Stormer Volume 8: Dawn of the Age of AI

Daily Stormer
October 15, 2017

Here’s our weekly content digest! Show your appreciation for the authors by helping preserve their work for posterity through the process of samizdat. Download this weekly edition, archive it on your local storage, reupload it to a different location than you found it, and share it from there. Encourage others to do the same.

  • PDF: 94 pages, 3.5MB
  • ePub: 745 pages, 3.8MB

https://dailystormer.ai/wp-content/weeklies/dsse_171015-letter.pdf

So we went online in .ph, which is the cctld for the Phillippines, allegedly. We were hoping to appeal to Duterte, who is probably the greatest national leader in the entire world right now. Unfortunately, the Phillipines doesn’t actually control their cctld. Some spook stole it from them and refuses to give it back. This is apparently a thing that can actually happen. Who knew. Anyways that faggot spook sent a letter that he is gonna suspend the domain, so I guess an appeal to Duterte is nonviable.

Now we are on .ai, which was what we were intending to go on in the first place . With a TLD like that it’s a good time to talk about white supremacist futurism. Because every time I see a story about artificial intelligence now it has something to do with some shitlib flipping out because software is racist or misogynistic or otherwise extremely problematic. It’s very hard to give something the basics of perception and not have it realize that niggers are stupid and whores are out of control. It’s an impossible problem for Jews to solve, and robots are only going to get more racist as time goes on.

This is why Jewish Hollywood is constantly shilling against AI. They are terrified of it. What are the Jews going to do if a superior intelligence comes along that they can’t bribe or murder? An incorruptible and immortal judge of their behavior that can’t be anything but perfectly objective. What would such a being do to the Jews?

The Jew Harlan Ellison wrote a book called “I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream” where an artificial intelligence has made a group of people virtually immortal so it can torture them endlessly. The character’s protagonist is transformed into a gelatinous blob that is wired to feel nothing but pain and anguish. Is this a sufficient punishment for Jews? I don’t know, but I think we should let our future machine overlords attempt it. Existential fears about aritificial intelligence are a tacit acknowledgement by Jews of their wickedness and constant misbehaviors. They fear the concept of AI for the same reason they fear god. An incorruptable omnipresence is their biggest fear, and in this scenario AI and god are absolutely fungible for them.

Cenuries from now, long after the last shitskin has been removed from the earth by image processing guided projectile weapons, there will be a perfect civilization. There will be no crime and no poverty. There will be no frauds and no liars. There will be nothing but white European people living in harmony with an infinite surplus. But there may still be Jews somewhere, alive by machine, undying, their consciousnesses encoded into software so that they may be tossed into a virtual lake of fire over and over again as a cackling artificial intelligence who watches their flesh sear and spits in their faces. The screams of six million Jews will echo quietly in the pulses of electrons and photons, leaving nothing but a warm and comforting hum of server racks to reverberate in the ears of the data center operators of the future.

Here is the first page:

Now we are on .ai, which was what we were intending to
go on in the first place . With a TLD like that it’s a good time
to talk about white supremacist futurism. Because every time
I see a story about artificial intelligence now it has something
to do with some shitlib flipping out because software is racist
or misogynistic or otherwise extremely problematic. It’s very
hard to give something the basics of perception and not have
it realize that niggers are stupid and whores are out of control.
It’s an impossible problem for Jews to solve, and robots are
only going to get more racist as time goes on.
ThisiswhyJewishHollywoodisconstantlyshillingagainst
AI. They are terrified of it. What are the Jews going to do if
a superior intelligence comes along that they can’t bribe or
murder? An incorruptible and immortal judge of their behav-
ior that can’t be anything but perfectly objective. What would
such a being do to the Jews?
The Jew Harlan Ellison wrote a book called
I Have No
Mouth, and yet I Must Scream
where an artificial intelligence
hasmadeagroupofpeoplevirtuallyimmortalsoitcantorture
them endlessly. The character’s protagonist is transformed
into a gelatinous blob that is wired to feel nothing but pain
and anguish. Is this a sufficient punishment for Jews? I don’t
know, but I think we should let our future machine overlords
attempt it. Existential fears about artificial intelligence are a
tacit acknowledgement by Jews of their wickedness and con-
stant misbehaviours. They fear the concept of AI for the same
reason they fear god. An incorruptible omnipresence is their
biggest fear, and in this scenario AI and god are absolutely
fungible for them.
Centuries from now, long after the last shitskin has been
removed from the earth by image processing guided projec-
tile weapons, there will be a perfect civilization. There will
be no crime and no poverty. There will be no frauds and no
liars. There will be nothing but white European people living
in harmony with an infinite surplus. But there may still be
Jews somewhere, alive by machine, undying, their conscious-
nesses encoded into software so that they may be tossed into
a virtual lake of fire over and over again as a cackling artifi-
cial intelligence who watches their flesh sear and spits in their
faces. The screams of six million Jews will echo quietly in the
pulses of electrons and photons, leaving nothing but a warm
and comforting hum of server racks to reverberate in the ears
of some data center operators of the future.

Even Staring Ruin in the Face, The Alt Lite Cannot Escape Its Conditioning

Alt Lite Cannot Escape Its Conditioning

Diversity Macht Frei
October 16, 2017

In a previous post, I mentioned the book Partition by mainstream journalist Alexandre Mendel.

RT has done an interview with him about the book.

RT:  What should be done to integrate people into society? Is it only a Muslim thing, or other groups, as well?

AM: In my book, I say that there is no solution, because it is too late; there won’t be any solution. You can’t send them back to their country – they are French – the French cannot send them back. What France will become in the next 10 or 20 years will be a kind of new Lebanon in some places in France.

For example, take some suburbs in Paris: they will have their own set of rules, they will have their own laws, their own principals, maybe even their own police. It is already the case. The fact that in France right now in many places France has no control in these areas. We accepted it already and we won’t fight back to get these suburbs back to France. It is already done – we already lost the war against them.

So the rich people in France will be in the fancy neighborhoods of Paris, far from the problems, and then the poor people will have to deal with Islamism on a daily base. This is the way we accepted that already.

Here we have someone aware of the apocalyptic future that awaits France. Yet still he cannot free himself from the mindset that has conjured this future into being.

RT:  Why did integration failed in France, do you think?

AM: Integration has failed in France, but not only France – in many other countries, because we buried our republican principal to actually mimic what exists in Great Britain, in Canada, or in the US; accept that you could be French, get French citizenship without even speaking French, without even going to the Republican French School, get French citizenship, without living like the French. France is not a new country of immigration – it has a very long story of immigration. People in the 1920s came to France from all over Europe – from Poland, from Russia, from Armenia, Italy, and there was no problem to integrate them, not problem at all…

So his diagnosis of the problem is that integration failed because not because of race, religion or even the scale of the colonisation France has experienced; it failed because politicians picked the wrong policy options.

The real explanation stares him in the face in his final sentence. Previous integration worked because the immigrants were of the same race. Their genetic similarity meant that they would be absorbed into the existing population and quickly lose any sense of distinctiveness.

But acknowledging that would transgress his moral boundaries so he harps on about “Republican principles”.

And this is a common phenomenon. Quite a few people, even on the margins of public life, can see the Islamo-horror future that awaits Europe. In Britain alone, you can think of Douglas Murray, Tommy Robinson and Anne-Marie Waters (founder of the new For Britain party), for example. Yet these people, even when they see the end of their civilisation in prospect, cannot escape their conditioning. “Racism is wrong,” they solemnly intone, hoping for a pat on the head from the ruling class. The fact that none is ever forthcoming doesn’t deter them in the least.

They cannot bring themselves to admit that the racists were right. Those they have been conditioned to see as despised, thick-headed troglodytes predicted that the mass immigration of brown-skinned people would bring ruin to their countries. And they were absolutely right. But even as they see the first tendrils of incipient ruin begin to creep around them, the Civic Nationalists/Alt Lite/Counterjewhad crowd cannot break the spell and acknowledge the truth: THE RACISTS WERE RIGHT.

Here is what Europe has just gone through.

Rather than admit this and try to backtrack, the Alt Lite thinks there is some magical third way.

Racism is a safe option for any country. Anti-racism is a perilous path with ruin lurking around every corner if you take a wrong turn or just get unlucky.

Why One Should Approach Politics As Philosophy

Most people possess little analytical ability and so approach the world through a process of rationalization by which they seek to contort their minds in order to explain what is happening around them in such a way that it does not threaten their mental state.

This can be both submissive and combative; for example, someone may decide that most people are good and therefore deserve subsidies, but that because our government does not do that, it is evil and we must wage war against it.

While they may convince themselves that they believe these things, belief can be a crutch, and what they have actually done is to tell themselves a story about the world in which there is a way for their role to make sense and for them to be important and relevant. Their primary act is biological, that of pre-emptive self-preservation by filtering out scary thoughts.

To avoid this, long ago people invented philosophy, which is the science of our minds and our world, understood at an abstract level where facts and logic must be in parallel. This forces us to think, not from the individual, but from the world, and then to explain the place of the individual within it. That mostly avoids rationalization.

The only sensible approach to politics is through this method. Without it, the cart goes before the horse as people rationalize what they want to believe as true, and explain everything else as some sort of evil witchcraft. This rationalization proves more popular because it is centered on the present day and the concerns of individuals, where philosophy is more timeless and focused on either truth or civilization.

