Great Stuff from Jeff Davis

Bilderbergers: No Longer a Taboo Subject?

by Jeff Davis

A profound American media taboo has been broken. The Drudge Report has said the forbidden “B” word out loud. The Times reports: “Across the world, secretaries to the rich and the powerful have blocked out the next three days in their bosses’ calendars for their annual gathering, this time at the Dolce in Sitges, one of Spain’s most exclusive resorts. Normally, every minute of their working lives is accounted for but, each year, a couple of hundred of the world’s financial elite and the more business-friendly members of the political class disappear from view… It is all terribly confidential — breathe a word about it and you’re out of the club — but the Bilderberg watcher Daniel Estulin claims to have a copy of the agenda. The big question this time around is whether the euro will survive. ‘They are afraid that the countries in trouble will leave and the euro will fall apart,’ said Mr Estulin. ‘The biggest nightmare is if EU members return to nationally orientated policies.’ ”

This of course would derail certain one-world policies supported by the Bilderbergers. It’s a bad start for them if they can’t even get the Greeks, Spanish and Germans to agree on one consistent economic policy.

The Times goes on: “Now…the Bilderbergers are nervous that the erosion of the euro could nudge the world back into recession while public services cuts could trigger unrest and radicalise the political climate…Henry Kissinger, 87, the former US Secretary of State, and David Rockefeller, 95, the former chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, are the elder statesmen of Bilderberg…” (more…)

June 3, 2010

Blacks and Ethics Don’t Mix

by Jeff Davis

A recent news article reports: “Stung by a series of inquiries, nearly half the members of the Congressional Black Caucus want to scale back the aggressive ethics procedures that Democrats trumpeted after gaining control of Congress. Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, and 19 fellow black lawmakers in the all-Democratic caucus quietly introduced a resolution last week that would restrict the powers of the new independent Office of Congressional Ethics. The office, formed by Congress in 2008, is run by a panel of private citizens. Since its inception, the ethics office has investigated at least eight black caucus members, including veteran Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., and five others in that group over privately funded trips to the Caribbean…The office, which doesn’t have the power to sanction lawmakers, essentially serves as an advisory board to the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, a congressional committee run by lawmakers who are charged with policing their colleagues.”

I suppose Ms. Fudge considers this an unreasonable number of investigations involving Blacks. The truth is that Blacks and corruption go hand in hand. A Black catapulted to an office where he’s in a position to take bribes will almost invariably take bribes.

Blacks simply do not understand that they’re committing thievery. If this sounds a bit harsh, consider the fact that literally millions of Blacks have gotten jobs and promotions thanks to racial quotas. Only Ward Connerly has had the honesty to admit that quotas are all about stealing jobs from Whites. Every Black, who takes a quota job, is a thief, stealing that job from a better qualified White person, whose entire life is affected –either put on hold for months or years waiting for another job or ruined as a house is foreclosed and a marriage falls apart.

Perhaps Ms. Fudge would prefer a review process that will be more inclined to sweep ethics charges under the rug. The article continues “The citizen-run ethics panel is far more open than the notoriously secretive standards committee, publicizing its referrals even when the standards committee finds no violations. Fudge’s proposal would remove that power, and allow lawmakers on the standards committee to seal from public view the ethics office’s findings on matters deemed meritless. The resolution also would make it harder for the ethics office to initiate investigations, requiring a sworn complaint from a citizen claiming personal knowledge of an alleged violation. That could prevent complaints from watchdog groups, for example. It would prevent the standards committee from taking a referral from the ethics office within 60 days before an election in which the subject of the case is a candidate.”

Given the ghastly track record of Black elected officials everywhere over the past 50 years, in everything from bribery and vote-buying on through outright theft and embezzlement, on up to jury tampering, rape, and murder, it’s hardly surprising that they’re trying to make it nearly impossible for an investigative committee to do anything –even one apparently set up by their own party.

Most Black elected officials simply can’t keep their fingers out of the cookie jar. It seems to be in their nature to steal any time they are put into a position where they can do so. Blacks as a whole simply cannot comprehend the idea of private property or moral obligation.

If Black elected officials object to the stigma of being exposed and indicted and convicted and expelled from office, then they why can’t they refrain from doing things that result in such inconveniences. The old saying “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime” seems to go right over their heads.

June 2, 2010

What Happened to the Republican Amnesty Traitors?

12 Republican Senators voted for an Amnesty Bill in 2007.

by James Buchanan

Back in 2007, the two-party system tried to shove through through an Amnesty Bill for an estimated 20 million illegal aliens. There were violent screams of protest from voters all across America. Some Senators were getting literally several hundred phone calls opposing the bill for every phone call supporting it. The volume and intensity of the response shocked many in the Senate into choosing the wiser course of action for their own preservation and voting down the Amnesty Bill (which stood no chance at all in the House anyway). Still, 46 Senators voted for the Amnesty Bill, completely ignoring the will of the people.

The Senate has betrayed the American people many times before. They completely ignored the will of the people when it came to NAFTA and GATT. It’s a safe bet that every piece of legislation that’s been passed in the last 20 years betrays the interests of the American people in favor of special interests. The Amnesty Bill however was an ultimate betrayal which would have greatly accelerated the transformation of America into a Third World nation. Years of betrayal have apparently given rise to the Tea Party movement and most of the Tea Party supporters don’t want America turned into a northern province of Mexico. (more…)

General George S. Patton was assassinated to silence his criticism of allied war leaders

General George S. Patton was assassinated to silence his criticism of allied war leaders claims new book

George S. Patton, America’s greatest combat general of the Second World War, was assassinated after the conflict with the connivance of US leaders, according to a new book.

