to appeal to their sense of reason or justice instead, you are being an anarchist. The same goes for every time you share something with a friend, or decide who is going to do the dishes, or do anything at all with an eye to fairness.

Now, you might object that all this is well and good as a way for small groups of people to get on with each other, but managing a city, or a country, is an entirely different matter. And of course there is something to this. Even if you decentralize society and puts as much power as possible in the hands of small communities, there will still be plenty of things that need to be coordinated, from running railroads to deciding on directions for medical research. But just because something is complicated does not mean there is no way to do it democratically. It would just be complicated. In fact, anarchists have all sorts of different ideas and visions about how a complex society might manage itself. To explain them though would go far beyond the scope of a little introductory text like this. Suffice it to say, first of all, that a lot of people have spent a lot of time coming up with models for how a really democratic, healthy society might work; but
second, and just as importantly, no anarchist claims to have a perfect blueprint. The last thing we want is to impose prefab models on society anyway. The truth is we probably can’t even imagine half the problems that will come up when we try to create a democratic society; still, we’re confident that, human ingenuity being what it is, such problems can always be solved, so long as it is in the spirit of our basic principles — which are, in the final analysis, simply the principles of fundamental human decency.

Global Warming, Peak Oil, and HIV=AIDS Denialism 6

I recently came across this George Will column pointing out how in the 1970s, there was an emerging scientific consensus on the inevitability of “global cooling.”

Of course, we all know that today it is “global warming” that it supposed to be the big ecological issue.  Many deniers of the global warming hypothesis are considered to be shills for the petroleum industry, but Alexander Cockburn has argued that some from the “global warming alarmist” crowd can be accused of being similar shills for the nuclear industry.

The other big doomsday scenario currently being promoted is Peak Oil. At the North American Secessionist Conference in 2008, I heard Sebastian Ronin give a comprehensive and convincing overview of the case for the theory of Peak Oil. Yet there are serious arguments for the other side as well.

Another interesting scientific controversy of this type is the HIV=AIDS denial movement. The most important figure in this movement is probably Dr. Peter Duesberg. According to Duesberg and others of this camp, AIDS is caused not by HIV, but by malnutrition, drug abuse, congenital problems like heart disease and hemophilia or, in some cases, anti-AIDS drugs themselves. There does seem to be some evidence to support this theory, like the case of Lindsay Nagel. The problem is that for every case that seems to detract from HIV=AIDS orthodoxy, there are others that seem to confirm the orthodox position, like that of Christine Maggiore

So what’s the real story with all of these different controversies? I have no idea, and I have no relevant credentials, experience, or training in fields that would allow me to make an educated guess about the “truth” on these questions. What do readers think?

Updated News Digest November 15, 2009 Reply

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

Quote of the Week:

“Humanity only finds peace in death. Life is struggle.”

                                                                           -Chris Donnellan

“The prevailing idea of what it means to be modern is a post-Christian myth. Christians have always held that there is only one path of salvation, that it is disclosed in history, and that it is open to all. In these respects, Christianity differs radically from the religious and philosophies of the ancient world and from non-western faiths.

In the polytheistic cults of the Greeks and Romans, it was accepted that humans will always live different ways. When there are many gods no way of life is bonding on all. Worshipping one god, Christians have always believed that only one way of life can be right.

“Enlightenment thinkers like to see themselves as modern pagans, but they are really latter-day Christians: they too aim to save mankind. The ancient pagans did not believe that the mass of mankind could be saved. Or, for that matter, that it was worth saving.”
                                                                                 -John Gray

The Fall of the Berlin Wall Did Not Kill Off the Totalitarian Left by Melanie Phillips

Society After State-Capitalism: Resilient Communities and Local Economies by Kevin A. Carson

Depression, Secession, Revolution Gerald Celente interviewed by Lew Rockwell

An Anarchist on “National Defense by Wendy McElroy

Can Attacks on a Military Base Constitute “Terrorism”? by Glenn Greenwald

How Maine Sprouted a Militia by Christopher Ketcham (hat tip to Brady Campbell)

Camille Paglia: Last of the Open-Minded Liberals by Danny Huddleston

Evil Empire by Paul Craig Roberts

A Call to the Alternative Right by Paul Gottfried

The Cultural Revolution Is Complete by Richard Spencer

Black Metal: A Weapon in the Cultural Arsenal of the Revolution? by Alex Kurtagic (more on metal from Nina Kouprianova)

Morality vs Material Interests by Paul Craig Roberts

Stop the Mexodus-Legalize Marijuana! by Brenda Walker

Monetary Crime Bosses by Murray Rothbard

One in a Hundred by Alexander Cockburn

Dixie and Vermont: Contrasting Styles of Secession  by Ron Miller

Obama Fails to Reset Foreign Policy by Melvin A. Goodman

Israel Routs Obama As the Dollar Dies by Paul Craig Roberts

Afghanistan’s Sham Army by Chris Hedges

The Deal with Iran by Robert Dreyfuss

Israel’s Apartheid Is Worse Than South Africa’s by Yitzak Laor

More Troops? Only if U.S. Wants More Afghan Chaos from Detroit Free Press

Leave Afghanistan to the Afghans by Patrick Cockburn

The War at Home by Justin Raimondo

A Day That Shook the World by Eric Margolis

How To Demilitarize Your Church by Laurence Vance

The FBI’s Hippie-Anarchist Twitter Raid from David Kramer

U.K. PIGS Report Pregnant Woman to Social Services Over a Half-Decorated Home from David Kramer

Stop, Look, Listen Before Jumping Into the Afghan Abyss by Justin Raimondo

A Year With Obama and U.S. Foreign Relations Have Gotten Worse by William Pfaff

Why Most Counterinsurgency Wars Fail by Ivan Eland

Israel Is About to Get What It Wished For by Stephen Walt

America’s Alliances Are Costly Relics by Justin Logan

Wanna Get Laid? Avoid Women With College Degrees! from Entitled to An Opinion

Supposedly Reactionary, Homophobic Salt Lake City Passes Gay Rights Law with Mormon Church Endorsement from Richmond Times-Dispatch

PIGS Have a Good Time at Taxpayer Expense from Richmond Times-Dispatch

Is the Day of Great Leaders Past? by Chuck Baldwin

Leftoids Rally Against Free Speech from IndyMedia

The Legacy of Albert Parsons by Joseph Grosso

To Be Young and Unemployed Forever by Carl Ginsburg

The Totalitarian Trotsky by Ray Mangum

Another Ivy League Professor Loses It Over Race by James J. O’Meara

The Blackwater Plot Thickens by Jeremy Scahill

Newspaper is Punished for Criticizing Iraqi Leader by Glenn Greenwald

The U.S. Invasion of the Vatican by Jacob Hornberger

Why Die for Karzai? by Tom Hayden

Obama’s Arrogance of Power by Gene Healy

Is Israel too Strong for Obama?  from the Economist

Without War We Are Nothing, Apparently by Alex Massie

Middle Class Resorts to Shoplifting to Keep Up Appearances by Adam Fresco (go middle class!!)

D.C. To Pay $450,000 to 8 Antiwar Protestors Who Were Interrogation Victims from News Channel 8

The Crafting of a Loophole by Andrew Cockburn

A Small “d” Depression by Mike Whitney

Ten States Going Bankrupt

The Truth About the House Health Care Bill by Rose Ann DeMoro

The Dalai Lama Sticks His Thumb in the Dragon’s Eye by Peter Lee

General Electric Goes Green from David Kramer (now we’ve seen everything!)

Taser Nation by Karen DeCoster

U.S. Out of North America? by Thomas Knapp

When Dictatorship Came to America by Thomas DiLorenzo

On General Labor and Socially Created Value by Kevin Carson

Conservatives Blindly Support “Our Troops” In Defense of the Big Lie by Kevin Copenhagen

The Legal Caste Strikes Out on This One by Bill Anderson

Health Insurance: Solution, or Part of the Problem? by Saul Weiner

Why Students Don’t Like School..Well, Duhhh! by Peter Gray

Why Switzerland Is Still Free and American Is Not by Ron Holland

Free Switzerland  by Heidi (more on the Swiss, and more)

The Odd Couple: Chinese Communism and Capitalism by David Kramer

Chinese Government Invokes Lincoln to Justify Oppression of Tibet by Tom Di Lorenzo (wow!)

 Libertarianism and Identity by Richard Hoste

Snitches in the Native Youth Movement from Infoshop.Org

Failing the People on Health Care by Ralph Nader

Political Correctness: The Bomb That Exploded at Fort Hood by Patroon

Meeting Our Afghan Ally: Stealing, Selling Heroin and Raping Boys by Patrick Cockburn

The Militarization of Mental Health by Mary Lynn Cramer

Pot Doc Down by Fred Gardner

Godless China: What Obama Will Find by John V. Walsh

Paramilitaries in Colombia by Charles R. Larsen

Minority Report by Ray Mangum

Kentucky Joins the Nullification Movement by Michael Boldin

“Guilty” of Scaring Undercover PIGS by William Norman Grigg

Middle Schoolers Jailed for Food Fight by Lew Rockwell

The Winds of Change Die Down (It was all hot air to begin with) by Justin Raimondo

Not Every Tragedy is Terrorism  by Charles Pena

Say Nyet to Afghanistan by Jeff Huber

23 CIA PIGS on the Run After Italian Conviction for Kidnapping Scott Horton interviewed by Scott Horton

What Do These Religiously Motivated Terrorist Acts Tell Us? by Glenn Greenwald

Obama’s Betrayals  by Sheldon Richman

150 Years of Accumulated Reasons to Secede  by Russ Longcore

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

Jonathan Bowden on Heidegger and Death’s Ontology

Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five, Part Six,

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

“Two Can Keep a Secret If One of Them Is Dead.” -Hell’s Angels (attributed)

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

No Nation Can Liberate Another by Malalai Joya

Jewish Anti-Semitism by Uzi Silber

A Crisis Made by Neoliberalism by Michael Yates and Fred Magdoff

90,000 Casualties, But Who’s Counting? by Kelley B. Vlahos

Casualties of Diversity  by Jack Hunter

The Fall of the Wall  from Front Porch Republic

Tasmanian Autonomous Zone 

Framed for Child Porn by a PC Virus 

Joblessness May Reach 13% in U.S. 

Church Electioneering 

German-American Internee Coalition 

Plowing Detroit Into Farmland 

Global Guerrillas: TRIBES! 

Supporters of the Lakota Indian Independence Movement 

Ukrainian Christian National-Anarchism 

Religious Affilitiation by Ethnicity in the United States 

Is the History of Psychiatry a Big Mess? 

Landing a Job Is Like Getting Into Harvard

Dennis Kucinich: Why I Voted No on the Health Care Bill 

Designer Vagina Trend “Worrying” 

German Neo-Nazis: “We’re Pro-Israel, Condemn Anti-Semitism” 

Fight Against Workplace Prejudice for Alternative People 

Karl Marx Vs Political Correctness 

One Million Strong for the Separation of Corporation and State 

Dissolve the United States of America 

North American Secessionist Conference 2010 

Sweden Paying Immigrants to Leave 

The Origins of Sesame Street in Cultural Marxism 

Judge Orders Phoenix Church to Stop Feeding the Homeless 

Final Hour Lap Dances for Hasan

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

Camille Paglia: Last of the Open-Minded Liberals 4


by Danny Huddleston

[Keith: While I agree with much of the analysis in this, I disagree that the economic policies of the Obamaites can rightfully be classified as “socialist” or “communist.” Obamanomics is closer to corporatism, or “state-capitalism,” i.e. fascism. As an example see this critique of Obamacare  from a more authentic leftist-socialist perspective from Dennis Kucinich. Obama is just as much a stooge for the banksters as Bush was. However, the Obamaites do represent a coming to power of Cultural Marxism derived from the New Left, so some of the confusion on this question found on the Right is understandable if inaccurate.]

What would you call an acknowledged member of the intellectual elite who is skeptical of global warming, likes to listen to Rush Limbaugh, has an ongoing battle with the feminist establishment and is a fan of Sarah Palin? I would call her the last of the open minded liberals. Don’t get the wrong idea, she’s no dittohead. And she has some controversial and disturbing ideas that would be right at home in the far left universe. But what she doesn’t do is blindly follow today’s liberal orthodoxy. Her answer is similar to the main theme of many of her other recent columns. She has some harsh words for those around Obama and some of his policies while still holding out hope that he can turn it all around, as reflected in this comment: “Count me among those who are very critical of many of Obama’s actions or evasions but who continue to like him and to believe in his potential as a world leader.” A good example of her disdain for those around Obama can be found in this excerpt from a column she wrote in March of this year:

Yes, free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons — his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes, who were shrewd enough to beat the slow, pompous Clintons in the mano-a-mano primaries but who seem like dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship. Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama’s first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. (Michelle, please use those fabulous toned arms to butt some heads!)