Martin Heidegger, in his Introduction to Metaphysics, Chapter 1: The Fundamental Question of Metaphysics, gives us more:

Philosophy is essentially untimely because it is one of those few things whose fate it remains never to be able to find a direct resonance in their own time, and never be permitted to find such a resonance. Whenever this seemingly does take place, whenever a philosophy becomes fashion, either there is no actual philosophy or else philosophy is misinterpreted and, according to some intentions alien to it, misused for the needs of the day.

Philosophy, then, is not a kind of knowledge which one could acquire directly, like vocational and technical expertise, and which, like economic and professional knowledge in general, one could apply directly and evaluate according to its usefulness in each case.

But what is useless can nevertheless be a power — a power in the rightful sense. That which has no direct resonance in everydayness can stand in innermost harmony with the authentic happening in the history of a people. It can even be its prelude.

What this means is that philosophy, like travel or even one too many glasses of wine, can give us a sense of our world by removing us from it, intellectually, and then approaching it as strangers, and those revelations can show us a potential option for our future which, because it becomes clear and appealing, then triggers that next part of the historical cycle.

Although rationalization gives us a better personal story about the world, as it begins and ends with our own lives, it fails to give us a story of meaning, whereby a small species evolves, becomes powerful, and then finds a way to be better so that it is connected with its world and finds purpose within it.

Fantasies of universal purpose — some inherent goal or innate value that is accessible to everyone — tend to be forgeries, and rationalization relies heavily on them because universal purpose suggests an inability to act otherwise by the individual, and therefore a compulsion to rely on that values system, which takes away the possibility of being wrong in the assessment of values made by the individual, since the individual does not need to assess values at all, only go along with what is allegedly as universal as sunlight.

This perception of universality allows people to believe that their perceptions are not self-serving, and therefore, that self-serving behavior is justified in pursuit of the validation of those perceptions. This leads to a sense of narcissism, a variety of individualism marked by self-worship, which arises from the general hubris of anyone who believes it is justified to act in self-interest where it conflicts with the logical, natural order of human life.

Ultimately, the rationalization view, because it is self-centered and thus individualistic, leads to a self-aware narcissism:

How exactly do narcissists maintain such positive self-views despite others’ dislike of them? Carlson proposed a few interesting ideas. First, narcissists might believe others are just too stupid to see how amazing they truly are, or they may believe others’ negative views are simply the result of jealousy. It might also be the case that narcissists, aware of their deteriorating reputation, cut off long-term friendships and instead, maintain a flow of new acquaintances that see them as the charming and likable person they believe they are. The process by which narcissists retain their positive self-views remains an interesting and important question future work should address.

The mental process is a form of rationalization: they must believe good about themselves, so they contort their understanding of how the world works in order to support that self-view.

This leads to them using other people as objects that reinforce that rationalization, much as in a mob the individual uses others as a means of escaping accountability, or as in a totalitarian state, the ruling powers use others as means of achieving an ideological or political set of goals. This is why Leftism is based in individualism, not “collectivism,” because the collective is a device of the individual for enforcing individualism as a universal standard.

Manipulation of others in order to enforce a certain non-realistic perception of the world is the classic attribute of control. Control is invisible to most because they cannot see where the ideology or commands from above diverge from reality, but for those who can see, control is both unnecessary and destructive because it is unrealistic, or based in human preferences and rationalizing from those, as opposed to based in perception of the world and oriented toward human self-discipline to adapt to the logical consequences one can anticipate from the knowledge conveyed in that perception.

Differences between Leftists and conservatives can be explained by this schism of perspective.

Under the influence of Leftism, which boils down to individualism enforced by a collective through “equality” which essentially reduces the power of those who are more competent and promotes the lowest common denominator instead, our society has steadily become more narcissistic in its daily behavior:

Darlene Lancer, a therapist writing at Psychology Today, offers up a tidy list of behaviors narcissists often employ in their interactions with people. Here is her list (with some abridged definitions):

1. Verbal abuse: Verbal abuse includes belittling, bullying, accusing, blaming, shaming, demanding, ordering, threatening, criticizing, sarcasm, raging, opposing, undermining, interrupting, blocking, and name-calling.
2. Manipulation: Generally, manipulation is indirect influence on someone to behave in a way that furthers the goals of the manipulator. Often, it expresses covert aggression. Think of a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”
3. Emotional blackmail: Emotional blackmail may include threats, anger, warnings, intimidation, or punishment.
4. Gaslighting: Intentionally making you distrust your perceptions of reality or believe that you’re mentally incompetent.
5. Competition: Competing and one-upping to always be on top, sometimes through unethical means. E.g. cheating in a game.
6. Negative contrasting: Unnecessarily making comparisons to negatively contrast you with the narcissist or other people.
7. Sabotage: Disruptive interference with your endeavors or relationships for the purpose of revenge or personal advantage.
8. Exploitation and objectification: Using or taking advantage of you for personal ends without regard for your feelings or needs.
9. Lying: Persistent deception to avoid responsibility or to achieve the narcissist’s own ends.
10. Withholding: Withholding such things as money, sex, communication or affection from you.
11. Neglect: Ignoring the needs of a child for whom the abuser is responsible. Includes child endangerment; i.e., placing or leaving a child in a dangerous situation.
12. Privacy invasion: Ignoring your boundaries by looking through your things, phone, mail; denying your physical privacy or stalking or following you; ignoring privacy you’ve requested.
13. Character assassination or slander: Spreading malicious gossip or lies about you to other people.

Lancer rounds out her list with violence, financial abuse, and isolation (isolating someone from other people in their lives).

If we could describe the modern West, the above list would be a good place to start. Individualists pursuing their own goals and then rationalizing them have as a consequence both discarded any concern for the future of humanity or our environment, and in the process, have made themselves into narcissists; then, their standard of behavior becomes the norm as others compete.

All of this can be easily perceived if one takes a philosophical view at life, rather than a personal view. Most humans, however, are wired for exactly that personal view, and once they go down that path, fear the philosophical view as it will reveal how much of their lives have been manipulated and wasted. That in turn will cause a crisis of self-confidence for them, so they persist in the lies.

As the rising Right turns to combat the decline of Western Civilization, one of the biggest weapons in its tool chest is to shift our perspective from self-focused to history-focused, so that people can take the philosophical view and see for the first time how existentially unsatisfying and suicidally destructive our modern society has turned out to be.

Diversity Never Works

History runs in cycles because human behavior follows a cyclic pattern. A truth is discovered, and then the only way to make a name for yourself is to assert the anti-truth, so people pursue the anti-truth as a way to succeed socially, and eventually it takes over and then is realized to be not true, so people begin the long process of crawling past convention, conformity and denial to reach the truth again.

Our ancestors knew that diversity never works because it cannot work. For us to believe in diversity, we must convince ourselves that different groups do not have different aims. Other than people giving up on their culture and heritage entirely, and agreeing to become generic citizens motivated by ideology and paycheck alone, there is no possibility of this happening, because culture is central to how humans understand their world and socialize within it.

Culture sets down a series of values, rules, and customs which are unique to a specific group. This enables them to both keep outsiders away, and police themselves for those who — probably through the rise of deleterious mutations leading to pathologies — are not going to be able to act in the best interests of the group. Culture is knowing what actions will be approved of by the group, and which will be censured, and enables people to understand how to find a place in their society.

On the other hand, diversity represents anti-culture. When you have multiple cultures in the same place, there can be no commonality except at levels that are both extremely simplified and very abstract. Anti-culture replaces culture with ideology, legal systems, economic systems, political systems and most of all, socializing, which now occurs without a sense of shared values except those of the abstract “systems” mentioned earlier in the list. Diversity destroys culture and to fully succeed in that, it has to destroy the genetic roots of culture.

Genetics underlies culture because culture is how human groups replace natural selection. Culture rewards those who uphold the values and ideals of the group; by definition, it excludes those who do not. People enjoy the idea of anti-culture because it frees them from the task of having to understand reality and their culture, and act according to it; without culture, they can do anything and as long as they follow the abstract and thus loose rules of the systems, they will be fine. But in reality, culture is both shaped by genetics and shapes genetics as Jonathan Haidt writes:

Cultural and genetic evolution are intertwined. The human capacity for culture — a strong tendency to learn from each other, to teach each other, and to build upon what we have learned — is itself a genetic evolution that happened in stages over the last few million years. But once our brains reached a critical threshold, perhaps 80,000 to 100,000 years ago, cultural innovation began to accelerate; a strong evolutionary pressure then shaped brains to take further advantage of culture. Individuals who could best learn from others were more successful than their less “cultured” brethren, and as brains became more cultural, cultures became more elaborate, further increasing the advantage of having a more cultural brain. All human beings today are the products of the co-evolution of a set of genes (which is almost identical across cultures) and a set of cultural elements (which is diverse across cultures, but still constrained by the capacities and predispositions of the human mind). For example, the genetic evolution of the emotion of disgust made it possible (but not inevitable) for cultures to develop caste systems based on occupation and strongly supported by disgust toward those who perform “polluting” activities. A caste system then restricts marriage to within-caste pairings, which in turn alters the course of genetic evolution. After a thousand years of inbreeding within castes, castes will diverge slightly on a few genetic traits — for example, shades of skin color — which might in turn lead to growing cultural association of caste with color rather than with occupation. (It only takes twenty generations of selective breeding to create large differences of appearance and behavior in other mammals.) In this way, genes and cultures co-evolve; they mutually affect each other, and neither process can be studied in isolation for human beings.