General George S. Patton was assassinated to silence his criticism of allied war leaders claims new book

‘We’ve got a terrible situation with this great patriot, he’s out of control and we must save him from himself’. The OSS head General did not trust Patton

The newly unearthed diaries of a colourful assassin for the wartime Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA, reveal that American spy chiefs wanted Patton dead because he was threatening to expose allied collusion with the Russians that cost American lives.

The death of General Patton in December 1945, is one of the enduring mysteries of the war era. Although he had suffered serious injuries in a car crash in Manheim, he was thought to be recovering and was on the verge of flying home.

But after a decade-long investigation, military historian Robert Wilcox claims that OSS head General “Wild Bill” Donovan ordered a highly decorated marksman called Douglas Bazata to silence Patton, who gloried in the nickname “Old Blood and Guts”.

His book, “Target Patton”, contains interviews with Mr Bazata, who died in 1999, and extracts from his diaries, detailing how he staged the car crash by getting a troop truck to plough into Patton’s Cadillac and then shot the general with a low-velocity projectile, which broke his neck while his fellow passengers escaped without a scratch.

Mr Bazata also suggested that when Patton began to recover from his injuries, US officials turned a blind eye as agents of the NKVD, the forerunner of the KGB, poisoned the general.

Mr Wilcox told The Sunday Telegraph that when he spoke to Mr Bazata: “He was struggling with himself, all these killings he had done. He confessed to me that he had caused the accident, that he was ordered to do so by Wild Bill Donovan.

“Donovan told him: ‘We’ve got a terrible situation with this great patriot, he’s out of control and we must save him from himself and from ruining everything the allies have done.’ I believe Douglas Bazata. He’s a sterling guy.”

Mr Bazata led an extraordinary life. He was a member of the Jedburghs, the elite unit who parachuted into France to help organise the Resistance in the run up to D-Day in 1944. He earned four purple hearts, a Distinguished Service Cross and the French Croix de Guerre three times over for his efforts.

After the war he became a celebrated artist who enjoyed the patronage of Princess Grace of Monaco and the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

He was friends with Salvador Dali, who painted a portrait of Bazata as Don Quixote.

He ended his career as an aide to President Ronald Reagan’s Navy Secretary John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission and adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign.

Mr Wilcox also tracked down and interviewed Stephen Skubik, an officer in the Counter-Intelligence Corps of the US Army, who said he learnt that Patton was on Stalin’s death list. Skubik repeatedly alerted Donovan, who simply had him sent back to the US.

“You have two strong witnesses here,” Mr Wilcox said. “The evidence is that the Russians finished the job.”

The scenario sounds far fetched but Mr Wilcox has assembled a compelling case that US officials had something to hide. At least five documents relating to the car accident have been removed from US archives.

The driver of the truck was whisked away to London before he could be questioned and no autopsy was performed on Patton’s body.

With the help of a Cadillac expert from Detroit, Mr Wilcox has proved that the car on display in the Patton museum at Fort Knox is not the one Patton was driving.

“That is a cover-up,” Mr Wilcox said.

George Patton, a dynamic controversialist who wore ivory-handled revolvers on each hip and was the subject of an Oscar winning film starring George C. Scott, commanded the US 3rd Army, which cut a swathe through France after D-Day.

But his ambition to get to Berlin before Soviet forces was thwarted by supreme allied commander Dwight D. Eisenhower, who gave Patton’s petrol supplies to the more cautious British General Bernard Montgomery.

Patton, who distrusted the Russians, believed Eisenhower wrongly prevented him closing the so-called Falaise Gap in the autumn of 1944, allowing hundreds of thousands of German troops to escape to fight again,. This led to the deaths of thousands of Americans during their winter counter-offensive that became known as the Battle of the Bulge.

In order to placate Stalin, the 3rd Army was also ordered to a halt as it reached the German border and was prevented from seizing either Berlin or Prague, moves that could have prevented Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after the war.

Mr Wilcox told The Sunday Telegraph: “Patton was going to resign from the Army. He wanted to go to war with the Russians. The administration thought he was nuts.

“He also knew secrets of the war which would have ruined careers.

I don’t think Dwight Eisenhower would ever have been elected president if Patton had lived to say the things he wanted to say.” Mr Wilcox added: “I think there’s enough evidence here that if I were to go to a grand jury I could probably get an indictment, but perhaps not a conviction.”

Charles Province, President of the George S. Patton Historical Society, said he hopes the book will lead to definitive proof of the plot being uncovered. He said: “There were a lot of people who were pretty damn glad that Patton died. He was going to really open the door on a lot of things that they screwed up over there.”

Locust:

George S. Patton, Jr. is one of the most revered Generals in American history. Historians speculate that Patton could have won the war against Germany a year sooner. Of course, he would have had to step on a lot of toes to do such a thing – but Ol’ Blood and Guts didn’t give a damn. Several times he was considered insubordinate to commanding officers, his soldiers, and generally used the “f-word” as though it were some kind of holy blessing.

Patton’s offensives in Africa, Sicily, and France earned him the love of the American people and the fear of the Nazis. Patton marched at the front of offensives, even in the decisive Battle of the Bulge, where he was on the front lines with his soldiers. In German war councils, only Patton was referred
to by name, because of his ability to lead troops through overwhelming defenses to victory. Concentration camp inmates, even those who spoke no English, learned and sang a ditty, “Georgie Patton gonna set me free” to the consternation of their Nazi captors.