Interestingly this is not the first Democrat administration that Camille has had a problem with. In a 1995 interview in Playboy she was asked: “Were you optimistic when Clinton was elected?” Her answer:
Of course. We finally had a great opportunity. It was a chance to rethink everything that had failed as a result of the shoddy thinking in the Sixties and to try again with a new, reasoned approach. The Clinton administration should have been a think tank for the nation–he himself should have led the debate, reaffirming all Sixties ideals but correcting them where they had become excessive. It’s a tragedy that he didn’t. Instead of surrounding himself with progressive intellectuals, he surrounded himself with Eighties yuppies–like George Stephanopoulos, whom I loathe with a passion. I wish Clinton would fire everyone around him. I want a Saturday night massacre. I hate them all. But Clinton has totally lost the persona of leadership. It’s pathetic. He’s looking like a salesman.
It’s deja vu all over again, she has a chronic case of buyer’s remorse.

Notice her criticism of the Clinton administration extends all the way to the guy at the top. She even criticized Clinton for not resigning after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But today with her critique of the Obama administration she stops short of blaming Obama himself. It will be interesting to see if this changes in the future.

Why do influential liberals like Camille continue to give Obama a pass? Clearly Obama and those he has surrounded himself with are far more radical than the Clinton administration was. A new video has surfaced showing Anita Dunn, the White House communications director extolling the virtues of Mao Tse-Tung. This is just the latest in a string of marxists and radicals found serving in the Obama White House.

There is a logical reason the Obama administration is far more radical than the Clinton administration was. It is the culmination of a decades long trend. Professor Paglia’s colleagues in academia have been a little too successful in their efforts to change our culture. Many parts of American society including political parties — particularly the Democrat Party — have been moving to the far left for many years now.

Camille and a few other liberals like her who still believe in liberty and freedom and reject political correctness have been shut out of the debate. No one is listening.

Her writings are filled with heartfelt questions for her party. Some may wonder if her thought process is taking her down the same road that Robin of Berkeley traveled recently? That’s not likely, Camille has traveled too far as a Democrat. Here are some of her pleas to the Democrat establishment from her September 9th column:

Why did it take so long for Democrats to realize that this year’s tea party and town hall uprisings were a genuine barometer of widespread public discontent and not simply a staged scenario by kooks and conspirators? […] It was on talk radio, which I have resumed monitoring around the clock because of the healthcare fiasco, that I heard the passionate voices of callers coming directly from the town hall meetings.

Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.

How has “liberty” become the inspirational code word of conservatives rather than liberals? […] I always thought that the Democratic Party is the freedom party — but I must be living in the nostalgic past. […]

[A]ffluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. Why? Is it because the new professional class is a glossy product of generically institutionalized learning? Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it’s invisible.
It’s almost painful to read the lamentations of a JFK Democrat pleading with today’s Democrat establishment. Camille doesn’t realize that the Democrat party has been taken over by leftists. She believes that Obama is a pragmatic rational liberal like herself and all his missteps to date come from the bad advice he’s been getting from his inept advisers.

The idea that Obama’s problems may be self-inflicted is probably too terrible for her to contemplate. Camille doesn’t realize that Obama is a product of the new Democrat Party. The Democrat party of her youth is no more. It has been replaced with a party that is flirting with socialism and dare we say it — communism. Camille is shocked that the anti-establishment hippies of the 60’s now see no problem giving up their freedom to a huge government bureaucracy. Perhaps it’s because those hippies from the ’60s have become the establishment.

As the Democratic Party continues to ignore the advice of open-minded liberals like Camille Paglia and heads down the self-destructive path of radicalism there is a valuable lesson here for conservatives. We should always vote for the most conservative candidate we can find because once he or she gets to Washington . . .

Well, you know what happens. Surrounded by the trappings of seemingly unlimited federal power politicians from both parties seem to be inexorably pulled to the left. Even Reagan couldn’t get rid of the Department of Energy.

Updated News Digest November 8, 2009 Reply

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

Quote of the Week:

    I Like this quote I dislike this quote“The press today is an army with carefully organized weapons, the journalists its officers, the readers its soldiers. But, as in every army, the soldier obeys blindly, and the war aims and operating plans change without his knowledge. The reader neither knows nor is supposed to know the purposes for which he is used and the role he is to play. There is no more appalling caricature of freedom of thought. Formerly no one was allowed to think freely; now it is permitted, but no one is capable of it any more. Now people want to think only what they are supposed to want to think, and this they consider freedom.”

                                                                                     -Oswald Spengler

The Paranoid Style in Center-Left Politics by Jesse Walker

Secret Aristocracies: Junger vs Sartre by Dominique Venner

Ellsberg: Obama Fears Military Revolt by Sari Gelzer

Obama Continues Bush Administration Policy Regarding Posse Comitatus by Joe Wolverton III

Why Does the U.S. Have an Empire in Asia? by Paul Craig Roberts

Tortured in Far Off Countries: Obama Continues Bush Rendition Policies by Sherwood Ross

Ongoing U.S. Efforts to Protect and Coddle Israel by Glenn Greenwald

Hoh’s Afghanistan Warning  by Ralph Nader

A Look at Tenant Organizing and the New Gentrification by Andrea Gibbons

U .K. Anarchists Attack Probation Office, Bank from Infoshop.Org

Sch0ol Makes You Stupid by Walter Williams

A Progressive-Libertarian Party in 2010? interview with Gerald Celente

Why the Innocent Flee From the Police  by William Norman Grigg

The Disenfranchised Antiwar Voter by Justin Raimondo

The Media as Ennablers of Government Lies by James Bovard

Another State Introduces Firearms Freedom Act by Chuck Baldwin

The New Economy by Richard Spencer

Too Fat to Fight by Alexander Cockburn

The Battle of Seattle: Ten Years Later by Mike Whitney

Big Brother in England to Spy on “Deadbeat Dads” by Tom Whitehead (hat tip to David Heleniak)

An Opportunity for Secession by Robert Eschauzier

George W. Obama by Jack Hunter

Victimless Crimes-More G20 Cases Fall Apart from Infoshop.Org

Hollow Victory by John J. Mearsheimer

From Lifestylism to Insurrection from Infoshop.Org

Iraqi Christians: Long History, Precarious Future by Genevieve Pollock

Murderous Idealism by Paul Hollander

Nietzsche’s Dionysian Faith by Stephen N. Williams

Keeping Afghanistan Safe From Democracy by Robert Scheer

Why Does AIPAC Spy on Americans? by Grant Smith

Europe Wants Out of Afghanistan by Jeff Huber

Unicorns in Kabul by George F. Will

The Tragedy of Leonard Peltier vs the U.S. from Infoshop.Org

Secession: Timing Is Everthing by Russell Longcore

Starved Into the Army by Sandy Leon Vest

Most U.S. Youth Unfit to Serve in Army, Says Pentagon by Laurence Vance

Authority Worship by Butler Shaffer

Book Review: The Assassination of Fred Hampton from Infoshop.Org

Cowardly PIGS Torture Teen-aged Hero by William Norman Grigg

Prosecutors: A Protected Criminal Class by William Norman Grigg

Breckenridge, Colorado Votes to Decriminalize Marijuana by Eric Garris

PIGS vs Punks in Gainesville, Florida from Infoshop.Org

Libertarian Shot in the Back by PIG by Eric Garris

Dangerous People Needed by David Swanson

Exhibiting Genuine Tolerance by John Derbyshire

Class Struggle Anarchist Conference Report from Infoshop.Org

Whither the Alternative Right? by Jack Hunter

RE: Whither the Alternative Right? by Dylan Hales

The Practical Considerations of Building an Effective Anarchist Program from Infoshop.Org

Not a Revolution by Richard Spencer

The GOP’s Dumb New Image by Ellison Lodge

Government Will Default on Its Debts by Gary North

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult by Murray Rothbard

Jim Rogers Says Currency Crisis Is on the Way by Lindsay Whipp

Japan Is Ready to Topple by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

 Another FED/Goldman-Sachs Rip-Off by Matt Taibbi

Canadian PIG Tortures Teen-Aged Girl by William Norman Grigg

CIA Seeks Manhunters to Assassinate Enemies of the State by David Kramer

U.S. Adopts Obsolete Counterinsurgency Doctrine in Afghanistan by Justin Raimondo

Hillary’s Ill Will Tour by Justin Raimondo

Member of Pagans MC Killed by PIGS by Mark Holmberg

The American Way of Abandonment by Pat Buchanan

The Sleep of Reason Produces Heidegger by Ray Mangum

Roman Orgy by Taki Theodoracopulos

Dying to Serve by Craig Hulet

Another Target of the Police State by Lew Rockwell

Undercover PIGS Engaged in Undercover Repression by William Norman Grigg

Grand New Pagan by Richard Spencer

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Mutualism: The Anarchism of Approximations 

Steelworkers Forms Collaboration with Mondragon 

Migrants Going North Now Risk Kidnappings 

The New Temple Prostitution 

Freedom of Speech vs Political Correctness/Corruption 

Is Economics the New Culture War? 

The U.S. is a Banana Republic 

An Ordinary Israel 

Americans Against the American Way of Life 

Battered on Wedding Day for Being a Goth 

The Revenge of Karl Marx 

Being Grumpy is Good for You 

What Is a Fascist? 

Despicable Baltimore PIG and more 

The Process Church of the Final Judgement 

Glenn Beck interviews Sam Beck of the Communist Party U.S.A.

Nestor Ivanovich Makhno: Ukrainian Anarchist Guerrilla Fighter 

Cercle Pierre-Joseph Proudhon 

Mouvement Anarchiste Bakouniniste 

I Support These 137 Nations That Want to Be Free

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

New Statement of Purpose for AttacktheSystem.Com? 10

Here’s a new statement of purpose I am proposing for AttacktheSystem.Com:

AttacktheSystem.Com is maintained by American Revolutionary Vanguard, a dissident tendency within North American anarchism.  It is our contention that the mainstream of the anarchist movement has become unduly focused on left-wing cultural politics, countercultural lifestyle matters, and liberal pet causes. Consequently, the mainstream of contemporary anarchism has abandoned the central focus of the historic anarchist movement: overthrowing states, ruling classes, and empires. We aim to restore anarchism to the position it held during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centures, that of the premier revolutionary movement in the Western world.

We reject the Left/Right model of the political spectrum and work towards a synthesis of the currently scattered anarchist tendencies. These include anarcho-collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, post-structuralism, Green anarchism, primitivism and neo-tribalism from the Left, and anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-monarchism, anarcho-feudalism, national-anarchism, tribal-anarchism, paleo-anarchism and Christian anarchism from the Right. Sympathetic persons from other ideological currents are welcome to participate in our efforts.

The most strategically feasible anarchist movement for contemporary North America would be an anarchist-led, pan-secessionist action emphasizing the principles of radical decentralization and appealing to the legacy of the American Revolution. Its primary class foundations would be the lumpenproletariat, petite bourgeosie, lower proletariat, sinking middle, neo-peasantry and declasse’ sectors, within the context of a broader populist framework.  A struggle rooted in these classes would necessitate a political re-alignment of the populist right, radical center, independent left, and others outside the center-left/center-right paradigm of the existing state and ruling class.

We reject the “culture wars” of mainstream American politics as a rivalry within the upper-middle class which is irrelevant to our revolutionary struggle. Anarchist participation in the “culture wars” is an unnecessary distraction from the struggle at hand. Irreconcilable cultural differences are best handled through individual autonomy, voluntary association, pluralism and peaceful co-existence where possible. Otherwise, secession, local sovereignty, community self-determination, and mutual self-separation should be the rule. Contemporary political science and social science research shows that Americans are currently in the process of self-separating into diverse communities oriented towards the specific interests of those of a particular culture, religion, political affiliation, language, occupation, economic values, age, race, ethnicity, sexuality or preferred way of life. This is how it should be. The natural results of people using their freedom of choice are a pluralistic anarchism, or “anarchism without adjectives.”

We identify as our primary enemies the American regime, the American ruling class and state-capitalist overlords, the international American empire and its accomplices. We therefore support self-determination for all peoples throughout the world, and the struggles of all enemies of imperialism. We stand in ruthless opposition to the domestic American police state, its prison-industrial complex, therapeutic state, legal caste, and the institutions responsible for the dissemination its propaganda, from the state-licensed media to the state-run educational system. We further oppose the ideology of Political Correctness embraced by totalitarian Left which has been appropriated by the forces of liberal-capitalism as the current manifestation of its ideological superstructure. Against this ruling class vision, we offered an alternative vision that is anti-authoritarian, non-Marxist, non-militarist and decentralist.

Updated News Digest November 1, 2009 Reply

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

Quotes of the Week:

“”The present state of public affairs shows clearly enough that the State is the poorest instrument imaginable for improving human society, and that confidence in political institutions and political nostrums is ludicrously misplaced. Social philosophers in every age have been strenuously insisting that all this sort of fatuity is simply putting the cart before the horse; that society cannot be moralized and improved unless and until the individual is moralized and improved. Jesus insisted on this; it is the fundamental principle of Christian social philosophy. Pagan sages, ancient sages, modern sages, a whole apostolic succession running all the way from Confucius and Epictetus down to Nietzsche, Ibsen William Penn, and Herbert Spencer–all these have insisted on it.”
                                                                                      -Albert Jay Nock

“The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting deer, it’s about hunting politicians.”
                                                                          -Congressman “B1” Bob Dornan

“I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence I would advise violence.”
                                                                              -Mohandas Gandhi

“This is the law: The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.”

