NATION

PASSWORD

The Next War by Camarade Le Dragon (Open)

A place to put national factbooks, embassy exchanges, and other information regarding the nations of the world. [In character]
User avatar
6th National Revolutionary France
Attaché
 
Posts: 79
Founded: Jul 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

The Next War by Camarade Le Dragon (Open)

Postby 6th National Revolutionary France » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:49 pm

Image


REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!


Introduction:

The Next War is the Political thought of Jean DeMolay who would later be known as Camarade Le Dragon it was the founding ideological document for his Organization for the National Liberation of France, the book was written before Le Dragon had taken hold of leadership and overthrown the old corrupt system. The book presents the ideas and political thought of the venerable leader and the ideology of the Fourth Revolutionary Position! Camarade Le Dragon viewed his ascension to the ruler-ship of France as a Divine Ordination that has installed him as a shepherd over the fair flock of France. The book predicts a future global civil-war between masses and a global oligarchic technocratic government. The book lays out a political foundation for France by which it can separate from and be an alternative haven to this future dystopian world as the base of World Revolution against the Wealthy 1% conspirators in London and Wall Street.

There are no pockets of land left that are not claimed by a state, and the projects of the global Market send their traces into the farthest wild reaches of the globe, poisoning water, soil and air. It is not really possible to speak of an “outside” anymore. And within the next year, a significant point in human history will be reached: the urban population of the world will surpass the rural population for the first time in history. For those of us who desire a revolutionary break with the existing social order, and especially those of us who understand this as a break with civilization itself, this process of global urbanization an important matter. We would do well to examine it deeply in order to better understand the forces that will be in play in social struggle over the next several years, so that we can consider how to act effectively on our own terms against the ruling order in this context. I am offering these notes as a tentative first step in this direction.

Image



This book is in honor of all of my fallen Comrades, who died fighting the system!



National Correctivism

This book (The Next War) is the official founding document of the National Collectivist Agrarian Socialist Party of France, I wrote this to explain our ideology, our platform, our worldview and what we fight for. To address the first thing, we are no longer Marxist Leninists or National Communists, we reject Marxism and embrace pre-Marxist guild socialism and Utopian socialism with a French nationalist bent and ideas from the French libertarian socialist thinker Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, we also are critical of the current techno-industrial fascism present in our society today. We could be best described as Post-Marxists, Revolutionary Nationalists, Blanquists, Guild Socialists, Agrarian Socialists, Neo-Luddites, Syndicalists and Proudhonian federalists. However we refuse to be judged by any one label as National Correctivism is dynamic and pragmatic. It seeks to correct the wrongs of the first, second, and third political positions and embraces a new revolutionary fourth position. We seek to end the cycle of decline induced by Macron's techno-fascist austerity regime.

Our platform is thus a 6 point program that will one day be summed up into a 5 year plan, which we call the revolutionary Hexagram:
1. Immediate action against social media websites and a halt to technological growth.
2. State control over industry and production.
3. Socialize and democratize industry and production.
4. Deindustrialisation of production and service sectors.
5. Decentralize and Cooperativize industries of commodity.
6. Balance industries of need with a primary permacultural mode of production.

This book amounts to the much needed critique of Capitalism of the post-modern era, it is beyond Historical materialism and idealism.

Historical Materialism or Idealism?

Historical Materialism is a good way to examine society, however to claim it is "scientific" and the only way to examine society is simple-minded and foolish. In this book we will use a mixture of Dialectical Materialism, Spenglerian civilization analysis, Conspiratorial realism and Ancient wisdom traditions to analyze the current state of the modern world.

We agree that civilization is going in a cycle as the Spenglarians would say, we agree that humanity will eventually move into a new direction as the Marxists and Dialectical Materialists would say. We will do anything we can however to prevent liberal hegemony from being the "End of History" the 21st century shall not be the century of liberalism or technocracy or even that of Communism, but it shall be the century of National Correctivism! We shall correct the wrongs made by the global American establishment.

Conspiracy realism

This book acknowledges a vile conspiracy by the capitalist elite, to enslave the working class to a new system of neo-feudalist austerity and servitude.

"A vast conspiracy against mankind has been organized on two continents, and it is rapidly taking possession of the world. If not met and overthrown at once it forebodes terrible social convulsions, the destruction of civilization, or the establishment of an absolute despotism."-Ignatius L. Donnelly, Caesar's Column

Wealth is being concentrated into a small plutocratic elite, this elite hijacked democratic governments and international bodies and wages war against the lower classes and they wage war against the modern concept of the nation-state. These plutocratic elite are a technocratic elite who control large systems of machines. Due to improved techniques the elite have greater control over the masses; currently the elite is talking about a fully automated economy and Universal Basic Income. Human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals. We refuse to become domesticated animals and choose to live as freemen! We refuse to see our fellow human beings enslaved by the ruling 1% of humanity.

At the world level, the “Who’s Who” of the capitalist oligarchy have for a long time given themselves forums where they devote themselves to futurology, such as the annual World Economic Forum at Davos, or the Bilderberg Group. The system’s self-questioning was expressed in the doctrine of “sustainable development,” drawn from the 1987 Bruntland Report, which recommended “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

In compliance with this doctrine, the Western ruling classes are increasingly taking the route of new technologies, which will be used for warfare and the enslavement of the human species to techno-fascism. The Next War offers France a new program to get away from this global techno-fascism being established by the world's elite and offers communitarian alternatives to this vile and evil agenda.

The world’s most powerful, unwieldy, unsustainable system taunts and teases — as it prepares to crush. Monolithic mega-masters care little for livelihoods or lives. Press leaks about the first days of war predict a barrage of cruise missiles unlike anything we’ve seen; Baghdad burning under the Pentagon strategy known as “shock and awe,” intended to terrify the Iraqis, quickening surrender. The possible use of tactical nukes is still on the table. (According to a national security report; other planned or proposed tactics in the tyrannical tool box include eerie elements of non-lethal war such as the use of holograms — huge projections of an enemy army or religious prophet — that psychologically manipulate the enemy into submission). All their anticipated methods of domination combined with the inevitability of error looks like a reliable recipe for revulsion. But what are we going to do about it?

A tiny minority of people are waging an unrelenting war against the Earth and it’s inhabitants. Knowing very well they can never rule the entire planet, they’ve decided to destroy what they don’t need and hoard what they do. They use methods which proved effective in the era of European colonialism — dividing populations so that they constantly make war on one another, poisoning the water supply, forcing people into concentrated population centers to better control them, rewarding “leaders” who will do the dirty work for a piece of the action, eliminating “troublemakers”, etc. The most hideous aspect of this death culture is that the powerful have convinced the weak to desire their obliteration. Actually, the powerful get the weak to destroy themselves and do it as a sacramental duty. Some of the weak can see the destruction they are visiting upon their world. They do what they can to limit the destruction they cause. They utterly fail to realize that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

These “kinder-gentler” destroyers are so afraid of looking at the consequences of their actions that they fight wholeheartedly to defend the rights of the powerful to destroy our world and denounce any efforts to oppose the machinations of the death-culture. Because, you see, not everyone is blind to the workings of the killers of the Earth. Not only that, but there are still millions of people who are not connected to the apparatus of the death-culture and they fight to stop the death machines. The powerful and the weak alike hate the National Correctivist. The powerful must destroy them in order to maintain their privileged status. The weak must destroy them so that they don’t have to face their own cowardice. Also, they — being weak — are totally dependent on the death-culture — without it, they would suffer and perish immediately, rather than slowly.

The powerful and the weak make war on the uncooperative, the wild and the free. They are as effective as they are heartless. The powerful use fear to force the weak to kill the rebellious and the free. The weak are motivated by fear — fear of offending their masters, fear of losing their status, fear of being killed themselves. If fear is the only motivation the weak understand, perhaps it’s time for the uncooperative to make the weak fear that which they have embraced. Perhaps it’s time for the brave and free to make the powerful awake in their bunkers. Perhaps it is time to go on the offensive and make the powerful and weak alike pay for their crimes against nature. Perhaps it’s time for a two-sided war.

With its repressive operations, the ruling order shows us in negative what they really fear: not so much the current position conquered by its enemies, in itself insignificant, as the further attacks that this would allow. Come on, let's set aside panic and victimistic complaining. In a society in decomposition, it is certainly easy to remain buried under the flood of its rubble, but it is equally true that its possible points of rupture multiply. It is thus a question of looking for them and trying to break them down. The discomfort against this world without meaning is mounting; it is no longer a discussion made by and for a few subversives in the enclosure of their spaces, but it is becoming a common feeling capable of transforming itself into action and the NEXT WAR VIOLENTLY APPROACHES!

The present-day technological-spectacular society, has been a continuous process of separation from nature and of domestication of humanity. Now more than ever, this is evident in the capitalist desire to free commodity production from the earth and its resources, as well as in the city dweller afraid of losing her grip on society. It is evident in destructive processes, and in those tending toward the concentration of people into a homogenous mass. It is also evident in the alienation from our own bodies and in the entrusting of their cure to specialists accustomed to treating one body after another without valuing subjectivities at all, almost as if these bodies were machines.

And this process has really operated mainly on this last aspect, not only separating us from external nature, but also from the form of nature, unacknowledged and mistreated by most, that we are. In this way, domination plants its roots in the brains of individuals convinced, or maybe constrained, to consider themselves other than nature. But we are not allowed to clearly know what this other is. And by steering the middle course between the pedestal of domination over nature and the simultaneous evaluation of being insignificant within the social Moloch, it is possible to make the appeal to work in order to impose new ideals of the human being, absolutely functional to technological domination and truly other than nature. It becomes imperative to integrate oneself, to evolve at a pace equal to the technosphere’s separation from nature. And methods for integrating oneself are not at all lacking within the ruling order. They are not merely ideological: genetic manipulation already finds applications on the human being, and individuals are already designed in the laboratory, thus carrying evolutionary control to its farthest end. What genetics cannot achieve, especially on the social plane (truthfully, a lot), will be achieved thanks to nanotechnology that already allows the implanting of micro-chips under the skin with infinite possibilities, from location, to the control of gestures and actions, up to interaction with the biological system. Today the lines of control tend to flow more and more into the fabric of life.

Going back in time we can see how Descartes smoothed out the path for such artificialization with his mind-body dualism. Setting aside the mind and shifting attention to the body, objectively quantifiable and controllable, he pointed the way out to science, which has today achieved transplants and the artificial creation of organs. Already Descartes himself asked, “Couldn't living organs perhaps be conceived in a satisfactory manner, and thus governed, as if they were machines?” But science has gone further, not only realizing his idea as the basis of modem biology, but then conceiving organisms fused with and ruled by machines.

The creation of a post-human race and the colonization of the cosmos by machines, as proposed by the scientistic extropian cult, are no longer only subjects for films or the isolated delirium of some fanatic, but projects under study in the universities of robotics and in research center scattered throughout the world. The extropian Hans Moravec admits his fantasy that “our non-organic descendants, lacking our limits, capable of redesigning themselves, could follow the awareness of things, confining the already surpassed humanity in an edenic environment, like a park.” But more likely, in the name of efficiency, and in view of the objective difficulty of finding an edenic environment on this ravaged earth, the descendants of Moraves would eliminate the obsolete organic human forms. The machine and artificial intelligence are now considered by many as the next level of evolution. The disquieting vision of cyborg Kevin Warwick, who has inserted a chip[1] into his arm that commands lights, entrances and computers in his office, is that fifty years from now machines will manage humans and artificial intelligence will outclass and eliminate human intelligence through the physical intervention of psychosurgery.

Beyond the obvious excess of fanaticism that certain theories reach, there is still a very precise direction: the elimination of the living being as we have known it up to now. What comes about with genetic engineering, controlled sterilization and reproduction, the creation of cyborgs, the cognitive flattening to the level of machines or the purging of the unsuitable is to be seen, but certainly this technological ideology will damage us from now on, whether there is a concrete realization or not. We are already at a point where reality and simulation sometimes become indistinguishable, and in an extension of the techniques of Spectacular representation, there is now talk of artificial senses capable of making our perception of reality completely virtual, mediated and thus impoverished.

Before it's too late, let's realize that science and technology are historical phenomena directed by a vulnerable elite and that our enslavement is in their interest. The key to the ascendancy of machines and of the post-human for an even more totalitarian domination lies in our acceptance, like it does for every form of exploitation and control. And it is only by overturning this notion and the current society, that it will be possible to find the key for the unknown world of freedom. The System in the West blends ‘Liberal Capitalistʼ economic policy with ‘Cultural Marxistʼ social policy, synthesizing what many believe to be polar opposite, conflicting ideologies, and confusing the hell out of Leftists and Rightists in the process. The most important thing to bear in mind is that the System and its agents are very flexible in their use of ideology.

They will appropriate or create any ideological mask necessary to achieve specific objectives, then discard said mask when the objectives are complete, or if the mask becomes compromised or a hindrance. Those who still view the World in terms of rigid ideological boundaries may struggle to understand this, but it cannot be stressed enough: the System and its agents do not care about ideology, orthodoxy, principles, values, morality, justice, and so on; they are immoral, irrational, illogical, inconsistent, and intentionally chaotic. The word ‘hypocrisyʼ is meaningless to them.

The Systemʼs actual “ideology” is best described as Master/Slave Morality dualism; it simultaneously projects the latter onto the public, while its Masters practice the former. This method of control is nothing new or revolutionary and has been used continually throughout history, by rulers from all over the World. The public (or slave class) are led to believe that the overall ideology of the System *is* the Slave Morality that the System imposes on them via itʼs controlled education, media, political, and corporate structures. ‘Cultural Marxism,ʼ ‘Liberalism,ʼ ‘SJWism,ʼ and ‘the Oppression Olympicsʼ are all, fundamentally, synonyms for Slave Morality.

The true ‘ideologyʼ of the System is that of its Masters: the desire for absolute power, the willingness to do anything to achieve their goal of total global domination and to maintain their position at the top of the international pyramid-scheme that is the System. Despite this, the zealous and a fanatically pro-egalitarianism slave class do not direct their rage towards the System or at its Masters. By positioning itself as the ‘defender of the downtrodden,ʼ and by acting as the chief progenitor of all values they hold dear—the concept of ‘equality,ʼ feminism, promiscuity, anti-family, pro-abortion, open borders, pro-drugs, LGBT rights, etc.—the System, a relentlessly downtrodden force, has tricked these hapless, downtrodden buffoons into worshipping it as their Savior. Of course, the Systemʼs overlords want nothing to do with any of the degenerate, universalist, humanist, egalitarian, Slave Moralist trash that they foist onto the populace, and why would they? Itʼs extremely damaging to society, they impose it for this very reason.

The System sets about destroying the family unit, natural social hierarchies, feminizing all fighting-age males, flooding countries with drugs, junk food, pornography, and various ethnic groups (who all despise each other). This enfeebles the populace, removing any fighting spirit, while simultaneously causing enough ‘managedʼ chaos and bickering among the plebs to distract them from the true culprit. They see the gun but not who pulls the trigger. Combine this with System-sanctioned modes of rebellion, such as “Climate Change” protests, and the threat of any serious resistance or counter-revolution is almost totally nullified.

When the System is not fully in power within a country, when it is just beginning to wrap its greasy tentacles around a people, it will focus on weaponizing the lowest echelons of society against the highest: the current ruling class. It aims to usurp and overthrow the elite, replacing them with its own agents, who will act as the new ruling class. This is usually achieved via one ‘wedge issueʼ that the masses can easily rally behind. Today we see this happening all over the planet, from the “feminist revolutions” in Iran to the “anti-Assad”
protests in Syria — “These ‘dictatorsʼ are ʼevil,ʼ those poor ‘oppressed‘ people need ʼLibertyʼ and ʼFreedom!ʼ” — or so the Systemʼs propaganda goes...Most people think that this is the work of the “Americans,” it is nothing of the sort — the U.S. is little more than an occupied vassal state, used as the Systemʼs primary military force. Before it fell to occupation (via the creation of the Federal Reserve, early 1900s), the United States was regularly criticized for being too isolationist.

Once the System has successfully overthrown the existing ruling class of a society, it then applies the ‘low echelonʼ vs ‘high echelonʼ subversion strategy not to the ruling class (which now consists of its loyal agents), but against the society itself, weaponizing the debased
against vital social structures. Via things such as “privilege theory,” Critical Race Theory, and Feminism, the family, reproduction, health, fitness, race/tribe/nation, etc. are all painted as forces of oppression against the poor downtrodden masses. This manifests as chaotic, socially disruptive degeneracy: the Western ‘Oppression Olympicsʼ phenomenon.

Reclaiming Europa from American & Zionist Imperialism

In order to reclaim Europe, we must return to the Warrior ideal, this means the embrace of both evolutionary and revolutionary struggle. Socialism is the result of human evolution and thus must put its foundations in evolution. Our ideal is the New Order, a society where the warrior caste once again rules. The return of the stoical warrior ethos merged with the proletarian revolutionary element of socialism will create a society which embodies a heroic age for France.

France must devote financial resources toward two functions which include gradually restoring the natural world, and fighting American imperialism abroad.
Last edited by 6th National Revolutionary France on Thu Nov 28, 2019 12:18 am, edited 53 times in total.
Sixth French Republic-Socialist National Liberationist
Note: I am not the bloody original Souriya al-Assad, I am a friend and this nation is tribute to him.

User avatar
6th National Revolutionary France
Attaché
 
Posts: 79
Founded: Jul 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Chapter 1: We Live In a Society

Postby 6th National Revolutionary France » Mon Oct 07, 2019 5:57 pm

Chapter 1: We Live In a Society

Hard times create strong men,
Strong men create good times,
Good times create weak men,
Weak men create hard times.

Image



"Christ...had, as I said before, no scheme for the reconstruction of society. But the modern world has schemes. It proposes to do away with poverty and the suffering that it entails. It desires to get rid of pain, and the suffering that pain entails."-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism

It was once said by a wise man, of whom was a comedian of sorts that "We Live In a Society", the statement has great meaning since it describes in detail our late Capitalist society and the schemers that run it trying to control their little worlds. In order to understand Capitalism we need to first understand that Capitalism is in reality a revolution from above. The West’s crisis of trust in itself, in its knowledge, in its language, in its reason, in its liberalism, in its subject and the world, actually dates back to the end of the 19th century; it breaks forth in every domain with and around the First World War.

Cybernetics developed on that open wound of modernity. It asserted itself as a remedy for the existential and thus governmental crisis of the West. As Norbert Wiener saw it, “We are shipwrecked passengers on a doomed planet. Yet even in a shipwreck, human decencies and human values do not necessarily vanish, and we must make the most of them. We shall go down, but let it be in a manner to which we may look forward as worthy of our dignity”. Cybernetic government is inherently apocalyptic. Its purpose is to locally impede the spontaneously entropic, chaotic movement of the world and to ensure “enclaves of order,” of stability, and - who knows? - the perpetual self-regulation of systems, through the unrestrained, transparent, and controllable circulation of information. “Communication is the cement of society and those whose work consists in keeping the channels of communication open are the ones on whom the continuance or downfall of our civilization largely depends,” declared Wiener, believing he knew. As in every period of transition, the changeover from the old economic govern- mentality to cybernetics includes a phase of instability, a historical opening where governmentality as such can be put in check.