The Problems: But, Patton had problems. When the war was over, thousands of US POWs were “liberated” by the Soviets, an allied country at the time. About 20-25,000 of these men vanished into the USSR. Patton wanted our men returned, and was willing to fight Russia over them. Patton encouraged the US Army to continue its efforts east into Russia to reclaim these troops (who were eventually written off and forgotten). He had distrusted Stalin from the start. In fact during the war the Army had cut off Patton’s fuel supply to stop him from taking more of Germany, leaving it to the USSR. Patton then commandeered enemy fuel and still pressed forward hundreds of miles farther than he was allowed by his orders. Patton later warned Secretary of War Robert Patterson about Russia, saying “Let’s keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to the Red Army. This is the only language they understand and respect.”
Another problem was the Jewish question. Patton did not regard the Jews as a nation, but rather as a religion. He pointed out that Jews were citizens of many nations, like Catholics and Muslims. He opposed the idea of creating a homeland for what he considered to be a religion. Eisenhower had instructed Patton to remove German citizens from their homes, and give them to displaced Jewish people. Patton opposed this practice as being a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Meanwhile, President Truman was preparing two crucial documents: The first directive would give all displaced Jews property and homes – even at the expense of other displaced nationalities. The second directive would grant the Soviet Union control of much of Eastern Europe and other parts of the world. Patton continued to give warning against both of these directives, which weren’t officially enacted until the day after his death, December 22, 1945.

Rank: Eisenhower had outranked Patton during war, having been appointed Supreme Commander. At the end of the war Patton was in fact the highest ranking officer in the US Military. In peacetime the Armed Forces would fall under the authority of Patton. Eisenhower didn’t relish having Patton giving him orders.

Political office

There was widespread talk at home of Patton for President. This was bad news for the Democrats, because they had no comparable opponent. It was not good news for the Republicans though, because Patton was considered too stubborn and iron-willed to take orders from Wall Street and professional politicians. Thus, many factions viewed Patton as a threat.

Who Are The Suspects In The Death of General Patton?The Russians were in great dread of Patton, wondering whether he would continue to wage war and cross through their lines. They remained on “alert status” until his death. Patton wrote to his wife and others that when he returned to the US he was planning to retire from the Army and try his hand a politics as a Republican. No doubt he would have reported the Russian kidnapping of 25,000 American troops, and would have taken action. The full story of these lost men only started to emerge in the 1970s, and has been documented since the fall of the USSR.
Militant Zionists: Although nowadays we see the Israelis most often as victims of terrorism, there were Israeli terrorists in those days who agitated for a homeland. Patton was in 1945 their most powerful enemy in the Allied camp, by virtue of the respect he had in the US and abroad. The Jewish people had faced horrible atrocities in the war, and claimed to be a nation without a homeland. Patton argued that the Jewish people hadn’t been a country for two thousand years and were no longer a nationality, but a religion. This view was extremely unpopular in Washington as well.

Enemies at Home: Supreme Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower was about to lose his job to Patton, after the war was officially declared over. Eisenhower would become President of the US in the 50s, which would lead to the opening of the Cold War, the Korean Conflict, and Vietnam. Eisenhower, the O.S.S. (early CIA), and the Truman administration all saw Patton as an adversary.

The Mysterious Death: Patton was seriously injured on December 9th, 1945. He was riding in a jeep when it was apparently struck by another Army vehicle. The driver of the large truck that hit Patton and details were never disclosed. Patton did survive the crash. On the way to the hospital, Patton’s vehicle was then struck again by another two-ton Army truck. This time he was injured much more seriously, but still clung to life. Neither of these two truck drivers were arrested or even had their names disclosed. In June 1998, an elderly veteran came forward and claimed that he had witnessed the second accident The old soldier recalled that after the vehicles collided, Patton stumbled out. When the truck driver saw Patton still alive, he struck him several times with a 2 foot long pipe wrench. The cause of death is officially listed in Army medical records as embolism and heart failure. Reportedly, he asked his wife to remove him from the hospital because “They’re going to kill me here”. A year later Patton’s wife Beatrice died one week after announcing she would release hundreds of Patton’s personal papers regarding the war. An accomplished rider, she reportedly fell from her horse and died of a broken neck. Patton remains buried in Germany. The remains of this American hero were never brought to the US, and no autopsy was ever performed.

The Repercussions: “Ike” was elected. The Russians were able to create the “Iron Curtain” and spread communism throughout the world. This led to Vietnam and Korea. The Jewish people obtained a homeland at the cost of unending war in the middle east.

Exclusive: Thomas Jefferson on Hannity

Exclusive: Thomas Jefferson on Hannity

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/10/exclusive-thomas-jefferson-on-hannity.html
Tonight on Hannity — a world-exclusive, the first televised interview with Thomas Jefferson, third President of the United States.

Hannity: Sir, thank you so much for meeting with us. It’s a unique honor and privilege.

Jefferson: You’re welcome, young man. Your industrious society has created many marvels worthy of the American people.

Hannity: Mr. President, President Obama enters office with a huge amount of “hoopla” and an almost messianic belief that he can “heal the environment”, fix the economy, and solve problems like global terrorism. Is some sort of reckoning certain?

Jefferson: No man will ever carry out of the Presidency the reputation which carried him into it.

Hannity: His immense, trillion-dollar “stimulus” package puts control of the people’s money in the hands of a few central planners. What is your reaction to that strategy?

Jefferson: Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories… I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.

Hannity: So you are generally opposed to a top-down stimulus package and prefer that the spending decisions reside with the people who pay taxes?

Jefferson: I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

Hannity: What about Democrats’ tendency to grow the size of government and intrude in every aspect of our lives… from the New Deal’s entitlement programs, transportation, energy, health care, etc.?

Jefferson: My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

Hannity: And increasing taxes on the highest earners — the “progressive” income tax?

Jefferson: A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.

Hannity: How troubling is it that the amount of debt that the Federal Government is undertaking — combined with entitlement programs that are massively underfunded — means that we are passing huge amounts of debt to our children and grandchildren.

Jefferson: It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world… Never spend your money before you have earned it.

Hannity: What would you like to say to the those of our current leaders who are operating under ethical clouds: from Rangel, to Dodd, Murtha, Frank, Mollohan, Clinton, Geithner, Holder and Reid.