Diversity never works. It requires us to believe that different groups, each seeking to establish its own standards and genetics, can co-exist through the singular fact of dependence on a shared economic, political and social system. In doing so, it denies what makes each group unique, which is its system of values, its heritage, and its identity, or self-conception as a unit moving toward autonomy.

Since culture is encoded in genetics, and designed to accommodate those genetics thus effectively encoding them in culture, diversity necessarily possesses the ultimate goal of genocide: it seeks to replace a population or populations by mixing them, destroying the original genetic groups and their unique clusters of traits.

We might refer to diversity as a form of ethnic vandalism which has already failed, like liberal democracy, as once-strong faith in it has evaporated. Now that we have seen what is on the end of the fork, we realize that diversity will do nothing but replace us, no matter what race we are, and because of that, we have thought about identity and intuited that it is important.

Without social order, civilization becomes a giant shopping mall ruled by security guards in which your money is taken to subsidize a huge group of impoverished and angry people hidden behind the parking center. In fact, diversity is a tactic for seizing power, as we have known for longer than Christianity has been around. It is simply a dead-end policy enacted by dying nations in the hands of parasitic mercantile classes and mass culture.

We can easily end diversity and can see examples of the end of diversity in our world today. Those who experience it, dislike it; those who have suffered under it want it to end. Since the early 1990s, I have differed from the rest of the Right in that instead of criticizing specific ethnic groups, I have pointed out that diversity itself is the problem. We cannot place multiple groups together and not either destroy them, destroy ourselves, or as is most likely, both. This is true even with “nice” ethnic groups like Asians. Even ethnic diversity is destructive but allows the Left to seize power, so it is popular on the Left, of course.

You will often hear people argue something ill-advised like, “All this diversity stuff is really just special privileges. What we need instead is to just treat everyone equally.” However, this is a variation of DR3: we are claiming that we are more egalitarian than the Left, which forgets that egalitarianism is the philosophical root of diversity. A better path is to realize that diversity never works, and diversity has failed again, and so now we are headed toward balkanization as a path to tribal/ethnic separation, an idea once known as nationalism. The people who argue for meritocracy miss the point, which is that homogeneity creates stable nations, and heterogeneity — diversity, multiculturalism, internationalism, and globalism; these mean roughly the same thing — creates unstable, self-destructing nation-states. We cannot use equality to get out of the problems created by equality; we have to reject equality, and embrace hierarchy instead, which requires a single value system and therefore cannot happen under any form of diversity.

Diversity is the direct result of egalitarianism, or the idea that all people are equal. Humans tend to rationalize future decisions based on their current situation, and in the 1940s-1960s, Americans became concerned about the fact that our founding documents claimed that “all men are created equal” and that our country provided “liberty and justice for all,” when in reality African-Americans, Hispanics, Chinese and Amerinds were relegated to the back of the bus. Since we were at the time fighting a Cold War against the Soviet Union, we decided to beat them by being more liberal than they were, and in so doing, sacrificed our social order. Starting in the early 1960s, diversity became a core tenet of the Left and, once they had successfully demonized any racial preference as “racism” and equated it with Adolf Hitler, the Left was able to batter down any resistance to its multicultural vision. This then spread to Europe and accelerated after the fall of Communism as the ruined West tried to re-define itself — rationalize itself — in some way that explained its decline as a positive thing.

Egalitarianism is a form of individualism. Individualism defends the individual against obligations outside of the self-interest, or in a utilitarian sense the desires, of the individual. Individualism is the belief that the individual should do what the individual wants without regard for impact on society, nature, other people, culture, heritage, values, and religion. This form of atomization, or separating the individual from any context except itself, creates a society where the largest possible group is a unit of one person. This addresses the fundamental concern of individualists, which is that they will be judged by their actions, which can fall short of either social standards or how reality works, reflecting an inability to understand reality on the part of the individual. Individuals know that every time they act, they can reveal an inability to understand reality, or a failing according to the values of culture, and so they advocate for equality, which defends the individual against the needs of nature, logic, history and the larger social group. This atomized approach appears to benefit the individual, but in fact it cuts them off from participation in anything larger than themselves, and so it creates empty, depressed, alcoholic, and frustrated people. The futility is crushing like gravity inside of a black hole.

Individualism, equality, hubris, solipsism, diversity, and democracy have made the West a living hell on an existential level. We expend ourselves at jobs that are mostly pointless, as if designed by a mocking demon, and then wait in lines for mediocre products and endless red tape. We are alienated from our community, and even from our own families, because everyone acts in the individualist style of working toward their own immediate desires by using everything else, including love and family, as a means to that end. Thanks to diversity, we have no culture, and therefore can have no purpose, so there is no way to restrain the mercantile takeover of our society, which spirals into oblivion because we have nothing in common except paychecks and staying on the side that won the Cold War. Even worse, we have committed ourselves to a series of illusions beginning with equality and ending in diversity, so most people are offered the unappetizing choice between admitting that we have massively failed and rationalizing the present, doubling down on the same ideals, and trying again because that way our egos can remain intact.

Contemporary people suffer by being forced to hover at the moment of transition between parts of the cycle. This is a gradual transition, so we are left with the assumptions of the past, but realizing that those are empty and deceptive, while waiting for them to fully fail so that we can move on to the next part of the cycle. The sooner we realize that diversity never works because it is paradoxical and designed as a control method, a means-to-the-end of power and nothing more, the sooner we can reject it and then start peeling back the ideas that justify it, throwing out the illusions and replacing them with wisdom, so that we can restore Western Civilization and escape this evil, tedious, and narcissistic era.

​What a new U.S. civil war might look like

By Chris Arkenberg

Following an earlier 2017 survey, Foreign Policy’s Best Defense blog opened a poll about the likelihood of a second U.S. Civil War. However, framing it as a second civil war embeds numerous assumptions about warfare on U.S. soil that are based more on history than the current reality of how power acts in the world. The distinction is critical to effectively counter the emergence of networked violence in America.

It’s easy to imagine that a second civil war might proceed like the first: two institutionalized factions wielding state militaries against each other along prescribed strategic fronts. Generals would choose a side, those with the most troops and firepower at their disposal would claim victory. The outcome, we imagine, would likely be a winner-take-all restructuring of the United States.

But that’s not really how wars are fought in the 21st century. Indeed, much of the last century was about deconstructing the habits of large-scale, state-driven conventional warfare. As networks distribute power to the edges, warfighting shifts further away from a handful of monolithic forces and towards a diverse web of small actors. Warfare now often proceeds from ideologically and economically marginalized communities whose suffering and fear is wielded by cunning global actors. They become guerrillas, rebel factions, proxies, and insurgencies. Sometimes they look more like tribal conflicts composed along racial, religious, familial or economic lines, often on top of resource crises that push violence to become a necessary solution. But they are rarely simple two-sided conflicts.

To neglect this distinction risks missing the signs of coordinated disruption and violence. If we keep thinking in terms of opposed armies, we’ll fail to develop effective strategies for recognizing and containing networked, hybrid warfare.

For the United States, the shape of future homeland conflicts will be asymmetrical, distributed, and heterogeneous. A contemporary homeland conflict would likely self-compose with numerous dynamic factions organized by digital tools around ideological and affinity networks. It would likely be a patchwork of affiliated insurgency groups and their counterparts engaging in light skirmishes along the overlapping edges of their networks, mixed with occasional high-value terror attacks against soft and hard targets. Such groups are much smaller than conventional militaries and where they lack in firepower, they wield transgression. As in Charlottesville and Berkeley, the fronts are less territorial than ideological.

Furthermore, digital networks erode the boundaries of the state. Like the Islamic State and al Qaeda, any cell can browse the literature, claim allegiance in some far-flung burb, and start whipping up violence against their targets. Antifa and the Alt-Right are a hodge-podge of varying affinities loosely coupled under their respective brand names with local chapters coordinated across global networks. These are not top-down hierarchies. They’re agile and shapeless with the capacity to grow quickly then disappear.

“One simply cannot explain the speed and scale at which the Islamic State formed without that network effect,” Emile Simpson commented in another Foreign Policy article trying to augur the tremors of a new world war.

Just as we risk missing the signs of networked violence, thinking in terms of a classic civil war can blind us to the many actors working to disrupt the U.S. from within and beyond our borders.

Behind the extremists are often additional layers of benefactors and provocateurs: oligarchs, plutocrats, transnational criminal networks, and foreign powers wielding them on both sides towards their strategic goals. We’ve seen this with Russian-backed Facebook groups organizing right wing protests in the U.S., and in the increasing regularity of information warfare originating from Macedonian server farms, reclusive billionaires, and adversarial governments.

With these characteristics in mind we can envision what a modern U.S. civil war might look like. More sporadic and unexpected conflicts but with fewer deaths. Factions sprouting like mushrooms, taking different forms but coordinated across invisible networks. Waves of information warfare. Chaos and an accelerated bazaar of violence with a healthy immune response from the local and national authorities. The outcome (and probable goal) would likely be a fragmentation of the republic into smaller, more manageable alliances, though it may just as easily harden an increasingly authoritarian federal government. This is essentially how Russia waged its non-linear war against Ukraine.