For capitalism as we know it to come about, it was essential first of all for labor to be separated from property. Marxians and other radical economists commonly refer to the process as "primitive accumulation." "What the capitalist system demanded was. . . a degraded and almost servile condition of the mass of the people, the transformation of them into mercenaries, and of their means of labor into capital." That meant expropriating the land, "to which the [peasantry] has the same feudal rights as the lord himself." [Marx, "Chapter 27: The Expropriation," Capital vol. 1]

To grasp the enormity of the process, we must understand that the nobility's rights in land under the manorial economy were entirely a feudal legal fiction deriving from conquest. The peasants who cultivated the land of England in 1650 were descendants of those who had occupied it since time immemorial. By any standard of morality, it was their property in every sense of the word. The armies of William the Conqueror, by no right other than force, had compelled these peasant proprietors to pay rent on their own land.

J. L. and Barbara Hammond treated the sixteenth century village and open field system as a survival of the free peasant society of Anglo-Saxon times, with landlordism superimposed on it. The gentry saw surviving peasant rights as a hindrance to progress and efficient farming; a revolution in their own power was a way of breaking peasant resistance. Hence the agricultural community was "taken to pieces. . . and reconstructed in the manner in which a dictator reconstructs a free government." [The Village Labourer 27-28, 35-36].

When the Tudors gave expropriated monastic lands to the nobility, the latter "drove out, en masse, the hereditary sub tenants and threw their holdings into one." [Marx, "The Expropriation"]. This stolen land, about a fifth of the arable land of England, was the first large-scale expropriation of the peasantry.

Another major theft of peasant land was the "reform" of land law by the seventeenth century Restoration Parliament. The aristocracy abolished feudal tenures and converted their own estate in the land, until then "only a feudal title," into "rights of modern private property." In the process, they abolished the tenure rights of copyholders. Copyholders were de jure tenants under feudal law, but once they paid a negligible quit-rent fixed by custom, the land was theirs to sell or bequeath. In substance copyhold tenure was a manorial equivalent of freehold; but since it derived from custom it was enforceable only in the manor courts. Under the "reform," tenants in copyhold became tenants at-will, who could be evicted or charged whatever rent their lord saw fit [Marx, "The Expropriation..."].

Another form of expropriation, which began in late medieval times and increased drastically in the eighteenth century, was the enclosure of commons--in which, again, the peasants communally had as absolute a right of property as any defended by today's "property rights" advocates. Not counting enclosures before 1700, the Hammonds estimated total enclosures in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries at a sixth or a fifth of the arable land in England [Village Labourer 42]. E. J. Hobsbawm and George Rude estimated enclosures between 1750 and 1850 alone as transforming "something like one quarter of the cultivated acreage from open field, common land, meadow or waste into private fields...." [Captain Swing 27].

The ruling classes saw the peasants' right in commons as a source of economic independence from capitalist and landlord, and thus a threat to be destroyed. Enclosure eliminated "a dangerous centre of indiscipline" and compelled workers to sell their labor on the masters' terms. Arthur Young, a Lincolnshire gentleman, described the commons as "a breeding-ground for 'barbarians,' 'nursing up a mischievous race of people'." "[E]very one but an idiot knows," he wrote, "that the lower classes must be kept poor, or they will never be industrious." The Commercial and Agricultural Magazine warned in 1800 that leaving the laborer "possessed of more land than his family can cultivate in the evenings" meant that "the farmer can no longer depend on him for constant work." [Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, 219-220, 358]. Sir Richard Price commented on the conversion of self-sufficient proprietors into "a body of men who earn their subsistence by working for others." There would, "perhaps, be more labour, because there will be more compulsion to it." [Marx, "The Expropriation...."].

Marx cited parliamentary "acts of enclosure" as evidence that the commons, far from being the "private property of the great landlords who have taken the place of the feudal lords," actually required "a parliamentary coup detat... for its transformation into private property." ["The Expropriation...."]. The process of primitive accumulation, in all its brutality, was summed up by the same author:

these new freedmen [i.e. former serfs] became sellers of themselves only after they had been robbed of all their own means of production, and of all the guarantees of existence afforded by the old feudal arrangements. And the history of this, their expropriation, is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire ["Chapter 26: The Secret of Primitive Accumulation," Capital Vol. 1].

Even then, the working class was not sufficiently powerless. The state had to regulate the movement of labor, serve as a labor exchange on behalf of capitalists, and maintain order. The system of parish regulation of the movement of people, under the poor laws and vagrancy laws, resembled the internal passport system of South Africa, or the reconstruction era Black Codes. It "had the same effect on the English agricultural labourer," Marx wrote, "as the edict of the Tartar Boris Godunov on the Russian peasantry." ["The Expropriation..."] Adam Smith ventured that there was "scarce a poor man in England of forty years of age... who has not in some part of his life felt himself most cruelly oppressed by this ill-contrived law of settlements." [Wealth of Nations 61].

The state maintained work discipline by keeping laborers from voting with their feet. It was hard to persuade parish authorities to grant a man a certificate entitling him to move to another parish to seek work. Workers were forced to stay put and bargain for work in a buyer's market [Smith 60-61].

At first glance this would seem to be inconvenient for parishes with a labor shortage [Smith 60]. Factories were built at sources of water power, generally removed from centers of population. Thousands of workers were needed to be imported from far away. But the state saved the day by setting itself up as a middleman in providing labor-poor parishes with cheap surplus labor from elsewhere, depriving workers of the ability to bargain for better terms. A considerable trade arose in child laborers who were in no position to bargain in any case [the Hammonds, The Town Labourer 1:146].

Relief "was seldom bestowed without the parish claiming the exclusive right of disposing, at their pleasure, of all the children of the person receiving relief," in the words of the Committee on Parish Apprentices, 1815 [the Hammonds, Town Labourer 1:44, 147]. Even when Poor Law commissioners encouraged migration to labor-poor parishes, they discouraged adult men and "Preference was given to 'widows with large families of children or handicraftsmen... with large families.'" In addition, the availability of cheap labor from the Poor Law commissioners was deliberately used to drive down wages; farmers would discharge their own day laborers and instead apply to the overseer for help [Thompson 223-224].

Although the Combination Laws theoretically applied to masters as well as workmen, in practice they were not enforced against the latter [Smith 61; the Hammonds, Town Labourer 1:74]. "A Journeyman Cotton Spinner" - a pamphleteer quoted by E. P. Thompson [pp. 199-202] - described "an abominable combination existing amongst the masters," in which workers who had left their masters because of disagreement over wages were effectively blacklisted. The Combination Laws required suspects to answer interrogations on oath, empowered magistrates to give summary judgment, and allowed summary forfeiture of funds accumulated to aid the families of strikers [Town Labourer 123-127]. And the laws setting maximum rates of pay amounted to a state enforced system of combination for the masters. As Adam Smith put it, "[w]henever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between the masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters." [p. 61].

The working class lifestyle under the factory system, with its new forms of social control, was a radical break with the past. It involved drastic loss of control over their own work. The seventeenth century work calendar was still heavily influenced by medieval custom. Although there were long days in spurts between planting and harvest, intermittent periods of light work and the proliferation of saints days combined to reduce average work-time well below our own. And the pace of work was generally determined by the sun or the biological rhythms of the laborer, who got up after a decent night's sleep, and sat down to rest when he felt like it. The cottager who had access to common land, even when he wanted extra income from wage labor, could take work on a casual basis and then return to working for himself. This was an unacceptable degree of independence from a capitalist standpoint.

"In the modern world most people have to adapt themselves to some kind of discipline, and to observe other' people's timetables, ...or work under other people's orders, but we have to remember that the population that was flung into the brutal rhythm of the factory had earned its living in relative freedom, and that the discipline of the early factory was particularly savage.... No economist of the day, in estimating the gains or losses of factory employment, ever allowed for the strain and violence that a man suffered in his feelings when he passed from a life in which he could smoke or eat, or dig or sleep as he pleased, to one in which somebody turned the key on him, and for fourteen hours he had not even the right to whistle. It was like entering the airless and laughterless life of a prison" [the Hammonds, Town Labourer 1:33-34].

The factory system could not have been imposed on workers without first depriving them of alternatives, and forcibly denying access to any source of economic independence. No unbroken human being, with a sense of freedom or dignity, would have submitted to factory discipline. Stephen Marglin compared the nineteenth century textile factory, staffed by pauper children bought at the workhouse slave market, to Roman brick and pottery factories which were manned by slaves. In Rome, factory production was exceptional in manufactures dominated by freemen. The factory system, throughout history, has been possible only with a work force deprived of any viable alternative.

The surviving facts... strongly suggest that whether work was organized along factory lines was in Roman times determined, not by technological considerations, but by the relative power of the two producing classes. Freedmen and citizens had sufficient power to maintain a guild organization. Slaves had no power - and ended up in factories ["What Do Bosses Do?"].

The problem with the old "putting out" system, in which cottage workers produced textiles on a contractual basis, was that it only eliminated worker control of the product. The factory system, by eliminating worker control of the production process, had the advantage of discipline and supervision, with workers organized under an overseer.

"the origin and success of the factory lay not in technological superiority, but in the substitution of the capitalist's for the worker's control of the work process and the quantity of output, in the change in the workman's choice from one of how much to work and produce, based on his preferences for leisure and goods, to one of whether or not to work at all, which of course is hardly much of a choice."

Marglin took Adam Smith's classic example of the division of labor in pin-making, and stood it on its head. The increased efficiency resulted, not from the division of labor as such, but from dividing and sequencing the process into separate tasks in order to reduce set-up time. This could have been accomplished by a single cottage workman separating the various tasks and then performing them sequentially (i.e., drawing out the wire for an entire run of production, then straightening it, then cutting it, etc.).

"without specialization, the capitalist had no essential role to play in the production process. If each producer could himself integrate the component tasks of pin manufacture into a marketable product, he would soon discover that he had no need to deal with the market for pins through the intermediation of the putter-outer. He could sell directly and appropriate to himself the profit that the capitalist derived from mediating between the producer and the market."

This principle is at the center of the history of industrial technology for the last two hundred years. Even given the necessity of factories for some forms of large-scale, capital-intensive manufacturing, there is usually a choice between alternate productive technologies within the factory. Industry has consistently chosen technologies which de-skill workers and shift decision-making upward into the managerial hierarchy. As long ago as 1835, Dr. Andrew Ure (the ideological grandfather of Taylorism and Fordism), argued that the more skilled the workman, "the more self-willed and... the less fit a component of a mechanical system" he became. The solution was to eliminate processes which required "peculiar dexterity and steadiness of hand... from the cunning workman" and replace them by a "mechanism, so self-regulating, that a child may superintend it." [Philosophy of Manufactures, in Thompson 360]. And the principle has been followed throughout the twentieth century. William Lazonick, David Montgomery, David Noble, and Katherine Stone have produced an excellent body of work on this theme. Even though corporate experiments in worker self-management increase morale and productivity, and reduce injuries and absenteeism, beyond the hopes of management, they are usually abandoned out of fear of loss of control.

Christopher Lasch, in his foreword to Noble's America by Design, characterized the process of de-skilling in this way:

"The capitalist, having expropriated the worker's property, gradually expropriated his technical knowledge as well, asserting his own mastery over production....

"The expropriation of the worker's technical knowledge had as a logical consequence the growth of modern management, in which technical knowledge came to be concentrated. As the scientific management movement split up production into its component procedures, reducing the worker to an appendage of the machine, a great expansion of technical and supervisory personnel took place in order to oversee the productive process as a whole" [pp. xi-xii].

The expropriation of the peasantry and imposition of the factory labor system was not accomplished without resistance; the workers knew exactly what was being done to them and what they had lost. During the 1790s, when rhetoric (from the upper class ironically) from the Jacobins and Tom Paine were widespread among the radicalized working class, the rulers of "the cradle of liberty" lived in terror that the country would be swept by revolution. The system of police state controls over the population resembled an alien occupation regime. The Hammonds referred to correspondence between north-country magistrates and the Home Office, in which the law was frankly treated "as an instrument not of justice but of repression," and the working classes "appeared]... conspicuously as a helot population." [Town Labourer 72]

"... in the light of the Home Office papers, ...none of the personal rights attaching to Englishmen possessed any reality for the working classes. The magistrates and their clerks recognized no limit to their powers over the freedom and the movements of working men. The Vagrancy Laws seemed to supercede the entire charter of an Englishman's lib- erties. They were used to put into prison any man or woman of the working class who seemed to the magistrate an inconvenient or distur- bing character. They offered the easiest and most expeditious way of proceeding against any one who tried to collect money for the families of locked-out workmen, or to disseminate literature that the magistrates thought undesirable"[Ibid. 80].

Peel's "bobbies" - professional law enforcement - replaced the posse comitatus system because the latter was inadequate to control a population of increasingly disaffected workmen. In the time of the Luddite and other disturbances, crown officials warned that "to apply the Watch and Ward Act would be to put arms into the hands of the most powerfully disaffected." At the outset of the wars with France, Pitt ended the practice of quartering the army in alehouses, mixed with the general population. Instead, the manufacturing districts were covered with barracks, as "purely a matter of police." The manufacturing areas "came to resemble a country under military occupation." [Ibid. 91-92].

Pitt's police state was supplemented by quasi-private vigilantism, in the time-honored tradition of blackshirts and death squads ever since. For example the "Association for the Protection of Property against Republicans and Levellers" - an anti-Jacobin association of gentry and mill-owners - conducted house-to-house searches and organized Guy Fawkes-style effigy burnings against Paine; "Church and King" mobs terrorised suspected radicals [Chapter Five, "Planting the Liberty Tree," in Thompson].

Thompson characterized this system of control as "political and social apartheid," and argued that "the revolution which did not happen in England was fully as devastating" as the one that did happen in France [pp. 197-198].

Finally, the state aided the growth of manufactures through mercantilism. Modern exponents of the "free market" generally treat mercantilism as a "misguided" attempt to promote some unified national interest, adopted out of sincere ignorance of economic principles. In fact, the architects of mercantilism knew exactly what they were doing. Mercantilism was extremetly efficient for its real purpose: making wealthy manufacturing interests rich at the expense of everyone else. Adam Smith consistently attacked mercantilism, not as a product of economic error, but as a quite intelligent attempt by powerful interests to enrich themselves through the coercive power of the state.

British manufacturing was created by state intervention to shut out foreign goods, give British shipping a monopoly of foreign commerce, and stamp out foreign competition by force. As an example of the latter, British authorities in India destroyed the Bengalese textile industry, makers of the highest quality fabric in the world. Although they had not adopted steam-driven methods of production, there is a real possibility that they would have done so, had India remained politically and economically independent. The once prosperous territory of Bengal is today occupied by Bangladesh and the Calcutta area [Chomsky, World Orders Old and New].

The American, German and Japanese industrial systems were created by the same mercantilist policies, with massive tariffs on industrial goods. "Free trade" was adopted by safely established industrial powers, who used "laissez-faire" as an ideological weapon to prevent potential rivals from following the same path of industrialization. Capitalism has never been established by means of the free market, or even by the primary action of the bourgeoisie. It has always been established by a revolution from above, imposed by a pre-capitalist ruling class. In England, it was the landed aristocracy; in France, Napoleon II's bureaucracy; in Germany, the Junkers; in Japan, the Meiji. In America, the closest approach to a "natural" bourgeois evolution, industrialization was carried out by a mercantilist aristocracy of Federalist shipping magnates and landlords [Harrington, Twilight of Capitalism].

Romantic medievalists like Chesterton and Belloc described the process in the high middle ages by which serfdom had gradually withered away, and the peasants had transformed themselves into de facto freeholders who paid a nominal quit-rent. The feudal class system was disintegrating and being re- placed by a much more libertarian and less exploitative one. Immanuel Wallerstein argued that the likely outcome would have been "a system of relatively equal small-scale producers, further flattening out the aristocracies and decentralizing the political structures." By 1650 the trend had been reversed, and there was "a reasonably high level of continuity between the families that had been high strata" in 1450 and 1650. Capitalism, far from being "the overthrow of a backward aristocracy by a progressive bourgeoisie," "was brought into existence by a landed aristocracy which transformed itself into a bourgeoisie because the old system was disintegrating." [Historical Capitalism 41-42, 105-106]. This is echoed in part by Arno Mayer [The Persistence of the Old Regime], who argued for continuity between the landed aristocracy and the capitalist ruling class.

The process by which the high medieval civilization of peasant proprietors, craft guilds and free cities was overthrown, was vividly described by Kropotkin [Mutual Aid 225]. Before the invention of gunpowder, the free cities repelled royal armies more often than not, and won their independence from feudal dues. And these cities often made common cause with peasants in their struggles to control the land. The absolutist state and the capi- talist revolution it imposed became possible only when artillery could reduce fortified cities with a high degree of efficiency, and the king could make war on his own people. And in the aftermath of this conquest, the Europe of William Morris was left devastated, depopulated, and miserable.

Peter Tosh had a song called "Four Hundred Years." Although the white working class has suffered nothing like the brutality of black slavery, there has nevertheless been a "four hundred years" of oppression for all of us under the system of state capitalism established in the seventeenth century. Ever since the birth of the first states six thousand years ago, political coercion has allowed one ruling class or another to live off other people's labor. But since the seventeenth century the system of power has become increasingly conscious, unified, and global in scale. The current system of transnational state capitalism, without rival since the collapse of the soviet bureaucratic class system, is a direct outgrowth of the seizure of power "four hundred years" ago. Orwell had it backwards. The past is a "boot smashing a human face." Whether the future is more of the same depends on what we do now.
Image

When we examine our society, which is generally called capitalist (because of its methods of producing and controlling wealth) and is bourgeois (because of prevailing concern for acquisition and material interests, and its emphasis on respectability and mediocrity), we find it far from God’s justice.

In economics, private and state capitalism bring about an unjust distribution of wealth, for the profit motive guides decisions. Those in power live off the sweat of others’ brows, while those without power are robbed of a just return for their work. Usury (the charging of interest above administrative costs) is a major contributor to the wrongdoing intrinsic to this system. We note, especially, how the world debt crisis leads poor countries into greater deprivation and a dependency from which there is no foreseeable escape. Here at home, the number of hungry and homeless and unemployed people rises in the midst of increasing affluence.

In labor, human need is no longer the reason for human work. Instead, the unbridled expansion of technology, necessary to capitalism and viewed as “progress,” holds sway. Jobs are concentrated in productivity and administration for a “high-tech,” war-related, consumer society of disposable goods, so that laborers are trapped in work that does not contribute to human welfare. Furthermore, as jobs become more specialized, many people are excluded from meaningful work or are alienated from the products of their labor. Even in farming, agribusiness has replaced agriculture, and, in all areas, moral restraints are run over roughshod, and a disregard for the laws of nature now threatens the very planet.

In politics, the state functions to control and regulate life. Its power has burgeoned hand in hand with growth in technology, so that military, scientific and corporate interests get the highest priority when concrete political policies are formulated. Because of the sheer size of institutions, we tend towards government by bureaucracy — that is, government by nobody. Bureaucracy, in all areas of life, is not only impersonal, but also makes accountability, and, therefore, an effective political forum for redressing grievances, next to impossible.

Where are we moving as a society?

Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the origins of leftism and how it sold out to the system can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

The origins of Leftism begin with the French Revolution. The French Revolution was the source of two great currents of socialist thought which, across the twentieth century, have lasted until today: an authoritarian Jacobin current and a libertarian current. One, of a “bourgeois disposition,” oriented from the top down, is above all concerned with revolutionary effectiveness and claims to be taking account of “necessities.” The other, of an essentially proletarian spirit, is oriented from the bottom up, and places the safeguarding of freedom to the fore.