Jefferson: Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.

Hannity: You’ve seen one of my “man-in-the-street” interviews, where we ask random people simple questions about current events, like ‘who is the Vice President’? We found during the Obama campaign that many of those voting for him were completely uninformed and various surveys confirm that general ignorance about the man and his motives. Is that troubling?

Jefferson: If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

Hannity: Mr. President, what are your thoughts about President Obama basically ignoring Republican requests for a bi-partisanship approach to the stimulus package, stating “I won” and to get over themselves?

Jefferson: Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Hannity: The concept of welfare, where the state redistributes wealth to the poor even though many could easily work, has been statistically shown to increase single-parent families, a culture of dependency and crime. What are your thoughts on welfare?

Jefferson: Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.

Hannity: Moving to the First Amendment: this concept of blogging, where anyone can be a well-read author or pundit, is a new innovation for politics. Do you believe that blogging is a useful tool to promote Democracy?

Jefferson: Information is the currency of democracy… Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

Hannity: Interestingly enough, the whole newspaper business has suffered mightily with the rise of the Internet. Your reaction?

Jefferson: I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it.

Hannity: Regarding the Second Amendment, Barack Obama has historically opposed private ownership and possession of firearms. In fact, his home city of Chicago has onerous regulations that effectively prohibit guns altogether, yet the city has the highest number of murders per year of any state in the Union. Your thoughts?

Jefferson: No man shall be debarred the use of arms… Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state. For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security.

Hannity: How do you respond to Democrats who have made a variety of moves to revive the ill-named “Fairness Doctrine”, which threatens conservative free speech and which was already ruled unconstitutional once in our history?

Jefferson: I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man… It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others: or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own.

Hannity: Final question, sir. What about the Democrats’ massive dependency programs, entitlement programs, and efforts to censor free speech such as the “Fairness Doctrine”? Doesn’t this violate the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?

Jefferson: Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Hannity: Thank you so much for your valuable time, Mr. President.

Next on Greta, breaking news regarding some teen who killed some other teen on some island…

Note: Every Jefferson response is verbatim as reported by BrainyQuote. If statements were made at separate times, they are separated by an ellipsis when combined into a single response.
Fox News Ticker: Hijacked from from the brilliant People’s Cube.

Branding the 20th c. Totalitarian State

Iron Fists: Branding the 20th c. Totalitarian State


Posted by Creative Review

Socialist poster
“Glory to the great October!” A Russian poster commemorating the 1917 Revolution,
from Steven Heller’s new book, Iron Fists: Branding the 20th-Century Totalitarian State

In Iron Fists, an illustrated survey of totalitarian visual propaganda, Steven Heller offers an insight into the visual representations of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Communist USSR and China writes Katya Kan. Heller’s argument centres around the idea that totalitarian imagery is based on the potential of brand devotion. “Like any corporate identity campaign,” he writes, “the totalitarian regime demands the brand loyalty of its subjects.”

In his new book, Heller discusses how posters, magazines and advertisements were used within the visual systems of these dictatorships, alongside more formalistic elements such as typefaces and colour palettes…

Each chapter explores a particular aspect of the visual culture that surrounded these dictatorships (such as the autocrat’s persona as visual device) and looks at the design and branding strategies used to help enforce each regime. Heller draws a parallel between the imagery of advertising and that of dictatorships on the level of branding strategies: as in marketing or corporate branding, these systems indoctrinate the viewer and establish an allegiance to a particular institution. As Heller contends, the purpose of authoritarian propaganda is ideological, with one essential aim: to fortify the power of the dictator and their regime.

The Socialist Realist poster (above) establishes brand fealty for the Communist system through key Soviet trademarks: the hammer and sickle insignia embodies the alliance between the workers and peasants; and the Aurora battleship, that sounded the signal to storm the Winter Palace in 1917, is placed in the centre of the star (hence the line, “Glory to the great October!” commemorating the start of the Revolution).

Hitler Youth

This Nazi pamphlet from 1936 was intended for Hitler Youth (Hitler-Jugend) members. The illustration communicates brand loyalty via symbols including the swastika and the impactful ‘H’ and ‘J’ letters. Again, each of these elements promotes the Nazi autocracy endorsed by the contents of the booklet.

Heller also looks at the transposition of a dictators’ personal traits – a face, or even more specifically, Lenin’s goatee or Hitler’s moustache – onto public buildings. In reality, however, the four regimes examined viewed corporate branding in different ways. Lenin actually refrained from visual self-adulation as a means of enforcing his power. As Heller remarks: “[Lenin’s] concern with art was limited to practical matters.” Rejecting state branding, the dictator aspired towards classlessness and an external image of modesty. Nonetheless, Lenin’s followers deified him after his death. “As Lenin’s health declined, the appearance of his image increased,” Heller neatly observes.

Portrayals of Lenin also exploited discernible trademarks such as his plebeian hat. Lenin’s political successor, Stalin, in fact helped to initiate the cult of this first Soviet dictator. For example, photos and paintings of Lenin were hung in homes and offices in what were known as “Red Corners”. These reproductions immortalised the dictator’s image in the minds of the common people. Moreover, this leader cult reinforced Stalin’s authority, ensuring the continuation of Soviet totalitarianism.

Lenin poster

This photograph from 1967 features a poster of Lenin suspended on a department store in Moscow with pedestrians passing by. The portrait’s enormity – compared to the size of the pedestrians – glorifies Lenin as a leader. Moreover, the stars on the building also embody the standard symbols of Soviet domination.