                                                                                     -John Steinbeck

The Religion of Marxism by Murray Rothbard

Politics As Tribe from the National Policy Institute

United Steelworkers Enlist Mondragon in Drive Toward Employee Democracy from Infoshop.Org

The State As Drug Lord by Kevin Carson

Criticism of Israel: A Wonderful Hiding Place by Michael Neumann

How the $outhern Poverty Law Center Profits From Intolerance by Ken Silverstein

An Opportunity for the Oathkeepers: End the Occupation by William Norman Grigg

Obama’s Real Death Panels by Ted Rall

30 Years On, Remembering the Cambodian Holocaust by John Pilger

When Small Countries Lead the Way by Mark Weisbrot

Karzai As Diem by Justin Raimondo

The Real Climate Change Catastrophe by Christopher Booker

Are You Ready for the Next Crisis? by Paul Craig Roberts

AfPak: Illegal, Immoral, and Fattening by Jeff Huber

Afghan Insurgents: Terrorists or Tea Partiers? by Justin Raimondo

American Preeminence Is Disappearing Fifteen Years Early by Michael T. Klare

Bankster Holiday by Paul Craig Roberts

Forever War by Pat Buchanan

The Network Revolution vs The State and Its Allies by Kevin Carson

Is An Attack on Iran Coming? by Paul Craig Roberts

Blair’s Regime’s Secret Plans for a Multicultural U.K. by Simon Walters

Rubbing Their Noses In It by Richard Spencer

Unilateral Disarmament by Richard Spencer

The U.S. Expands the Empire by Mike Sullivan

An Interview with Gore Vidal by John Meroney

A Few Brave Conservatives Reject Unhinged Radio Ranters by Jack Hunter

Stumbling Into the Mainstream, Against a Wall of Bias by Sean Gabb

Good News in the War on Drugs by David Kramer

Neocons and the Pentagon Rage Against the Dying of the Fight by Jeff Huber

Hyper Inflation by Ilana Mercer

Winning Through Intimidation by Brenda Walker

King Dollar Abdicates by Peter Schiff

Upcoming West Coast Nurses’ Strike from Infoshop.Org

Green Monster by Stanislav Mishin

On Tea Parties and Patriots from Infoshop.Org

Motherland by Nina Kouprianova

Anarchism and the Politics of Technology from Infoshop.Org

Dostoevsky on Modern Conservatism by Mark Hackard

To a Los Angeles Anarchist from Infoshop.Org

Rebel Against the Empire by Thomas Naylor

When Gitmo and Abu Ghraib Come Home by Bill Quigley and Deborah Popowski

Will the Dollar Remain the World’s Reserve Currency in Five Years? by Mike Whitney

A Commissar a Day Keeps the Doctor Away by TGGP

White Cross Patrol from Bay Area National Anarchists

Urban Gardens from Bay Area National Anarchists

Folsom Street Fair, Protest Part 2 from Bay Area National Anarchists

Creation of an Urban Guerrilla 

The Global Warming Crusaders by George Giles

Health Care Hypocrisy by Laurence Vance

Why They Hated the Articles of Confederation by Lew Rockwell

Dancing With the Czars by David Kramer

Neocon Stooge David Brooks Sucks Up to Obama by David Brooks

High Costs, Low Odds by Stephen M. Walt

Abolish NATO by Jeff Huber

The FBI Is Assessing You Nat Hentoff interviewed by Scott Horton

War Is a Hate Crime  by Chris Hedges

Libertarians Debate “Cultural Values” from Reason

Have You Seen This Missing Girl?

The U.S. Military Is Crazy As a Bedbug by Fred Reed

The Lynching of a Real Defense Attorney by William Anderson

Are You Middle-Class? Not for Long! by David Calderwood

The American Idea by Walter Williams

We’re Returning to the Middle Ages by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Another Imperial Puppet in Afghanistan by Eric Margolis

What Are You Buying for Self-Defense by Lew Rockwell

Former Marine Captain Resigns In Protest of Afghanistan War by Jeff Huber

Congressman Seeks to Atone for War Vote by George C. Wilson

Hate Is Not a Crime by Jack Hunter

Black Tuesday and How We Got Out of It by Mike Whitney

Here Comes the Third Party: Palin and the Constitutionalists by Jayne Lyn Stahl

Palin and Conservatives of the Heart by Pat Buchanan

The Anarchist Library Update from Infoshop.Org

Coalition Against Police Brutality in Greensboro, North Carolina from Infoshop.Org

Beautiful Losers by Paul Gottfried

The Trouble with Limited Government by Jesus Huerto de Soto

The Return of the Great Depression by Vox Day

Gerald Celente on Avoiding Economic Hardship by Naresh Vissa

Living the Outlaw Life by Claire Wolfe

Democracy’s Most Critical Defect by Robert Higgs

Stealth Gun Control  by Karen De Coster

Libelous Leftoidal Lynch Mobs by Tom DiLorenzo

Our Enemy, the Political Class by James Ostrowski

Nullification in Ohio

The Persecution of Self-Defenders by David Kramer

A Conservative Primer for Conceptualizing Political Economy on the Humane Scale by Patroon

Tea  Pot Ready to Boil in Upstate New York by Patroon

The U.S.S. Liberty Affair and the Problem of Truth in History by Alan Hart

Three Years Later, Brad Will is Still Dead by John Ross

Roman Roads and Modern Emperors by Conn Hallinan

Drug War Assassinations by Jacob Hornberger

Capitol Hill Hos by Jack Hunter

The National-Anarchist Movement Continues to Grow in Australia from Bay Area National Anarchists

The Real Forgotten: Victims of the Empire by Geoffrey Pike

Voting Lowers Your Testosterone by Gary Reed

Jimmy Carter: Racial Separatist

The Polygamy Experience 

Brown Berets Protest in Houston (their history)

Progressives for Immigration Reform

Military Recruiters Leave No Child Behind by David Goodman

Empire Falls: The Revolutions of 1989 by Charles Burris

Bob Gates’ Bad Bet by Jeff Huber

On the Eve of WW3 in Iran? by Gordon Prather

Kipling Haunts Obama’s Afghan War by Ray McGovern

There Is No Need for Conflict with China by John V. Walsh interviewed by Scott Horton

Land Wars in Asia Eric Margolis interviewed by Scott Horton

The Long Gaze of the State by Alexander Cockburn

Medical Marijuana Goes Mainstream by Norm Kent

 Invisible Review, Invisible Racism by Mupetblast

With Friends Like This, Obama Needs No Enemies by Mupetblast

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

European Nationalist Parties Form Alliance 

In Defense of Carol Swain

“Racist” Biscuit Removed From Shelves 

What I’ve Learned from Debating Religious People Around the World by Christopher Hitchens

Kids As Young As Nine Receive Career Advice 

Motorist Is Told Flag Could Be Racist 

 Mao’s War Against Nature: Politics and the Environment in Revolutionary China

Trouble in Tea Party Land 

Neoconservatism and Trotskyism

Racist Nursery Children

Slavery in Modern Africa 

The Visigoths and the Fall of Rome 

War Is a Racket by General Smedley Butler 

H.L. Mencken Speaks , Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five, Part Six, Part Seven, Part Eight 

Sting Says Obama Sent from God (or “Don’t Take Advice from Rock Stars”)

Icelandic Sorcery and Witchcraft 

U.S. Workers Starved Into Service 

Modern Man Had Sex with Neanderthals 

Mayor Says Pay Problem Parents Not to Breed

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

National Anarchy and the American Idea

Updated News Digest October 25, 2009 2

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

Quotes of the Week:

A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery.”

Despise the enemy strategically, but take him seriously tactically.”

Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.”

 Weapons are an important factor in war, but not the decisive one; it is man and not materials that counts.”

                                                                                        -Mao Tse-tung   

An unmistakable sign of Third World despotism is a police force that sees the public as the enemy. Thanks to the federal government, our local police forces are now militarized and imbued with hostile attitudes toward the public. SWAT teams have proliferated, and even small towns now have police forces with the firepower of U.S. Special Forces.

Summons are increasingly delivered by SWAT teams that tyrannize citizens with broken down doors, a $400 or $500 repair born by the tyrannized resident. Recently, a mayor and his family were the recipients of incompetence by the town’s local SWAT team, which mistakenly wrecked the mayor’s home, terrorized his family and killed the family’s two friendly Labrador dogs.

If a town’s mayor can be treated in this way, what do you think is the fate of the poor white or black? Or the idealistic student who protests his government’s inhumanity?

In any failed state, the greatest threat to the population comes from the government and the police. That is certainly the situation today in the U.S.A. Americans have no greater enemy than their own government. Washington is controlled by interest groups that enrich themselves at the expense of the American people.

The 1 percent that comprise the superrich are laughing as they say, “Let them eat cake.”

                                                                                     -Paul Craig Roberts

The U.S.A Is a Failed State by Paul Craig Roberts

You’re Not the Customer: Don’t Trust Cops, Never Talk to Cops by Kevin Carson

Police State U.S.A William Norman Grigg interviewed by Scott Horton

Anarchists Unite: How Does That Work? by Gendy Alimurung

The Presidential Dictatorship by Tom Engelhardt and David Swanson

The New Totalitarians by Rafael Koski (intro by Peter Brimelow)

The Hate Industry by Elizabeth Wright

What’s Up with the Front Porch Republic? by Dylan Hales

All the Populism Money Can Buy by Alexander Cockburn

The Neocons Sing the Same Old Song in the Emperor’s Ear by Philip Giraldi

Rethinking World War III by Justin Raimondo

Obama’s War Interview with Col. Andrew Bacevich

Throttling Back on Afghanistan by Jeff Huber

Is Adulation of the Military Really Patriotic? by Ivan Eland

Getting the Vietnam Analogy Right in Afghanistan by Leon Hadar

China Seeks Deterrence, Not Dominance by Doug Bandow

Israel Was a Mistake Gabriel Kolko interviewed by Scott Horton

Our Two Faced Iran Policy by Justin Raimondo

The State’s Plan for Your Great Grandson by Tom Hayden

What Motivates the Taliban? by Glenn Greenwald

The Dark Side of the “Special Relationship” by Justin Raimondo

The Economics of Empire Donald Losman interviewed by Scott Horton

General Treachery-What Is This? A Coup? by Jeff Huber

The Afghan Quagmire by Joshua Holland

White Noise by Alex Kurtagic

FUCK: The Most Popular Word in the English Language by Mandolyna Theodoracopulos

It’s High Time by Richard Spencer

The Feminist, Multicultural Edmund Burke by Richard Spencer

The Frankfurt School in Exile: Authoritarianism and the Family by Kevin MacDonald

Middle Americans Alienated and Radicalized by Pat Buchanan

National Day of Action Against Police Brutality from Infoshop.Org

Anarchist Resists Grand Jury from Infoshop.Org

The Dollar Will Not Crash by Mike Whitney

James Williamson Rejoins Iggy and the Stooges 

The Christians’ Golden Calf by Laurence Vance

The Pleasures of Tobacco by Patrick Semmens

Stiletto Stoners by Yael Kohen

Horst Mahler: The Synthesis of the Left and Right by George Michael

The Mainstream American Left is Ignorant and Naive by Ray Mangum

Illegal Resistance Activity in Pre-Revolutionary Conditions by Kevin Walsh

Thoughts of an Anarcho-Negro by Rayfield A. Waller

Causes of the Amiseration of the Euro-American Proletariat by Kevin Walsh

Stalinist Russia Had a High Crime Rate by David R. Shearer

Barack Obama: The Last American President by Mike Gogulksi

The Republican’s Balloon Boy by Jack Hunter

Cool Cops and Vets Vow to Resist Dictatorship by Alan Maimon

Obama’s Actual Health Care Reform by Devlin Barrett

PIGS Murder 19-yr-old in California

You Might Be a Constitutionalist If… by Chuck Baldwin

Feminism’s a Bitch by Gavin McInnes

The Rotten Fruits of War by Dan Pearson and Kathy Kelly

Three Myths Driving the Afghan War by Johann Hari

Busting the Darfur Myth by Tom Mountain

Losing the War by Brian Downing

Russia’s Daring Vote      by Israel Shamir

Now Pakistan: Sequential Destruction of Muslim Nations by Liaquat Ali Khan

Syria’s Golan Heights by Franklin Lamb

Uncle Sam in Afghanistan by Norman Solomon

Can the Democrats Avoid a Populist Health Care Rebellion? by Kevin Zeese

Dead Babies in Iraq and Afghanistan Are No Joke by Dave Lindorff

A Young Champion of Liberty by Doug French

The Economics of Secession by Dave Mundy

Currency Controls Are Coming by Doug Casey

Confessions of a Home-Schooler by Andrew O’Hehir

They Can’t Push Us Around Forever by State Rep. Susan Lynn (TN)