Much of modern Leftist thought can be traced back to Marxism which in turn traces back to a syncretism of Hegel and Jacobinism. Jacobinism was a bourgeois social climber movement (propagated by old rich and their court Jews) that hijacked the original Peasant uprising and redirected the uprising toward its failed utopian and totalitarian goals. The Jacobins were actually financed by London based bankers and the Jacobin leadership were members of the Bavarian Order. The Bavarian Order was founded in 1776 by a former Jesuit Priest who was a Professor. The goals of the Order were perverse and called for extreme left-hand path hedonistic antinomianism, including the abolition of marriage, all family ties, all religion, and abolition of all property. This doctrine is very similar to the Cultural Marxist Left we have today, Cultural Marxists are the enforcers of the social agenda for the neo-liberal capitalist world order.

It should be noted that as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed. Liberals declared the End of History, they declared that the historical cycle had ended. That modern Liberalism was some sort of "utopia" on Earth, this was part of the massive ideological demoraleization campaign against revolutionaries on both the right and left. In the mind of the globalist elites society is at the end of history and on the verge of transformation from humanism to a post-human society.

One thing that also be looked at is the psychology of leftism. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call feelings of inferiority and oversocialization. Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

The cabal however did not die out, and can be traced to the Redshield Dynasty of bankers. They controlled the bank of England and financed both sides of the Napoleonic wars, financed the Jacobin club earlier. The reason for modern war is always the competition for markets and the right to exploit nations backward in industry. In Europe we no longer fight for the honor of kings. Armies are pitted against each other so that the revenues of Almighty Redshield of the most Holy Catholic Bank of Rome may remain unimpaired. Kings are no longer of any account. War has lost all honor, modern warfare is a racket by which bankers profit off of the printing money in times resource destruction.

It is fair to say that Society has been hijacked by an evil cult whose only goal is world domination. This small clique of men are what George Orwell referred to as "The Priests of Power". Society goes through stages always a stage of stoicism, strength and moral decency and a stage of moral degeneracy and social decay which contributes to weak men. In 1984 Orwell predicted a totalitarian elite who would control the masses with Endless Warfare.

War has changed and is no longer about ideologies, nations or ethnicity. War has become a business. Soldiers are exploited for the benefit of a small technocratic elite. Afghanistan contains the largest lithium supply on the planet, is it no wonder Silicon Valley elites in America benefited greatly since the planned New World Order will need a centralized technological system to control people.

If the Syrian Civil War offers a microcosm for the future (and there’s good reason to believe it does), it’s fair to locate both intense horror and beauty on the horizon. Within the next decades, such destabilisation will begin exploding around the world, offering major opportunities both to our enemies and ourselves. Society cannot continue to try and put a stranglehold on the individual and all the national identities and local communities of the people without leading us closer to an inevitable global civilizational collapse. Capitalism's greed, Advances in Warfare causing massive migration and Environmental destruction will lead to such a collapse. Globalism will not lead to peace and security like it intends but it will lead to endless battle.

MILITARY KEYNESIANISM

In the United States the leading sectors of the economy, including cybernetics, communications, and military industry, have their sales and profits virtually guaranteed by the state. The entire manufacturing sector, as a whole, was permanently expanded beyond recognition by an infusion of federal money during World War II. In 1939 the entire manufacturing plant of the U.S. was valued at $40 billion. By 1945, another $26 billion worth of plant and equipment had been built, "two thirds of it paid for directly from government funds." The top 250 corporations in 1939 owned 65% of plant and equipment, but during the war operated 79% of all new facilities built with government funds [Mills, The Power Elite p. 101].

Machine tools were vastly expanded by the war. In 1940, 23% of machine tools in use were less than 10 years old. By 1945, the figure had grown to 62%. The industry contracted rapidly after 1945, and would probably have gone into a depression, had it not returned to wartime levels of output during Korea and remained that way throughout the Cold War. The R & D complex, likewise, was a creation of the war. Between 1939 and 1945, the share of AT&T research expenditures made up of government contracts expanded from 1% to 83%. Over 90% of the patents resulting from government-funded wartime research were given away to industry. The modern electronics industry was largely a product of World War II and Cold War spending (e.g., miniaturization of circuits for bomb proximity fuses, high capacity computers for command and control, etc.) [Noble, Forces of Production pp. 8-16].

The jumbo jet industry would never have come about without continuous Cold War levels of military spending. The machine tools needed for producing large aircraft were so complex and expensive that no "small peacetime orders" would have provided a sufficient production run to pay for them. Without large military orders, they would simply not have existed. The aircraft industry quickly spiraled into red ink after 1945, and was near bankruptcy at the beginning of the 1948 war scare, after which Truman restored it to life with massive spending. By 1964, 90% of aerospace R & D was funded by the government, with massive spillover into the electronics, machine tool, and other industries [Noble, Forces of Production pp. 6-7; Kofsky, Harry S. Truman and the War Scare of 1948].

FUTURE ARMIES:
Image

The elite themselves admit in Pentagon documents that in the near future, soldiers will fight in Urban cities against rebels who are against the New World Order. Soldiers will mainly consist of mercenaries working for PMCs (Private Military Companies) who are sold to the highest bidder. These Pentagon documents prove that society is a complex problem, never moving towards any single end.

As soon as a soldier is recruited into these PMCs, he is injected with nano-machines which will stimulate the soldiers' pituitary glands' to release specific hormones suited to the context of a battle. These nano-machines will be controlled by the army HeadQuarters, so for example: if the soldiers are in an intense fight, the nano-machines will be adjusted by commanders in the HeadQuarters to raise the 'Rage/Anger' hormones level high, and to restrict/cut down the Fear emotion within their bodies. All the troops within the unit will have the same 'level of emotion' and will therefore work more effectively together as a united force against a common enemy.

They plan to design smart guns. Smart Guns will only work if you have a specific in your body. So you cannot simply buy a gun and shoot,
but the Smart gun will only work if it matches with the nanomachines in your body. This will also prevent 'friendly fire' attacks because the Smart gun will lock if aimed at a friend with similar nanomachines to you.

Nanomachines will make an electric intelligence connection between the soldier, his team, and also the war machines around him. Friendly soldiers' movements will be detected by allied machines, so intelligence can be shared together and connected to one central database. This database will allow Commanders and Generals to plan strategies live in-depth because they will have detailed knowledge of soldier and machine movements, and also enemy movements through Intelligence collection.

Drones in the future will be automated, and so will Urban Tanks. They will work alongside Mercenaries or Special Forces in their missions. By using Artificial Intelligence (Al), drones will be able to detect human presence on the ground without the need of a human controlling the drone. So if 20 military aged men are walking together in enemy territory, the drone will automatically strike them (even if they are just walking together in a wedding celebration). Automated Urban Tanks will also have cameras to collect intelligence, they will also have built in Artificial Intelligence (Al) which can preemptively attack so that Israeli soldiers do not have to put their lives at risk on the ground.

They have invented spy machines like flying insects which imitate real-life mosquitoes to suck blood of a fighter to study his DNA or to inject a
virus, chemicals or nanomachines into his blood.

Future attacks will not just consist of grenades filled with explosives, but grenades and bombs in the future will also contain chemicals which change peoples emotions. I remember reading an article some years ago which mentioned a 'love bomb', whereby a bomb is filled with chemicals like Oxytocin (the chemical released in our brain when people kiss) to increase the love emotions. So fighters in a battlefield will be fighting, when suddenly the 'love bomb' is thrown at them, causing their emotions to change from rage to love. This chemical and emotional imbalance will cause them to be confused and weaken in battle and divide them if they are a united force. This is a type of magic, because it plays with peoples senses and emotions.

Conclusion:

So what we're seeing in near-future modern warfare is:

- Special Forces troops / units doing the complicated attacks which machines yet cannot do. (i.e.
such as kidnapping of leaders.)

- Automated Drones and Tanks which will collect Intelligence for the Special Units', but also attack
any threat together with combined intelligence so the soldiers do not have to be in any danger.

- Countries like Israel will also heavily focus on paying PMCs (Private Military Companies) to do all the groundwork
for them, so the Israeli citizens do not have to lose their lives in any combat. It is better for them that a non Jew dies than a Jew.

It should be noted that whatever technology is tested on the battlefield will make its way onto the civilian world. Nanomachine will be such a technology.

Where is society heading towards?

"Under a scientific dictator education will really work -- with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution."-Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited

In modern Western liberal society behavior is regulated not only through explicit rules and not only by the government. Control is often exercised through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation, and by organizations other than the government, or by the system as a whole. Most large organizations use some form of propaganda to manipulate public attitudes or behavior. Propaganda is not limited to "commercials" and advertisements, and sometimes it is not even consciously intended as propaganda by the people who make it. For instance, the content of entertainment programming is a powerful form of propaganda. An example of indirect coercion: There is no law that says we have to go to work every day and follow our employer's orders. Legally there is nothing to prevent us from going to live in the wild like primitive people or from going into business for ourselves. But in practice there is very little wild country left, and there is room in the economy for only a limited number of small business owners (especially as large corporations establishing monopolies and hurting small businesses). Hence most of us can survive only as someone else's employee slaving away for our wages.

In primitive societies life is a succession of stages. The needs and purposes of one stage having been fulfilled, there is no particular reluctance about passing on to the next stage. A young man goes through the power process by becoming a hunter, hunting not for sport or for fulfillment but to get meat that is necessary for food. (In young women the process is more complex, with greater emphasis on social power; we won't discuss that here.) This phase having been successfully passed through, the young man has no reluctance about settling down to the responsibilities of raising a family. (In contrast, some modern people indefinitely postpone having children because they are too busy seeking some kind of "fulfillment." We suggest that the fulfillment they need is adequate experience of the power process---with real goals instead of the artificial goals of surrogate activities.) Again, having successfully raised his children, going through the power process by providing them with the physical necessities, the primitive man feels that his work is done and he is prepared to accept old age (if he survives that long) and death. Many modern people, on the other hand, are disturbed by the prospect of physical deterioration and death, as is shown by the amount of effort they expend trying to maintain their physical condition, appearance and health. We argue that this is due to unfulfillment resulting from the fact that they have never put their physical powers to any practical use, have never gone through the power process using their bodies in a serious way. It is not the primitive man, who has used his body daily for practical purposes, who fears the deterioration of age, but the modern man, who has never had a practical use for his body beyond walking from his car to his house. It is the man whose need for the power process has been satisfied during his life who is best prepared to accept the end of that life.

We suggest that modern man's obsession with longevity, and with maintaining physical vigor and sexual attractiveness to an advanced age, is a symptom of unfulfillment resulting from deprivation with respect to the power process. The "mid-life crisis" also is such a symptom. So is the lack of interest in having children that is fairly common in modern society but almost unheard-of in primitive societies.

In response to the arguments of this section someone will say, "Society must find a way to give people the opportunity to go through the power process." This won't work for those who need autonomy in the power process. For such people the value of the opportunity is destroyed by the very fact that society gives it to them. What they need is to find or make their own opportunities. As long as the system GIVES them their opportunities it still has them on a leash. To attain autonomy they must get off that leash. That is the message of The Next War to bring people back into the power process away from the machine like enslavement of the globalist technocrats.

If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the System starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.

The usual response to such concerns is to talk about "medical ethics." But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were "ethical" and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an "ethical" use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today's world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial-technological system.

Our society is inevitably leading to dangerous and unnatural control of Human Behavior. Since the beginning of civilization, organized societies have had to put pressures on human beings for the sake of the functioning of the social organism. The kinds of pressures vary greatly from one society to another. Some of the pressures are physical (poor diet, excessive labor, environmental pollution), some are psychological (noise, crowding, forcing human behavior into the mold that society requires). In the past, human nature has been approximately constant, or at any rate has varied only within certain bounds. Consequently, societies have been able to push people only up to certain limits. When the limit of human endurance has been passed, things start going wrong: rebellion, or crime, or corruption, or evasion of work, or depression and other mental problems, or an elevated death rate, or a declining birth rate or something else, so that either the society breaks down, or its functioning becomes too inefficient and it is (quickly or gradually, through conquest, attrition or evolution) replaced by some more efficient form of society.

Thus human nature has in the past put certain limits on the development of societies. People could be pushed only so far and no farther. But today this may be changing, because modern technology is developing ways of modifying human beings. Imagine a society that subjects people to conditions that make them terribly unhappy, then gives them drugs to take away their unhappiness. Science fiction? It is already happening to some extent in our own society. It is well known that the rate of clinical depression has been greatly increasing in recent decades. We believe that this is due to disruption of the power process, as we explained earlier.) Drugs that affect the mind are only one example of the methods of controlling human behavior that modern society is developing. Let us look at some of the other methods.

To start with, there are the techniques of surveillance. Hidden video cameras are now used in most stores and in many other places, computers are used to collect and process vast amounts of information about individuals. Information so obtained greatly increases the effectiveness of physical coercion (i.e., law enforcement). Then there are the methods of propaganda, for which the mass communications media provide effective vehicles. Efficient techniques have been developed for winning elections, selling products, influencing public opinion. The entertainment industry serves as an important psychological tool of the system, possibly even when it is dishing out large amounts of sex and violence. Entertainment provides modern man with an essential means of escape. While absorbed in television, videos, etc., he can forget stress, anxiety, frustration, dissatisfaction. Many primitive peoples, when they don't have any work to do, are quite content to sit for hours at a time doing nothing at all, because they are at peace with themselves and their world. But most modern people must be constantly occupied or entertained, otherwise they get "bored," i.e., they get fidgety, uneasy, irritable.

Other techniques strike deeper that the foregoing. Education is no longer a simple affair of paddling a kid's behind when he doesn't know his lessons and patting him on the head when he does know them. It is becoming a scientific technique for controlling the child's development. Sylvan Learning Centers, for example, have had great success in motivating children to study, and psychological techniques are also used with more or less success in many conventional schools. "Parenting" techniques that are taught to parents are designed to make children accept the fundamental values of the system and behave in ways that the system finds desirable. "Mental health" programs, "intervention" techniques, psychotherapy and so forth are ostensibly designed to benefit individuals, but in practice they usually serve as methods for inducing individuals to think and behave as the system requires. (There is no contradiction here; an individual whose attitudes or behavior bring him into conflict with the system is up against a force that is too powerful for him to conquer or escape from, hence he is likely to suffer from stress, frustration, defeat. His path will be much easier if he thinks and behaves as the system requires. In that sense the system is acting for the benefit of the individual when it brainwashes him into conformity.) Child abuse in its gross and obvious forms is disapproved in most if not all cultures. Tormenting a child for a trivial reason or no reason at all is something that appalls almost everyone. But many psychologists interpret the concept of abuse much more broadly. Is spanking, when used as part of a rational and consistent system of discipline, a form of abuse? The question will ultimately be decided by whether or not spanking tends to produce behavior that makes a person fit in well with the existing system of society. In practice, the word "abuse" tends to be interpreted to include any method of child-rearing that produces behavior inconvenient for the system. Thus, when they go beyond the prevention of obvious, senseless cruelty, programs for preventing "child abuse" are directed toward the control of human behavior on behalf of the system.

Presumably, research will continue to increase the effectiveness of psychological techniques for controlling human behavior. But we think it is unlikely that psychological techniques alone will be sufficient to adjust human beings to the kind of society that technology is creating. Biological methods probably will have to be used. We have already mentioned the use of drugs in this connection. Neurology may provide other avenues for modifying the human mind, Genetic engineering of human beings is already beginning to occur in the form of "gene therapy," and there is no reason to assume that such methods will not eventually be used to modify those aspects of the body that affect mental functioning,

Society seems likely to be entering a period of severe stress, due in part to problems of human behavior and in part to economic and environmental problems, And a considerable proportion of the system's economic and environmental problems result from the way human beings behave. Alienation, low self-esteem, depression, hostility, rebellion; children who won't study, youth gangs, illegal drug use, rape, child abuse, other crimes, unsafe sex, teen pregnancy, population growth, political corruption, race hatred, ethnic rivalry, bitter ideological conflict (e.g., pro-choice vs. pro-life), political extremism, terrorism, sabotage, anti-government groups, hate groups. All these threaten the very survival of the system. The system will therefore be FORCED to use every practical means of controlling human behavior.

The social disruption that we see today is certainly not the result of mere chance. It can only be a result of the conditions of life that the system imposes on people. (We have argued that the most important of these conditions is disruption of the power process.) If the systems succeeds in imposing sufficient control over human behavior to assure its own survival, a new watershed in human history will have been passed. Whereas formerly the limits of human endurance have imposed limits on the development of societies, industrial-technological society will be able to pass those limits by modifying human beings, whether by psychological methods or biological methods or both. In the future, social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human beings will be adjusted to suit the needs of the system.

Generally speaking, technological control over human behavior will probably not be introduced with a totalitarian intention or even through a conscious desire to restrict human freedom. Each new step in the assertion of control over the human mind will be taken as a rational response to a problem that faces society, such as curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate or inducing young people to study science and engineering. In many cases, there will be a humanitarian justification. For example, when a psychiatrist prescribes an antidepressant for a depressed patient, he is clearly doing that individual a favor. It would be inhumane to withhold the drug from someone who needs it. When parents send their children to Sylvan Learning Centers to have them manipulated into becoming enthusiastic about their studies, they do so from concern for their children's welfare. It may be that some of these parents wish that one didn't have to have specialized training to get a job and that their kid didn't have to be brainwashed into becoming a computer nerd. But what can they do? They can't change society, and their child may be unemployable if he doesn't have certain skills. So they send him to Sylvan.

Thus control over human behavior will be introduced not by a calculated decision of the authorities but through a process of social evolution (RAPID evolution, however). The process will be impossible to resist, because each advance, considered by itself, will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will seem to be less than that which would result from not making it. Propaganda for example is used for many good purposes, such as discouraging child abuse or race hatred. Sex education is obviously useful, yet the effect of sex education (to the extent that it is successful) is to take the shaping of sexual attitudes away from the family and put it into the hands of the state as represented by the public school system.

Suppose a biological trait is discovered that increases the likelihood that a child will grow up to be a criminal, and suppose some sort of gene therapy can remove this trait. Of course most parents whose children possess the trait will have them undergo the therapy. It would be inhumane to do otherwise, since the child would probably have a miserable life if he grew up to be a criminal. But many or most primitive societies have a low crime rate in comparison with that of our society, even though they have neither high-tech methods of child-rearing nor harsh systems of punishment. Since there is no reason to suppose that more modern men than primitive men have innate predatory tendencies, the high crime rate of our society must be due to the pressures that modern conditions put on people, to which many cannot or will not adjust. Thus a treatment designed to remove potential criminal tendencies is at least in part a way of re-engineering people so that they suit the requirements of the system.

Our society tends to regard as a "sickness" any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and this is plausible, because when an individual doesn't fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a "cure" for a "sickness" and therefore as good.

Anyone critical of the mass-migration of France as falsely labeled a "racist", similarly anyone who advocates the expropriation of wealth from the greedy capitalists is called a "thief" this is usually an insult given by so-called Christians towards Worker economics, surely they did not read the Bible verses about doing justice to the poor. (Similarly, the manipulative media line that “anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism” worked wonders to sanitize Israel until it's expansionism-cum-exterminism engendered anti-Zionists who just might proceed to take the B’nai B’rith defamationists at face value. The Zionist Jew controlled media has done everything it can to silence revolutionaries.)
Last edited by 6th National Revolutionary France on Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:51 am, edited 40 times in total.
Sixth French Republic-Socialist National Liberationist
Note: I am not the bloody original Souriya al-Assad, I am a friend and this nation is tribute to him.