In contrast to Lenin, Hitler overtly manipulated his outer identity to drive his leadership cult. Heller writes: “Hitler’s image was designed to become the face of the Nazi state.” He presented himself as the nation’s guardian and was influenced by the principles of Peter Behrens, a pioneer of corporate identity. Hitler also depicted himself as a man of the people in his visual propaganda. For instance, he was frequently portrayed as stroking dogs and receiving flowers from young women. He then created the emblematic Nazi salute by combining Mussolini’s Roman salute with the greeting “hail to Hitler”. This infamous salute came to represent incontestable loyalty towards Hitler and the Nazi party. Indeed, through cultivating this positive self-image, Hitler was able to achieve an intimate connection with the German people.

Hitler pamphlet

This brochure from 1936 (cover shown, above), illustrated by Ludwig Hohlwein, advertises a Nazi sporting event. On a formalistic level, Hitler and his subordinates are painted in warm colours – in the reds and browns of their uniforms – whereas the background is infused with cold shades of blue. As warm colours are traditionally associated with optimism in Western iconography, the brochure’s design again attempts to generate a positive perception of the Führer.

Overall, Heller’s book is a fascinating study of the power inherent in symbols and visual branding – and, moreover, how that power bears the potential to be abused to terrible ends.

Iron Fists, published by Phaidon Press, is available now; £45

Iron Fists cover

We Will Win

We Will Win

The Case for Optimism

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/left-right/we-will-win/

Thinkers of the Right often tend towards pessimism because, as Carl Schmitt noted, “all genuine political theories presuppose man to be evil.” Consequently, many on our side see a future where our civilization continues to devolve into something resembling a multicultural, feminist, pornographic, New Age rendition of totalitarianism, to be followed by complete dispossession generated by demographic overrun.  While prevailing trends may at present lend themselves to such a conclusion, there is every reason to believe this state of affairs will eventually be reversed in our favor.

Recall that the repentant Communist Whittaker Chambers told the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1948: “I know that I am leaving the winning side for the losing side. . .but it is better to die on the losing side than to live under Communism.” Such was the perspective of many on the Right during the decades of the Cold War. But there were others, ranging from Lawrence Dennis to George Kennan to Ludwig von Mises, who begged to differ and regarded Communism as an aberration and deformation that would eventually meet its end. History proved these optimists to be correct, and forty years later it was Communism that was dead. It is likely forty years from now that the paradigm of military Keynesianism, welfare-capitalism, and what some have characterized as “Cultural Marxism” (though my preferred term for this phenomenon is “totalitarian humanism“) that rules the present day West will likewise be deceased or in severe retreat.

Contemporary cultural, demographic, and generational trends in the United States indicate that the liberal coalition that emerged victorious with the election of Barack Obama in 2008 will continue to be dominant in the decades ahead. I have written about the reasons for that elsewhere. Yet this coalition will prove to be an unstable one over the long haul. The simple fact is that present day liberal ideology and liberalism’s core constituent groups contain within themselves certain contradictions that will eventually prove to be fatal. There is simply no way that an agglomeration of affluent liberal whites, underclass blacks and Hispanics, affirmative action-babies, feminists, gay militants, transsexuals, Third World immigrants, atheists, Muslims, hipster youth, traditional blue collar workers, state-connected labor unions, Jewish plutocrats, environmentalists, and the left-wing of the traditional WASP elite, with each of these attempting to get their pieces of the pie distributed by the managerial-therapeutic-multicultural-welfare state, can be politically durable on an indefinite basis. The only thing that unites this coalition is hostility to traditional Western culture and a desire for more freebies courtesy of the state. While this coalition will indeed continue to become more powerful and its values more deeply entrenched in institutions in the short term, over the long term it will self-cannibalize and collapse due to its own internal contradictions and fractious nature.

American partisan cycles tend to run for thirty-five to forty years and then decline. For example, from the time of the assuming of the presidency by William McKinley until the end of the administration of Herbert Hoover, the Republicans were the dominant party in U.S. politics (with the horrid exception of Woodrow Wilson). From the election of FDR in 1932 until the end of the 1960s the Democrats were the prevailing party. From 1968 until Obama, the Republicans were once again dominant. It likely that the Democrats will continue to be the preeminent party until the middle of the century begins to approach and then be eclipsed by a new political coalition. The great wild card in all of this is that the time the present partisan cycle will be winding down will be precisely the same time the demographic transformation from a majority white nation to a collection of minorities is expected to occur. Those readers who will still be alive during those years should expect some interesting times. As political correctness becomes more deeply rooted in Western institutions, it will have fewer qualms about showing its fangs. That will be its undoing. Pablo Picasso said: “I went to Communism as one goes to a spring of fresh water.” To this, Arthur Koestler replied: “I went to Communism as one goes to a spring of fresh water, and I left Communism as one clambers out of a poisoned river strewn with the wreckage of flooded cities and the corpses of the drowned.” As political correctness tightens its grip and demographic overrun becomes ever more imminent, I predict many a former liberal will undergo an 11th hour awakening and come to their senses. Expect a resurrection of the ghost of Pim Fortuyn when that happens.

Communism failed because at a primary level it attempted to deny the realities of human nature. As the late, great avant-garde composer, blues/rock/jazz guitarist and iconoclast Frank Zappa once remarked, “Communism doesn’t work because people like to own stuff.” Likewise, multiculturalism will not work out in the long run because human beings are by nature tribal creatures. Feminism will implode because males and females have different biological destinies and therefore different social destinies. Egalitarianism and universalism will not survive because differentiation and otherness are endemic parts of what it means to be human. Russia and the nations of Eastern Europe survived Soviet Marxism. China survived Maoism. Western Europe and the Anglo-sphere will survive Cultural Marxism.

//

Article Info

Keith Preston

Keith Preston

Keith Preston is the chief editor of AttacktheSystem.Com and holds graduate degrees in history and sociology. He was awarded the 2008 Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize by the United Kingdom’s Libertarian Alliance for his essay, “Free Enterprise: The Antidote to Corporate Plutocracy.”