“Rule of Law”-Fed Style  by Bill Anderson

The Shadow of Dictatorship Is on the Land by Ron Shirtz

A Rumsfeld-Era Reminder of What Causes Terrorism by Glenn Greenwald

The Real Reason for More Troops in Afghanistan by Michael Gaddy

Five Myths About Iran’s Nuclear Program by Joseph Cirincione

Educating Children in Conflict Zones by Catherine Rottenberg and Neve Gordon

A More Hands-Off Approach in Somalia by David Axe

Seeking Monsters to Kill Abroad by Faith Whittlesey

 Right-Wing Europe by Bede

Love Thy Neighbor…Or At Least Get to Know Them by Patroon

Unlearning the CIA by Christopher Ketcham

Palestine in Pieces by Jeff Gore

Why Did Iran Build the Enrichment Facility? by Gareth Porter

Announcing the Committee for Constitutional Health Care Reform by Dan Phillips

Defend Free Speech for Nick Grifffin by Bede

Towards a Constructive Anarchism from Infoshop.Org

Four Theses on the Invisible University from Infoshop.Org

Over 20,000 Mink Freed from Fur Farms in France/Spain from Infoshop.Org

The Deadly Medical-Industrial Complex by Dr. Doug Henderson and Gary Null

A Naked Swindle Perpetrated by the Ruling Class by Matt Taibbi

The Telecom Industry Aids and Abets the Police State 

“Education”: The Lizard State Wants Your Children by Doug Casey

Bartering With Ammo? by Terrence Gillespie

Media Stooges for the Fascist Legal Racket by Bill Anderson

Is “Being Offended” the New National Sport? by Karen De Coster

Anarchists on PBS from David Kramer

FOX Hunt by Jack Hunter

Nixon and Obama: Soul Brothers? by Pat Buchanan

March Against Police Violence in Santa Rosa from Infoshop.Org

Gerald Celente: The Worst Is Yet to Come by Naresh Vissa

Are You in Big Brother’s Database? by James Bamford

Nixon Killed America by Lew Rockwell

U.S. “Justice” Sucks by Lew Rockwell

Israeli Ethnic Cleansing by David Kramer

The World Will Be Fine Without American Bombs by Jeff Huber

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

Worker Cooperatives 

The Holy War Against Fat-ism 

Jim Goad 

Psychopaths Are Distracted, Not Cold-Blooded 

Is Political Correctness to Blame for Lack of Coverage of Horrific Black-on-White Killings? 

National Resistance to the Obama Regime 

American Jews Rethink Israel 

White Trash from a Marxist Perspective

Defend Illegal Alien Halloween Costumes! 

Afghanistan’s Golden Age 

Latin America Plans U.S. Dollar Replacement

The Tragedy of the Palestinian Diaspora 

Why Are Stocks Surging As Jobs Disappear?

Socialism Vs Austrian Economics

Inland Empire National-Anarchists 

Where Will the Jobs Come From? 

Insurance Company Calls Rape a “Pre-Existing Condition”  

The White City of Portland 

Petition to Bring Tony Blair to Trial for War Crimes 

Distributivism in Today’s World and Economy

Nixon Tapes on Archie Bunker and Homosexuality 

Nixon on Jew Spies vs Negro Spies 

Nixon Drunk on Watergate 

Nixon and Pat Buchanan on Ivy League War Protests 

Nixon and Gerald Ford Discuss Republican Doves

Nixon Says “Get the Son of a Bitch” Daniel Ellsberg 

J. Edgar Hoover Calls Katherine Graham an “Old Bitch” 

Nixon and Kissinger on Idi Amin

Labour Wanted Mass Immigration to Make the U.K. More Multicultural, Says Former Adviser 

A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

The Death of Politics  by Karl Hess

The Traffic in Women by Emma Goldman

Crime and Punishment by Errico Malatesta

Feminism As Fascism by Bob Black

Are You a True Revolutionary or a Couch Rebel? 4

by Peter Bjorn Perls

What keeps a lot of people back is that they have too much to lose from an upheaval of the existing, mostly peaceful, order of things.

The essence of the matter is that, to gain freedom, there must be some sacrifices, especially in the short term.

Assume a rebellion, either in the UK or US or wherever. It could have many consequences, both on the high-up political level (fx. by the national guard or army being sent into quell a rebellion), but the most felt change in the everyday for regular people will be the loss of amenities taken for granted.

Thank about the goods you use everyday, and would have to find alternatives for: Water in the tap, working toilets, garbage disposal, convenient shopping with an abundance of foods, drinks and “fun goods” available to you at minor expense. Electricity! No electricity means no computers, no internet, no Tv with associated sitting on the couch with a cold beer to relax from the day’s toil, no easy cooking, no electrical lighting. Everyday transportation – automotive transportation is taken for granted, and so is the supply of it’s lifeblood – gasoline.

All these things have solutions that are either obvious, easy, or not too hard to fix with cooperation in small groups (i’ll post that separately, this is getting too long). The point is that all these little things PILE UP to become a seemingly un-scaleable wall.

For those directly on the government payroll, either as “Public” employees or on welfare handouts, well, no need to explain that is there?

There is the very real possibility of engaging in rebellion that the “authorities” will crack down hard and physically on you and your compatriots. Bodily harm is probably assured, and actual death is possible.

There is the social aspect; as much of society is lulled into the dream of democracy-end-of-history and democracy-is-good, anyone who vocally, visibly and clearly shows disdain and rejection of that mindset faces ostracism and oodles of abuse.

(In this regard, i would wish the Randians had more balls to turn words to action, because they don’t seem to give a shit about their critics. As far as political fundies go, they are an example of what the leaders of a rebellion in these times of mental sheepism need to be – staunch and uncompromising).

If rebellion and secession is to become reality, what you must ALL ask yourselves is:

How much of the stuff I have today, which I take for granted, am I willing to give up, to gain freedom and more control of my future life?

If the answer is that you don’t want to lose your goodies, even for a short time, then I’m sorry to say that the respondent is not suited for anything more than couch rebellion, and leave the actual uprising to those that have nothing left to lose (but this also means that those who were unwilling to make a sacrifice for their freedom and freedom of others, won’t have much to say in future societal arrangements, and rightly so).

The Conservative Challenge 2


[Keith: The text of a magnificent speech given by Dr. Sean Gabb of England’s Libertarian Alliance. My question: How can we go about turning all of these conservative, libertarian and populist government-distrusters into full blown anarchist revolutionaries?]


The Conservative Challenge
By Sean Gabb
(Text of a Speech Given to a Conservative Association
On Friday the 16th October 2009)


On Friday the 16th October 2009, I spoke to a Conservative Association in the South East of England. Though I did not video the event, and though –  on account of the heated and not always good natured debate the followed my speech – I was asked not to identify the particular Association to which I spoke, I think what I said is worth recording. Therefore, I will write down my words as best I can recall them. I have suppressed all the questions, but carried some of the answers into the main text. Otherwise, I will try to keep the flavour of the original.

The Speech

Because of transport difficulties that prevented many people in this room from arriving on time, I am beginning my speech an hour later than expected. I am honoured by the Chairman’s apology for the delay. However, the series of conversations and arguments with which those of us who were here entertained ourselves while waiting have given me the idea for a speech that is still on my stated theme, but that I think will be more interesting than the one I had in mind. Now, this theme – “The Conservative Challenge” – has been routinely given to speakers at Conservative gatherings since at least the 1880s. The question that must always be answered is how we can remain the free citizens of an independent country in ages that have been progressively hostile both to individual freedom and to national independence. I did have a plan loosely worked out in my head. What I will do instead, though, is take some of our bar room discussions and summarise or expand on them as seems appropriate. I will do this by giving short statements of what was said to me, and then by giving my responses.

1. This has been a bad Government

I disagree. Oh, if you want a government that defends the country and provides common services while keeping so far as possible out of your way, the Labour Government elected in 1997 has been a disappointment. This does not mean, however, that the Blair and Brown Governments have been a failure in their own terms. They have, on the contrary, been very successful.

The purpose of the Government that took power in 1997 was to bring about a revolutionary transformation of this country – a transformation from which there could be no return to what had been before. The English Constitution has never been set down in a written document, and there has never been any statement of fundamental rights and liberties that was protected from change by ordinary legislation. Instead, these rights and liberties were protected by a set of customs and institutions that, being legitimised by antiquity, served the same purpose as formal entrenchment. It can be hard, in every specific case, to justify trial by jury, or the rule against double jeopardy, or the idea that imprisonment should be for a specified time and no longer, or the right to speak freely on matters in the public domain. There are principled arguments that satisfy in the absence of strong passions. But, strong passions being granted, the best argument has always so far been that these things have always been in England, and that to change them would be to break the threads that tie us to the past.

It would be childish to argue that the Ancient Constitution was in good health until 1997, when it was suddenly overturned. Unless there is an catastrophic foreign invasion, constitutions are not destroyed in this way. Ours had been sapped long before 1997. To say when the tipping point was reached, and by what means, would take me far beyond my stated theme. However, what remained of the Constitution has, since 1997, been dismissed as a set of “outmoded” relics, and large parts of it have been swept away. Those that remain have been transformed beyond recognition.

Let me give myself as an example. My first degree was in History. Much of this was taken up with a study of late antiquity and the early middle ages. But some of it was given to English history between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. Of course, the Constitution changed within these periods, and had changed much since then. But I could take up the debates of the Cavalier Parliament, or a pamphlet written during the American War, or a case published in the State Trials, and find myself within a conversation of the English people. I was not in the same position as a French undergraduate, who, for anything published before 1791, would find himself in a world of institutions, and territorial names, and weights and measures, and monetary units, and general assumptions, as alien as those of a foreign country.

This has now changed. Anyone who, this month, has started a degree in History or Law or Politics will find himself in the same position as that French undergraduate. We have new legislative bodies all over the country, and new principles of administration, and new courts with new procedures and languages, and new lines of authority terminating in bodies outside the country. The work is not yet complete. But already, the conversation of the English people has been made largely incomprehensible to those born since I was an undergraduate.

Whether the changes can be justified as improvements – or whether they could have been made with more regard for economy and consistency – is beside the point. The main purpose of change has been to seal off the past. That past has been delegitimized in order to strip rights and liberties of the associations that used to protect them. Not surprisingly, we find ourselves in a country with a Potemkin democracy, where speech and publication are censored, where the police are feared, where we are continuously spied on as we go about our business, where we can be imprisoned without trial or charge for a month, and generally where we find ourselves having to deal every day with administrative bodies given powers that others who have not yet had felt them still cannot believe possible.

On any normal assumptions, the country has been governed very badly since 1997. On the assumptions of the Government, things have gone very well indeed.

2. This country is ruled by people who have been corrupted by bad ideas.

Again, I disagree. For centuries now, England has been governed by people rather like ourselves. Sometimes, they have governed well, sometimes badly. But we have never had to doubt their fundamental good faith. This has changed. The people who now rule this country have not been led astray by bad ideas. Rather, they are bad people who choose ideologies to justify their behaviour.

There are ideologies of the left – mutualism, for example, or Georgism, or syndicalism – that may often be silly or impracticable, but that are perfectly consistent with the dignity and independence of ordinary people. These are not ideologies, however, of which those who rule us have ever taken the smallest notice. These people began as state socialists. When this became electorally embarrassing, they switched to politically correct multiculturalism. Now this too is becoming an embarrassment, they are moving towards totalitarian environmentalism. Whether in local or in national government, their proclaimed ideologies have never prevented them from working smoothly with multinational big business, or with unaccountable multinational governing bodies.

It is reasonable to assume that, with these people, ideas are nothing more than a series of justifications for building a social and economic and political order within which they and theirs can have great wealth and unchallengeable power.

They tell us they want to end “child poverty” and “build a more equal society”. In fact, they have employed an army of social workers to terrorise every working class family in the country – an army of social workers backed by closed and secretive courts, and that may even be selecting children for legal kidnap and sale to barren middle class couples. They have pauperised millions with policies that keep them from achieving any reasonable independence and subject them to the bullying of credentialed bureaucracies.

They tell us they want a more “inclusive” and “diverse” society. They have certainly welcomed the mass immigration that they enabled the moment they came into office. It has been useful for impoverishing the working classes – in their attitudes and behaviour once perhaps the most conservative people in the country. It has also provided much evidence for their claim that the old England into which we were born has passed away, and that we need a new constitutional settlement – a settlement much in need of censorship and endless meddling in private choices. Even so, they make sure to live in white enclaves and to send their children to private schools where class photographs look much as they did in 1960.

They tell us they want to save the planet from “climate change”. If they have made Phillips and Siemens rich from their light bulb ban, they still fly everywhere and drive everywhere, and light up their own houses and offices like Christmas trees.

These are bad people. They must be regarded as such in everything they do. And we must hope that they will one day be punished as such.

3. The country is misgoverned.

Let me go back to my first point. There is no doubt that everything done by these people has involved huge cost for little of the promised benefit. We have computer systems that do not work. We have new bureaucracies that do not achieve their stated purpose. The National Health Service, for example, has had its budget doubled or trebled in the past twelve years. Yet the waiting lists are as long as ever, and the hospitals are dirtier than ever. Medical incompetence and even corruption and oppression are now everyday stories in the newspapers.