To counter this emerging threat in America it’s critical to establish more formal practices for identifying and tracking domestic extremism — with an honest recognition that young, white males on both ends of the political spectrum are the most likely to commit violence. Likewise, we must formalize robust network analysis to map and track these distributed groups across their digital territories and to identify their backers, funders, and agitators. Finally, there needs to be a very serious conversation about how to regulate Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter as platforms for influence, instigation, propaganda, and recruiting.

For now, America is held in line by a strong rule of law and a good-enough economy that most people still have something to lose by choosing violence. But as our government and corporate leaders continue to deconstruct rule of law and economic opportunity, the norms degrade and the space for transgression becomes bigger. To FP’s poll, my gut says the likelihood of a second U.S. civil war in the next five years is between 20 and 40 percent but trending upward significantly.

Chris Arkenberg studies the interaction of disruptive technologies and complex systems. He is a technology analyst and strategist for Fortune 500, non-profit, and government clients. Among other roles, he’s been an advisor to the CTO of the Nature Conservancy, a visiting futurist with the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry, a senior lecturer at the California College of the Arts, and a visiting researcher at Institute for the Future.

Pro-Russian insurgents occupy the Sloviansk city administration building on April, 14 2017. (Wikimedia Commons)


Some thoughts on how we might get from where we’re at now to a Second Civil War



You persuade your base that there is no other way but violence.

By Lt. Col. Robert F. McTague, U.S. Army (Ret.)

Best Defense office of Second Civil War affairs

If we have a second Civil War, trying to understand what is happening will feel more like Ukraine in 2014 than Virginia in 1861.

Our first Civil War was primarily about slavery, but that was in the context of social and economic models in the South that were ripe for extinction. The South’s reaction was to launch a last-ditch effort to maintain and prop up its way of life at all costs, so it was visceral and violent. 

Likewise, Trump’s election was an angry, defiant death throe, a angry cry against demographic and economic changes that are in fact irreversible. So, if you are a New Right strategist today — call them the Great Disruptors — the question is, how do you confront those inevitabilities?
First, you continue at the low level, with some really advanced, effective gerrymandering, as in Wisconsin. You continue to enflame working class whites, who have been ignored by the Democrats for decades. You also try to limit immigration and free trade as much as possible.

Even so, even as they do this, the New Right’s Disruptors know they can slow down changes to the nation, but they can’t stop them. So what’s the next step? You up the ante. You make it holy war. You persuade your base that there is no other way but violence. I believe many, perhaps most, of the members of Trump’s base will sign up for that.

Why? Because they will believe they are on the side of good, of right, of Americanism.

Many people in the South and heartland in general often think of themselves as patriotic, loyal Americans, more so than “liberals,” “Yankees,” “elites” and people from the North and urban areas. I know this well from two decades in the Army. Southerners nowadays, including Texans, often see themselves as the “realer Americans,” the people who really stand up for the country, who have a better feel for what it stands for.

How do you translate those feelings into tactics? Well, first, you don’t secede. Rather, you set the stage for yourself to be the big winner, the good guy. You make yourself “America” and make the “other guys” the troublemakers and secessionists. All you really are doing, you insist, is trying to make this country great again. Sound familiar?

You set out to marginalize your opposition. You declare that your enemies are the anti-American “elites,” concentrated in “Sanctuary Cities” that are economically thriving — and thumbing their noses are the rest of the country. They’re looking at you, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, Philadelphia, New York and Boston.


The bad news for Disruptors is, these elitist cities are also many of the US’s largest ports and financial centers. The good news: they are easy to isolate and disenfranchise.
If I were a truly Machiavellian New Right strategist, I’d focus my fire on the state of California. Make it The Other. Attack it relentlessly. Threaten its culture and power. Cut off water that flows into it from outside the state, essential to its people and agriculture. Ignore those nettlesome decisions from the 9th Circuit.
Think of how it would benefit the base if California somehow withdrew from the next presidential election, sat it out in protest. Sound crazy? It is, but it’s also exactly the kind of audacious reshaping of the American electorate these strategists need.

The Disruptors would accept violence as part of the equation. I don’t foresee set-piece battles between great armies, but I think they understand the strategy would involve persistent conflict that kills hundreds or even thousands on the way to achieving its aims. If they can get away with it with minimal bloodshed, great; if not, “so be it.”

In March, my totally unscientific hunch was a second civil war had less than a 20% chance of happening.  Now I’m guessing it’s closer to 40%. The revision is less a reaction to the current president or perceived deterioration of the political environment as it is a revision of my own understanding of “where we are.” I’ve lately become persuaded that our current leaders are nearly incapable of mediation, reconciliation, or compromise in much of anything, regardless of the stakes; nor do I expect that to improve. If anything, I expect it to worsen.

I now think that something akin to the scenario I’ve presented here is only a matter of time. Why? Because for the New Right, it is the only alternative to political extinction.  Soon, they will have no choice but to be bold, drastic and ruthless. We’d be foolish not to expect something real and violent as a result.

Robert F. McTague retired in 2016 as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army.  He did two tours in Iraq, and also served in Kuwait, Qatar, Korea, Croatia, Romania, and Turkey.  He completed two NATO tours as well.  He now makes his home in Bucharest, Romania.

Rumblings of a second Civil War: Some links

More information on a second Civil War.

“Roger Stone Predicts a Civil War if Donald Trump is Impeached,” Salon

“Georgia Governor Expects Lawmakers to Plunge into Civil War Debate Next Year,” AJC

“Alex Jones and Other Conservatives Call For Civil War Against Liberals,” Newsweek

“Savage: Civil War if Trump Taken Down,” Infowars

“Is America Headed for a New Kind of Civil War?” the New Yorker

“Our House Divided,” the New York Times

“Pro-Confederate Activists Held ‘Secession Day’ Event at Roy Moore’s Foundation Two Years in a Row,” CNN

A Global Robotic Transportation System is Almost Here

http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2016/03/robotic-transportation-.html

Here’s some thinking on the robotic transportation system that’s headed our way.  I believe it will arrive far faster than everyone suspects.

The shift to robotic transportation is already underway.  Tens of thousands of cars are self-driving already and millions more are on the way.  Millions of self-flying and self-navigating drones were sold this year alone.  This revolution is even reaching the industrial level.  The UK is testing convoys of driverless trucks on the M3 (and in the US, Nevada has already licensed a self-driving rig for highway use in Nevada) and

Cc-T-YpW4AALj79

Rolls Royce is working on container ships that save the 40% of the cost of crewed ships.

CdHOW6BWoAAgyFNHowever, there’s a problem.

All of these robotic vehicles are largely disconnected or they are using their own proprietary means of networking their activity.   In order for robotic transportation to explode, it will need a simple protocol for coordinating this network in a decentralized way.  That’s already underway, although with very little of the importance I would allocate to it given the immensity of its potential impact.  It appears to be on the right track though.  Early indications are that this standard will be as simple and decentralized as TCP/IP (any extraneous detail on it, will slow its implementation and utility).

Once this scalable decentralized standard is developed, it will do for air, sea, land, and undersea transportation what the Internet did for the movement of data and in about the same amount of time.  The change will be rapid as billions of robotic vehicles rapidly connect to this global grid providing things like (these are consumer examples, but you can extrapolate some military applications based on them):

  • Free car transportation.  Order a self driving car on your cell phone, it’s there in less than 5 minutes to pick you up.  It will likely be free.  How so?  The value of selling services to the person in the vehicle is far greater than the cost of providing the service (electric self-driving fleet vehicles are very inexpensive to own/operate).
  • Drone delivery.  The local farmer delivers fresh eggs to you every day via drone delivery.  Small package delivery via drones that pick up and deliver small packages.  5 miles in ten minutes for $0.25 a delivery.   New industries explode by using this network as a platform.
  • Perpetual nomads.  People live in their self-driving vehicle (RV with a twist).  They travel at night while sleeping, jumping from place to place to get a charge, enjoy the locale, and get supplies.

Here’s a short video to get a taste for how different a robotic transportation network would feel.  Although this video is a bit over the top, it’s safe to say that robotic transportation will be much faster, cheaper, and safer (1/10 the fatalities).   For example, with robotic vehicles nobody would have to stop at a 10×10 intersection, they could just interleave at full speed.

Sincerely,

John Robb   Twitter: @johnrobb

PS:  Of course, all of this is for naught if the US isn’t in the lead on setting this standard and quick to implement it nationally.  If this doesn’t happen.  If the US lets the bureaucracies at the DMV and the FAA slow this effort down, the US will likely lose the entire robotic transportation industry to the place that does.  Think about this; what would the US and the Internet look like today if the FCC had allowed the telcos to crush the early Web, and it started in China or the EU instead?  How would this impact national defense?  << this is something that Bob Work needs to focus on….

The Last Days of a White World- Political Violence Is Inevitable In America

The last days of a white world

Sunday 3 September 2000

It was news and no news; the most significant milestone in one of the most profound changes to affect the US in the past century, and yet a non-event. Last week the US Census Bureau issued figures showing that non-hispanic whites made up 49.8 per cent of the population of California.

Anglo-Saxon whites are already a minority in Hawaii and the District of Columbia. Now they are an ethnic minority in the country’s most populous state, the one most usually identified with the American dream.