User avatar
6th National Revolutionary France
Attaché
 
Posts: 79
Founded: Jul 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Chapter 2: What Is To Be Done?

Postby 6th National Revolutionary France » Tue Oct 08, 2019 6:17 am

Chapter 1 revealed the problems present with our society, so chapter 2 will reveal as V.I. Lenin said 'What Is to be Done?"


The French Model of Socialism

Image


The fourth economic theory rejects capitalism in its roots, as it rejects modernity. Consequently, in the economic domain, the fourth economic theory signifies a return to the integral worker. This corresponds well to the American populism of the late 19th century or the agrarian anarchism of Proudhon, inspired by the Swiss experience. But the restoration of the integral figure of a worker is only possible with the restoration of two other Indo-European types - an integral priest and an integral warrior (a knight is an example of an integral warrior).

It might be called “decentralized market socialism.” Worker-managed enterprises, consumer coops, very small businesses and shops, family farms, etc., would compete in the marketplace. The goal of this new form of socialism is a form of class collaboration, that would unite the small farmers (which back in past-times were the peasant class), the Petite bourgeoisie, the Proletariat and the Lumpenproletariat under the Economic ideology of The French model of Socialism.

We seek to establish a society where every member is a share-holder. Every share-holder a voter. All membership voluntary. All members receive a share of profits, not a minority. Large organizations democratically controlled by the membership. All organizations human-sized and locally controlled. Economy of scale practiced through federalism and not top-down hierarchy. Pierre Joseph Proudhon is the founder of French Socialism and all the credit goes to him.

The French economy must be liberated from private money lenders. We support a Public bank solution for this. Public banking is banking operated in the public interest, through institutions owned by the people through their representative governments. Public banking is distinguished from private banking in that its mandate begins with the public’s interest. Privately-owned banks, by contrast, have shareholders who generally seek short-term profits as their highest priority. Public banks are able to reduce taxes within their jurisdictions, because their profits are returned to the general fund of the public entity. The costs of public projects undertaken by governmental bodies are also greatly reduced, because public banks do not need to charge interest to themselves. Eliminating interest has been shown to reduce the cost of such projects, on average, by 50%.

In order to achieve this new free and libertarian form of socialism, we must fight the injustices of globalist capitalism. I will give a list of injustices of capitalism which we must fight!

Interest. Let's start with interest. We could launch a campaign to discredit the very idea of interest and to agitate for its abolition. There is something to build on: the laws against usury in the Middle Ages. Although usury eventually came to refer only to excessive interest, originally it condemned all interest. Isn't it obviously ridiculous that anyone should be able to make any money just by loaning money? It is especially ridiculous for governments to borrow money from rich people and then pay interest on it, when they could simply print the money themselves. Yet this practice is quite central to capitalism, and has been from its earliest days. Giovanni Arrighi, in his magisterial history of capitalism, demonstrates that from the earliest days of capitalism in northern Italy in the 15th century, rich people helped finance governments -- for a price, of course. Stopping this practice would be a serious blow to capitalists. So we need to be thinking of ways to do this.

Debt. In recent decades capitalists have enslaved the world with debt (debt peonage) to an extent never seen before -- national debt, mortgage debt, student debt, medical debt, credit card debt, automobile debt, business debt. For a brief period after Occupy Wall Street it looked like an attack on debt might get under way, but it didn't. Yet debt is a great target. It resonates with people.

Debt, might be a possible catalyst of which to build a massive anti-capitalist movement. It affects everyone. It is global. More and more people should be able to connect the dots between these crises and capitalism. Whole countries are being destroyed by using debt as a weapon.

We could organize debt strikes. Just refuse to repay the loans. If these strikes were massive enough it would seriously harm capitalists and disrupt and undermine their system.

Banks. Banks create money, by making loans, with the interest attached of course. They can be public or private: public, meaning government-owned; private, meaning corporate-owned. In the United States, most banks are private, especially the big banks, including the Federal Reserve Bank. The exceptions are the government-owned Bank of North Dakota, and member-owned cooperative banks and consumer credit unions. Some countries have many cooperative banks, but they are relatively powerless, compared to central banks. We need to focus on the power of the international network of national central banks. They practically run global capitalism. They control the money supply and interest rates. They are enormously destructive. The power of these banks must absolutely be broken.

The European Central Bank is illustrative in this regard. The European Central Bank floats above any national sovereignty. The European Union is not a true federation, with political sovereignty. It is only a monetary union, which adopted a common currency, the Euro, controlled by the European Central Bank. The European Parliament has no power. The EU member states retained political sovereignty but gave up their own national currencies, by adopting the Euro, thus losing control over fiscal policy. It turns out that the establishment of the European Union was a neoliberal capitalist coup. The ECB has been pursuing the current capitalist offensive (neoliberalism) of impoverishing its weaker members (such as Greece) by first indebting them and then seizing their assets to repay the loans, as capitalists have been doing throughout the global south for decades.

The European Union is a special case though. Most central banks are still national banks, although they are networked internationally, and work in tandem with the other big banks to fleece nations. The five biggest US banks, for example -- JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, Goldman Sachs -- simply seized the U.S. Treasury and stole trillions (22, it is estimated) to cover their losses from bad loans, with a little assistance from the Federal Reserve Bank. I saw a sign while in America at an Occupy Wall Street rally: "Give It Back," it read, referring to the trillions of dollars stolen to bailout the banks.

IMF and World Bank. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were set up to enslave the weaker nations of the world to debt, and then to strip these nations of their wealth to repay the loans. It has been a fabulously successful strategy and has enormously enriched the ruling classes of the core countries, and also the smaller, local, ruling classes of the targeted nations. These institutions absolutely must be abolished. It is not nearly enough to demand that the unpayable debts be forgiven (a jubilee), or at least reduced to what can be repaid. No, the whole idea of loans with interest must be overthrown and discarded. The trouble is, ruling classes have the power to inflict devastating punishment on any nation which defaults and refuses to pay. But this is the way to go. This is what Greece should have done, what Argentina tried to do but backed off, what Iceland did. Multiple national debt strikes are what is needed to help break the power of the international financial oligarchy -- one of the things. Why aren't anti-capitalists trying to organize such strikes? The French Movement must be the role-model in this practice!

Wage-Slavery. Isn't it strange that the money (wage) part of wage-slavery receives so little attention from anti-capitalists? The focus is always mostly on the extraction of surplus value from the workers. Yet from the wage-slave's point of view the wages are certainly of paramount importance. To get money is why they work, in order to buy the necessities for survival.

How did this happen? Capitalists have been destroying relatively self-sufficient peasant societies for centuries, until now, in our times, peasants are approaching extinction. Peasants have been, and are still being, driven off their lands, billions of them over the centuries, and forced to look for jobs, in order to get money, in order to live. They were forced to become wage-slaves.

How weird it is actually, and how recent historically, that one has to have a job in order to live. Why isn't this totally unnatural relation under constant attack? Isn't it obvious that in order to escape capitalism the link between jobs and income has to be broken? Why are so many leftists still clamoring for "full employment," which accepts as a given that we have to have jobs to live? Nor are the revived proposals for a "guaranteed annual income" via the government a solution, especially at a time when ruling classes are dismantling the welfare state everywhere.

We could only get out of wage-slavery by shifting to cooperative labor.

Nationalism
Image


We are Nationalist movement because the working class is a National class.

- In the light of empirical evidence and in the analysis of historical materialism it can be said beyond any doubt that of all the social classes in society only the working class is by its nature truly national.

- As the globalization of economy advances fueled by the breakthrough of information technology it becomes ever more painfully apparent that the movements of the riches amassed by the capitalist class respect no national boundaries. Money has no nationality.

- Upper classes whether feudal or capitalist have always been cosmopolitan by nature. Aided by education and wealth the members of the upper classes have been able to mingle with their peers regardless of their respective nationality or citizenship.

- As compared to the capitalist class the middle class is totally dependent on the nation state and the social welfare structures it provides. But true to its nature the middle class keeps repeating like a parrot those anti- nation state platitudes which were taught to it by the capitalist class it so blindly admires.

- Traditionally the most fervent proponents of national nihilism have been the pseudo-intellectuals of the left deviation, the pampered offspring of the bourgeoisie.

-There is an old saying that upper classes everywhere are always alike. This also applies to the middle class which constantly tries to imitate the capitalist class. But the true essence of a nation can be observed in its great masses - whether they be peasants or workers.

- In the end it is exactly the one class which owns no capital nor harbors any false illusions that is entirely tied to the fortunes of the nation and the nation state - with this I mean the working class.

- The bottom of the barrel have been the peasants and the workers. They were always left behind, ridiculed, scorned and exploited and yet it was they who throughout world history have built the nations and defended them. - How could the working class be anything other than a national class ?

- For the Capitalist, the nation is merely a means to an end but for the working class it is always an end itself.

- The working class is the true embodiment of the nation!

The nation is the individual's national political "umbrella"; it is wider than the social "umbrella" provided by the tribe to its members. Tribalism damages nationalism because tribal allegiance weakens national loyalty and flourishes at its expense. In the same way, loyalty to the family flourishes at the expense of tribal loyalty and weakens it. National loyalty is essential to the nation but, at the same time, it is a threat to humanity.

The nation in the world community is similar, to the family in the tribe. The more the families of a tribe feud and become fanatical, the more the tribe is threatened. The family is threatened when its individual members feud and pursue only their personal interests. Similarly, if the tribes of a nation quarrel and pursue only their own interests, then the nation is undermined. National fanaticism expressed in the use of force against weak nations, or national progress which is at the expense of other nations, is evil and harmful to humanity. However, strong individuals who have self-respect and are aware of their own individual responsibilities are important and useful to the family, just as a strong and respectable family, which is aware of its importance, is socially and materially beneficial to the tribe. Equally useful to the whole world is a progressive, productive and civilized nation. The national political structure is damaged when it descends to a lower social level, namely, the family and tribe, and attempts to act in their manner and to adopt their views.

The nation is an enlarged family which has passed through the period of the tribe and through the diversification of tribes that have branched out from one common source. It also includes those members who affiliated themselves with its destiny. The family, likewise, grows into a nation only after passing through the period of the tribe and its diversification, as well as through the process of affiliation which comes about as a result of interaction between various communities in a society. Inevitably, this is achieved over a long period of time. Although the passage of time creates new nations, it also helps to fragment old ones. Common origin and common destiny, through affiliation, are the two historic bases for any nation, though origin ranks first and affiliation second. A nation is not defined only by origin, even though origin is its basis and beginning. In addition to its origin, a nation is formed by human affiliations through the course of history which induce a group of people to live in one area of land, develop a common history, form one heritage, and face the same destiny. A nation, irrespective of blood bond, is formed through a sense of belonging and a shared destiny.

But why has the map of the earth witnessed great nations that have disappeared to give way to the rise of other nations? Is the reason only political, without any relationship to the social? Or, is it social and so properly the concern?

Let us see. The family is indisputably a social structure rather than a political one. The same applies to the tribe because it is a family which has reproduced and enlarged itself to become many families. Equally true, the nation is a tribe after it has grown and its branches have multiplied and become tribes.

The nation is also a social structure whose bond is nationalism; the tribe is a social structure whose bond is tribalism; the family is a social structure whose bond is family ties; and global society is a social structure whose bond is humanity. These facts are self-evident. There is then the political structure of states which form the political map of the world. But why does the map of the world keep changing from one age to the next? The reason is that political structures may, or may not, be consistent with social structures. When political structure and social reality are congruent, as in the case of the nation-state, it lasts and does not change. If a change is forced by external colonialism or internal collapse, it reappears under the banner of national struggle, national revival or national unity. When a political structure embraces more than one nation, its map will be torn up by each nation, gaining independence under the banner of its respective nationhood. Thus, the maps of the empires which the world has witnessed have been torn up because they were composed of a number of nations. When every nation clings strongly to its national identity and seeks independence, political empires are torn up and their components revert to their social origins. This is evidently clear through the history of the world when reviewed through the ages.

But why were those empires made up of different nations? The answer is that the state is not a social structure like the family, the tribe and the nation, but, rather, a political entity created by several factors, the simplest and foremost of which is nationalism. The national state is the only political form which is consistent with the natural social structure. Its existence lasts, unless it becomes subject to the tyranny of another stronger nationalism or unless its political structure, as a state, is affected by its social structure in the form of tribes, clans and families. A political structure is corrupted if it becomes subservient to the sectarian social structure of the family, tribe, or sect and adopts its characteristics.

Religious, economic and military factors also contribute to form a state which differs from the basic, national state.

A common religion, as well as the requirements of economics or military conquests, may create a state which embraces several nations. Thus, in one age, the world witnesses a state or an empire which will disintegrate in another age. When the spirit of nationalism emerges stronger than religious loyalties, or conflict flares up between different nationalisms which were brought together, for example, by one religion, each nation becomes independent and recovers its social structure. That empire, then, disappears. The role of religion resurfaces when the religious spirit emerges stronger than the spirit of nationalism. Consequently, the various nationalisms are unified under the banner of religion until the national role appears once again, and so on.

All states which are composed of several nationalities for whatever reason - religion, economics, military power or man-made ideology will be destroyed by national conflict until each nation obtains its independence, because the social factor will inevitably triumph over the political factor.

Despite political circumstances which necessitate the establishment of a state, the basis for the life of individuals is the family, and extends to the tribe, the nation, and eventually to all humanity. The essential factor is the social factor. Nationalism is a permanent factor. Stress should be laid on social reality and family care in order to bring up an integrated well-educated human. Care should then be given to the tribe as a social "umbrella" and a natural social school which develops its members at the post-family stage. The nation then follows. The individual learns social values mainly from the family and the tribe which form a natural social structure created by no particular individual. Taking care of the family is in the interest of the individual just as the care of the tribe is in the interest of the family, the individual and the nation; it is part of the national identity. The social factor, the national factor, is the real constant dynamic force behind history.

To disregard the national bond of human communities and to establish a political system in contradiction to social reality establishes only a temporary structure which will be destroyed by the movement of the social factor of those groups, i.e., the national integrity and dynamism of each community.

These facts are innate in the life of humankind and are not intellectual conjectures. Every individual in the world should be aware of these realities and work accordingly so that his actions may be worthwhile. To avoid deviation, disorder and damage in the life of human groups which are the result of a lack of understanding and respect for these principles of human life, it is necessary to know these proven realities.

The Family is the Bedrock of the French Nation-state
Image


Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. There is strong scientific evidence that social attitudes are to a significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a social attitude is a direct outcome of a person's genetic constitution, but it appears that personality traits are partly inherited and that certain personality traits tend, within the context of our society, to make a person more likely to hold this or that social attitude. Objections to these findings have been raised, but the objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any event, no one denies that children tend on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view it doesn't matter all that much whether the attitudes are passed on genetically or through childhood training. In either case they ARE passed on

To the individual, the family is more important than the state. Mankind acknowledges the individual as a human being, and the individual acknowledges the family, which is his cradle, his origin, and his social umbrella. According to the law of nature, the human race is the individual and the family, but not the state. The human race has neither relations nor anything else to do with the state, which is an artificial political, economic, and sometimes military, system. The family is like a plant, with branches, stems, leaves and blossoms. Cultivating nature into farms and gardens is an artificial process that has no relevance to the plant itself. The fact that certain political, economic or military factors tie a number of families into one state does not necessarily link this system or its organization with humanity. Similarly, any situation, position or proceeding that results in the dispersion, decline or loss of the family is inhuman, unnatural and oppressive, analogous to any procedure, measure or action that destroys a plant and its branches and withers its leaves and blossoms.

Societies in which the existence and unity of the family become threatened due to any circumstance, are similar to fields whose plants experience uprooting, drought, fire, weathering or death. The blossoming garden or field is one whose plants grow, blossom and pollinate naturally. The same holds true of human societies. The flourishing society is that in which the individual grows naturally within the family and the family within society. The individual is linked to the larger family of humankind like a leaf is to a branch or a branch to a tree. They have no value or life if they are separated. The same holds true for individuals if they are separated from their families - the individual without a family has no value or social life. If human society reaches the stage where the individual lives without a family, it would then become a society of tramps, without roots, like artificial plants.

The Role of Women in the New France

Image

"Under the pretext of emancipating woman we make her a slave, by assigning her a salary."-Pierre Joseph Proudhon


It is an undisputed fact that both man and woman are human beings. It follows, as a self-evident fact, that woman and man are equal as human beings. Discrimination against woman by man is a flagrant act of oppression without justification for woman eats and drinks as man eats and drinks; woman loves and hates as man loves and hates; woman thinks, learns and comprehends as man thinks, learns and comprehends. Woman, like man, needs shelter, clothing, and transportation; woman feels hunger and thirst as man feels hunger and thirst; woman lives and dies as man lives and dies.

But why are there men and women? Human society is composed neither of men alone nor of women alone. It is made up naturally of men and women. Why were not only men created? Why were not only women created? After all, what is the difference between men and women or man and woman? Why was it necessary to create men and women? There must be a natural necessity for the existence of man and woman, rather than man only or woman only. It follows that neither of them is exactly like the other, and the fact that a natural difference exists between men and women is proved by the created existence of men and women. This necessarily means that there is a role for each one of them corresponding to the difference between them. Accordingly, there must be different prevailing conditions for each one in order that they perform their naturally different roles. To comprehend these roles, we must understand the difference in the created nature of man and woman, that is, the natural difference between the two.

Women are females and men are males. According to gynaecologists, women menstruate every month or so, while men, being male, do not menstruate or suffer during the monthly period. A woman, being a female, is naturally subject to monthly bleeding. When a woman does not menstruate, she is pregnant. If she is pregnant, she becomes, due to pregnancy, less active for about a year, which means that all her natural activities are seriously reduced until she delivers her baby. When she delivers her baby or has a miscarriage, she suffers puerperium, a condition attendant on delivery or miscarriage. As man does not get pregnant, he is not liable to the conditions which women, being female, suffer. Afterwards a woman may breast-feed the baby she bore. Breast-feeding continues for about two years. Breastfeeding means that a woman is so inseparable from her baby that her activity is seriously reduced. She becomes directly responsible for another person whom she assists in his or her biological functions; without this assistance that person would die. The man, on the other hand, neither conceives nor breast-feeds. End of gynaecological statement!

All these innate characteristics form differences because of which men and women are not the same. These characteristics in themselves are the realities that define male and female, men and women; they assign to each of them a different role or function in life. This means that men cannot replace women in carrying out these functions. It is worthy of consideration that these biological functions are a heavy burden, causing women great effort and suffering. However, without these functions which women perform, human life would come to an end. It follows that it is a natural function which is neither voluntary nor compulsory. It is an essential function, without which human life would come to a complete halt.

Deliberate interventions against conception form an alternative to human life. In addition to that, there exists partial deliberate intervention against conception, as well as against breast-feeding. All these are links in a chain of actions in contradiction to natural life, which is tantamount to murder. For a woman to kill herself in order not to conceive, deliver and breast-feed is within the realm of deliberate, artificial interventions, in contradiction with the nature of life epitomized by marriage, conception, breast-feeding, and maternity. They differ only in degree.