Again, however, these are failures only on the assumption that money has been laid out for the purpose of improving services. It has not. The real purpose of washing a tidal wave of our money over the public services has been partly to raise up an army of clients more likely to vote Labour than anything else, and partly to give these clients powers that tell everyone else who are the masters now. On this assumption, the money has not been wasted at all. It has indeed been an “investment in the future”.

What is to be done?

I often speak about an electoral coup in which a genuinely conservative government came to power and set about undoing the revolution. This involves shutting down most of the public sector. I am not saying that poor people would no longer receive their benefits or medical attention free at the point of use. These are not in themselves expensive. They may have undesirable consequences in terms of smothering personal responsibility and voluntary initiative. But these are problems to be addressed over a long period during which no settled expectation need be denied. What I do say is that the bureaucratic machine that bleeds us white in taxes and grinds us into obedient uniformity should be smashed to pieces that cannot easily be put back together. It should be smashed because we cannot afford it. It should be smashed because it oppresses us. It should be smashed because it is an agent of national destruction.

I once wrote a book about why this should be done and how to do it. Sadly, it will not be done in the foreseeable future. We shall probably have a Conservative Government within the next nine months. But this will not be a government of conservatives. If we want a preview of the Cameron Government, we need only look at what Boris Johnson has achieved during the past year as Mayor of London. He has not closed down one of the bureaucracies set up by Ken Livingstone and his Trotskyite friends. The race equality enforcers are still collecting their salaries. The war on the private motorist continues. Rather than cut the number of New and Old Labour apparatchiks, he is currently putting up taxes. David Cameron will be no better. He may be forced to make some changes and to slow the speed of the transformation. The transformation will continue nevertheless.

We need to speculate on the purpose and nature of counter-revolution. It is useful to know what ought to be our long term purpose. It inspires us to action in an otherwise bleak present. But we need also to know what present actions are to be inspired. My advice is that we need, in all our thoughts and in whatever of our behaviour is prudent, to withhold our sanction.

Any system of oppression that does not rely on immediate and overwhelming – and usually foreign – violence requires the sanction of its victims. We cannot all have guns put to our heads all day and every day. We therefore need to believe, in some degree, that what is done to us is legitimate. We must believe this if we are to obey. We must believe it if those who oppress us are to keep their good opinion of themselves. I suggest that we should withhold that sanction. I do not say that, without our sanction, the illegitimate power that now constrains our lives will fall immediately to the ground. I do suggest, however, that it will be insensibly undermined, and that it may therefore collapse suddenly in the event of some unexpected shock. This is how Communism died in Eastern Europe. It may be how the New Labour Revolution will die here.

The Police

One of the myths, endlessly repeated through what is called “Middle England”, is that the Police are among the victims of Labour rule – that they have been forced to act in ways that they find abhorrent or absurd. But this is only a myth. The Police are no friends to respectable people in any class or race. When I was a small boy, I was reduced to tears by what seemed a gigantic policeman in a tall helmet. One glare of his bearded face, and I was straight off the municipal flower bed where I had thrown my ball. He spoke to my grandmother before moving to other business, and that was the end of my transgression.

His sort retired decades ago. They have been replaced by undersized, shaven headed thugs – frequently with criminal records – who take delight in harassing the respectable. If you are robbed or beaten in the street, they will be nowhere in sight. If you approach them to complain, they will record the crime and send you on your way. If, on the other hand, you try defending yourself or your loved ones, they will prosecute you. They will do nothing about drugged, aggressive beggars, but they will jump on you if they see you smoking under a bus shelter. These people have been given powers that move them closer to the East German Stasi than to the uniformed civilians many of us can still remember. They can arrest you for dropping a toffee wrapper in the street. Once arrested, you may be charged, but you will more likely be released after being fingerprinted and having DNA samples taken and stored. We do not know what other body or government will be given your DNA. We do not know what future oppressions it may enable. Regardless of any littering charge, you will have been punished already.

We should not regard the Police in any sense as our friends. They are not. This does not mean that we should have no dealings with them. There are times – insurance claims, for example, where things must be reported. There are times when the Police are needed, and when they may give some limited assistance. Even so, we should on no account behave to them as if they were uniformed civilians. They are an armed, increasingly out of control pro-Labour militia.

The Law

We were all of us born in a country where the phrase “The Law is the Law: it must always be obeyed” did not seem absurd. Yes, it may not have been quite as we were told. By and large, however, it was a law made by our representatives and with our loose consent – or it was made by Judges rationalising honestly from assumptions grounded in common sense notions of justice. It is that no longer. For all its blemishes, the old laws of England were there to stop us from knocking into each other too hard as we went about our business. Its function was reactive. The function of law nowadays is transformational. It is there to change the ways in which we think and live. So far as this is the case, the law has been delegitimised.

And this is how we are to regard uses of the law. At the moment, The UK Independence Party is being edged towards bankruptcy over some matter of a political donation. It seems not to have complied with the requirements of a law made in the year 2000 that effectively nationalises all political parties – and that may one day be used to control what policies they advocate and how they oppose measures with which they disagree. Again, there are complaints about how the BBC has invited the Leader of the British National Party to appear on Question Time. It is said that the BNP is currently an illegal organisation because of its internal rules. The alleged illegality is based on a novel interpretation of a 1976 law, as amended in 2000, that is itself illegitimate.

There was a time when it was enough for us to be told that someone had broken the law for us to think ill of that person. But times are altered. When the laws themselves are corrupt, they lose moral force. It is no longer enough for us to be told that someone is a law breaker. Whatever we may think of these parties for what they advocate, they are to be seen not as law breakers but victims of political oppression. To think ill of them purely for their disregard of the law is rather like calling Alexander Solzhenitsyn a jailbird on account of his time in the Gulag.

The Law is no longer the Law. It is a set of politicised commands made for our destruction as a free people. It no longer deserves our automatic respect. Yes, the laws that protect life and property are still to be respected. But it is now rational to inspect every law thrown at us to see which do bind in conscience and which do not. I know that this is a dangerous principle to announce. There are many people for whom the law is a unified thing: say that one part has no binding force, and all parts are weakened. But this is not our fault. We have not made the law disreputable. We are simply facing a state of affairs that has been called into being by others.

The Constitution

I have already mentioned the remodelling of the Constitution. As a people, we have long amused foreigners with our respect for titles and old forms of government. I once chaired a meeting addressed by a Member of the House of Lords. This was before the Internet, and I spent nearly an hour in a library clarifying that he should be introduced as – let me change the name – John, Lord Smith of Wilmington, rather than Lord John Smith or Lord Wilmington. This was all good fun. It also had a serious point. I was helping maintain one of those innumerable and seemingly absurd customs that among were the outer defences of our rights and liberties. Our Ancient Constitution may have struck outsiders as a gigantic fancy dress ball. But it covered a serious and very important fact. This was an imperfect acceptance of Colonel Rainsborough’s claim that “the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he”.

But, again, times are altered. The more gorgeous events of the fancy dress ball have been retained. But the underlying substance – the protection of rights and liberties – has been stripped out. This being so, all obligation of deference has lapsed. I will not defer to the man whose name has been changed by a sheet of parchment sealed with wax to Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty. Nor will I call Peter Mandelson other than “Mr Mandelson. Nor, unless I am in his court, and he is likely to take more against me than he naturally would, will I address the former Communist Stephen Sedley as “My Lord”. Nor will I acknowledge his Knighthood out of court. I am not yet sure if it is appropriate to stop recognising hereditary honours, or those granted before 1997. But I certainly regard all honours granted since 1997 as void. They have the same legitimacy as those conferred by Cromwell during the Interregnum. No – Cromwell was a great man who did honour to this country and who deserves his statue outside Parliament. Recent honours have the same status as those conferred by James II after he ran away to France. They are to be seen as a badge of ridicule and disgrace on those who have accepted them.

Now, this may seem a pedantic and self-indulgent point. But it is not. These people should not be allowed to wrap themselves in any remnant of the associations that once bound us to the past. And they evidently enjoy playing at nobility. I once did a radio debate with a police chief who had been recommended for a Peerage by Tony Blair. He was annoyed by my substantive arguments. He was reduced to spluttering rage when I addressed him as plain “Mister” and sneered that his title was a sham. Bearing in mind that it is not illegal to drop their titles, and how it upsets them, I think it worth doing on every convenient occasion.

And it is part of what I would see as a more general approach. Conservatives often denounce what is being done to us as a “breach of the Constitution”. It is really no such thing, because the Ancient Constitution has been abolished. As said, the fancy dress ball continues in something like full swing. But “the poorest he that is in England” has been stuffed. We do have a constitution in the sense that every organised community has one. Ours says that whoever can frogmarch a majority of placemen through the lobbies of the House of Commons can do whatever he pleases. I did hope, earlier in the present decade, that the Judges would intervene to limit parliamentary sovereignty. The Labour response, however, was to pack the bench with their own people. Therefore, since it has been destroyed, or has been suspended, we are in no position to claim that the Constitution has been breached. The obvious result is that we should not regard ourselves as morally bound to recognise any of the authority that is claimed and exercised over us.

And if our people ever get into power through the electoral coup that I mentioned earlier, I see no reason for recognising any purely “constitutional” limits to the nature and speed of our counter-revolution. For example, regardless of the withdrawal mechanism in the Lisbon Treaty, I would be for just repealing the European Communities Act 1972 as amended. That would be complete and immediate withdrawal. If any Judges tried to block this, I would have them removed. I might also be for passing an Act voiding every previous law made since the first session of the 1997 Parliament. Otherwise, I would prefer to declare a state of Emergency under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and then repeal hundreds of laws by decree. A slow revolution can take place when those at the top have the numbers and staying power to take it slowly. When there has been a revolutionary or counter-revolutionary seizure of power, change must be swift and determined if it is to be a success.

There must be a return to constitutional norms – and the extraordinary measures that may enable this return must not be allowed to set any precedents of their own. Nor – let me emphasise – do I hope that our reaction will involve violence. But if conservatives are to bring about a reaction, so that we can again be a free people in an independent nation, we have little positive to learn from Burke’s Reflections. There comes a point beyond which a constitution cannot be rescued. I think we have reached that point. There can be no patching up this time, as happened at the Restoration in 1660, or after the Revolution of 1688. By all means, we should not innovate just for the sake of neatness. But we shall need to innovate. We shall need to create new safeguards for our rights and liberties that take into account the country in which we live.

The Monarchy

This means, I increasingly believe, a republican constitution. There is nothing wrong with the principle of hereditary monarchy. I suspect that the division of authority and power that took place between 1660 and 1714 contributed much to the freedom and stability of England during our classical period. The problem is not the institution of monarchy, but the person of the Monarch.

When she came to the throne, Elizabeth had what seems to have been almost the universal regard of the people. She has spent the past 57 years betraying the people. Whatever the constitutional lawyers may claim, there is a contract between Monarch and people. We pretend to treat whoever wears the Crown as the Lord’s Anointed. The wearer of the Crown agrees in turn to act as a defence of last resort against tyrannical politicians. That is the truth behind the phrases of the coronation oath. The Queen could, without bringing on a crisis, have blocked the law in the early 1960s that removed juries from most civil trials. She could have blocked the subsequent changes that abolished the unanimity rule and the right of peremptory challenge. She should have risked a crisis, and refused her assent to the European Communities Bill, or demanded a fair referendum first. She could have harried the politicians of the past two generations, reminding them of the forms and substance of the Ancient Constitution. She had the moral and legal authority to do this. Had she spoken to us like adults, she would have had popular support. She did nothing. I believe she bullied Margaret Thatcher into handing Rhodesia over to a communist mass-murderer, and made repeated noises about South African sanctions. And that was it.

Whatever her failings in the past, she had every legal right to demand a referendum over the Lisbon Treaty. This had been promised by every party at the 2005 general election. When the promise was withdrawn, she would have had public opinion and much of the media behind her in refusing to give assent to the Treaty’s Enabling Act. Again, she did nothing.

We are continually told about the Queen’s sense of duty. All I see is much scurrying about the country to open leisure centres – and otherwise a total disregard of her essential duties. If the Constitution was in decay before she was even born, she has spent her reign watching all that was left of it slip between her fingers.

It may be argued that she is now very old and will not remain much longer on the throne. The problem is that her son will be worse. She has been lazier than she has been stupid. He is simply stupid. So far as he insists on using his powers, it will be to drive forward the destruction of England. His own eldest son might easily be an improvement – but he could be decades away from the Crown. We are in no position to wait on what is in any event uncertain. The Queen has broken the contract between her and us. Her son will do nothing to repair the breach. We live in an age where hereditary monarchy must be strictly hereditary or nothing at all, and so we cannot waste our time with new Exclusion Bills or Acts of Settlement. If, therefore, we are ever in a position to bring about a counter-revolution, we shall need to find a head of state who can be trusted to do the job of looking after our new constitution.

Closing thoughts

I could go further on this theme. I know that many conservatives – and a few Conservatives – have lost faith in democracy. Undoubtedly, representative democracy has thrown up a political class that is separate from the people, and that is increasingly hostile to the rights and liberties of the people. But I cannot think of a lasting new settlement based on Caesaristic dictatorship or a limitation of the franchise. My own suggestion would be to select most positions in the executive by sortition – to choose rulers, that is, by a lottery – as in ancient Athens, and to settle all legislative matters by local or national referendum. Most judicial business that had any bearing on the Constitution could be put before juries of several hundred people, chosen by the same random process as criminal juries now are.