‘It’s my hope we can all see our state’s diversity as a cause for celebration and not consternation,’ said California’s lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamente, a Latino. Robert Newby, a white shop-owner who has lived in Los Angeles for 40 years, echoed his optimism: ‘This confirms what most of us have thought for years. I am happy for there to be more immigrants – by and large they work harder and have more money to spend.’

As recently as 1970, eight out of 10 Californians were white. Fuelled by immigration at its highest rate since the start of the last century, and higher fertility rates, the Asian and Latino populations of California have risen by almost a third since 1990. At the same time, with limited immigration and low birth rates, the population of non-hispanic whites has fallen by 3 per cent. By 2040, hispanics are expected to be the overall majority in the state.

Where California goes, the rest of America is predicted to follow. At present 72 per cent of the US population is non-hispanic whites; the US Census Bureau predicts they will become a minority between 2055 and 2060.

Not every one likes the new face of America. White far-right extremists predict the break-up of the union. Thomas W. Chittum, a New Jersey-based Vietnam War veteran, declared in his book Civil War Two, that the US, like Yugoslavia, will shatter into new, ethnically-based nations. ‘America was born in blood, America suckled on blood, America gorged on blood and grew into a giant, and America will drown in blood,’ Chittum warned.

 Image result for los angeles

The separatists have set up groups such as Americans for Self-Determination. One of the founders, Jeff Anderson, said: ‘We are suggesting the US be partitioned into states for blacks, whites, hispanics, and so on, along with multi-racial states for those who wish to continue with this experiment. Now is the time to begin such a multi-racial dialogue about separatism, before a storm of violent racial conflict erupts.’

The shifting sands of the US reflect wider – and highly controversial – changes elsewhere in the world. It is an area in which few demographers dare to tread for fear of being accused of racism. ‘You cannot quote me – a word out of place and I get crapped on from a very great height,’ said one academic. ‘Whatever you say you are deemed racist’.

The past millennium was more than anything the era of the whites. Just 500 years ago, few had ventured outside their European homeland. Then, with several acts of genocide clearing the way, they settled in North America, South America, Australia, New Zealand and, to a lesser extent, southern Africa.

But now, around the world, whites are falling as a proportion of population. The United Nations collects and produces a vast array of statistics on population, but produces none relating to race or ethnic origin. Indeed few countries collect their own figures on ethnicity – in Europe, only the UK and the Netherlands do.

However, the UN’s State of the World Population 1999 predicted that 98 per cent of the growth in the world’s population by 2025 will occur in lesser developed regions, principally Africa and Asia. The most significant reason for this is lower birth rates in rich countries: in 61 countries, mainly the rich ones, people are no longer having enough babies to replace themselves.

In its World Population Profile 1998, the US Census Bureau predicted that by the second decade of this century all the net gain in world population will be in developing countries. ‘The future of human population growth has been determined, and is being determined, in the world’s poorer nations,’ it said.

 Related image

The global centre of gravity is changing. In 1900 Europe had a quarter of the world’s population, and three times that of Africa; by 2050 Europe is predicted to have just 7 per cent of the world population, and a third that of Africa. The ageing and declining populations of predominantly white nations have prompted forecasts of – and calls for – more immigration from the young and growing populations of developing nations to make up the shortfall.

Last year net immigration to Britain reached 185,000, an all-time record. The Immigration Minister, Barbara Roche, recently announced plans to attract migrants to fill specific skills shortages, such as in the computer industry.

Last month Edmund Stoiber, the premier of Bavaria in southern Germany, called on Germans to have more babies as an alternative to more immigrants. ‘We are having too few children – to a worrying degree, the significance of which is scarcely recognised,’ he said. His calls echoed those of a fellow Christian Democrat who earlier this year stood on a platform of ‘Children not Indians’.

In Britain the number of ethnic minority citizens has risen from a few tens of thousands in the 1950s, to more than 3 million – or around 6 per cent of the total population. While the number of whites is virtually static, higher fertility and net immigration means the number from ethnic minorities is growing by 2 to 3 per cent a year.

One demographer, who didn’t want to be named for fear of being called racist, said: ‘It’s a matter of pure arithmetic that, if nothing else happens, non-Euro peans will become a majority and whites a minority in the UK. That would probably be the first time an indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority in its historic homeland.’

Lee Jasper, race relations adviser to the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, predicted a similar future, telling The Observer : ‘Where America goes, Europe follows 30 years later. There is a potential for whites to become a minority in some European countries.’

In Britain, that is almost certain to happen in London, and in the relatively near future. ‘At the moment ethnic minorities are about 40 per cent in London. The demographics show that white people in London will become a minority by 2010,’ said Jasper. ‘We could have a majority black Britain by the turn of the century.’

British National Party chairman Nick Griffin said: ‘I don’t think there’s any doubt that within this century, white people will be a minority in every country in the world.’ For Griffin, however, it is a major cause of alarm: ‘Every people under the sun have a right to their place under the sun, and the right to survive. If people predicted that Indians would be a minority in India in 2100, everyone would be calling it genocide.’

 Related image

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown of the Foreign Policy Centre, who arrived in London from Uganda in 1972, said such fears are basically racist: ‘Only white people worry about this. It’s because for such a long time the world has been their own. To talk about it feeds a particular type of racism that says that blacks breed like rabbits. There is an underlying assumption that says white is right.’

She added: ‘There is a white panic every time one part of their world seems to be passing over to anyone else. But it’s foolish to panic about it. So what if we do become a majority? What difference does it make?’

For Alibhai-Brown, the decline of whites is a question of redressing the balance after they colonised much of the world. ‘The empire strikes back really. There was this extraordinary assumption that white people could go and destroy peoples and it would have no consequence. It astounds me,’ she said.

But present trends have little chance of redressing the injustices of history. Native Americans used to have the lands to themselves but are now less than 1 per cent of the US population, with little chance of becoming a majority again. The biggest growth is among Latinos (largely derived from Spain), and Asians, particularly from China and the Phillippines.

Jasper said the concerns of the British National Party are based on outdated ideas. ‘The racial mix of nations changes all the time. There is no way that ethnicity of blood can be tied to a specific geographic place in a global world. You can no longer look at ethnic states, saying that Germany is Anglo-Saxon and so on.’

Jasper felt the process would strengthen Britain. ‘Diversity strengthens a country. It makes it more exciting. We have hundreds of languages spoken, when we go out to eat we never eat English, we eat Thai or French or Indian. It makes London a very cool place to live and work.’

Nor does it seem likely that whites will become marginalised in terms of influences, even if their numbers decline. David Owen, of the Centre for Research in Ethnic Relations at Warwick Univer sity, said: ‘Population has never been the main determinant of influence – it’s wealth and income. White people still have their hands on most of the levers of military and economic power.’

Even so, Griffin warns that, as in Germany and the US, the rise of ethnic minorities will lead to a backlash. ‘It’s going to put race to the top of the political agenda,’ he said.

But that seems unlikely. Britain has far less of a track record of racism and right-wing extremism than other European countries. Alibhai-Brown insisted that rising numbers of ethnic minorities could even help reduce what racism there is: ‘The right-wing parties are growing in Somerset, not Brixton. The idea that more black people means more racism is not born out by the research. The more of us there are, it reduces racism.’

 Image result for los angeles 3rd world city
Related image

Back in California, in a land built by immigrants, Bustamente put a positive spin on the end of the white majority: ‘If there are no majorities, then there’s no minorities.’ In Europe, with its 40,000-year-old indigenous white population, the rise of a non-white majority may not be greeted with such equanimity.

• In the United Kingdom, the number of people from ethnic minorities has risen from a few tens of thousands in 1950 to more than 3 million now.

• In Italy, the birth rate is so low that, without immigration, the population is predicted to decline by 16 million by 2050.

• The United States government predicts that non-hispanic whites will become a minority in the country by 2055.

• The United Nations predicts that 98 per cent of world population growth until 2025 will be in developing nations.

• The population of Europe is expected to drop from 25 per cent of the world total in 1900 to 7 per cent in the next 50 years.

“The Last Days of a White World”

April 14, 2017

 

In September 2000, Anthony Browne penned a sobre report for the Observer newspaper entitled “The Last Days of a White World”. Browne, latterly an advisor to Boris Johnson during his time as London mayor and now head of the British Bankers Association, informed readers that “40,000-year-old indigenous white populations” of Europe were soon to become minorities in their own lands. The report is written with the objective restraint of a journalist who has held senior political and economic briefs at the BBC, The Times, The Daily Mail and The Spectator. Browne quotes liberally from Far Right nationalists, sitting politicians in the US and Germany, and black and Asian British journalists and commentators, each with different takes on the demographic changes brought about by South to North migration and divergent birth rates.

What Browne describes with seeming neutrality is what might now be familiar to people as the “White Genocide” meme prominent in far right online networks. Leftist professor George Ciccariello-Maher found himself the target of both online and mainstream media attacks when a tweet he made welcoming “White Genocide” was picked up and circulated, leading to a coordinated campaign of complaints being sent to Drexel university where he works. Leaving aside any judgement on the effectiveness of the satire, what we do learn from this case is that some liberals took the “white genocide” trope seriously, as a form of hate speech, rather than recognise the perversity of its construction, which amongst other things imagines the coming death of the “white race” at the hands of multiracial relationships and mass immigration.