To dispense with the natural role of woman in maternity - nurseries replacing mothers - is a start in dispensing with the human society and transforming it into a merely biological society with an artificial way of life. To separate children from their mothers and to cram them into nurseries is a process by which they are transformed into something very close to chicks, for nurseries are similar to poultry farms into which chicks are crammed after they are hatched. Nothing else would be as appropriate and suitable to the human being and his dignity as natural motherhood. Children should be raised by their mothers in a family where the true principles of motherhood, fatherhood and comradeship of brothers and sisters prevail, and not in an institution resembling a poultry farm. Even poultry, like the rest of the members of the animal kingdom, need motherhood as a natural phase. Therefore, breeding them on farms similar to nurseries is against their natural growth. Even their meat is artificial rather than natural. Meat from mechanized poultry farms is not tasty and may not be nourishing because the chicks are not naturally bred and are not raised in the protective shade of natural motherhood. The meat of wild birds is more tasty and nourishing because they are naturally fed. As for children who have neither family nor shelter, society is their guardian, and only for them, should society establish nurseries and related institutions. It is better for them to be taken care of by society rather than by individuals who are not their parents.

If a test were carried out to discover whether the natural propensity of the child is towards its mother or the nursery. the child would opt for the mother and not the nursery. Since the natural tendency of a child is towards its mother, she is the natural and proper person to give the child the protection of nursing. Sending a child to a nursery in place of its mother is coercive and oppressive and against its free and natural tendencies.

Natural growth for all living things is free and healthy growth. To substitute a nursery for a mother is coercive action against free and sound growth. Children who are shipped off to a nursery are consigned compulsorily or by exploitation and simple-mindedness. They are driven to nurseries purely by materialistic, and not by social, considerations. If coercion and childish simple-mindedness were removed, they would certainly reject the nursery and cling to their mothers. The only justification for such an unnatural and inhuman process is the fact that the woman is in a position unsuitable to her nature, i.e., she is compelled to perform duties which are unsocial and anti-motherhood.

A woman, whose created nature has assigned to her a natural role different from that of man, must be in an appropriate position to perform her natural role.

Motherhood is the female's function, not the male's. Consequently, it is unnatural to separate children from their mothers. Any attempt to take children away from their mothers is coercion, oppression and dictatorship. The mother who abandons her maternity contradicts her natural role in life. She must be provided with her rights, and with conditions which are non-coercive, unoppressive and appropriate to her natural role. She can then fulfill her natural role under natural conditions. If the woman is forced to abandon her natural role regarding conception and maternity, she falls victim to coercion and tyranny. A woman who needs work that renders her unable to perform her natural function is not free and is compelled to work by need, and "in need, freedom is latent".

Among suitable and even essential conditions which enable women to perform their natural role, which differs from that of men, are those very conditions which are proper for a human being who is incapacitated and burdened with pregnancy. Bearing another human being in her womb lessens her physical ability. It is unjust to place such a woman, in this stage of maternity, into circumstances of physical work incompatible with her condition. For pregnant women to perform such physical work is tantamount to punishment for their betrayal of their maternal role; it is the tax they pay for entering the realm of men, which is naturally alien to their own.

The belief, even if it is held by a woman, that she carries out physical labour of her own accord, is not, in fact, true. She performs the physical work only because a harsh materialistic society has placed her (without her being directly aware of it) into coercive circumstances. She has no alternative but to submit to the conditions of that society, even though she may think that she works of her own accord. In fact, the alleged basis that "there is no difference in any way between men and women", deprives woman of her freedom.

The phrase "in any way" is a monstrous deception. This idea will destroy the appropriate and necessary conditions which constitute the privilege which women ought to enjoy apart from men in accordance with their distinctive nature, and upon which their natural role in life is based.

To demand equality between man and woman in carrying heavy weights while the woman is pregnant is unjust and cruel. To demand equality between them in fasting and hardship while she is breast-feeding is unjust and cruel. To demand equality between them in any dirty work which stains her beauty and detracts from her femininity is unjust and cruel. Education that leads to work unsuitable for her nature is unjust and cruel as well.

There is no difference between men and women in all that concerns humanity. None of them should marry the other against his or her will, or divorce without a just trial or mutual agreement. Neither should a woman remarry without such agreement or divorce; nor a man without divorce or consent. The woman is the owner of the house because it is one of the suitable and necessary conditions for a woman who menstruates, conceives, and cares for her children. The female is the owner of the maternity shelter, which is the house. Even in the animal world, which differs in many ways from that of the humans, and where maternity is also a duty according to nature, it is coercive to deprive the female of her shelter and the offspring of their mother.

Woman is female. Being female means she has a biological nature that is different from that of the male. The female's biological nature, differing as it does from that of the males, has imparted to women characteristics different from those of men in form and in essence. A woman's anatomy is different from that of a man's just as the female differs in plants and animals. This is a natural and incontrovertible fact. In the animal and plant kingdoms, the male is naturally created strong and aggressive, while the female is created beautiful and gentle. These are natural and eternal characteristics innate to living creatures, whether they are called human beings, animals or plants.

In view of his different nature and in line with the laws of nature, the male has played the role of the strong and striving not by design, but simply because he is created that way. The female has played the role of the beautiful and the gentle involuntarily because she was created so. This natural rule is just, partly because it is natural, and partly because it is the basic rule for freedom. All living creatures are created free and any interference with that freedom is coercion. Not to adhere to these natural roles and to lack concern for their limits amounts to a wanton act of corruption against the values of life itself. Nature has been designed to be in harmony with the inevitability of life, from what is being to what will become. The living creature is a being who inevitably lives until it is dead. Existence between the beginning and the end of life is based on a natural law, without choice or compulsion. It is natural. It is natural freedom.

In the animal, plant and human realms, there must be a male and a female for life to occur from its beginning to its end. Not only do they exist but they have to exercise, with absolute efficiency, the natural role for which they have been created. If their role is not being efficiently performed, there must be some defect in the organization of life caused by historical circumstances. This is the case of societies almost everywhere in the world today as they confuse the roles of men and women and endeavour to transform women into men. In harmony with nature and its subsequent purpose, men and women must be creative within their respective roles. To resist is retrogressive; it is directed against nature and destroys the basis of freedom, for it is hostile to both life and survival. Men and women must perform, not abandon, the roles for which they are created.

Abandoning their role, or even a part of it, only occurs as a result of coercive conditions and under abnormal circumstances. The woman who rejects pregnancy, marriage, beautification and femininity for reasons of health abandons her natural role in life under these coercive conditions of ill health. The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or motherhood because of work abandons her natural role under similar coercive conditions. The woman who rejects marriage, pregnancy or maternity without any concrete cause abandons her natural role as a result of a coercive and morally deviant circumstances. Thus, abandoning the natural roles of female and male in life can only occur under unnatural conditions which are contrary to freedom and are a threat to survival. Consequently, there must be a world revolution which puts an end to all materialistic conditions hindering women from performing their natural role in life, and so drives them to carry out men's duties in order to attain equal rights. Such revolution will inevitably take place, particularly in industrial societies, as a response to the instinct of survival.

All societies today look upon women as little more than commodities. The East regards her as a commodity to be bought and sold, while the West does not recognize her femininity viewing her as cog in the capitalist wage machine.

Driving woman to do man's work is a flagrant aggression against the femininity with which she is naturally provided and which defines a natural purpose essential to life. Man's work obscures woman's beautiful features which are created for female roles. They are like blossoms which are created to attract pollen and to produce seeds. If we did away with the blossoms, the role of plants in life would come to an end. The natural embellishment in butterflies and birds and animal females exists to that natural vital purpose. If a woman carries out men's work, she risks being transformed into a man, abandoning her role and her beauty. A woman has full right to live without being forced to change into a man and to give up her femininity.

Physical structure, which is naturally different in men and women, leads to differences in the functions of the organs, which in turn leads to differences in the psyche, mood, emotions, as well as in physical appearance. A woman is tender; a woman is pretty; a woman weeps easily and is easily frightened. In general, women are gentle and men are aggressive by virtue of their inbred nature.

To ignore natural differences between men and women and to mix their roles is an absolutely uncivilized attitude, hostile to the laws of nature, destructive to human life, and a genuine cause for the wretchedness of human social life.

Modern industrial societies, which have made women adapt to the same physical work as men at the expense of their femininity and their natural role in terms of beauty, maternity and serenity, are materialistic and uncivilized. To imitate them is as stupid as it is dangerous to civilization and humanity.

The question, then, is not whether women should or should not work, for this is a ridiculous materialistic presentation of the case. Work should be provided by the society to all able members who need work - men and women on the condition that individuals work in their own fields and not be coerced into carrying out unsuitable work.

For children to find themselves under adult working conditions is unjust and dictatorial. It is equally unjust and dictatorial for women to find themselves under the working conditions of men.

Freedom means that every human being gets proper education which qualifies him or her for the work which suits him or her. Dictatorship means that human beings are taught that which is not suitable for them, and are forced to do unsuitable work. Work which is appropriate to men is not necessarily appropriate to women, and knowledge that is proper for children does not necessarily suit adults.

There is no difference in human rights between man and woman, the child and the adult, but there is no absolute identity between them as regards their duties. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men. Self-styled radical feminists actually reduce women to nothing but helpless, cringing near-vegetables, passive victims of male contempt and coercion. The new woman-as-victim stereotype is not only directly traceable to ironically the nineteenth century Victorian patriarchal attitudes reducing (bourgeois) women to inert ornaments, but by denying to women the creative power inherent in everyone, it places women’s demands on a par with those advanced for, say, baby seals.

According to feminist epistemology, men understand nothing of the real nature of women. One might logically suppose that the estrangement of the sexes resulting from disparate roles and discrimination would work both ways, and so most of us attending to our actual experiences reluctantly conclude. But no: men don’t understand women, but women somehow (at any rate their radical feminist vanguard) understand men. Women — feminist experts, anyway — understand pornography and its meaning for men much better than the men who write and read it — and lesbian-separatists, who avoid men and decline to have sex with them, appreciate these verities best of all. The more remote your experience is from the real life of actual men, the better you understand it. Turning this around, isn’t the Pope, as he claims, the ultimate authority on women and sexuality?

Feminists see rape everywhere, even in places where there is no rape. So rape is everywhere. The chat-up is rape, domination is rape. Man is by nature rapist and woman his eternal, innocent victim. When women criticize feminism they are ostracised as renegades while male critics are ignored or defamed as a matter of principle. (A precisely parallel mechanism for maintaining a conspiracy of silence is worked by Zionists: Gentile critics are “Anti-Semites,” Jewish critics can only be consumed by “Jewish self-hatred.”)

Some extreme feminists claim that penetration is an act of domination, a form of humiliation to be refused. Some of them even say that violence and exploitation are the acts of males alone and that this part of humanity must therefore be neutralised or eliminated by the arrival of a world of women where, thanks to the progress in biology, reproduction will be carried out without men. (Hence Feminists are important in the establishment of the Global Elite's Techno-Fascism)

No matter what delirium might strike feminism and the progress in biology, it is true that to claim to discourage rapists without having recourse to police and judicial repression only complicates the matter. When the conditions that give rise to rape — the fact that it expresses (even in a barbarous way) a fundamental need and that it is a response to a certain general female attitude — are not understood, or there is no desire to understand it, the only consistent answer is repression: repress the problem.

Are rapists male conquerors chasing women through the streets, modern tarzans swinging from balcony to balcony prick in hand and a flower between their teeth? The most reliable statistics state that they are not. Immigrant worker or local family man, the typical rapist does not belong to that species. It is difficult to build them up into an expression of triumphant phallocracy, the image which so exasperates the feminists.

Rape is basically the sad revenge of a victim, a poor man’s undertaking. It is not a result of bourgeois wealth or phallocratic arrogance, but their sub-product. If only rape could be proved to be above all the act of the privileged thirsting for proletarian flesh. How much easier it would be to latch the just struggle of women to the old class struggle... But there isn’t always a notary such as Leroy to devour, and even maoist demagogy has its limits!

We run up against the upholders of order, but we also keep running up against each other on a much more everyday level. This is the reality of capitalism. The problem is not to give in, but neither should we create racisms of all the real oppositions that come into being, dramatise them, create a climate of psychosis where everyone is so edgy they become victims of them twice over. All these background tensions are soon dispersed in real social war.

Militant attitudes mask the incapacity to transform our daily life and only aggravate the misery of those who adopt them. Feminist convictions can co-exist with the most common-place misery. On the one hand the dullest submission is accepted, to be avenged at the level of imagination and ideology or screwed up in aggressive attitudes which only contribute to the misfortune they feed off yet claim to fight. The more daily life needs to be dressed up with ideological explanations and rationalisations, the less it has any meaning in itself.

The failure of feminism isn’t that it incites women to anger and revolt and sets off on a war against male behaviour. Capitalism or the crisis of human relations in general aren’t chosen as the target due to a fear of foundering in ideology, but because of the concrete people and obstacles we run up against and which capital forces us to collide with. Let women get angry with the men who oppress them, exploit them and prevent them from living, as they reduce them to sex objects or chambermaids... And let men do the same and put an end to these hypocritical feelings of indulgence or the complacent irony that hides neurotic dependence, in order to reach the requirements of human beings as far as other human beings are concerned. What is scorned and used cannot be loved.

A new perversion of the story of Adam and Eve, of temptation and original sin, the stupidity lies in wanting it to be “men’s fault” at all costs. Perversion, and at the same time fantastic power is attributed to them, hiding the nature of the system whose development is no more in men’s hands than in those of women, even if it plays on their biological differences.

Furthermore, feminism is incapable of understanding the link between people’s biologically differentiated capabilities and needs, and their function in society. It can only deny biological differences or make them the absolute analytical principle, or even confuse both together: “Everything is wrong because of men, who are neither better or worse than women, and moreover the two sexes have similar capabilities but men abuse theirs”.

It is not feminism but capitalism that is throwing women into wage-earning and reducing the time and effort dedicated to maternal and domestic functions. Capitalist progress has led to the disappearance of the principal role occupied by human energy. Feminism is the expression of a basic movement bred by capitalism. A formidable movement which tears woman from her traditional position and revolutionises relationships between the sexes. It also contributes to a more recent phenomenon which is countering and recuperating any tendencies towards qualitative change: the reformism of daily life. Hence we reject Feminism just as we reject Capitalism, and reject other things building the dangerous techno-fascist police state.

EDUCATION
Image


Education, or learning, is not necessarily that routinized curriculum and those classified subjects in textbooks which youths are forced to learn during specified hours while sitting in rows of desks. This type of education now prevailing all over the world is directed against human freedom. State-controlled education, which governments boast of whenever they are able to force it on their youths, is a method of suppressing freedom. It is a compulsory obliteration of a human being's talent, as well as a coercive directing of a human being's choices. It is an act of dictatorship destructive of freedom because it deprives people of their free choice, creativity and brilliance. To force a human being to learn according to a set curriculum is a dictatorial act. To impose certain subjects upon people is also a dictatorial act.

State-controlled and standardized education is, in fact, a forced stultification of the masses. All governments which set courses of education in terms of formal curricula and force people to learn those courses coerce their citizens. All methods of education prevailing in the world should be destroyed through a universal cultural revolution that frees the human mind from curricula of control which dictate a process of deliberate distortion of man's tastes, conceptual ability and mentality.

This does not mean that schools are to be closed and that people should turn their backs on education, as it may seem to superficial readers. On the contrary, it means. that society should provide all types of education, giving people the chance to choose freely any subjects they wish to learn. This requires a sufficient number of schools for all types of education. Insufficient numbers of schools restrict human freedom of choice, forcing them to learn only the subjects available, while depriving them of the natural right to choose because of the unavailability of other subjects. Societies which ban or monopolize knowledge are reactionary societies which are biased towards ignorance and are hostile to freedom. Societies which prohibit the teaching of religion are reactionary societies, biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom. Societies which monopolize religious education are reactionary societies, biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom. Equally so are the societies which distort the religions, civilizations and behaviour of others in the process of teaching those subjects. Societies which consider materialistic knowledge taboo are likewise reactionary societies, biased towards ignorance and hostile to freedom. Knowledge is a natural right of every human being of which no one has the right to deprive him or her under any pretext, except in a case where a person does something which deprives him or her of that right.

Ignorance will come to an end when everything is presented as it actually is and when knowledge about everything is available to each person in the manner that suits him or her.
Last edited by 6th National Revolutionary France on Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:25 am, edited 40 times in total.
Sixth French Republic-Socialist National Liberationist
Note: I am not the bloody original Souriya al-Assad, I am a friend and this nation is tribute to him.

User avatar
6th National Revolutionary France
Attaché
 
Posts: 79
Founded: Jul 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Chapter 3 A Critique of Techno-Fascism & Global Call to Arms

Postby 6th National Revolutionary France » Wed Oct 09, 2019 11:01 am

America the Enemy of France

Cold War/Post-Cold War America has always been France's true enemy, America's CIA and banking industry did everything in its power to undermine the administration of Charles De Gaulle's anti-colonial policies, his economic reforms and even his anti-communist actions. Most modern people living in America are brainwashed to hate our people. They are told on American television that we French are cowardly, and the Television programs broadcasted in America use derogatory and hateful terms like "surrender-monkeys" to describe our French race.

The American school system breeds functional retards and brainwashed cultists. After a century and a half of indoctrination by their education system, Americans have thoroughly internalized a politically emasculated version of American history. This authoritarian piety is so diametrically opposed to the beliefs of those who took up arms in the American Revolution that the citizenry has largely forgotten what it means to be American. In fact, the authentic principles of Americanism have been stood on their head. Two hundred years ago, standing armies were feared in America as a threat to liberty and a breeding ground for authoritarian personalities; conscription was associated with the tyranny of Cromwell; wage labor was thought to be inconsistent with the independent spirit of a free citizen. Today, two hundred years later, Americans have been so Prussianized by sixty years of a garrison state and "wars" against one internal enemy or another, that they are conditioned to genuflect at the sight of a uniform. Draft dodgers are equivalent to child molesters. Most people work for some centralized corporate or state bureaucracy, where as a matter of course they are expected to obey orders from superiors, work under constant surveillance, and even piss in a cup on command.

During wartime, it becomes unpatriotic to criticize or question the government and dissent is identified with disloyalty. Absolute faith and obedience to authority is a litmus test of "Americanism." Foreign war is a very useful tool for manipulating the popular mind and keeping the domestic population under control. War is the easiest way to shift vast, unaccountable new powers to the State. People are most uncritically obedient at the very time they need to be most vigilant.

The greatest irony is that, in a country founded by revolution, "Americanism" is defined as respecting authority and resisting "subversion." The Revolution was a revolution indeed, in which the domestic political institutions of the colonies were forcibly overthrown. It was, in many times and places, a civil war between classes. But as Voltairine de Cleyre wrote a century ago in "Anarchism and American Traditions," the version in the history books is a patriotic conflict between the "Founding Fathers" and a foreign enemy. Those who can still quote Jefferson on the right of revolution are relegated to the "extremist" fringe, to be rounded up in the next war hysteria or red scare.

America is run by some sort bizarre hybrid form of neo-liberal capitalist "progressive" imperialist fascism. America seeks global ideological hegemony and global domination over the entire inhabited earth. France must stand as a bastion of Resistance against American imperialism. France must combat the domination including psychological warfare of America's Fascism.