But, you will agree that this takes me far, far beyond my stated theme. It would make what has been a long speech longer still. I will close by observing that if you want to be a conservative in an England broken by revolution, you need to look beyond a rearguard defence of forms from which all substance was long since drained.. The conservative tradition may have been dominated since the 1970s by Edmund Burke. But it does also contain the radicals of the seventeenth century. And – yes – it also has a place even for Tom Paine. If you want to preserve this nation, you must be prepared for a radical jettisoning of what is no longer merely old, but also dead. The conservative challenge is to look beneath the plumage and save the dying bird.

NB—Sean Gabb’s book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3

Saddam Hussein's Pre-War Prisoner Amnesty Program 2


Iraq ’empties its jails’


Iraqi television has been showing pictures of joyful prisoners leaving jail, shortly after the authorities announced an unprecedented general amnesty.A nationally televised statement from the Revolution Command Council, read by Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, said the “full and complete and final amnesty” applied to “any Iraqi imprisoned or arrested for political or any other reason”.

The amnesty was intended to thank the Iraqi people for their “unanimity” in last week’s presidential referendum, the statement said.Iraqi President Saddam Hussein won 100% support in the poll, in which he was the only candidate.

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

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

Joyful scenes

Soon after the statement, Iraqi television began showed footage of dozens of prisoners rushing out of various prison gates chanting support for Saddam Hussein.

There is no way of verifying how many prisoners have been released..Human rights groups accuse Iraq of detaining tens of thousands of its citizens as political prisoners over the years, although many are thought to have been executed.

In April, the UN Human Rights Commission condemned Iraq for conducting a campaign of “all pervasive repression and widespread terror”.

It demanded that Baghdad should immediately put an end to its “summary and arbitrary executions… the use of rape as a political tool and all enforced and involuntary disappearances”.

Regime change

Analysts see the amnesty and referendum as a concerted effort by the Iraqi Government to rally domestic and international opposition to US demands for a change of regime in Baghdad.

In his UN speech on Iraq last month, US President George W Bush demanded that the leadership end internal oppression in Iraq, as well as stop its alleged programme to develop weapons of mass destruction.Also this week, Iraq has taken steps to return Kuwait’s national archive which was looted by Iraqi forces during the 1990-91 Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.

The first box of documents was handed over in the demilitarised border zone along the Iraqi-Kuwaiti frontier under UN supervision on Sunday.

There is no indications whether any of the 600 Kuwaitis – missing since 1991 and alleged by Kuwait to be still being held in Iraq as prisoners of war – are among those released on Sunday.

Iraq says it has lost track of those prisoners.

Basic Bakunin Reply


Republished from the (British) Anarchist Communist Federation’s original pamphlet in 1993 by P.A.C. (Paterson Anarchist Collective) Publications. This electronic version has the extra ACF text added to the PAC version, for more completeness.


“The star of revolution will rise high above the streets of Moscow, from a sea of blood and fire, and turn into a lodestar to lead a liberated humanity”
-Mikhail Bakunin


The aim of this pamphlet is to do nothing more than present an outline of what the author thinks are the key features of Mikhail Bakunin’s anarchist ideas.

Bakunin was extremely influential in the 19th century socialist movement, yet his ideas for decades have been reviled, distorted or ignored. On reading this pamphlet, it will become apparent that Bakunin has a lot to offer and that his ideas are not at all confused (as some writers would have us think) but make up a full coherent and well argued body of thought. For a detailed but difficult analysis of Bakunin’s revolutionary ideas, Richard B. Saltman’s book, “The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin” is strongly recommended. Ask your local library to obtain a copy.


Bakunin saw revolution in terms of the overthrow of one oppressing class by another oppressed class and the destruction of political power as expressed as the state and social hierarchy. According to Bakunin, society is divided into two main classes which are fundamentally opposed to each other. The oppressed class, he variously described as commoners, the people, the masses or the workers, makes up a great majority of the population. It is in ‘normal’ time not conscious of itself as a class, though it has an ‘instinct’ for revolt and whilst unorganized, is full of vitality. The numerically much smaller oppressing class, however is conscious of its role and maintains its ascendancy by acting in a purposeful, concerted and united manner. The basic differences between the two classes, Bakunin maintained, rests upon the ownership and control of property, which is disproportionately in the hands of the minority class of capitalists. The masses, on the other hand, have little to call their own beyond their ability to work.

Bakunin was astute enough to understand that the differences between the two main classes is not always clear cut. He pointed out that it is not possible to draw a hard line between the two classes, though as in most things, the differences are most apparent at the extremes. Between these extremes of wealth and power there is a hierarchy of social strata which can be assessed according to the degree to which they exploit each other or are exploited themselves. The further away a given group is from the workers, the more likely it is to be part of the exploiting category and the less it suffers from exploitation. Between the two major classes there is a middle class or middle classes which are both exploiting and exploited, depending on their position of social hierarchy.

The masses who are the most exploited form, in Bakunin’s view, the great revolutionary class which alone can sweep away the present economic system. Unfortunately, the fact of exploitation and its resultant poverty are in themselves no guarantee of revolution. Extreme poverty is, Bakunin thought, likely to lead to resignation if the people can see no possible alternative to the existing order. Perhaps, if driven to great depths of despair, the poor will rise up in revolt. Revolts however tend to be local and therefore, easy to put down. In Bakunin’s view, three conditions are necessary to bring about popular revolution.

They are:

  • sheer hatred for the conditions in which the masses find themselves
  • the belief the change is a possible alternative
  • a clear vision of the society that has to be made to bring about human emancipation

Without these three factors being present, plus a united and efficient self organization, no liberatory revolution can possibly succeed.

Bakunin had no doubts that revolution must necessarily involve destruction to create the basis of the new society. He stated that, quite simply, revolution means nothing less than war, that is the physical destruction of people and property. Spontaneous revolutions involve, often, the vast destruction of property. Bakunin noted that when circumstances demanded it, the workers will destroy even their own houses, which more often than not, do not belong to them. The negative, destructive urge is absolutely necessary, he argued, to sweep away the past. Destruction is closely linked with construction, since the “more vividly the future is visualized, the more powerful is the force of destruction.”

Given the close relationship between the concentration of wealth and power in capitalist societies, it is not surprising that Bakunin considered economic questions to be of paramount importance. It is in the context of the struggle between labor and capital that Bakunin gave great significance of strikes by workers. Strikes, he believed, have a number of important functions in the struggle against capitalism. Firstly they are necessary as catalysts to wrench the workers away from their ready acceptance of capitalism, they jolt them out of their condition of resignation. Strikes, as a form of economic and political warfare, require unity to succeed, thus welding the workers together. During strikes, there is a polarization between employers and workers. This makes the latter more receptive to the revolutionary propaganda and destroys the urge to compromise and seek deals. Bakunin thought that as the struggle between labor and capital increases, so will the intensity and number of strikes. The ultimate strike is the general strike. A revolutionary general strike, in which class conscious workers are infused with anarchist ideas will lead, thought Bakunin, to the final explosion which will bring about anarchist society.

Bakunin’s ideas are revolutionary in a very full sense, being concerned with the destruction of economic exploitation and social/political domination and their replacement by a system of social organization which is in harmony with human nature. Bakunin offered a critique of capitalism, in which authority and economic inequality went hand in hand, and state socialism, (e.g. Marxism) which is one sided in its concentration on economic factors whilst, grossly underestimating the dangers of social authority.


Bakunin based his consistent and unified theory upon three interdependent platforms, namely:

  • human beings are naturally social (and therefore they desire social solidarity)
  • are more or less equal and,
  • want to be free

His anarchism is consequently concerned with the problem of creating a society of freedom within the context of an egalitarian system of mutual interaction. The problem with existing societies, he argued, is that they are dominated by states that are necessarily violent, anti-social, and artificial constructs which deny the fulfillment of humanity.

Whilst there are, in Bakunin’s view, many objectionable features within capitalism, apart from the state, (e.g. the oppression of women, wage slavery), it is the state which nurtures, maintains and protects the oppressive system as a whole. The state is defined as an anti-social machine which controls society for the benefit of an oppressing class or elite. It is essentially an institution based upon violence and is concerned with its maintenance of inequality through political repression. In addition the state relies upon a permanent bureaucracy to help carry out its aims. The bureaucratic element, incidentally, is not simply a tool which it promotes. All states, Bakunin believed, have internal tendencies toward self perpetuation, whether they be capitalist or socialist and are thus to be opposed as obstacles to human freedom.

It might be objected that states are not primarily concerned with political repression and violence and indeed that liberal democratic states, in particular, are much interested in social welfare. Bakunin argues that such aspects are only a disguise, and that when threatened, all states reveal their essentially violent natures. In Britain and Northern Ireland this repressive feature of state activity has come increasingly to the fore, when the state has been challenged to any significant degree, it has responded with brutal firmness.

And developments within Britain over the last couple decades tend to substantiate another feature of the state which Bakunin drew attention to, their tendency toward over increasing authoritarianism and absolutism. He believed that there were strong pressures in all states whether they are liberal, socialist, capitalist, or whatever, toward military dictatorship but that the rate of such development will vary, however according to factors such as demography, culture and politics.

Finally, Bakunin noted that states tend toward warfare against other states. Since there is no internationally accepted moral code between states, then rivalries between them will be expressed in terms of military conflict. “So long as there’s government, there will be no peace. There will only be more or less prolonged respites, armistices concluded by the perpetually belligerent states; but as soon as a state feels sufficiently strong to destroy this equilibrium to its advantage, it will never fail to do so.”

Bourgeois Democracy

Political commentators and the media are constantly singing the praises of the system of representative democracy in which every few years or so the electorate is asked to put a cross on a piece of paper to determine who will control them. This system works good insofar as the capitalist system has found a way of gaining legitimacy through the illusion that some how the voters are in charge of running the system. Bakunin’s writings on the issue are of representative democracy were made at the time when it barely existed in the world. Yet he could see on the basis of a couple of examples (the United States and Switzerland) that the widening of the franchise does little to improve the lot of the great mass of the population. True, as Bakunin noted, middle class politicians are prepared to humble themselves before the electorate issuing all sorts of promises. But this leveling of candidates before the populace disappears the day after the election, once they are transformed into members of the Parliament. The workers continue to go to work and the bourgeoisie takes up once again the problems of business and political intrigue.

Today, in the United States and Western Europe, the predominant political system is that of liberal democracy. In Britain the electoral system is patently unfair in its distribution of parliamentary seats, insofar as some parties with substantial support get negligible representation. However, even where strict proportional representation applies, the Bakuninist critique remains scathing. For the representative system requires that only a small section of the population concern itself directly with legislation and governing (in Britain a majority out of 650 MP’s (Members of Parliament)).

Bakunin’s objections to representative democracy rests basically on the fact that it is an expression of the inequality of power which exists in society. Despite constitutions guaranteeing the rights of citizens and equality before the law, the reality is that the capitalist class is in permanent control. So long as the great mass of the population has to sell its labor power in order to survive, there can not be democratic government. So long as people are economically exploited by capitalism and there are gross inequalities of wealth, there can not be real democracy. As Bakunin made clear, economic facts are much stronger than political rights. So long as there is economic privilege there will be political domination by the rich over the poor. The result of this relationship is that representatives of capitalism (bourgeois democracy) “posses in fact, if not by right, the exclusive privilege of governing.”

A common fiction that is expounded in liberal democracies is that the people rule. However the reality is that minorities necessarily do the governing. A privileged few who have access to wealth, education and leisure time, clearly are better equipped to govern than ordinary working people, who generally have little free time and only a basic education.

But as Bakunin made clear, if by some quirk, a socialist government be elected, in real terms, things would not improve much. When people gain power and place themselves ‘above’ society, he argued, their way of looking at the world changes. From their exalted position of high office the perspective on life becomes distorted and seems very different to those on the bottom. The history of socialist representation in parliament is primarily that of reneging on promises and becoming absorbed into the manners, morality and attitudes of the ruling class. Bakunin suggests that such backsliding from socialist ideas is not due to treachery, but because participation in parliament makes representatives see the world through a distorted mirror. A workers parliament, engaged in the tasks of governing would, said Bakunin, end up a chamber of “determined aristocrats, bold or timid worshipers of the principle of authority who will also become exploiters and oppressors.”

The point that Bakunin makes time and time again in his writings is that no one can govern for the people in their interests. Only personal and direct control over our lives will ensure that justice and freedom will prevail. To abdicate direct control is to deny freedom. To grant political sovereignty to others, whether under the mantle of democracy, republicanism, the people’s state, or whatever, is to give others control and therefore domination over our lives.

It might be thought that the referendum, in which people directly make laws, would be an advance upon the idea of representative democracy. This is not the case according to Bakunin, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the people are not in a position to make decisions on the basis of full knowledge of all the issues involved. Also, laws may be a complex, abstract, and specialized nature and that in order to vote for them in a serious way, the people need to be fully educated and have available the time and facilities to reflect upon and discuss the implications involved. The reality of referenda is that they are used by full-time politicians to gain legitimacy for essentially bourgeois issues. It is no coincidence that Switzerland, which has used the referendum frequently, remains one of the most conservative countries in Europe. With referenda, the people are guided by politicians, who set the terms of the debate. Thus despite popular input, the people still remain under bourgeois control.