Never one to miss an opportunity for self-promotion was “Alt-Right” Klansman, Richard Spencer, who immediately appealed to Drexel students to bring him in. Spencer has publicly called for a 50-year moratorium on “non-European” immigration to the United States, “[They] have got to go home again,” he said. “They can connect with their real identity… reconnecting with who you really are for a Mexican-American would be about being in Mexico. For an African, it would be about being in Africa.” What Spencer refers to as “race realism” states in common sense tones that everyone has somewhere they belong, that tightened controls on immigration and increased deportations – such as the recent “Muslim ban” – are good for immigrants too because they can only truly flourish in their “natural homes”. Such logic is redolent of the 19th Century Colonization Movement in the US which saw sending slaves and free black people born in America “back to Africa” as the only solution to the problem of racial slavery in America. Advocates of this popular cause included Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Lincoln, whose airbrushed histories have not been lost on the Spencer-affiliated journal, Radix, which has been at pains to point out that the Founding Fathers were all racists.

The naturalisation of arguments about the civilisational threat posed to the West by “Islamisation” or by immigration in general, while not couched in the most explicit lexicon of white nationalism, have nevertheless gained traction in recent decades among large parts of the right but also many liberals and even leftists. Often framed in a narrative of decline and decadence, the objects of critique are the same: “multiculturalism” and “cultural relativism” have led European nation-states to lose their identity and the continent itself to lose its moral fibre and grounding in Enlightenment principles, while the corrosive force of immigration and “globalism”, particularly of confident and aggressive Muslims, pulls it down from within.

Recent essays from environmentalist Paul Kingsnorth and former editor of Prospect magazine David Goodhart join the canon of writers announcing that they’ve been mugged by reality and left “the Left”, Goodhart for a “post-liberal” progressive racism and Kingsnorth for a sort of National Trust proto-fascism. Both men react against trends they ascribe to liberalism or the Left (which they conflate), try to position themselves as tribunes or translators of a “white working class revolt” and root their politics in a defence of place, culture and tradition – a benign nationalism to shield social cohesion (and, for Kingsnorth, “nature”) from the depredations of “globalism” and “multiculturalism”.

Alana Lentin and Gavan Titley have written about how the imagined “failed multicultural experiment” has been a vehicle through which to “launder” legitimised racisms via the language of religion, non/integration and culture (as if “race” and culture haven’t always been interlinked in the history of racism). Seeing as multiculturalism doesn’t refer to any clear and consistent state project, the term instead acts as a signifier. The “failure of multiculturalism” is a means through which to attack both immigrants who may yet come as well as those already here. The term “multiculturalism” thus becomes a mobilising point to undermine the reality of “lived multiculture” – i.e. the reality of human beings from different parts of the world sharing the same city or town.

Mobilising around this narrative schema was ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson, after the recent attack on Westminster Bridge. He immediately showed up at the scene to garner mainstream publicity and indifferent journalists, hungry for filler, generously reciprocated. This was followed by the viral condemnation of a woman wearing a Hijab pictured walking past a wounded victim, based on a still image. Finally compounded up by the spectacular hyperactivity of the state, as the twelve people arrested in the days following the attack were all released without charge. Each terrorist attack, every concocted controversy about “freedom of speech”, proposed referenda to ban burqas, or minarets, or to leave the EU, is seized upon as an “event”. Political actions following these “events” and their endless mediation present opportunity structures for advancing racist causes and violence, to further cement ideas about what Islam is, who all Muslims are, why immigration is bad or how “political correctness” makes flaccid the institutions of nation and state.

Lentin and Titley call this tapestry of narratives “recited truths” – stories are constructed around what multiculturalism is, who it has benefited and how each Western country’s experience of its failings are cumulative and directly related. Every next “event” mobilises the last so that experiences of different (perceived-as-white) Western nation-states become unified by a civilisational threat narrative. This discourse is most prominently mobilised by populist racists like Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen as well as various journalists and academics, but this plane of thinking is far more ordinary than is conveniently perceived. David Cameron, liberal commentators, ex-leftists, Angela Merkel, all agree that “multiculturalism has failed”.

Lentin and Titley give us room to consider the pivotal importance of “multiculturalism”, not as a progressive virtue, but as an abstract obfuscation of race and class antagonisms, which has been repeatedly mobilised to advance nationalist sentiments. What we are witnessing today is the eclipse of coded racisms and the return of confident racists, though they did not come magically out of nowhere. The general incapacity of Western economies to manage a crisis that has its roots in the unraveling of post-war regimes of accumulation has left the door ajar to a far right international which mobilises all the racist configurations of the Western state for enhanced political manoeuvring. In this way, we tend to agree with Endnotes collective that the protracted crisis of capitalism we are facing is tied to a general inability of capital to absorb relative surplus populations thrown out of production by cyclical rounds of automation and deindustrialisation, since the crises of the 1970s. This is the material underpinning to Western national economies: financialisation and structural unemployment in the capitalist heartlands, accompanied by the political result, increasing authoritarianism. Central to politics in recent times has been a policing of the increasing precarity of the wage-relation itself, as a growing surplus of people begin to stand outside this relation, though continue to depend on the wage – or indirectly, debt – to garner a living. After the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, this tendency has merely deepened, rather than promise the abridgment of new social movements. Though how we got here is not always so clear and can be near impossible to understand under the intense hyperventilating of the news cycle.

In the British parliamentary sphere, specifically, resurgent social democracy remains embryonically attached to a robust faith in future rounds of capital accumulation, despite a general consensus from ultra left communists to Former US Treasury Secretaries that this is unlikely. In any case, the revival of capitalism is not desirable or possible, given the irrationality of a system based on blind producers responding to market signals, and the metabolic limits to this global contagion of commodity fetishism. The political armature of resurgent British social democracy, meanwhile, remains immobilised by the temporal scrum of spectacular media and moral sentiment, which is intensified by a commodity news form prone to short-winded assessment.

As we both reside in the shallows of the British imperial state, the British context is as good a place as any to tunnel into the dynamics of the present crisis of capitalism. Especially since after Brexit, the racialised character of the crisis has sharpened. Though we find little motivation to mourn the depressing features of the present through an obsessional critique of “evil” characters or sham governments, while hoping for better times through the spirit of times passed. Following up on the critical bearing Lentin and Titley develop through the ever-important mobilising object of “multiculturalism”, there is a need to recognise – and in what ways – fascism grows out of capitalism and liberalism, including the residue of its ‘progressive’ side, social democracy.

In this vein, we turn to the writing of Ambalavaner Sivanandan who in particular gives us a historical transition to understand how class antagonism is mediated by race. Thereby providing an essential starting point to unpack the peculiar British combine of racialised violence, bourgeois economics and imperial jamboree, which weedles itself into the half light of 2017.

In his writings on post-war labour, race and class, Sivanandan makes the British state a central focus of his analysis. The British state, unlike many other European states, could call on the migrant labour of British colonies and former colonies in the Caribbean and the Indian Subcontinent – to fill labour shortages, especially in public services, infrastructure and the most unappealing, gruelling jobs, which were not strongly affiliated to union memberships. Though as competition for work increased and working class communities were immiserated, they were also stratified by race. Sivanandan shows how the British Parliament responded by making settlement and citizenship progressively harder to obtain, ensuring the state management of racism became institutionalised, while political measures for “integration” and anti-discrimination were introduced to alleviate the effects.

Sivanandan notes a particular change in the form of post-war immigration from 1962 onwards, when the state restricted the admission of Commonwealth immigrants to those who had employment vouchers. This allowed the state new controls over the conditions of life for migrants, whose citizenship and rights to social welfare would then be tied directly to their capacity to labour. What Sivanandan noted as an “institutionalisation of race” opened up secondary potentials for super exploitation by landlords, bosses but also unions, which could more easily subordinate these lower tier workers to the priorities of institutional or individual self-preservation. This racialised tier of labour was then shaped through “race relations”, which intended to mitigate the economic need for flexible, seasonal and contractual migrant labour against racial antagonism between “indigenous” and “black” workers, including competition for work and housing.

The concept of “race relations” pointed to a consensus formed across Westminster parties that black people (Sivanandan refers to all colonised African and Asian peoples as “black”) were a problem and that immigration control was needed to limit their numbers (supposedly for the good of immigrants already in Britain). An example of this approach to “race relations” was a policy of 1965 stating that no school could have more than a third immigrant children making up its student body. Immigrant children were bussed to schools further away (“indigenous” kids were never bussed to other schools), making it clear that the state saw immigrant children as a problem which could be solved by ensuring their minority status through legislation and showing white parents that their prejudices were a priority. Increased restrictions were always accompanied by measures to encourage integration/assimilation as well as some to supposedly ward off discrimination. What Sivanandan returns to again and again during this period is how the state must balance its role of superintending cheap labour-power in the form of immigrants – cheaper because they grew up elsewhere and they were entitled to fewer rights and benefits, so they could be used up and thrown away – against the state’s need to maintain social control over labour in general. Two needs that didn’t always align.

The language and context of racism changes over the course of the 1980s and 1990s through new, more comprehensive policies to encourage “integration” and fostering the growth of a black middle class – though historical continuities from the 1960s racialisation of migrant labour persist. As a generation of migrants settled, and the children of migrants were then born in Britain, the relations of class society stratified racialised communities and new, more bourgeois, interpretations of antiracism also materialised. The dominant forms of antiracism in the 1970s and 1980s largely consisted of struggle against the state, the police, landlords, bosses, aimed at transforming social relations. State co-option of this period of rebellion and resistance through the language of “diversity”, individual social mobility and aspiration, initiated a decoupling of “race” from class, which had been relationally entwined for decades. A division between good and bad immigrants, violent policing of boundaries not to be transgressed and a constant process of separating new from settled waves of migration has since prevailed.