The American Empire’s “multitude” is a disgusting attempt to create a sort of multicultural racism. Anyone of any race or culture is permitted to participate in the annihilation of social and cultural differences and share in the plunder gained. Empire buys out cultures and discards what is unmarketable. Where it finds rich, varied cultures with lovely folklore, obscure languages and customs, it develops plastic trinkets, videotapes and brothels for the tourists. The local languages die out, the old stories are forgotten and everyone becomes an American.

Dispossession: the cause of the migration to the cities

According to a recent UN report (The Challenge of the Slums by the United Nations’ Human Settlements Programme), the rural population of the earth has nearly reached its peak, and soon all population growth will happen only in cities. But the report fails to examine why. Is it simply because there is too little land for the number of people that exist as the report’s silence on the subject would imply? Such a conclusion may offer cold comfort to the bureaucrats of this global state institution. After all, their job is to find the necessary stopgap measures to keep the global order of capital functioning relatively smoothly in the midst of the disasters it provokes. But this explanation is inadequate.

According to a recent UN report (The Challenge of the Slums by the United Nations’ Human Settlements Programme), the rural population of the earth has nearly reached its peak, and soon all population growth will happen only in cities. But the report fails to examine why. Is it simply because there is too little land for the number of people that exist as the report’s silence on the subject would imply? Such a conclusion may offer cold comfort to the bureaucrats of this global state institution. After all, their job is to find the necessary stopgap measures to keep the global order of capital functioning relatively smoothly in the midst of the disasters it provokes. But this explanation is inadequate.

Capitalism needs to expand in order to survive. The expansion of capital and its technological apparatus has to eat up more and more land and resources. Whether this takes the form of massive strip mines, intrusive explorations to find resources, the transformation of small-scale farming into large-scale industrialized agribusiness or the transformation of farmlands into private big game parks where the rich can pay to hunt for trophies in a controlled setting (as has been happening in South Africa in recent years), the effect on the rural poor is the same. They are uprooted from the homes where they were able to create their lives largely on their own terms and are forced to go elsewhere in search of survival. This is the central reason for the movement of people from the countryside into the cities, as well as for the massive international migration of the poor around the globe creating a growing marginalized, often undocumented population in cities throughout the world. If we also take into account the millions of refugees that wars over resources, territory and the distribution of power create, it becomes clear that the current social order is the source of this uprooting.

It is inevitable that the UN report would be shortsighted, since it couldn’t draw conclusions that would undermine its own role in maintaining the present world. This becomes especially clear when it attempts to make economic analysis. In keeping with its task of finding stopgap solutions that don’t threaten the ruling order, the UN report looks at the question of the rapid growth of the poor urban population in terms of how to provide subsistence within the urban context. Thus its criticism of the IMF’s Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) is limited to complaining that they emphasize agricultural exports rather than urban economic development. The process of dispossession that is going on is ignored. Small-scale farmers growing mostly for their own subsistence with a bit extra for local urban markets do not require much land. But when international pressure (or rather, blackmail) forces a poorer nation to shift the agricultural emphasis to growing cash crops for export, land has to be taken away from subsistence production and consolidated into large-scale holdings for industrial agriculture. Local farmers are dispossessed of their land and way of life. A few may be able to find work as farm laborers, but most are forced to hit the road for the city in the hope of finding a means of survival. So the SAPs aren’t simply a poor solution to the economic problems of the poorer nations; they are a precise process of dispossession and proletarianization that reinforces the global spread of capital.

Slums, shantytowns, homelessness: the face of urbanization

In Europe and the Americas, the process of urbanization is nearly complete with 80% of the population living in cities. These are the centers from which this process has spread. The process of dispossession that led to the urbanization and proletarianization of most of the European population began more than five hundred years ago, together with the colonization of the Americans. Now, in western Europe and the United States, memories of the brutality with which this process began is nearly forgotten, and most of the time the exploited here seem to accept the dispossession of their capacity to create their lives on their own terms in exchange for the capacity to buy consumer goods. But even here things are changing.

In the rest of the world, this process is going forward with unrelenting ruthlessness enhanced by the modern technological apparatus through which the rulers impose their control. If half of the world’s population now lives in cities, we can understand the nature of this urban life if we know that a third of the city dwellers live in slums and shantytowns.

Urbanization is more precisely, the urbanization of poverty. This is important, because there is a significant difference between rural and urban poverty. The rural poor usually have means of subsistence in their own hands through which they can guarantee their survival, in particular, land on which they can grow food and natural materials for making shelter and clothing. Pushed off the land and into the city, the poor no longer have these means and the scramble for survival takes a desperate twist. The urban population is now growing at a rate of about seventy million people a year. Legal markets are not capable of taking care of the needs of the flood of impoverished people pouring into the cities. So a black market economy (and anti-economy) grows. On the one hand this means that many people end up paying to live in badly built, deteriorating structures with inadequate sanitation, water and other services and under the threat of being evicted at any time. On the other hand, people often find ways to create what they need together, building make-shift homes from whatever materials they can find, squatting and so on. Shantytown structures often show a great deal of creativity and ingenuity.

In addition, many of those migrating to the cities are also immigrating to new countries, often illegally. These undocumented immigrant can find it difficult to get jobs in the regular market, and so they often end up working in the underground economy. They can frequently be seen selling various trinkets on the streets, always with one eye peeled for the cops. But undocumented immigrants also provide a source of cheap labor within the mainstream economy, so that state policy walks a thin line between enforcement and tolerance. Most Western countries now have a system of prison camps (with euphemistic labels such as “centers of temporary residence”) for undocumented immigrants. This keeps those on the outside willing to go on working in intolerable conditions for low wages. The aim is not so much to stop the flow of immigrants, as to keep it under control, providing a steady supply of cheap labor for capital while minimizing the potential for social unrest.

In the West, urban life is also becoming more and more impoverished. Rising housing costs combine with an increasingly tight job market to push more and more people out the bottom and onto the streets. Homelessness is rampant. In the American city of Portland this reality is visible everywhere. It isn’t possible to walk a half a block in downtown without encountering a panhandler. Police harassment, particularly in the form of breaking up homeless camps and fencing off areas that might provide shelter, is normal policy. But this will not make the problem go away. It simply emphasizes the status of the visible poor as undesirables in the current social order. In addition, the homeless and those living in makeshift shelter in shantytowns on the outskirts of cities often do not make into the censuses. In this sense, it can be said that “officially they do not exist”. In other words, they have been excluded from society. Though living in the city, they are outsiders, people with no place in this social order.

This exclusion at the very bottom is a reflection of the precariousness that is becoming the condition of more and more of the exploited. As the production of goods becomes less dependent on skilled human labor power and is spread in smaller units across the social terrain, the sort of work available ceases to offer security. More and more workers find themselves in shitty service jobs with no guaranteed future, in temporary work or having to find means of survival in the underground economy. The income is not only low, but precarious as well – one never knows when she might lose the job and suddenly not be able to pay the rent. So we can consider this precariousness to be the common trait of the exploited and dispossessed class at the present time, the point from which common struggle might develop.


The Problem and Question of Modern Technology & Techno-Industrial Society
Image

Most students of European history dismiss the Luddites of 19th century England as “reckless machine-smashers” and “vandals” worthy of mention only for their daring tactics. Probing beyond this interpretation, though, we find a complex, thoughtful, and little-understood social movement whose roots lay in a clash between two worldviews.

The worldview that 19th century Luddites challenged was that of the emerging industrial capitalism with its increasing amalgamation of power, resources, and wealth, rationalized by its emphasis on “progress.” (Progress has meant the looming specter of the complete dehumanization of the individual and the catastrophe of ecological collapse.)

The worldview they supported was an older, more decentralized one espousing the interconnectedness of work, community, and family through craft guilds, village networks, and townships. They saw the new machines that owners introduced into their workplaces — the gig mills and shearing frames — as threats not only to their jobs, but to the quality of their lives and the structure of the communities they loved. In the end, destroying these machines was a last-ditch effort by a desperate people whose world lay on the verge of destruction.

The long road of civilization, which has led to the present-day technological-spectacular society, has been a continuous process of separation from nature and of domestication of individuality. Now more than ever, this is evident in the capitalist desire to free commodity production from the earth and its resources, as well as in the city dweller afraid of losing her grip on society. It is evident in destructive processes, and in those tending toward the concentration of people into a homogenous mass. It is also evident in the alienation from our own bodies and in the entrusting of their cure to specialists accustomed to treating one body after another without valuing subjectivities at all, almost as if these bodies were machines.

And this process has really operated mainly on this last aspect, not only separating us from external nature, but also from the form of nature, unacknowledged and mistreated by most, that we are. In this way, domination plants its roots in the brains of individuals convinced, or maybe constrained, to consider themselves other than nature. But we are not allowed to clearly know what this other is. And by steering the middle course between the pedestal of domination over nature and the simultaneous evaluation of being insignificant within the social Moloch, it is possible to make the appeal to work in order to impose new ideals of the human being, absolutely functional to technological domination and truly other than nature. It becomes imperative to integrate oneself, to evolve at a pace equal to the technosphere’s separation from nature. And methods for integrating oneself are not at all lacking within the ruling order. They are not merely ideological: genetic manipulation already finds applications on the human being, and individuals are already designed in the laboratory, thus carrying evolutionary control to its farthest end. What genetics cannot achieve, especially on the social plane (truthfully, a lot), will be achieved thanks to nanotechnology that already allows the implanting of micro-chips under the skin with infinite possibilities, from location, to the control of gestures and actions, up to interaction with the biological system. Today the lines of control tend to flow more and more into the fabric of life. (Nanotechnology is the furthest advancement that may yet exist in the history of technological progress. It consists in the total study, the scrutiny into the manipulation and domination of all the smallest elements, invisible to human eyes. With this the global elite will have managed to control everything, absolutely everything, from changes in the climate to the smallest atomic molecule. Aside from just threatening our freedom as Individuals, the freedom of the Animals and of the Earth, techno-fascism now passes its threat even to the scale of less than a micrometer.)

Going back in time we can see how Descartes smoothed out the path for such artificialization with his mind-body dualism. Setting aside the mind and shifting attention to the body, objectively quantifiable and controllable, he pointed the way out to science, which has today achieved transplants and the artificial creation of organs. Already Descartes himself asked, “Couldn't living organs perhaps be conceived in a satisfactory manner, and thus governed, as if they were machines?” But science has gone further, not only realizing his idea as the basis of modem biology, but then conceiving organisms fused with and ruled by machines.

The creation of a post-human race and the colonization of the cosmos by machines, as proposed by the scientistic extropian cult, are no longer only subjects for films or the isolated delirium of some fanatic, but projects under study in the universities of robotics and in research center scattered throughout the world. The extropian Hans Moravec admits his fantasy that “our non-organic descendants, lacking our limits, capable of redesigning themselves, could follow the awareness of things, confining the already surpassed humanity in an edenic environment, like a park.” But more likely, in the name of efficiency, and in view of the objective difficulty of finding an edenic environment on this ravaged earth, the descendants of Moraves would eliminate the obsolete organic human forms. The machine and artificial intelligence are now considered by many as the next level of evolution. The disquieting vision of cyborg Kevin Warwick, who has inserted a chip[1] into his arm that commands lights, entrances and computers in his office, is that fifty years from now machines will manage humans and artificial intelligence will outclass and eliminate human intelligence through the physical intervention of psychosurgery.

Beyond the obvious excess of fanaticism that certain theories reach, there is still a very precise direction: the elimination of the living being as we have known it up to now. What comes about with genetic engineering, controlled sterilization and reproduction, the creation of cyborgs, the cognitive flattening to the level of machines or the purging of the unsuitable is to be seen, but certainly this technological ideology will damage us from now on, whether there is a concrete realization or not. We are already at a point where reality and simulation sometimes become indistinguishable, and in an extension of the techniques of Spectacular representation, there is now talk of artificial senses capable of making our perception of reality completely virtual, mediated and thus impoverished. Spengler’s survey of Western civilization led him to conclude that “an artificial world is permeating and poisoning the natural.

Before it's too late, let's realize that science and technology are historical phenomena directed by a vulnerable elite and that our enslavement is in their interest. The key to the ascendancy of machines and of the post-human for an even more totalitarian domination lies in our acceptance, like it does for every form of exploitation and control. And it is only by overturning this notion and the current society, that it will be possible to find the key for the unknown world of freedom.

Barraged by Technologies
The current controversy over technology is reminiscent of that of the Luddite period. We too are being barraged by a new generation of technologies — two-way television, fiber optics, bio-technology, superconductivity, fusion energy, space weapons, supercomputers. We too are witnessing protest against the onslaught. A group of Berkeley students gathered in Sproul Plaza to kick and smash television sets as an act of “therapy for the victims of technology.” A Los Angeles businesswoman hiked onto Vandenberg Air Force Base and beat a weapons-related computer with a crowbar, bolt cutters, hammer, and cordless drill. Villagers in India resist the bulldozers cutting down their forests by wrapping their bodies around tree trunks. People living near the Narita airport in Japan sit on the tarmac to prevent airplanes from taking off and landing. West Germans climb up the smokestacks of factories to protest emissions that are causing acid rain, which is killing the Black Forest.

Desperate Neo-Luddites
Such acts echo the concerns and commitment of the 19th century Luddites. Neo-Luddites are 20th century citizens — activists, workers, neighbors, social critics, and scholars — who question the predominant modern worldview, which preaches that unbridled technology represents progress. Neo-Luddites have the courage to gaze at the full catastrophe of our century: The technologies created and disseminated by modern Western societies are out of control and desecrating the fragile fabric of life on Earth. Like the early Luddites, we too are a desperate people seeking to protect the livelihoods, communities, and families we love, which lie on the verge of destruction.

What is Technology?

The Neo-Luddite movement has come to acknowledge that technological progress and the kinds of technologies produced in our society are not simply “the way things are.”

As philosopher Lewis Mumford pointed out, technology consists of more than machines. It includes the techniques of operation and the social organizations that make a particular machine workable. In essence, a technology reflects a worldview. Which particular forms of technology — machines, techniques, and social organizations — are spawned by a particular worldview depend on its perception of life, death, human potential, and the relationship of humans to one another and to nature.

In contrast to the worldviews of a majority of cultures around the world (especially those of indigenous people), the view that lies at the foundation of modern technological society encourages a mechanistic approach to life: to rational thinking, efficiency, utilitarianism, scientific detachment, and the belief that the human place in nature is one of ownership and supremacy. The kinds of technologies that result include nuclear power plants, laser beams, and satellites. This worldview has created and promoted the military-industrial-scientific-media complex, multinational corporations, and urban sprawl.

Stopping the destruction brought by such technologies requires not just regulating or eliminating individual items like pesticides or nuclear weapons. It requires new ways of thinking about humanity and new ways of relating to life. It requires the creation of a new worldview.

Principles of Neo-Luddism
1. Neo-Luddites are not anti-technology. Technology is intrinsic to human creativity and culture. What we oppose are the kinds of technologies that are, at root, destructive of human lives and communities. We also reject technologies that emanate from a worldview that sees rationality as the key to human potential, material acquisition as the key to human fulfillment, and technological development as the key to social progress.

2. All technologies are political. As social critic Jerry Mander writes in Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, technologies are not neutral tools that can be used for good or evil depending on who uses them. They are entities that have been consciously structured to reflect and serve specific powerful interests in specific historical situations. The technologies created by mass technological society are those that serve the perpetuation of mass technological society. They tend to be structured for short-term efficiency, ease of production, distribution, marketing, and profit potential — or for war-making. As a result, they tend to create rigid social systems and institutions that people do not understand and cannot change or control.

As Mander points out, television does not just bring entertainment and information to households across the globe. It offers corporations a surefire method of expanding their markets and controlling social and political thought. (It also breaks down family communications and narrows people’s experience of life by mediating reality and lowering their span of attention.)

Similarly, the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device did not just make birth control easier for women. It created tremendous profits for corporate entrepreneurs at a time when the largest generation ever born in the United States was coming of age and oral contraceptives were in disfavor. (It also damaged hundreds of thousands of women by causing septic abortions, pelvic inflammatory disease, torn uteruses, sterility, and death.)

Critiquing Technology
3. The personal view of technology is dangerously limited.
The often-heard message “but I couldn’t live without my word processor” denies the wider consequences of widespread use of computers (toxic contamination of workers in electronic plants and the solidifying of corporate power through exclusive access to new information in data bases).

As Mander points out, producers and disseminators of technologies tend to introduce their creations in upbeat, utopian terms. Pesticides will increase yields to feed a hungry planet! Nuclear energy will be “too cheap to meter.” The pill will liberate women! Learning to critique technology demands fully examining its sociological context, economic ramifications, and political meanings. It involves asking not just what is gained — but what is lost, and by whom. It involves looking at the introduction of technologies from the perspective not only of human use, but of their impact on other living beings, natural systems, and the environment.

Program for the Future

1. As a move toward dealing with the consequences of modern technologies and preventing further destruction of life, we favor the dismantling of the following destructive technologies:

nuclear technologies — which cause disease and death at every stage of the fuel cycle;

chemical technologies — which re-pattern natural processes through the creation of synthetic, often poisonous chemicals and leave behind toxic and non disposable wastes;

genetic engineering technologies — which create dangerous mutagens that when released into the biosphere threaten us with unprecedented risks;

television — which functions as a centralized mind-controlling force, disrupts community life, and poisons the environment;

electromagnetic technologies — whose radiation alters the natural electrical dynamic of living beings, causing stress and disease; and

computer technologies — which cause disease and death in their manufacture and use, enhance centralized political power, and remove people from direct experience of life.

Technology by and for the People

2. We favor a search for new technological forms. As political scientist Langdon Winner advocates in Autonomous Technology, we favor the creation of technologies by the people directly involved in their use — not by scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs who gain financially from mass production and distribution of their inventions and who know little about the context in which their technologies are used.

We favor the creation of technologies that are of a scale and structure that make them understandable to the people who use them and are affected by them. We favor the creation of technologies built with a high degree of flexibility so that they do not impose a rigid and irreversible imprint on their users, and we favor the creation of technologies that foster independence from technological addiction and promise political freedom, economic justice, and ecological balance.

3. We favor the creation of technologies in which politics, morality, ecology, and technics are merged for the benefit of life on Earth:

community-based energy sources utilizing solar, wind, and water technologies — which are renewable and enhance both community relations and respect for nature;

organic, biological technologies in agriculture, engineering, architecture, art, medicine, transportation, and defense — which derive directly from natural models and systems;

conflict resolution technologies — which emphasize cooperation, understanding, and continuity of relationship; and

decentralized social technologies — which encourage participation, responsibility, and empowerment.

4. We favor the development of a life-enhancing worldview in Western technological societies. We hope to instill a perception of life, death, and human potential into technological societies that will integrate the human need for creative expression, spiritual experience, and community with the capacity for rational thought and functionality. We perceive the human role not as the dominator of other species and planetary biology, but as integrated into the natural world with appreciation for the sacredness of all life.

We foresee a sustainable future for humanity if and when Western technological societies restructure their mechanistic projections and foster the creation of machines, techniques, and social organizations that respect both human dignity and nature’s wholeness. In progressing towards such a transition, we are aware: We have nothing to lose except a way of living that leads to the destruction of all life. We have a world to gain.