Finally, Bakunin on the whole concept of the possibility of the democratic state: For him the democratic state is a contradiction in terms since the state is essentially about force, authority and domination and is necessarily based upon an inequality of wealth and power. Democracy, in the sense of self rule for all, means that no one is ruled. If no one rules, there can be no state. If there is a state, there can be no self rule.


Bakunin’s opposition to Marxism involves several separate but related criticisms. Though he thought Marx was a sincere revolutionary, Bakunin believed that the application of the Marxist system would necessarily lead to the replacement of one repression (capitalist) by another (state socialist).

Firstly, Bakunin opposed what he considered to be the economic determinist element in Marx’s thought, most simply stated that “Being determines consciousness.” Put in another way, Bakunin was against the idea that the whole range of ‘super structural’ factors of society, its laws, moralities, science, religion, etc. were “but the necessary after effects of the development of economic facts.” Rather than history or science being primarily determined by economic factors (e.g. the ‘mode of production’), Bakunin allowed much more for the active intervention of human beings in the realization of their destiny.

More fundamental was Bakunin’s opposition to the Marxist idea of dictatorship of the proletariat which was, in effect, a transitional state on the way to stateless communism. Marx and Engles, in the Communist Manifesto of 1848, had written of the need for labor armies under state supervision, the backwardness of the rural workers, the need for centralized and directed economy, and for wide spread nationalization. Later, Marx also made clear that a workers’ government could come into being through universal franchise. Bakunin questioned each of these propositions.

The state, whatever its basis, whether it be proletarian or bourgeois, inevitably contains several objectionable features. States are based upon coercion and domination. This domination would, Bakunin stated, very soon cease to be that of the proletariat over its enemies but would become a state over the proletariat. This would arise, Bakunin believed, because of the impossibility of a whole class, numbering millions of people, governing on its own behalf. Necessarily, the workers would have to wield power by proxy by entrusting the tasks of government to a small group of politicians.

Once the role of government was taken out of the hands of the masses, a new class of experts, scientists and professional politicians would arise. This new elite would, Bakunin believed, be far more secure in its domination over the workers by means of the mystification and legitimacy granted by the claim to acting in accordance with scientific laws (a major claim by Marxists). Furthermore, given that the new state could masquerade as the true expression of the people’s will. The institutionalizing of political power gives rise to a new group of governors with the same self seeking interests and the same cover-ups of its dubious dealings.

Another problem posed by the statist system, that of centralized statist government would, argued Bakunin, further strengthen the process of domination. The state as owner, organizer, director, financier, and distributor of labor and economy would necessarily have to act in an authoritarian manner in its operations. As can be seen by the Soviet system, a command economy must act with decision flowing from top to bottom; it cannot meet the complex and various needs of individuals and, in the final analysis, is a hopeless, inefficient giant. Marx believed that centralism, from whatever quarter, was a move toward the final, statist solution of revolution. Bakunin, in contrast opposed centralism by federalism.

Bakunin’s predictions as to the operation of Marxist states has been borne out of reality. The Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, talked incessantly of proletarian dictatorship and soviet power, yet inevitably, with or without wanting to, created a vast bureaucratic police state.


Most of the left in Britain view the present structures of trade unions in a positive light. This is true for members of the Labor Party, both left and right, the Communist Party, the Militant Tendency and many other Marxist organizations. These bodies wish to capture or retain control of the unions, pretty much as they stand, in order to use them for their own purposes. As a result, there are frequently bitter conflicts and maneuverings within the unions for control. This trend is most apparent in the C.P.S.A. where a vicious anti-communist right wing group alternates with the Militant Tendency and its supporters for control of the union executive and full time posts. The major exception to this is the Socialist Workers Party which advocates rank and file organization, so long as the S.W.P. can control it.

Bakunin laid the foundations of the anarchist approach to union organization and the general tendency of non-anarchist unions to decay into personal fiefdoms and bureaucracy over a century ago. Arguing in the context of union organization within the International Working Mens Association, he gave examples of how unions can be stolen from the membership whose will they are supposed to be an expression of. He identified several interrelated features which lead to the usurpation of power by union leaders.

Firstly, he indicated a psychological factor which plays a key part. Honest, hardworking, intelligent and well meaning militants win through hard work the respect and admiration of their fellow members and are elected to union office. They display self sacrifice, initiative and ability. Unfortunately, once in positions of leadership, these people soon imagine themselves to be indispensable and their focus of attention centers more and more on the machinations within the various union committees.

The one time militant thus becomes removed from the every day problems of the rank and file members and assumes the self delusion which afflicts all leaders, namely a sense of superiority.

Given the existence of union bureaucracies and secret debating chambers in which leaders decide union actions and policies, a ‘governmental aristocracy’ arises within the union structures, no matter how democratic those structures may formally be. With the growing authority of the union committees etc., the workers become indifferent to union affairs, with the exception Bakunin asserts, of issues which directly affect them e.g. dues payment, strikes etc. Unions have always had great problems in getting subscriptions from alienated memberships, a solution which has been found in the ‘check off’ system by which unions and employers collaborate to remove the required sum at source, i.e. from the pay packet.

Where workers do not directly control their union and delegate authority to committees and full-time agents, several things happen. Firstly, so long as union subscriptions are not too high, and back dues are not pressed too hard for, the substituting bodies can act with virtual impunity. This is good for the committees but brings almost to an end the democratic life of the union. Power gravitates increasingly to the committees and these bodies, like all governments substitute their will for that of the membership. This in turn allows expression for personal intrigues, vanity, ambition and self-interest. Many intra-union battles, which are ostensibly fought on ideological grounds, are in fact merely struggles for control by ambitious self seekers who have chosen the union for their career structure. This careerism occasionally surfaces in battles between rival leftists, for example where no political reasons for conflict exist. In the past the Communist Party offered a union career route within certain unions and such conflicts constantly arose.

Presumably, within the Militant Tendency, which also wishes to capture unions, the same problem exists.

Within the various union committees, which are arranged on a hierarchical basis (mirroring capitalism), one or two individuals come to dominate on the basis of superior intelligence or aggressiveness. Ultimately, the unions become dominated by bosses who hold great power in their organizations, despite the safeguards of democratic procedures and constitutions. Over the last few decades, many such union bosses have become national figures, especially in periods of Labor government.

Bakunin was aware that such union degeneration was inevitable but only arises in the absence of rank and file control, lack of opposition to undemocratic trends and the accession to union power to those who allow themselves to be corrupted. Those individuals who genuinely wish to safeguard their personal integrity should, Bakunin argued, not stay in office too long and should encourage strong rank and file opposition. Union militants have a duty to remain faithful to their revolutionary ideals.

Personal integrity, however, is an insufficient safeguard. Other, institutional and organizational factors must also be brought into play. These include regular reporting to the proposals made by the officials and how they voted, in other words frequent and direct accountability. Secondly, such union delegates must draw their mandates from the membership being subject to rank and file instructions. Thirdly, Bakunin suggests the instant recall of unsatisfactory delegates. Finally, and most importantly, he urged the calling of mass meetings and other expressions of grass roots activity to circumvent those leaders who acted in undemocratic ways. Mass meetings inspire passive members to action, creating a camaraderie which would tend to repudiate the so called leaders.

(Electronic Ed- From this, one can conclude that Bakunin was a major inspiration for the anarcho-syndicalist movement.)

Revolutionary Organization

Above all else, Bakunin the revolutionary, believed in the necessity of collective action to achieve anarchy. After his death there was a strong tendency within the anarchist movement towards the abandonment of organization in favor of small group and individual activity. This development, which culminated in individual acts of terror in the late nineteenth century France, isolating anarchism from the very source of the revolution, namely the workers.

Bakunin, being consistent with other aspects of his thought, saw organization not in terms of a centralized and disciplined army (though he thought self discipline was vital), but as the result of decentralized federalism in which revolutionaries could channel their energies through mutual agreement within a collective. It is necessary, Bakunin argued, to have a coordinated revolutionary movement for a number of reasons. Firstly, is anarchists acted alone, without direction they would inevitably end up moving in different directions and would, as a result, tend to neutralize each other. Organization is not necessary for its own sake, but is necessary to maximize strength of the revolutionary classes, in the face of the great resources commanded by the capitalist state.

However, from Bakunin’s standpoint, it was the spontaneous revolt against authority by the people which is of the greatest importance. The nature of purely spontaneous uprisings is that they are uneven and vary in intensity from time to time and place to place. The anarchist revolutionary organization must not attempt to take over and lead the uprising but has the responsibility of clarifying goals, putting forward revolutionary propaganda, and working out ideas in correspondence with the revolutionary instincts of the masses. To go beyond this would undermine the whole self-liberatory purpose of the revolution. Putchism has no place in Bakunin’s thought.

Bakunin then, saw revolutionary organization in terms of offering assistance to the revolution, not as a substitute. It is in this context that we should interpret Bakunin’s call for a “secret revolutionary vanguard” and “invisible dictatorship” of that vanguard. The vanguard it should be said, has nothing in common with that of the Leninist model which seeks actual, direct leadership over the working class. Bakunin was strongly opposed to such approaches and informed his followers that “no member… is permitted, even in the midst of full revolution, to take public office of any kind, nor is the (revolutionary) organization permitted to do so… it will at all times be on the alert, making it impossible for authorities, governments and states to be established.” The vanguard was, however, to influence the revolutionary movement on an informal basis, relying on the talents of it’s members to achieve results. Bakunin thought that it was the institutionalization of authority, not natural inequalities, that posed a threat to the revolution. The vanguard would act as a catalyst to the working classes’ own revolutionary activity and was expected to fully immerse itself in the movement. Bakunin’s vanguard then, was concerned with education and propaganda, and unlike the Leninist vanguard party, was not to be a body separate from the class, but an active agent within it.

The other major task of the Bakuninist organization was that it would act as the watchdog for the working class. Then, as now, authoritarian groupings posed as leaders of the revolution and supplied their own members as “governments in waiting.” The anarchist vanguard has to expose such movements in order that the revolution should not replace one representative state by another ‘revolutionary’ one. After the initial victory, the political revolutionaries, those advocates of so-called workers’ governments and the dictatorship of the proletariat, would according to Bakunin try “to squelch the popular passions. They appeal for order, for trust in, for submission to those who, in the course and the name of the revolution, seized and legalized their own dictatorial powers; this is how such political revolutionaries reconstitute the state. We on the other hand, must awaken and foment all the dynamic passions of the people.”



Throughout Bakunin’s criticisms of capitalism and state socialism he constantly argues for freedom. It is not surprising, then, to find that in his sketches of future anarchist society that the principle of freedom takes precedence. In a number of revolutionary programs he outlined which he considered to be the essential features of societies which would promote the maximum possible individual and collective freedom. The societies envisioned in Bakunin’s programs are not Utopias, the sense of being detailed fictional communities, free of troubles, but rather suggest the basic minimum skeletal structures which would guarantee freedom. The character of future anarchist societies will vary, said Bakunin depending on a whole range of historical, cultural, economic and geographical factors.

The basic problem was to lay down the minimum necessary conditions which would bring about a society based upon justice and social welfare for all and would also generate freedom. The negative, that is, destructive features of the programs are all concerned with the abolition of those institutions which lead to domination and exploitation. The state, including the established church, the judiciary, state banks and bureaucracy, the armed forces and the police are all to be swept away. Also, all ranks, privileges, classes and the monarchy are to be abolished.

The positive, constructive features of the new society all interlink to promote freedom and justice. For a society to be free, Bakunin argued, it is not sufficient to simply impose equality. No, freedom can only be achieved and maintained through the full participation in society of a highly educated and healthy population, free from social and economic worries. Such an enlightened population, can then be truly free and able to act rationally on the basis of a popularly controlled science and a thorough knowledge of the issues involved.

Bakunin advocated complete freedom of movement, opinion, morality where people would not be accountable to anyone for their beliefs and acts. This must be, he argued, complete and unlimited freedom of speech, press and assembly. Freedom, he believed, must be defended by freedom, for to “advocate the restriction of freedom on the pretext that it is being defended is a dangerous delusion.” A truly free and enlightened society, Bakunin said, would adequately preserve liberty. An ordered society, he thought, stems not from suppression of ideas, which only breeds opposition and factionalism, but from the fullest freedom for all.

This is not to say that Bakunin did not think that a society has the right to protect itself. He firmly believed that freedom was to be found within society, not through its destruction. Those people who acted in ways that lessen freedom for others have no place; These include all parasites who live off the labor of others. Work, the contribution of one’s labor for the creation of wealth, forms the basis of political rights in the proposed anarchist society. Those who live by exploiting others do not deserve political rights. Others, who steal, violate voluntary agreements within and by society, inflict bodily harm etc. can expect to be punished by the laws which have been created by that society. The condemned criminal, on the other hand, can escape punishment by society by removing himself/herself from society and the benefits it confers. Society can also expel the criminal if it so wishes. Basically thought, Bakunin set great store on the power of enlightened public opinion to minimize anti-social activity.