Together facing the new totalitarianism

MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man’s domination of woman, the Islamists’ domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of “Islamophobia”, an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

12 signatures

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq

UPDATE:

The German blog Politically Incorrect has translated and published the manifesto in German, along with a graphic of the signatories:

islamcartoonsmanifsignweb8ax Muhammad Caricature Watch: Manifesto Against ISLAMISM - Updated

Thanks to Michelle Malkin who has A MANIFESTO AGAINST ISLAMISM

The New Totalitarianism

The New Totalitarianism

by Keith Preston
by Keith Preston


DIGG THIS

<!–//<![CDATA[ var m3_u = (location.protocol=='https:'?'https://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ajs.php&#039;:'http://adserve.lewrockwell.com/www/delivery/ajs.php&#039;); var m3_r = Math.floor(Math.random()*99999999999); if (!document.MAX_used) document.MAX_used = ','; document.write (""); //]]>–>

Regular readers of LRC are no doubt familiar with the criticisms of Marxism to be found within the classical liberal, traditional conservative and modern libertarian intellectual traditions. However, I come from another tradition that contains within itself those thinkers who were among the very first to recognize what the proponents of authoritarian, statist socialism were up to. Who would the reader suppose was the author who characterized the Jacobins, Blanquists and Marxists as those who would “…reconstruct society upon an imaginary plan, much like the astronomers who for respect for their calculations would make over the system of the universe…”?1 Ludwig von Mises? Friedrich August von Hayek? Murray Rothbard? No, it was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first thinker to ever call himself an anarchist. Who would one suspect of issuing the following critique of Marxism?

“The expression of ‘learned socialist’, ‘scientific socialism’…which continually appear in the speeches and writings of the followers of …Marx, prove that the pseudo-People’s State will be nothing but a despotic control of the population by a new and not at all numerous aristocracy of real and pseudo scientists. The ‘uneducated’ people will be totally relieved of the cares of administration and will be treated as a regimented herd. A beautiful liberation indeed!”2

This prediction of the logical outcome of state-run economies predates the “new class” theory pioneered by the likes of Max Nomad, George Orwell and James Burnham by nearly a century. Its author is the renegade Russian aristocrat and number-one rival of Karl Marx, the classical anarchist godfather Mikhail Bakunin. And nearly one hundred fifty years before the venerable Professor Hans Hermann Hoppe published his thoroughly radical and compelling critique of the modern deification of “democracy,” Proudhon said of the mindset similar to that exhibited by those whom Lew Rockwell has characterized as “red state fascists”:

“…because of this ignorance of the primitiveness of their instincts, of the urgency of their needs, of the impatience of their desires, the people show a preference toward summary forms of authority. The thing they are looking for is not legal guarantees, of which they do not have any idea and whose power they do not understand, they do not care for intricate mechanisms or for checks and balances for which, on their own account, they have no use, it is a boss in whose word they confide, a leader whose intentions are known to the people and who devotes himself to its interests, that they are seeking. This chief they provided with limitless authority and irresistible power. Inclined toward suspicion and calumny, but incapable of methodical discussion, they believe in nothing definite save the human will.”

“Left to themselves or led by their tribunes the masses never established anything. They have their face turned backwards; no tradition is formed among them; no orderly spirit, no idea which acquires the force of law. Of politics they understand nothing except the element of intrigue; of the art of governing, nothing except prodigality and force; of justice nothing but mere indictment; of liberty, nothing but the ability to set up idols which are smashed the next morning. The advent of democracy starts an era of retrogression which will ensure the death of the nation…”3

Having been an adherent of the classical anarchist outlook for nearly two decades and a participant, whether directly or peripherally, in the culture of the radical Left during that time, my own political background has given me some important insights into what is going on politically in our country and in Western civilization today.

The New Totalitarianism

Historically, classical liberals, libertarians, traditionalist conservatives, classical anarchists and, quite frequently, religious believers and even dissident socialists have fervently resisted the onslaught of the greatest evil of modernity, that of the totalitarian state. Though I am a traditional Bakuninist anarchist and most of those reading this are likely in the libertarian, paleoconservative, classical liberal or anarcho-capitalist camps, most of us would no doubt agree that the state and the concentrated power it represents is among the gravest threats to human life, liberty, culture and civilization. Therefore, we have reason to value one another. Most of us are instinctively inclined to associate the totalitarian state with the ideology of Marxism. Given that the concept of state-directed “command” economies has fallen into intellectual disrepute in recent decades, some are inclined to regard Marxism as having been relegated to the garbage heap of once prevalent but now discarded intellectual frameworks in the same manner as Zeus worship or the Ptolemaic model of the universe. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Orthodox Marxists, particularly Stalinists, were in their heyday fond of referring to heretics within their own ranks as “revisionists.” Enver Hoxha’s polemics against the “de-Stalinized” Communist parties of Western Europe in the 1960s and 1970s come to mind. Yet, the branch of Marxist “revisionism” that should be of the most concern to us today is that whose roots can be traced to the Frankfurt School of the 1930s and its subsequent influence on the so-called “New Left” of the 1960s. Fortunately, LRC’s own regular contributor William Lind has elsewhere summarized the foundations of this system of thought, thereby saving me the trouble of having to do so. Says Mr. Lind:

“We call it ‘Political Correctness.’ The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, it’s deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious. If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious. First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted ‘victims’ groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges – some star-chamber proceeding – and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole…

…What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it can’t be done, that we can’t imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we’re living under repression – the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s…

…These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldn’t just get out there and say, ‘Hell no we won’t go,’ they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.”