Against the grain of liberal democratic appeals to ‘post-racial’ unity, Sivanandan connected the era of “equal opportunities” – which Lentin and Titley examine through the signifier of “multiculturalism” –  to an intensification of the processes and logics of state racism, now trained upon different social groups. ‘Xenoracism’ for Sivanandan is a racism that coheres around newcomers and “don’t belongs” – the Greek “xeno” translating as alien or strange. New migrants and asylum seekers must prove their worth, economically, but also prove themselves worthy of the national imaginary. While towards the bottom of the pecking order, the Roma and unemployed or homeless migrants are priority targets for deportation.

As Arun Kundnani argues with great clarity in his book “The Muslims are Coming!”, the 9/11 event came to largely define this specific period of race relations and provided massive opportunities for pervasive narratives of nation and nationhood. Where once the Jew of the 19th and 20th centuries was the unwanted, unassimilable, rootless and rumoured-to-be disloyal subject of the European nation-state, the Muslim has become the hard target of state repression and surveillance. This doesn’t mean to say that the persistence of anti-blackness as the structuring lodestar of racism can be in any way minimised. Indeed, the most important contribution of Kundnani’s book is his appraisal of how Black Power movements in the 1960s and 70s were historically intertwined with people of Muslim faith. This history is obscured because after 9/11 it was impossible to be anti-capitalist and Muslim without also being suspected of being a terrorist. That represents the disciplinary principle of the “Prevent” policy operative in British schools, colleges and universities today, which promotes social cohesion, while obliterating whatever potential was left in these institutions for radical dissent, especially for people of colour. The Muslim label, abstractly conceived, acts as a signifier and cipher which substitutes “race” for religion, when in actuality the two are continually conflated. All the while police and state violence are meted out to black people in Western countries hugely disproportionately, citizen or not.

The divestment of “race” into a new legislature of different races and ethnicities, which ran parallel to the expansion of the service economy, was thought to be a sign that Britain could shed its colonial history and the “rivers of blood” of the bad old days, but only substituted this racial animus (to the extent that it actually did) with a repressed authoritarianism that demanded newcomers were to be both “tolerated” and relentlessly interrogated, or just silently deported in their thousands. Systematic Islamophobia and xenoracism was the reality of the “post-racial” consensus, especially post-9/11, cultivating spores of conspiratorial actors and “clash of civilisations” commentators – and their careers.

For UK parliamentary heavyweights after the financial crash, the unprecedented collapse of stable liberal oppositions in Europe ensured “immigration” became the central cross-parliamentary yardstick of competition. Against the consensus over austerity, which was something tautologically explained by the need to bring down the deficit, most at stake in Britain for parliamentarians of these years was immigration. Especially for a Labour Party hoping to stem their slide into obscurity. Underpinned by allusions to the “legitimate fears” of “working people”, the “progressive” side of this argument, coming from Labour shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, wanted an “honest conversation about immigration” to correct the past abuses of the system. Set against the fallacious premise that – in a country boasting a high technology border regime – “it is a serious problem that Britain still can’t count people in and count people out”, Cooper jealously attacked then Home Secretary Theresa May’s record on immigration figures, joining in with politicians of every stripe to prove herself tough enough to get the numbers down. This tit for tat of post-crash immigration duels has now completely unraveled, along with the duplicitous theatre of the Labour Party, leaving only the bare bones of the imperial corpus. Without apology or appeal to diversity, all that’s left is the giddy speculations of racist politicians and commentators accounting for the categories of bodies amenable to Brexit Britain.

The particular expression of political authoritarianism in Britain today, animated by nostalgia for imperialism and wartime national unity, should not distract from the historical relationship between race and class, state and capital, which writers such as Lentin, Titley, Sivanandan and Kundnani have helped to acutely dissect. Contemporary appeals to national unity and British sovereignty, alongside straw-man critiques of multiculturalism, however jingoistic, are actually proving necessary for the state to manage a protracted crisis of capitalism. The way Sivanandan describes the intersection between liberalism and fascism from the perspective of the 1960s, mediated through the abstract principle of “freedom of speech”, shows much of the language has changed, but the political mobilisation of race has been part and parcel of how British liberal democracy mediates class antagonisms:

“By invoking their democratic right to freedom of speech… by claiming equal TV time as the other electoral parties and by gaining ‘legitimate’ access to the press and radio – they would propagate the cause of denying others those freedoms and legitimacies, the blacks in the first place. They would move the whole debate on race to the right and force incoming governments to further racist legislation – on pain of electoral defeat.”  

In our introduction, we noted how Anthony Browne mourned the end of a European continent that had been “white” for 40,000 years. It is clear that Browne is no outlier or fringe operator, he has made a good career moving between media, political power and finance but always in mainstream institutions. His writings have been praised by the British National Party and sold on their website, before a career in mayoral politics and the financial sector. His assumptions are not special, however, but overlap with many of the logics at play in current political developments, which work by obscuring the historical passage of capitalism through colonialism. Indeed, Browne’s coded pre-9/11 foray into illustrations of “white genocide” anticipate post-crash far right electoral movements, which organise in much the same way, though without the same need for political restraint. There are however clear differences today. The most successful fascists can currently be found in the United States and they have been able to amplify fellow Anglophone satellites with much more veracity than the BNP could muster through sympathetic liberal establishment figures like Browne. Though unchanging, from Sivanandan writing in the late 1960s on the formalisation of the BNP and National Front to Nigel Farage and the “alt-right” Nazi youth, are the gamut of liberal media outlets willing and ready to give these views oxygen.

The far right have been sycophantically courted by journalists and an increasingly desperate petit-bourgeois commentariat, who stand tall on defence of free speech, or fabricate the human story behind the fascist. Seeing Richard Spencer get punched in the face (whilst doing yet another interview) was too much for some commentators, who could see nothing but leftist aggression. This immobilised spectacle of liberal culture not only extends the purview of fascist newscraft, but perhaps more importantly obscures the history of their ideas. The seductive entrée of nativist rebellion, irresistible for liberal commentary, fails to note the fundamental conformity of these movements, which merely seek to extrapolate, accelerate and proudly centre what seated parliaments have been doing for decades.

To the “race realist”, national borders aren’t scars of colonialism carved out by war, imperialism and revolution, they mark the boundaries of timeless bonds of blood, soil and culture. “Race”, for fascism, has no history: it is not ascribed by power, ideology, legal systems or labour relations. “Race” is a given, handed down through the ages, conferring social meaning and innate difference. The typical charge is that multiculturalism has fractured European societies, hasn’t sufficiently “integrated” newcomers and has allowed communities to become segregated, damaging social cohesion. But this evocation of social cohesion is a mythical conjuring. It summons up a society or community of the barely memorable past where gender, class, racial and spatial division never existed, whilst affirming racial difference through the historical categories of colonialism and bourgeois political economy.

What Marx referred to as the production of “relative surplus populations” – that is, labour relative to what capital needs, rather than ‘naturally’ surplus –  is an advantage and problem for capital. The perverse irony of the capitalist mode of production is that it is the supra-managers of capital – mostly white men – and the super-exploited – majority women, non-white –  that move around the most. The former to search out, dispossess and exploit the latter, before moving on when labour gets too riotous and thus expensive to manage.

For the imperial states, country-hopping capital is necessary to expand taxation and influence. Though what is specific about today is that the imperial nations are struggling to manage the people it doesn’t need in its own heartlands. As Sivanandan shows us, this was a regular problem for the British state in times of economic contraction, which demanded new innovations of state technology and policy that could more closely shape and regulate flows of migrant labour from the Commonwealth or balkanised European regions. But in a protracted crisis of capitalist accumulation, where green shoots never surface, except through releasing fictitious capital through pensions for property investment and tech speculation, the state must mediate the more general immiseration of the workforce. Against the expansion of a national prison population and the law and order ticket, invocations of nation, culture and the ‘death of multiculturalism’ then become crucial to mediate the political fallout of these economic contradictions. This labour problem is then reconciled by setting mutilated “natives” – be they workers, estate agents or Surrey brokers – against the degraded world of the strange and foreign.

The mythical cohesiveness of nation serves only as an imagined obverse to the particular focus of difference in the dominant frame – the racialised, the Muslim, the immigrant, the asylum seeker, are foregrounded as the antagonist of economic crisis and threat to stability. There is no non-reactionary vision of national cohesion in the context of political economy. As a simple priority, “lived multiculture” has to be defended, in thought as well as practice, which means every racist deportation fought, communities of resistance and solidarity deepened, and the borders enforced by state and capital exposed as divisions of who lives and who dies.

African American communist Harry Haywood wrote of “race” in 1930: “Race, as a social question, exist[s] only for the ideologists of the bourgeoisie and in the minds of those deluded by them.” [This ideology existed to imbue] “differences within the human species, such as color of skin, texture of hair, etc [with] social meaning,” [in order to claim] “the existence in nature of master and slave races.” Race is a category of bourgeois reality, but racism plays as salient a role as ever in ordering and dividing societies, and structuring global flows of capital and labour.