Bakunin proposed the equalization of wealth, though natural inequalities which are reflected in different levels of skill, energy and thrift, should he argued be tolerated. The purpose of equality is to allow individuals to find full expression of their humanity within society. Bakunin was strongly opposed to the idea of hired labor which if introduced into an anarchist society, would lead to the reintroduction of inequality and wage slavery. He proposed instead collective effort because it would, he thought, tend to be more efficient. However, so long as individuals did not employ others, he had no objection to them working alone.

Through the creation of associations of labor which could coordinate worker’s activities, Bakunin proposed the setting up of an industrial assembly in order to harmonize production with the demand for products. Such an assembly would be necessary in the absence of the market. Supplied with statistical information from the various voluntary organization who would be federated, production could be specialized on an international basis so that those countries with inbuilt economic advantages would produce most efficiently for the general good. Then, according to Bakunin, waste, economic crisis and stagnation “will no longer plague mankind; the emancipation of human labor will regenerate the world.”

Turning to the question of the political organization of society, Bakunin stressed that they should all be built in such a way as to achieve order through the realization of freedom on the basis of the federation of voluntary organizations. In all such political bodies power is to flow “from the base to the summit” and from “the circumference to the center/” In other words, such organizations should be the expressions of individual and group opinions, not directing centers which control people.

On the basis of federalism, Bakunin proposed a multi-tier system of responsibility for decision making which would be binding on all participants, so long as they supported the system. Those individuals, groups or political institutions which made up the total structure would have the right to secede. Each participating unit would have an absolute right to self-determination, to associate with the larger bodies, or not. Starting at the local level, Bakunin suggested as the basic political unit, the completely autonomous commune. The commune, on the basis of universal suffrage, would elect all of its functionaries, law makers, judges, and administrators of communal property.

The commune would decide its own affairs but, if voluntarily federated to the next tier of administration, the provincial assembly, its constitution must conform to the provincial assembly. Similarly, the constitution of the province must be accepted by the participating communes. The provincial assembly would define the rights and obligations existing between communes and pass laws affecting the province as a whole. The composition of the provincial assembly would be decided on the basis of universal suffrage.

Further levels of political organization would be the national body, and, ultimately, the international assembly. As regards international organization, Bakunin proposed that there should be no permanent armed forces, preferring instead, the creation of local citizens’ defense militias. Disputes between nations and their provinces would be settled by an international assembly. This assembly, if required, could wage war against outside aggressors but should a member nation of the international federation attack another member, then it faces expulsion and the opposition of the federation as a whole.

Thus, from root to branch, Bakunin’s outline for anarchy is based upon the free federation of participants in order to maximize individual and collective well being.

Bakunin’s Relevance Today

Throughout most of this pamphlet Bakunin has been allowed to speak for himself and any views by the writer of the pamphlet are obvious. In this final section it might be valuable to make an assessment of Bakunin’s ideas and actions.

With the dominance of Marxism in the world labor and revolutionary movements in the twentieth century, it became the norm to dismiss Bakunin as muddle-headed or irrelevant. However, during his lifetime he was a major figure who gained much serious support. Marx was so pressured by Bakunin and his supporters that he had to destroy the First International by dispatching it to New York. In order that it should not succumb to Anarchism, Marx killed it off through a bureaucratic maneuver.

Now that Marxism has been seriously weakened following the collapse of the USSR and the ever increasingly obvious corruption in China, Bakunin’s ideas and revolutionary Anarchism have new possibilities. If authoritarian, state socialism has proved to be a child devouring monster, then libertarian communist ideas once again offer a credible alternative.

The enduring qualities of Bakunin and his successors are many, but serious commitment to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the state must rank high. Bakunin was much more of a doer than a writer, he threw himself into actual insurrections, much to the trepidation of European heads of state. This militant tradition was continued by Malatesta, Makhno, Durruti, and many other anonymous militants. Those so-called anarchists who adopt a gradualist approach are an insult to Anarchism. Either we are revolutionaries or we degenerate into ineffective passivism.

Bakunin forecast the dangers of statist socialism. His predictions of a militarized, enslaved society dominated by a Marxist ruling class came to pass in a way that even Bakunin could not have fully envisaged. Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin outstripped even the Tsars in their arrogance and brutality. And, after decades of reformist socialism which have frequently formed governments, Bakunin’s evaluations have been proved correct. In Britain we have the ultimate insult to working people in the form of “socialist Lords”. For services to capitalism, Labor MP’s are ultimately granted promotion to the aristocracy.

Bakunin fought for a society based upon justice, equality and freedom. Unlike political leaders of the left he had great faith in the spontaneous, creative and revolutionary potential of working people. His beliefs and actions reflect this approach. So, revolutionaries can learn much of value from his federalism, his militancy and his contempt for the state, which, in the twentieth century, has assumed gigantic and dangerous proportions, Bakunin has much to teach us but we too must develop our ideas in the face of new challenges and opportunities. We must retain the revolutionary core of his thought yet move forward. Such is the legacy of Bakunin.

With this in mind, the Anarchist Communist Federation is developing a revolutionary anarchist doctrine, which whilst being ultimately based on Bakunin’s ideas, goes much further to suit the demands of present-day capitalism. Ecological issues, questions of imperialist domination of the world, the massive oppression of women, the automation of industry, computerized technology etc. are all issues that have to be tackled. We welcome the challenge!



There are two main compilations of Bakunin’s works which are quite readily available through public libraries. They are “Bakunin on Anarchy” edited by Sam Dolgoff and “The Political Philosophy of Bakunin” edited by G.P. Maximoff. Also worth looking at, if you can get hold of them are “The Basic Bakunin – Writings 1869-1871” edited by Robert M. Cutler and “Mikhail Bakunin – From Out of the Dustbin”, edited by the same person.

For an understanding of the full profundity of Bakunin’s ideas, there is nothing to match “The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin” by Richard B Saltman. This American publication should be available through your local library.

Bakunin’s works currently available:

  • “God and the State”
  • “Marxism, Freedom and the State” (edited by K.J. Kenafik)
  • “The Paris Commune and the Idea of the State”
  • “Statism and Anarchy” (heavy going) ed. Marshall Shatz.

Updated News Digest October 18, 2008 1

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

Quote of the Week:

“For what is freedom? That one has the will to self-responsibility. That one maintains the distance which separates us. That one becomes more indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privation, even to life itself. That one is prepared to sacrifice human beings for one’s cause, not excluding oneself.

  • Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of “pleasure.” The human being who has become free — and how much more the spirit who has become free — spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior. —
  • How is freedom measured, in individuals as in nations? By the resistance which must be overcome, by the effort [Mühe] it costs to remain on top. The highest type of free men should be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude. This is true psychologically if by “tyrants” are meant inexorable and dreadful instincts that provoke the maximum of authority and discipline against themselves — most beautiful type: Julius Caesar — ; this is true politically too; one need only go through history. The nations which were worth something, became worth something, never became so under liberal institutions: it was great danger that made something of them that merits respect. Danger alone acquaints us with our own resources, our virtues, our armor and weapons, our spirit — and forces us to be strong …
  • First principle: one must need to be strong — otherwise one will never become strong. — Those large hothouses [Treibhäuser] for the strong, for the strongest kind of human being that has ever been, the aristocratic commonwealths of the type of Rome or Venice, understood freedom exactly in the sense in which I understand the word freedom: as something one has and does not have, something one wants, something one conquers …”

                                                                                       -Friedrich Nietzsche

War Criminals Are Becoming the Arbiters of Law by Paul Craig Roberts

World Cops by William Norman Grigg

Israel’s-and Only Israel’s-Right to Self-Defense by Paul Craig Roberts

An Imperial Strategy for the New World Order by Andrew Gavin Marshall

Reflections on the G20 Protests from Infoshop.Org

The Rich Have Stolen the Economy by Paul Craig Roberts

A Useful Guide for Freeing Your Mind by Kevin Carson

Obama’s War Without Borders by Michael Chossudovsky

The Nobel Police Prize by Jack Hunter

The Affirmative Action Nobel by Pat Buchanan

Defend the Free Market-Support the Strikers by Dave Chappell

The Smooth Operator from Chicago by John Pilger

The Silent Catastrophe by Jared Taylor

Welcome Back, Lenin by Paul Craig Roberts

Ignoble Prizes by Paul Gottfried

Thinking About Nietzsche by David Reid Saucier

The Real Stakes in Afghanistan by Dan Phillips

Fetishes for Tots? Folsom Street Fair Protest by Bay Area National Anarchists

American Worker Displacement Resumes by Edward Rubenstein

American Rebel: The Life of Clint Eastwood by David Thomson

Rolling Your Own Is Now Cool  by Shane Watson

Is Gun Control Racist? by Wilton Alston

Walter Block vs “Diversity” by Walter Block

Whatever Happened to Global Warming? by Paul Hudson

Economics and the Drug War by Bart Frazier

Backdoor Escalation by Justin Raimondo

Dianne Feinstein: War Profiteer by Justin Raimondo

My New Lincoln Book by Grant Havers (review by Paul Gottfried)

Nietzsche contra Christianity by Mark Hackard

Goodbye to All of That by Taki Theodoracopulos

In Praise of Anglo-Protestant Suicide by Lawrence Auster

The Swiss Resisted the Nazis, But Fell to the Americans by Lynnley Browning

Nazi New York City by Anthony Gregory

State-Inflicted Gang Violence by William Norman Grigg

Boycott FedEx!! by Spencer Hahn

America’s Youngest Criminal by David Kramer

Photos of Military Deaths in Afghanistan Banned by David Kramer

U.S. Soldier Jailed for Refusing to be Mercenary for Imperialism by Lew Rockwell

Rapist PIG by Bill Anderson

Obama’s Unrestrained FBI by Nat Hentoff

What Lies Beneath the War in Afghanistan by Eric Margolis

The Reverse-Midas Effect by Justin Raimondo

Stars and Garters in Afghanistan by Jeff Huber

Our Cheap Politicians  by Andrew Cockburn

Social Justice or Social War? from Infoshop.Org

Abandoning Women and Children by Nadia Hijab

The Republican Party Moves Leftward by Richard Hoste

Craig Bodeker Refutes the $PLC by Craig Bodeker

Global Warming and the 2nd Battle of Copenhagen by Pat Buchanan

Meet the New Healthcare Boss by Kevin Carson

The British National Party’s Aboriginal Problem by Derek Turner

Higher Interest Rates in Our Time by Richard Spencer

Obama Vs Fox News by Alexander Cockburn

Where $18 an Hour is Too Much by Carl Ginsburg

Barney Frank: The Bankers’ Consort by Ralph Nader

Agent Orange in Vietnam: Ignoring the Crime Before Our Eyes by Dave Lindorff

Why I Miss China by James L. Secor

The Scorched Earth Mindset of the International Banker by Stephen Martin

Killcullen’s Long War by Tom Hayden

Mumbai: The Horror of Gun Control by Benedict D. LaRosa

Academic Dishonesty by Walter Williams

Still Fanning the Flames of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Class War from Infoshop.Org

24-Hour General Strike from Infoshop.Org

“The Italians were called wops, the Jews were called hymies, I was of course a greaseball, and every Hispanic was a spic. Well, we all got along famously! It was rough, but it was fine.”

                                                                        -Taki Theodoracopulos

“The “clash of civilizations” is, in a very literal sense, a clash of God and Mammon. The Islamic revolutionaries are driven by a fanatical devotion to their god and the promises they believe he has made to them if only they take up arms on his behalf. The nations of the West are driven by an almost as fanatical devotion to Mammon, that is, to wealth, luxury, power, pleasure and privilege. Further, the culture of the West combines this unabashedly materialist ethos with rejection of strength and discipline in favor of a maternalistic emphasis on health, safety, “sensitivity”, “self-esteem”, “potential”, “personal growth”, “getting in touch with one’s inner child”, “feelings” and other concepts common to pop culture psychobabble. Of course, the socio-cultural ramifications of this is to create a society of weaklings, mediocrities and crybabies.”

                                                                                                   -Keith Preston

(hat tip to Chris Donnellan for the following links)

European-American Socialist Peoples’ Front

Male Rape in U.S. Prisons from Human Rights Watch

Psychiatry Extends Its Totalitarian Tendencies 

Neocon Lunatic John Bolton Suggests Nuclear Attack on Iran 

What is Paganism? 

Stop Boer Genocide 

Keep Your Laws Off My Guns 

National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee 

Ralph Nader Speaks 

The New Gangsterism 

American Veterans Movement (Partisans) 


A Nation of Sheep, Ruled by Wolves, Owned by Pigs

The Revolution Within Anarchism 

Forty Years in the Wilderness? 

Liberty and Populism: Building An Effective Resistance Movement for North America

Organizing the Urban Lumpenproletariat

Attack Is the Best Form of Defense by Johann Most

The Pittsburgh Proclamation by Johann Most

Majorities and Minorities by Errico Malatesta

The Question of Crime by Errico Malatesta