When I first read the transcript of Mr. Lind’s lecture, I was reminded of the following passage from the autobiography of 1960s counterculture icon Abbie Hoffman, describing the scene at a speech given by Herbert Marcuse during the late 1960s:

“Marcuse was, with the exception of Maslow, the teacher who had the greatest impact on me. I studied with him at Brandeis, and later attended his lectures at the University of California. In the spring of ’67, I saw him speaking-of all places-at the Fillmore East. There he was, this statuesque, white-haired seventy-year old European Marxist scholar, following the Group Image acid-rock band onto the stage, accompanied by the thunderous foot-stomping cheers of America’s most stoned-out, anti-intellectual generation….Ben Motherfucker, leader of the Lower East Side’s most nefarious street gang, spat on the floor, raised his fist, and exclaimed, “Dat cat’s duh only fuckin’ brain worth listnin’ to in de cuntree!”4

Of course, this eerie scene resembles nothing quite so much as a sixties counterculture version of the Nuremberg Rallies. The reader may be wondering what such an obscure bit of American folk history has to do with contemporary world politics. To understand the significance of what I have described here, we need to examine some further developments in American political history.

The Sixty-Eighters, Totalitarian Humanism and Liberal-Nazism

The radicals of the 1960s were first and foremost proponents of a cultural revolution. Though theirs might not have been quite so brutal as the “cultural revolution” going on in China at the same time, it was a cultural revolution nevertheless. During the First Gulf War of 1990–91, I became involved with what passed for an antiwar movement at the time and I once put the question to a then–middle-aged veteran of the antiwar Left of the sixties, a former member of the Students for a Democratic Society, of what he thought his generation had actually achieved, given that the US empire and its imperialist wars seemed to still be going strong. He reflected on the question for a moment and then replied that the problem with sixties radicalism was that it was a cultural movement, primarily involved with questions of race, gender, ecology, sexuality and the like, and had achieved great victories in those areas, but had achieved virtually nothing in the realms of politics, economics or foreign policy. Therefore, the US empire that emerged during the early Cold War period remained intact and largely unscathed, in spite of the upheavals of the 1960s.

That is exactly right. The cultural left of the sixties has since gone on to become largely the status quo. Many people no doubt wonder whatever happened to the hippies, the student radicals, the antiwar protestors of that time. Where are they today? Shouldn’t they be more visible given the similarties of that time to the present time? Dr. Tomislav Sunic provides a partial answer with this description of what has since transpired:

“Back then, the 68ers had cultural power in their hands, controlling the best universities and spreading their permissive sensibility. Students were obliged to bow down to the unholy trinity of Marx, Freud, and Sartre, and the humanities curriculum showed the first signs of anti-Europeanism. Today, the 68ers (or ‘neo-liberals’ or social democrats) have grown up, and they have changed not only their name, but also their habitat and their discourse. Their time has come: Now they hold both cultural and political power. From Buenos Aires to Quai d’Orsay, from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to 10 Downing Street, they sit in air-conditioned executive offices or in ministerial cabinets, and they behave as if nothing has changed. Perfectly recycled in stylish Gucci suits, wearing expensive Bally shoes, sporting fine mascara, the 68ers pontificate about the global free market. They have embraced their former foe, capitalist entrepreneurship, and have added to it the fake humanistic facade of socialist philanthropy…

…They have drawn up a hit list, filled with the names of senile individuals from distant countries who have been accused of ‘war crimes’ and must be extradited to the 68ers’ kangaroo courts. Seldom, if ever, do they acknowledge the millions of victims of communism, documented recently by Stephane Courtois in Le livre noire du communisme. Nor do they wish to face their own role in communist genocide. And why should they? Their decades-long civil disobedience resulted in the downplaying of communist horror and legitimized the Gulag. While the 68ers did not play a direct role in Beria’s, Yagoda’s, or Tito’s ethnic cleansing, they were useful idiots. If today’s caviar left were to open the Pandora’s box of the Gulag, Augusto Pinochet would look like a naughty little scout from boot camp. The best way to cover up their own murderous past is to sing the hymns of human rights and to lecture on the metaphysics of permanent economic progress…

…The 68ers and their well-clad cronies are the financial insiders now, speculating on stocks, never hesitating to transfer megabucks to Luxembourg via the Cayman Islands or, better yet, to do some hidden wheeling and dealing on Wall Street. They no longer spout nonsense about equality and social justice for the Vietcong, Congolese, or Tibetans, nor do they indulge in academic rantings about socialist utopia. And why should they? Today, the time is ripe for their gross corruption, veiled, of course, in the incessant rhetoric of multiculturalism. The 68ers have won: The world belongs to them.

…The political power held today by the former 68ers is being institutionalized through legal restrictions on freedom of speech, of thought, and of research. Germany, Belgium, France, and other European countries have already passed strict laws forbidding young scholars to pursue open and honest research in certain touchy areas of modem history. Passages from the German Criminal Code bring to mind the Soviet comrade Vishinsky: They are not what we expect of a free and democratic country. ”

By quoting these passages, what I am trying to do is illustrate my core argument. Simply put, what I am really saying is that now that the radicals of the sixties have gotten older, greyer and wealthier, they have gone on to form a new kind of cultural and intellectual establishment, largely by securing their own dominance within the worlds of academia, media and entertainment. Further, the end result of this dominance has been that this new Cultural Left Establishment has formed an alliance with the older, pre-existing political, economic and military establishment. What the proponents of the sixties cultural revolution have, in essence, done is rather than overthrow the US empire, they have seized control of that empire and are using it for their own purposes, which may or may not overlap with the interests of the older establishment. The creeping totalitarianism we see evolving today is an outgrowth of Marxism, not necessarily in the orthodox socialist sense, but in the re-application of Marxist theory to cultural matters, where the ‘official victims’ of Western civilization replace the proletariat as the focus of a dualistic struggle for political power. The emerging ideology of the Western, particularly American, ruling classes can, I believe, be described as follows:

  1. Militarism, Imperialism and Empire in the guise of ‘human rights’, ‘democracy’, modernity, universalism, feminism and other leftist shibboleths.
  2. Corporate Mercantilism (or ‘state-capitalism’) under the guise of ‘free trade’.
  3. In domestic policy, what I call ‘totalitarian humanism’ whereby an all-encompassing and unaccountable bureaucracy peers into every corner of society to make sure no one anywhere, anyplace, anytime ever practices ‘racism, sexism, homophobia’, smoking, ‘sex abuse’ or other such leftist sins.
  4. In the realm of law, a police state ostensibly designed to protect everyone from terrorism, crime, drugs, guns, gangs or some other bogeyman of the month.