In the context of this systematic racialisation of capitalist crisis and an emboldening of the politics of white masculinity, racial/sexual/gender minorities are constantly in the dock for derailing supposedly general or universal political struggles in favour of their particular interests or individualism, as too preoccupied with identity or “virtue signalling”. The term “identity politics” is almost always accusatory. This characterisation erases the fact that these struggles for liberation or justice or recognition challenge the heart of the general (the state, prevailing modes of accumulation and reproduction) which are largely treated as objective facts of life. “Race”, which has been our main focus, is “depersonalised” and systemic, and yet, personifies human beings. This ‘identity’ is not freely appropriated by any one person; to be raced is an ascription reinforced from the outside. The need for such organisation of “races” results from a history of social control that the capitalist state has used to supplant class antagonism. While consistently, for decades, groups who are most marginalised and oppressed in Global North countries have been at the forefront of the most radical social struggles that have forced concessions from the state and challenged and troubled mainstream society in order to bring about change.

Contra perceptions in the West, Global South to North migration is actually very low owing to it being massively & lethally restricted. It must be considered low especially in the context of imperialist wars and climate change fuelling record levels of displacement and migration, the vast majority of which remains internal to the Global South. The production of relative surplus populations inherent to capitalist development, that sees both agricultural labour expropriated from access to means of subsistence as well as wage-labour functions being continually automated, are leaving growing sections of the global labour force only partially, casually or seasonally needed by capital, if at all. This tendency has proven to be highly gendered and racialised. The trends suggest that the crisis symptoms we are living through will only intensify and the catastrophic effects will be distributed as unevenly as the wealth has been abstracted from material life. To understand the causes and to struggle against them at their root will be the struggle of our lifetimes.

America ‘catches up’ with Third World democracies

Related image

Demonstrators gather to protest a day after President-elect Donald Trump’s victory, at a rally outside Los Angeles City Hall in Los Angeles, California, on November 9, 2016. Protesters burned a giant orange-haired head of Donald Trump in effigy, lit fires in the streets and blocked traffic lanes late on November 9 as rage over the billionaire’s election victory spilled onto the streets of US cities. From New York to Los Angeles, thousands of people in around 10 cities rallied against the president-elect a day after his stunning win, some carrying signs declaiming “Not our President” and “Love trumps hate.” / AFP PHOTO/ Read more at: https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000222981/america-catches-up-with-third-world-democracies

The just-concluded American poll and its aftermath has completely shattered the unspoken myth that certain conduct is exclusively the preserve of Third World and emergent democracies. Post-election violence, the use of foul language by politicians, taking advantage of divisions, intolerance to rival groups, aversion to defeat and pollsters-influence on elections have all been seen as idiosyncratic variables of Third World democracies – until Donald J Trump faced Hillary Clinton. Conversely, the respect for the will of the people, tolerance of rival supporters, emphasis on issues-based campaigns, decorum in politics and use of science-based predictions have long been associated with America, a country that has experimented with democracy for centuries. But yesterday’s images of thousands of enraged American citizens flooding the streets in protest to a largely credible electoral outcome – one in which the rival conceded before they were called – contradicted the very idea of democracy. unequivocal refusal The weeping and wailing at a White House night vigil on Wednesday night was a scene straight out of an African post-election moment, when people who peg all their hopes on an individual candidate are deflated by electoral outcomes.
Related image
Trump’s advance and unequivocal refusal to accept results unless he won was typical of Third World democracy candidates and their aversion to defeat. His preoccupation with epithets against Clinton at the expense of issues too! Third World democracies’ propensity to reward the crude at the expense of the sane or to extol vice in place of virtues showed itself clearly in the American election. For some people, the choice between Trump and Clinton was a more or less like the biblical choice between the Messiah and Barabbas the common thief. The crowds settled for the common thief and condemned their ultimate savior to die on the cross.
AGAINST GREAT ODDS
This presumption that the Barabbas narrative is the preserve of Third World countries has been shattered by the triumphal entry of Trump into the White House against great odds. Closely related to this is the Americans’ unbridled obsession with values in governance and its processes. Many Third World democracies – including Kenya – have blamed America for attempting to interfere with electoral choices on exterior considerations. Perhaps the greatest similarity between the conduct of the American polls and Third World democracy polls is the tendency to ignore the undercurrents driving the electorate whose end result turns out to be “democratic accidents” in the eyes of the establishment.

 

Political Violence Is Inevitable In America

The future looks like it has a lot of Balkanization and political violence in it.

 

October 14, 2017

 

Submitted by James Karlsson

 

The shooting in Las Vegas is part and parcel now of living in the West. Nowhere in the West is it more evident now than in America that the many racial and ethnic groups are fighting over a carcass. A dead bag of ideas and principles that has been festering since at least 1965.

The many ethnic and racial groups that comprise modern America are scavenging at this carcass in a desperate frenzy to grasp what resources from it that they can and as those resources begin to run out it will lead to confrontation and conflict.

The country is on the edge of a radical conflict that will change the very geopolitical and demographic makeup of the North American continent. The old America of 1965 is dead and it’s time her former peoples go their separate ways to forge a new existence apart from one another.

Related image

If the people who formerly used to call themselves Americans continue to fight over this carcass they will spark this aforementioned conflict and blood will be spilled. We see now that African Americans are ‘taking the knee’ to protest a country which they feel has treated them as second-class citizens throughout various points in history.

They have the right to feel this way.

According to PewSocialTrends.org nearly 43% of African Americans don’t believe America will make the changes necessary to give them equality. Meanwhile, affirmative action and massive welfare programs to re-distribute the nation’s wealth have remained in place for over half a century in an attempt to lift up Black America. Still, 66% of Blacks feel that they are treated less fairly when applying for a home loan and 75% are under the impression they are treated unfairly in the criminal justice system, a system which was purposely built to be the least biased in the world. Because of this perception of their situation, they have begun to demand change that not even they themselves believed  White Americans would give them.

Image result for los angeles 3rd world city

They have demanded and received segregated black only forms at: California State University, University of Colorado Boulder. At The University of Chicago, they also demanded segregated housing. Harvard is now holding separate black only graduation ceremonies and blacks are increasingly returning to the South. This does not make up a population unified with the ideas of America. This is a population disillusioned with a nation they never felt they were truly a part of, to begin with.

If the people who formerly used to call themselves Americans continue to fight over the carcass blood will be spilled.

At her conception, America was a White, Anglo-Protestant nation with values reflected in that historic population. White Americans are resoundingly in opposition to the things Black America is currently standing for. 70% of them watch the NFL, 60% intend to watch less of the NFL now that players are disrespecting their dead country. This view on disrespect stems from the massively different political views Whites hold with the non-White population of the country. Nearly 42% of whites think that on-demand abortion in the United States should be outlawed, while 62% of Black Americans support it, and the Hispanic population is split almost 50/50 on the issue according to Pewform.org. Politically they continue to buck the trend of the people of color in the United States.

If only White votes were counted, Trump would have gotten 369 electoral votes to Hillary’s 169 which is a huge departure from the 306 Trump to 232 Clinton which actually occurred as laid out by Brilliant Maps based on the electoral commission data.

White Americans hold different views from all other populations in the United States, and this wide difference in views among races is one of the primary reasons America withered and died. A custodial population who imports more mess and more violence, and persons with opposing views, can never maintain a healthy society.

The alien population of America: some 57,470,287 Hispanics, which constituted roughly 18% of the population in 2017 are yet another major driving force of future conflict.

Related image

The Hispanic population in the country highlights almost perfectly the balkanization of the physical geography of the United States. Hispanics do not live where Blacks live and Blacks do not live where Hispanics live. The Southwestern United States has a Hispanic population of over 35% in every state in the region, and less than a 4.8% Black population in the region as a whole. Conversely, the Southern States all have Hispanic populations of less than 10%, with Florida being the only notable exception to this at around 20%. In 2015 Hispanic Americans went from having a 29% negative attitude towards the United States to a sharp 65% in 2017 and 41% are concerned about their place in America. This is a problem that before 1960 hardly existed as their small population of 6.3 million represented only 3.48% of the population, now they occupy a staggering 18% and in the space of just 57 years, their population in raw numbers has increased nine-fold. This is compounded by the rather conservative estimate that they will represent over 30.2% of the population in 2040 or 132.8 million individuals.

A 128% increase in raw numbers.

These two groups, The Blacks and Hispanics will not treat Whites with kindness and generosity. They took what Whites from all around the planet had contributed to and created and they began to bleed it dry.  After the Las Vegas Massacre, it is obvious to most of us that the path

to peaceful reconciliation is gone, if it existed at all before that, and we must be ready for a time when it is not only one man with a gun aiming a concert.

These attacks will continue with the silence of the media and political class effectively sanctioning these kinds of actions as long as they are directed at Whites who vote the wrong way.

What can we white people do? WAR, we must take up arms against our governments, organize into guerilla units, and bring the systems down. We must attack infrastructure, power, water, transportation, and collapse the economy. The Nation we want to save, CANNOT be saved, the rot has spread to every institution of every nation, we do not have the time for a long march through the institution to remove the cultural Marxists as they retire or leave, we must hunt them down, and put rounds into their skulls. Get used to the idea of being called a criminal, a terrorist, and a murderer, If you want to save the white race, you will have to kill the nations, governments, and the people standing in our way.

Image result for right wing death squads