The Machinery of Control: A Critical Look at Technology

“Criticizing technology [...] means considering its general framework, seeing it not simply is an assemblage of machinery, but as a social relationship, a system; it means understanding that a technological instrument reflects the society that produces it, and that its introduction changes relations between individuals. Criticizing technology means refusing to subordinate human activity to profit.” (from At Daggers Drawn)

Technology does not develop in a vacuum, independently of the social relationships of the order in which it develops. It is the product of a context, and so inevitably reflects that context. Thus, the claim that technology is neutral has no basis. It could not possibly be any more neutral that the other systems developed to guarantee the reproduction of the current social order. Thus a serious revolutionary analysis necessarily needs to include a critical assessment of technology.

By technology, I do not mean simply tools, machines or even “an assemblage of machinery” as individual entities, but rather and integrated system of techniques, machinery, people and materials designed to reproduce the social relationships that prolong and advance its existence. In order to be clear from the start, I am not saying that technology produces social relationships, but rather that it is designed to reproduce them in accordance with the needs of the ruling system.

Before capitalism came to dominate social relationships, tools, techniques and even a number of machines had been created and applied to specific tasks. There were even some systematic applications of techniques and machinery that could be considered technological in the fullest sense of the word. It is interesting to note that these latter were applied most fully precisely where power required strict order — in monasteries, in the torture chambers of the inquisition, in galleys, in the creation of monuments to power, in the bureaucratic, military and police structures of powerful empires like dynastic China. But they remained largely peripheral to the daily life of the vast majority of people who tended to use tools and techniques that they created themselves as individuals or within their small community.

With the rise of capitalism, the necessity for the large-scale extraction and development of resources led to the bloody and ruthless expropriation of all that had been shared communally by the newly developing capitalist ruling class (a process that was extended internationally through the building of colonial empires) and the development of an increasingly integrated technological system that allowed the maximum efficiency in the use of resources including labor power. The aims of this system were increased efficiency in the extraction and development of resources and increased control over the exploited.

The earliest applications of industrial techniques occurred on board mercantile and naval ships and on the plantation. The latter was in fact a new system of large-scale farming for profit that could develop at the time due to the dispossession of peasants in Europe — especially Britain — providing a quantity of indentured servants and criminals sentenced to hard labor and the development of the African slave-trade that tore people from their homes and forced them into servitude. The former was also largely based on the dispossession of the exploited classes — many of whom found themselves kidnapped and forced into labor on the ships. The industrial system imposed in these contexts did not so much have a basis in an assemblage of manufactured machines as in the method of work coordination in which the workers were the gears of the machine and if one failed to do his part it would put the entire structure of work at risk.

But there were specific aspects of this system that threatened it. The plantation system, by bringing together various dispossessed groups with differing knowledge and experiences, allowed interactions that could provide a basis for illegal association and shared revolt. Sailors who lived in slave-like conditions on the ships also provided a means of communication between different places creating a kind of internationalism of the dispossessed. The records of illegal associations and insurrections around the north Atlantic seaboard in the 1600’s an 1700’s involving all races of the dispossessed with little evidence of racism are inspiring, but it also forced capitalism to develop its techniques further. A combination of racial ideology and a division of labor was used to form rifts between black slaves and the indentured servants of European ancestry. In addition, though capital would never be able to do without the transportation of goods and resources, for economic as well as social reasons it began to shift emphasis to the manufacturing of resources into goods for sale on a large scale.

The reliance on small-scale artisans to manufacture goods was dangerous to capital in several ways. Economically, it was slow and inefficient and did not place enough of the profit into the hands of the ruling class. But more significantly the relative independence of the artisans made them difficult to control. They determined their own hours, their own work speed and so on. Thus, the factory system that had already proven fairly efficient on ships and plantations was applied as well to the manufacturing of goods.

So the industrial system was not simply (or even primarily) developed because it was a more efficient way for manufacturing goods. Capitalists are not particularly interested in the manufacturing of goods as such. Rather they manufacture goods simply as a necessary part of the process of expanding capital, creating profit and maintaining their control over wealth and power. Thus, the factory system — this integration of techniques, machines, tools, people and resources that is technology as we know it — was developed as a means for controlling the most volatile part of the production process — the human worker. The factory is in fact set up like a huge machine with each part — including the human parts — integrally interconnected with each other part. Although the perfecting of this process took place over time as class struggle showed the weaknesses in the system, this central aim was inherent in industrial technology from the beginning, because it was the reason behind it. The Luddites recognized as much and this was the source of their struggle.

If we recognize that the technology developed under capitalism was developed precisely to maintain and increase the control of the capitalist ruling class over our lives, there is nothing surprising about the fact that those technical advances that weren’t specific responses to class struggle at the work place have occurred most often in the area of military and policing techniques. Cybernetics and electronics provide means of gathering and storing information on levels never known before, allowing for far greater surveillance over an increasingly impoverished and potentially rebellious world population. They also allow the decentralization of power without any loss of control to the rulers — the control resides precisely in the technological systems developed. Of course, this stretching of the web of control over the entire social sphere also means that it is very fragile. Weak links are everywhere, and creative rebels find them. But the necessity for control that is as total as possible moves the rulers of this order to accept these risks, hoping that they will be able to fix the weak links quickly enough. (In the hopes of developing better weapons guidance systems and other goodies to win the Cold War and the Space Race, the US government funded extensive research into applications of cybernetics, a school of information theory.

The philosophical core of cybernetics is the idea that consciousness imperfectly approximates reality, always refining its awareness through complex systems of feedback. Using this model of consciousness, cybernetics helped to develop first the computer, and then the internet. Between 1946 and 1953, the leading cybernetics researchers participated in a series of government-sponsored think-tank sessions known as the Macy Conferences, which drew participants from the top ranks not only of the “hard” sciences, but also social scientists such as Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson, with the goal of applying cybernetics to “biological and social systems.” the ultimate goal of these conferences was nothing less than an attempt to engineer a global utopia, one that could avert further world wars by routing out the cultural underpinnings of totalitarianism, and by weakening ethnic and national allegiances. The idea was to break down all traditional modes of life, rendering culture fluid so that it could be reorganized on a global scale.

During the rise of the counterculture of the 1960s, many Macy conference participants were busy disseminating a philosophy based on cybernetic principles. These ideas were expounded by such countercultural luminaries as Marshall McLuhan, Buckminster Fuller and John Cage, and began to reach the trend-setting world of the avant-garde arts (Fluxus, “happenings,” the emerging multimedia scene). These cybernetic artists were among the early adopters of LSD, a drug that many thought would usher in the kind of global utopia envisioned by the Macy Conferences. The US government had begun exploring uses of LSD in the early 1960s. While it was perhaps hoped to be a mind control agent, experimenters found the drug more useful in breaking down and analyzing the personality of subjects. Tests along these lines were carried out at Harvard University under the auspices of Henry A. Murray, professor of Social Relations, who had formulated psychological assessment tests used by the OSS--the precursor of the CIA.

So technology as we know it, this industrial system of integrated techniques, machinery, people and resources, is not neutral. It is a specific tool, created in the interests of the ruling class, that was never intended to serve to meet our needs and desires, but rather to maintain and extend the control of the ruling order. The technological system that we know is itself part of the structures of domination. It was created to more efficiently control those exploited by capital. Like the state, like capital itself, this technological system will need to be destroyed in order for us to take back our lives. What this means with regards to specific tools and techniques will be determined in the course of our struggle against the world of domination. But precisely in order to open the way to possibilities for creating what we desire in freedom, the machinery of control will have to be destroyed.

Image

United we become stronger!


The global-technocratic capitalist system will not stop in its oppression of the people, unless the people take up arms and begin to target those responsible for the global-enslavement (the bankers, the scientists, the technocrats, Industrialists and wealthy elites). The people must take up armed resistance and destroy what destroys them. This revolution must be global, and it must utilize non-state actors organized along socialist and revolutionary nationalist lines similar to the model offered in this book. The world will not know an age of light until these vile elites have been defeated, it should also be noted the nationalists should reject the concept of "ourselves alone" and isolate themselves to their geographic territory. Nationalists should effectively be autonomists and support the forming of regional military alliances, defense pacts and confederal city states with the goal of having a more united force to spread the global revolution and inspire people across the world. These nationalists would unite to defend their distinct cultures and ethnicities under the context of anti-capitalist struggle!

The plethora of direct actions and armed urban groups in the 1970’s and 1980’s were held back by lack of effective communication with the base population, and the anti-capitalist struggle constantly undermined by the Cold War and Soviet Union. These no longer exist, whilst there exists this acute and seemingly irreparable total crisis at all levels, the nature of which is being communicated ever quicker. Whilst we don’t have any interest in making any predictions, there are some matters that are as sure as the Arctic becoming a blue ocean. The new Armed struggle must make use of the communications network at hand and it shall be more effective in undermining the system by using its own technology against it.

Autonomy is the prerequisite of social freedom. Only the absolute autonomy of individuals and groups, the freedom to associate or disassociate with others at will, can allow the natural tendency towards solidarity and mutual aid to take root. The principle of self-determination must grow from the free individual out towards the community, and further outwards to distinct cultural groups and geographic regions. Autonomy provides the basis for meaningful interrelations between groups and territories on the basis of socialism; the equality of access to the means of existence and social life. Revolution is a project that develops decentralized organizational structures on the one hand while it attacks the centralized formations of the class enemy on the other. Revolutionaries must take the initiative to constantly fight against any tendency towards centralization if they are to defend freedom. From this perspective, revolutionary initiative becomes a project based on combining the struggle for individual liberation with the social struggle to overthrow the capitalist system and the class enemy.

The primary target of all revolutionaries should be American Imperialism! America has become the Arsonists spark that lit the hellish flame that allowed the previous British imperialists to continue their enslavement of the world. Revolutionaries should do everything they can to undermine the Government of America in order to bring total human freedom back into the world. The American elite must pay for their evil that they have put upon all the people's of the world. America's warmongers profit off of war, and contribute to the enslavement and destruction of the environment and destruction unique and the destruction of distinct ethnicities and cultures.

The way to take on America could be one of two possible policies (We will exclude outright war or invasion of America, since this would need the support of the Soviet Union which has betrayed the Working people. We advocate guerilla warfare against America abroad using insurgents and the dispossessed):

1. Global People's War

An alliance of states against America and its allies could form, an alliance of nationalist and socialist states in Europe could team up with nationalists and socialists in the Third World and Second World to deprive America, England and her allies of resources, effectively economically destroying them and inciting the American people to revolution against their Government as material conditions under Capitalism begin to dwindle.


2. Target America and NATO's Telecommunications & Power Grid, Demolish the Global Economy!


A monolithic power structure, with its vast web of administrative grids and military networks is slowly engulfing the planet, everywhere the system touches it enslaves a society slowly moves toward a post-human epoch. Leading this slow decay are technologies like 5G and Artificial Intelligences. The civilization we inhabit (or more accurately, of which we are prisoners) is an Electrical and Digital Anti-Civilization and it seems obvious to us that the electrical grid offers a soft underbelly to saboteurs at every turn. Let’s face it: the eleventh hour is approaching, Moloch is feeding on war victims beyond measure, the genetic structure of life itself is being manipulated by the death merchants of science, and we’re running out of air to breathe.

Our tactics NEED to escalate if we’re going to tear this diseased globalist system down – physically – and drag its filthy corpse off the planetary stage once and for all. As technology advances, so do its dependencies on other sectors: certain infrastructures are the customers of other infrastructures, and when electrical transmission capacity is unexpectedly lost, electrical generation must immediately be taken off-line. Otherwise, the generator’s output will reroute and overload remaining transmission lines, causing “voltage oscillations” that will ripple through the power grid and pull down significant portions of it. Thus, a well-planned attack that cripples key energy facilities might severely hamper the distribution of natural gas and could easily lead to cascading failures of the power grid and the telecommunications system.

The costs associated with the August 2003 blackout in the U.S. are currently estimated at $700 million and growing. One week after the U.S. power failure, Georgian separatist rebels shut down the Inguri hydroelectric station (in the zone of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict), when two sections of a 500,000 volt powerline were damaged by shots from an automatic weapon. As a result, the Inguri hydroelectric station shut down automatically, leaving all of Georgia without electricity. And indeed, the efficaciousness of infrastructural sabotage has not been lost on the Iraqi insurgents, who routinely engage in attacks on the oil infrastructure, directly thwarting attempts at coalition “reconstruction” and undercutting the funding for the installation of a CIA-backed puppet regime. In Basra, circuits running underground and belonging to the Bechtel Corporation are routinely attacked by people who pour gas on them and set the fuel ablaze.

Revolutionary Forces could collapse the entire world techno-economic system. Some foolish people might mock this idea as impractical and maybe even insane some people who support this idea even support that the world would revolve to some sort of backward primitive state of being, however this is zero-sum thinking. In fact, the post-collapse world would likely be able to support large population centers and even complex governments akin to those of the Romans or Incans. Certainly it would be able to support many of the social structures present in the rural, isolated, or “undeveloped” parts of the world.

Should there ever be a widespread reaction against the techno-industrial economic system, it will most likely instigate a collapse that would span several decades, at least. And, although some civilizations have collapsed rapidly even from the perspective of its constituent citizens, world society is likely to fall apart because of disparate and sometimes unrelated disasters — more like the fall of Rome than the collapse of Easter Island. In this case, some regions will fare quite well. Consider how well much of Europe did after the economic collapse caused by the Bubonic Plague, or what life in the Middle Ages was like beyond pop culture stereotypes.

In other words, the collapse of world society would not result in the deterioration of all social infrastructure everywhere, mainly just the social infrastructure of states, large corporations, and world or state economies. This means there would be significantly less death and destruction than people imagine. It also means that a number of people will survive off of materials scavenged from the deteriorating societal infrastructure around them, which will increase the size of the supportable population for a time. Small communities with minimal reliance on the system would no doubt find innovative ways of surviving as the large social systems around them break down.

There would of course be immediate dips in population that always occur during wars or revolutions. There would also be the immediate dips that occur during, say, economic or environmental disasters that contribute to war or revolution. (Importantly, however, these would not affect the merits of a revolutionary program, since the program would largely be in response to them).

But, after initial unrest in the collapsed or collapsing region, most people’s day to day lives will simply be reshaped by a new set of social rules and regulations as they learn to cooperate for survival under their new conditions. Some regions may even see a population increase for a while, given that industrial nations nowadays tend to have very low birth rates.

If we can collapse America and cause it to descend into chaos (possibly working with American revolutionaries), the fires of liberty will spread across the world. The people may fight but in the great struggle for survival they will find the fullness of life. Individuals and small groups, tribes, nations, communities, ect, ect of all sort will be free from the system being imposed on the world by the Redshields and America's imperialistic elite.

So welcome to the Wasteland! It’s time to start anew...time to reclaim the earthly paradise our ancestors once knew... prophecies are coming true as a cycle nears completion... human freedom is at stake... the signs of the times are everywhere, so let’s make sure that we’re prepared... to finish off the Megamachine before it can be repaired... when the power lines come crashing down and the server rooms ablaze...we will finally be free!
Last edited by 6th National Revolutionary France on Sun Nov 24, 2019 12:47 am, edited 50 times in total.
Sixth French Republic-Socialist National Liberationist
Note: I am not the bloody original Souriya al-Assad, I am a friend and this nation is tribute to him.

User avatar
6th National Revolutionary France
Attaché
 
Posts: 79
Founded: Jul 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby 6th National Revolutionary France » Wed Oct 09, 2019 4:54 pm

The Next War is Camarade Le Dragon's manifesto. How was this manifesto and the ideology it presents taken and viewed by your nation? What are your critiques? What do most people in your nation and intellectuals think about it?
Sixth French Republic-Socialist National Liberationist
Note: I am not the bloody original Souriya al-Assad, I am a friend and this nation is tribute to him.

User avatar
Allanea
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 26887
Founded: Antiquity
Capitalizt

Postby Allanea » Thu Oct 10, 2019 12:59 am

Leyfield, Sovereign Duchy of Leyfield

"Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times." – King Alexander Blaken-Kazansky stared at his wife as he placed the copy of the Manifesto on the dinner table. "Cassie. Have I ever been a bad husband to you?"

"No, why? You're an excellent husband, Sasha. Better than I could have imagined." – said the Queen of Allanea. For a moment, she stared at him with adoration. At one time, even meeting him in person was but a distant dream for her. The fact that he not only loved her, but married her and made her permanently part of his life, continued to fill her with joy. The things he had done for her and her daughter added to that joy – gratitude.

"Then, why are you making me read this bullshit?" – Alexander laughed. "This shit is making me dumber by the page. It's like someone has taken up the worst parts of every ideology, and then glued them together in a terrible Frankenstein's-monster type of setup. Except you know. The monster was kind, smart, and compassionate, and this is evil, dumb, and sociopathic."

"Excuse me?"

"Have you read this?" – the King of Allanea placed his hands on his face momentarily, and then looked at his wife through his fingers. He was giggling. "Cassie, it's got praise of the Luddites up in that bitch. The literal actual Luddites."

"What." – Cassiopeia said, perplexed.

"You know. The whole oh the Luddites were misunderstood, they were only against the machines because they were losing their jobs angle."

"Is that a thing people actually believe?"

"Only if you define guys like Le Dragon as people. He's also got elements of… nationalism, anti-immigration, New World Order conspiracy theories, anti-capitalism – I'm not dignifying this with the name socialism, sorry – and simultaneously, the usual tripe about how women shouldn't have birth control."

"Excuse me, what?"

""Similarly, the Dalkon Shield intrauterine device did not just make birth control easier for women. It created tremendous profits for corporate entrepreneurs at a time when the largest generation ever born in the United States was coming of age and oral contraceptives were in disfavor." - Alexander read out from the document, as he struggled not to burst out laugher. "I'm sorry Cassie, I just can't, my gods… it gets worse."

"How ? Just how."

After laughing for about 30 seconds, Alexander continued. "As Mander points out, producers and disseminators of technologies tend to introduce their creations in upbeat, utopian terms. Pesticides will increase yields to feed a hungry planet! Nuclear energy will be “too cheap to meter.” The pill will liberate women!"

Cassiopeia stared. "But…. But…"

"You're going to point out that two out of these three things happened, aren't you? Sorry, Cassie, that's just the neoliberal false – " Alexander guffawed audibly – "false consciousness! "

"And last I checked the reason the second one didn't happened was because people like Le Dragon blocked nuclear plant construction."

"Bing!"

"So the real question is. Does this nonsense pose any threat?"

"Like all of these manifestos. It's complete nonsense, but if you're psychologically vulnerable to it, it can be used to recruit people. Happily, Allanea has aircraft carriers and allies. I wouldn't want to be living in camarade Le Dragon's Francophonie – especially if I was rich. Or a migrant. Or a woman. But helpfully, I'm not living living in camarade Le Dragon's Francophonie, praise to the Gods."
Last edited by Allanea on Thu Oct 10, 2019 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
#HyperEarthBestEarth
"You're hitting on it. Time - time to prepare - that is the most dangerous thing you can give an Allanean." ~ Polish Prussian Commonwealth

User avatar
New Aeyariss
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8717
Founded: May 12, 2010
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby New Aeyariss » Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:14 pm

Image

Maki Kojiro (@makikojiro)
Just now from Ishikawa, Nifon

I have just finished reading the so called "Next War" by Comrade Le Dragon.

Let my only comment about madness contained in that "booklet" is that this Marxist drivel promoting abolishment of technology in the name of yet another minpon utopia... is now published and disseminated online or printed on printing machines and delivered by motorized couriers.