The kind of state that proponents of this new ideology envision is one where the purpose of local government is to enforce leftist orthodoxy against competing institutions (like families, religions, businesses, unions, clubs, other associations), the purpose of national government is to enforce leftism against local communities, and the purpose of foreign policy is to enforce leftism against “backward” or “reactionary” traditional societies. If you think I’m exaggerating, check this out.

Rather than the traditional divide of Left and Right, I would regard the core aspect of contemporary political struggles to be the battle between those who support the paradigm described above (whose ranks include most liberals and leftists obviously, but also many so-called “conservatives,” “libertarians” and others as well) and those who reject this paradigm, whose ranks amount to a divergent collection of dissidents from a variety of ideologies.

It should also be pointed out that the old-guard Marxists, even the Stalinists, only took their egalitarianism so far. Their professed aims were limited to the ostensible equality of wealth among the social classes and, in some instances, political equality of racial and ethnic groups. They did not nearly go so far as to attack the long list of “isms,” “archies” and “phobias” (for instance, “looksism,” “phallocracy”” or “transphobia”) so reviled by today’s leftoids, nor did they typically advocate equality of looks, weight, ability, intelligence or even species (hence, the modern leftist infatuation with concepts ranging from “grade inflation” to virtual prohibition of so-called “fatty foods” to giving animals legal rights approximating those of humans). Nor did they advocate ending race and gender oppression by simply abolishing races and genders. Indeed, the contemporary leftist obsession with both race and health under the banner of multiculturalism and the therapeutic state calls to mind the other great totalitarian ideology of the twentieth century. One shudders to think what will happen when these elements gain control of a more fully developed genetic engineering technology and subsequently combine this with emerging surveillance technologies. An increasing popular concept in leftist academic circles is the notion of “whiteness” which, as might be expected, is typically used as a term of opprobrium. Indeed, one of the more extreme proponents of “whiteness” theory maintains a website whose masthead reads “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” To understand the implications of this slogan, one need only remove the term “whiteness” and replace it with “Jewishness.”

Secessionism and the Breakdown of the State

Unfortunately for the cultural Marxists but quite fortunately for the rest of humanity, these new proponents of Liberal-Nazism are quite likely to fail in their endeavors to remake the world in the image of the sociology department of an American university. Martin Van Creveld’s important scholarship on the history and likely future of the state indicates that all around the world states are breaking down and the nation-state system that first arose in Europe during the High Middles Ages is reaching its geriatric years. I think the best bet for our political salvation would probably be an alliance of local and regional secession movements, with each of these maintaining various cultural, ideological, religious, ethnic or economic sub-tendencies within themselves. For instance, there can be fundamentalist Christian enclaves in South Carolina and homosexual enclaves in San Francisco, ‘militiaman’ enclaves in Texas and Nation of Islam enclaves in the large cities. The early individualist anarchist and pioneer feminist Voltairine de Cleyre regarded philosophical anarchism as the logical extension of the American tradition of Jeffersonian liberalism and decentralism. Ms. De Cleyre advocated an “anarchism without adjectives” whereby society would operate as a collection of voluntary communities independent of “one size fits all” utopian pipe dreams for the remaking of mankind. A contemporary left-anarchist, Kirkpatrick Sale, continues this tradition. Says Mr. Sale:

“I am convinced, believe it or not, that secession-by-state where the state is cohesive (the model is Vermont, where the secessionist movement is the Second Vermont Republic), or by region where that makes more sense (Southern California or Cascadia are the models here), is the most fruitful objective for our political future. Peaceful, orderly, popular, democratic, and legal secession would enable a wide variety of governments, amenable to all shades of the anti-authoritarian spectrum, to be established within a modern political context. Such a wide variety, as I see it, that if you didn’t like the place you were, you could always find a place you liked.”

It’s been amusing to observe the irrational hostility I’ve gotten from Leftists by arguing for this idea of liberty fostered by decentralized particularism. Recently, I was booted from a “libertarian” discussion list owned by a transsexual prostitute for “advocating common action with racists and reactionaries” – which, of course, amounts to Satan worship in the theology of Leftism. Within the subculture of the present day radical Left, I am widely regarded as a kind of “neo-fascist.” This is in spite of the fact that the majority of my political views are to the left of the Green Party. If Lincoln responded to the efforts of previous secessionists with an iron fist, one can only imagine the lengths the Totalitarian Humanists and Liberal-Nazis will go to in order to subjugate those who would resist being rendered to the status of pawns for their fulfillment of their psychopathic fantasies.

Notes

  1. Dolgoff, Sam. The Relevance of Anarchism to Modern Society; (Minneapolis, Soil of Liberty, 1979).
  2. Bakunin, Mikhail. Critique of the Marxist Theory of the State. Cited in “The Heretic’s Handbook of Quotations,” Charles Bufe, Editor; (San Francisco: See Sharp Press, 1988), p. 56.
  3. Cited in Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Erik von. Liberty or Equality.
  4. Hoffman, Abbie. Soon to be a Major Motion Picture. (New York: Perigee Books, 1980), p. 84–85.

January 22, 2007

Keith Preston [send him mail] is a long-time radical writer and activist from Richmond, Virginia. See his website.