Namu Iesu Krishtou, Tenno Heika Banzai!


|⇧ UPVOTE| |⇩ DOWNVOTE| |REPLY|
Last edited by New Aeyariss on Thu Oct 10, 2019 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rping in MT (2023) and PT/FanT (1564)


Inyourfaceistan wrote:You didn't know that Cusc is actually a 4-armed cyborg genius commander and skillful warrior created in secret by a cabal of rich capitalist financiers built to lead and army of drones and other renegades against and overbearing socialist regime?
Psalms 144:1 wrote:Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.
Also known as El Cuscatlan, Jesus will offer you eternal life if you believe in him!


User avatar
McNernia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5471
Founded: Oct 05, 2011
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby McNernia » Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:48 pm

Image

Albert Ephraim Shapter (@PMShapter)
Just now from Cathcride Mcnernia

@Makikojiro

This is dangerously close to National Socialism, something which as someone of Jewish Descent knows its evils and the Mcnenrnian people know that the Nazis were most inclined to intimidate the church. The Louistown rioters believed similar things to this booklet about the Jews.

Hope we might dialogue and end this menace.


|⇧ UPVOTE| |⇩ DOWNVOTE| |REPLY|
Polaria
Erin Islands
Kaisong Islands
Al-Azkar
Rhodana
Eragh
Arisal
Kirav
Neu Engollon
New Edom: Clyde Hullar Ambassador
Aurora
Children of Aurora
A Luta Continua
Aneas
Tyrennia
Golgoth
Pardes
Cornellian Empire
Rostil
Sondria
Ajax
Astyria

Greater Dienstad
Minyang
Endorser of the Amistad Declaration
SIgnatory of the Amistad Declaration
IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MY RPing, TG ME PLEASE, THANKS A BUNCH.
A Time of Trouble
All my posts shall be dedicated to Tom Clancy. May he Rest In Peace.
I Consider the above to be Canon. Which means I want to RP with you if you've been in those regions. Or Are.

Call me Archinia ICly and well maybe Mcnernia is plausible....I don't know.

Lore change?

User avatar
Raterepublik Europa
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Raterepublik Europa » Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:30 pm

OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL REPUBLIC

Image

Freiheit durch Solidarität​




Greetings, peoples of the world!

The European Council Republic has long stood strong against the forces of tyranny, both from the rightist reactionaries and the deceitful vipers of the totalitarian 'left'. As a bastion of proletarian freedom we are compelled to combat all those who would see the workers in chains, and to struggle for the emancipation of all peoples. Unfortunately, there exist a great more opportunists who would dare pervert our righteous cause to serve their own twisted interests. We saw this in Russia, China and Korea, and alas, we now see it in France.

This 'Camarade Le Dragon' is no comrade of ours, and the release of his political manifesto, "The Next War", is proof of his true reactionary goals. He spins wild conspiracy theories and sees enemies around every corner, casting his very sanity into doubt, and his vicious anti-semitic attacks read like something cooked up by Tsarist Russia rather than any socialist work. His reactionary tendencies are made utterly clear by his rejection of technology and industry, for socialism is a fundamentally industrial system, and it is typical of the reactionaries to seek to undo some of the greatest accomplishments of humanity. Next thing you know, they'll be clamouring that the agricultural revolution was a mistake, and we should all go back to being hunter-gatherers!

We therefore utterly condemn 'Camarade Le Dragon' and his reactionary ideals, and urge the French proletariat to rise up against his tyranny and achieve the true liberty of socialism. He likewise urge all fellow socialist states to join us in this righteous condemnation, and to avoid falling for Le Dragon's poisonous lies and his false veneer of proletarianism. The people of the world will surely be victorious!
Last edited by Raterepublik Europa on Thu Oct 10, 2019 7:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
| ★★★ The European Council Republic ★★★ |
Councilist Republic based on the ideals of Soviet Democracy, Worker's Self-Management and Decentralised Planning

User avatar
Unified Soviet Socialist Republics
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 436
Founded: May 09, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Unified Soviet Socialist Republics » Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:06 pm

Image
OFFCIAL COMMUNIQUE OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



TO:Nations of the World
FROM:
CC:
SEC:OPEN BROADCAST
SUB:The Revisionism taking hold in France


Greetings

The Soviet Government Hereby Condemns the Sixth Revolutionary Republic of France for putting out drivel which seems to be coming dangerously close to the Rhetoric of the Khmer Rouge and they were bankrolled by the British and American Intelligence services.

The Soviet Union as a place of personal liberty offers free birth control as much as we are giving generous maternity benifits. Which is the better than this drivel.

The CCCP extends the hand of friendship to the European Council Republic in the fight against such dangerous things.

User avatar
6th National Revolutionary France
Attaché
 
Posts: 79
Founded: Jul 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby 6th National Revolutionary France » Thu Oct 10, 2019 8:52 pm

Agrarian Revolt is an obscure fringe Anarchist website that often promotes the ideas of Camarade Le Dragon and other strange Agrarian or Primitivist and anti-civilization political figures such as Evola Morales President of Hyperborean Bolivia who invaded and conquered Brazil to save the Amazon rainforest and return it to a more natural society as well as support for the terrorist organization GreenWar known for its anti-Whaling vigilantism and piracy. The website also had links to the Mother Earth Revolutionary Army, a violent eco-terrorist organization. And espoused support for the Leftist Agrarian Revolutionary Union of the Bulgar Rouge.

When the revolutionary leader of the 6th French Republic heard of some of the critiques and attack on his ideology, he quickly responded with a post on AgrarianRevolt.com

IC:

WWW.AGRARIANREVOLT.COM

Image

AGRARIAN REVOLT!

SMASH TECHNO-INDUSTRIAL SLAVERY, UNLEASH HUMAN POTENTIAL!

Image

Le Dragon responds to critics!


Since the recent publishing of my manifesto it has received criticisms from both the left and the right, many of them outlandish and misunderstanding of what my ideas actually are, One could seriously ask if my critics even have reading comprehension. One critique came from the Soviet Union accusing me of being a "revisionist" I say this is nonsense because I'm not even a Marxist. I did use dialectical materialism in my analysis however that is something that I took from Marx and improved on. The right-wing conservative leader Maki Kojiro accused my book of being "Marxist" drivel about abolishing technology, this is silly on two accounts I never say to abolish all technology I only call for the abolition technologies that are dangerous to humans and the ecosystem.

Maki Kojiro accused me of being hypocritical saying "Let my only comment about madness contained in that "booklet" is that this Marxist drivel promoting abolishment of technology in the name of yet another minpon utopia... is now published and disseminated online or printed on printing machines and delivered by motorized couriers."

I support the printing press, I consider this to be a good technology that empowers the human experience. In fact in France all internet servers are cooperatively owned by the masses.


In Chapter 2 "What is to Be Done I clearly state the following debunking both the European Council Republic's and Maki Koijro's silly accusations.

Code: Select all
Program for the Future
1. As a move toward dealing with the consequences of modern technologies and preventing further destruction of life, we favor the dismantling of the following destructive technologies:

nuclear technologies — which cause disease and death at every stage of the fuel cycle;

chemical technologies — which re-pattern natural processes through the creation of synthetic, often poisonous chemicals and leave behind toxic and non disposable wastes;

genetic engineering technologies — which create dangerous mutagens that when released into the biosphere threaten us with unprecedented risks;

television — which functions as a centralized mind-controlling force, disrupts community life, and poisons the environment;

electromagnetic technologies — whose radiation alters the natural electrical dynamic of living beings, causing stress and disease; and

computer technologies — which cause disease and death in their manufacture and use, enhance centralized political power, and remove people from direct experience of life.

Technology by and for the People
2. We favor a search for new technological forms. As political scientist Langdon Winner advocates in Autonomous Technology, we favor the creation of technologies by the people directly involved in their use — not by scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs who gain financially from mass production and distribution of their inventions and who know little about the context in which their technologies are used.

We favor the creation of technologies that are of a scale and structure that make them understandable to the people who use them and are affected by them. We favor the creation of technologies built with a high degree of flexibility so that they do not impose a rigid and irreversible imprint on their users, and we favor the creation of technologies that foster independence from technological addiction and promise political freedom, economic justice, and ecological balance.

3. We favor the creation of technologies in which politics, morality, ecology, and technics are merged for the benefit of life on Earth:

community-based energy sources utilizing solar, wind, and water technologies — which are renewable and enhance both community relations and respect for nature;

organic, biological technologies in agriculture, engineering, architecture, art, medicine, transportation, and defense — which derive directly from natural models and systems;

conflict resolution technologies — which emphasize cooperation, understanding, and continuity of relationship; and

decentralized social technologies — which encourage participation, responsibility, and empowerment.

4. We favor the development of a life-enhancing worldview in Western technological societies. We hope to instill a perception of life, death, and human potential into technological societies that will integrate the human need for creative expression, spiritual experience, and community with the capacity for rational thought and functionality. We perceive the human role as integrated into the natural world with appreciation for the sacredness of all life. Humans are caretakers of the Earth and while having dominion over it also have a duty to protect the Earth.

We foresee a sustainable future for humanity if and when Western technological societies restructure their mechanistic projections and foster the creation of machines, techniques, and social organizations that respect both human dignity and nature’s wholeness. In progressing towards such a transition, we are aware: We have nothing to lose except a way of living that leads to the destruction of all life. We have a world to gain.




Proving I do not call for the abolition of all technology as my foolish detractors such as Kojro, the Soviet Government and the European Council Republic who call me a "reactionary". I admit I am a reactionary and I'm a revolutionary, I'm a reactionary in the sense I seek to return to a pre-capitalist agricultural way of life, and a revolutionary in the sense that I seek to overturn the current world order to do it. I did not claim to be a leftist in that book so their accusations that I'm some sort of "wolf in sheep's clothing" infiltrating the left is idiotic, I rejected the foolishness of the left long ago.

The Left seeks to propagate forcing their social agenda down everyone's throats attacking the family, attacking the natural beauty of the female sex, and turning natural society upside down all while using technological enslavement to do it. Leftists seek to get in control of technology to further enslave the masses. I oppose this and in the final chapter encourage a war of all against all to fight for autonomy against the system, I oppose all enslavement left or right and total freedom of the human spirit!

As for the accusations from both the European Council Republic and Albert Ephraim Shapter I am not anti-semitic. I am against Zionism and Jewish racism which is propagated by the Apartheid state of Israel which was a colonialist project thought up by wealthy banker who happened to be Jewish. The Zionists are the real racists oppressing the Palestinians who will always have a home in revolutionary France until we can finally obliterate the Zionist regime entity.

The European Council Republic claims to stand against "totalitarianism" but perpetrates the totalitarian ideology of liberalism under the guise of socialism.

My book however opposes Totalitarianism, as I said in chapter 3 "Autonomy is the prerequisite of social freedom. Only the absolute autonomy of individuals and groups, the freedom to associate or disassociate with others at will, can allow the natural tendency towards solidarity and mutual aid to take root. The principle of self-determination must grow from the free individual out towards the community, and further outwards to distinct cultural groups and geographic regions." so to the people of Europe I am liberating you from proletarianization and enslavement. I am abolishing proletarians as a class, and creating a classless society, you are currently enslaved by technocrats who wish to keep you in bondage and shackles. I encourage you to overthrow your governments, regimes, kill your masters and live as freemen. Operating as individuals and small groups, free your children from their compulsory education, free your minds from their propaganda and become one with the Earth!

We are entering a Post-Industrial world order of sustainability and liberty, Green Nationalism, Eco-Tribalism and Utopian Libertarian Socialism freed from Marxist influences. Through the Next War we announce for ourselves our commitment to community, to security, to safety and love and freedom and the right to feed ourselves by our own hands, fight for ourselves by our own weapons, and choose for ourselves by our own hearts! Before I took power in France, I fought for Comrade Bashar Al-Assad, I fought with Hezbollah in Lebanon as I was a convert to Shia Islam, I learned the glory and freedom of battle and the path of martyrdom and sacrifice, the struggle of life and death! It was on that faithful day, when a Nifonese backed terrorist of the Iraqi Awakening Front blew out my right eye that I came in contact with beautiful woman (clothed in scarlet colors) she visited me in the hospital and brought be baskets of fruit, cheese, bread and wine, she told me she was my sister but also my mother and that I was raised to lead the next and final revolution to ultimately destroy both Zionism and Capitalism I learned from that day in Syria that I was destined free the world from the injustice the digital control grid. Syria taught me that more to the world existed then just materialistic economic systems, biological races or stupid ideas of "proletarians" that so many modern socialists like to boast of being.

The Next War was published when I discovered that I needed to de-proletarianize socialism and bring it back to a pre-capitalist context of communal peasantry and heresy. My socialism is anti-leftist, my conservatism is anti-rightist, My whole ideology rejects political dichotomies and embraces autonomy, now that is not to say it is so-called "third positionist" or Fascist as it rejects Fascism even and its total statism. My position is the Spiritual Fourth Revolutionary Position! The Fourth and Final Ideological revolution, that is beyond technology and luddism, beyond primitivism and civilization! It is Neo-Luddite, yet advocates for technology so long that it does not pose a threat to humans or nature. It is socially conservative yet compassionate economically, It is revolutionary yet reactionary, communalistic yet individualistic. Ethno-Nationalist yet anti-racist and supportive of a pluralistic society. We are Pro-Human and Pro-Nature! Our ideology is an unstoppable force of nature. Those that oppose us oppose nature and nature cannot be conquered!

The war I am leading is one of everlasting freedom and peace! The time is soon at hand where peoples of the world will cheer at the glorious victory of World Socialism! The Medieval Cathars taught eschatology whose main goal was liberation from the realm of limitation and a corruption identified with material existence. The Cathars firmly believed that matter’s enslaving bonds must be broken to attain salvation. In order to do this, individuals must embark on their own path. Each individual accomplished this systematic process differently. Interesting enough history shows us that the Cathar's failed to develop a proper eschatology, however this woman revealed to me that I was the fulfillment of what the Cathars were dreaming of which was a world free from tyranny which I am bring the people into. The Cathar movement has interesting parallels to my ideology, however their lack of action led to their demise at the hands of the corrupt Roman Catholic Church establishment.

In the early Middle Ages the church didn’t really care what the peasants thought, so there was little talk of heresy. However, after the 11th century, a struggle for control over the land, the main source of wealth, began to emerge. The Cathars and other "heretics" were thence targeted by the system for destruction so the Catholic tyrants declared the Albigensian Crusade.

What developed, along with church control, was the idea that as well as doing what you are told, you had to think what you are told to think. It was a mechanism of consolidating real power over the peasantry.

The Inquisition set up by the Albigensian Crusade strengthened ideological control over the peasantry but it also signalled the end of the actual domination of the church.

The attitude of the nobles changed because there was a contradiction between them acting under the direction of the church and acting for themselves. The nobles started off being directed by the church, but by the end they were fighting for their own interests.

There was intense savagery in the putting down of the Cathars. The savagery was deliberate.

Both the main written sources — from a monk and from a secular man who was on the side of the crusaders — give accounts of whole populations of castles been thrown into wells or having their eyes gorged out.

Today the vocabulary of protest has changed. But I think people should look back and take inspiration from the Cathars. The Middle Ages are portrayed as static, instead of as a period of social conflict and immensely contested ideas. We should view this society in terms of active and evolving social conflict.

My ideology is Neo-Catharist Socialism it is an anti-thesis to the hedonistic technocratic liberalism of the European Council, it is the anti-thesis to the right-wing Shogunate Techno-Fascism of Nifon, it is also the anti-thesis to the materialistic technocratic Red Fascism of the Soviet Union. My socialism is liberated from materialistic matter which corrupts, and is in tune with nature which although being matter is actually a mirror of the spiritual realm.

The Fourth Revolutionary Position is the only ideology capable of freeing the Proletarian man in France from capitalism, by abolishing proletarianism and replacing it with a self-sufficient organic agrarian lifestyle. We are not completely utopian on this as proletarians will still be proletarians and will work in cooperative factories owned by the working people themselves. Now while we compare our ideals and values which are traditionalist and compare them to the Europan Council we see the Europans support euthanasia, in fact its legal in their country. In our country Euthanasia is illegal, we do not have to worry about keeping people on life-support since people die natural deaths. Hence we do not have to murder our dying relatives like the vile Europans do. (See:Toward a Critique of Industrial Medicine) for greater insights.

However as I noted in Chapter 1 of the Next War "The origins of Leftism begin with the French Revolution. The French Revolution was the source of two great currents of socialist thought which, across the twentieth century, have lasted until today: an authoritarian Jacobin current and a libertarian current. One, of a “bourgeois disposition,” oriented from the top down, is above all concerned with revolutionary effectiveness and claims to be taking account of “necessities.” The other, of an essentially proletarian spirit, is oriented from the bottom up, and places the safeguarding of freedom to the fore." We see the libertarian form of proletarian socialism is most similar to the Fourth Revolutionary Position and that the European Council is nothing more then autocratic bourgeois jacobinism!

As I state in chapter 1 of the book "....Capitalists have been destroying relatively self-sufficient peasant societies for centuries, until now, in our times, peasants are approaching extinction. Peasants have been, and are still being, driven off their lands, billions of them over the centuries, and forced to look for jobs, in order to get money, in order to live. They were forced to become wage-slaves." to be a proletarian is to be a slave, and the socialism promoted by Council of Europa is therefore evil since it promotes proletarianization which is another word for enslavement. My goal is to be pro-proletarian and use proletarian language to bring proletarians out of the disease ridden dogmatic autism that is Marxism and into Agrarian Socialism/Agrarian Populism. I'm re-converting the proles into Peasants and they will be happy because of this, factories will remain though and the internet will exist to an extent for certain jobs such as Cyber Warfare against the outside system.

Now that we have stated the truth, Spiritual Peasants of the Earth unite as one! I am your New General Ludd here to lead you into freedom against the tyranny of the Anglo-American Demiurgic system! I will lead you into the new promise land! I lend ye these great and mighty auspices presented in my booklet The Next War! I hath given you the tools to fight, now go forth into all the earth and utilize them.
Last edited by 6th National Revolutionary France on Sat Oct 19, 2019 12:29 am, edited 42 times in total.
Sixth French Republic-Socialist National Liberationist
Note: I am not the bloody original Souriya al-Assad, I am a friend and this nation is tribute to him.

User avatar
Sandau-Nikolsburg
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Aug 06, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Sandau-Nikolsburg » Fri Oct 11, 2019 12:32 pm

Image


The Diamond Duke views Le Dragon from the Right


I have recently received a copy of Camarade Le Dragon's "The Next War" I am not here to attack him but to examine him directly and speak the truth as it comes to my mind. I must first note that Le Dragon plagiarized my own book "The Enslavement of Modernity" in particular the excerpt "Where is society heading towards?" is a direct copy of what I wrote I do not mind if Le Dragon wants to copy my writing, as I do not care for copyright laws anyway, after all ideas are syncretic and all original ideas take ideas from various others. In chapter 2 "The Role of Women in the New France" it is a direct plagiarization of an excerpt in my book "The Role of Women in Sandau-Nikolsburg" the part before it "The Family is the Bedrock of the French Nation-state" is a direct plagiarization of an excerpt from my book also "Sandau-Nikolsburg must defend the family".

I do critique Le Dragon's critique of technology, while I agree that technology has made men weaker and is problematic in many respects. How do were create the ecotopia promoted by Le Dragon? Its just as dangerous to humans and the environment to tear down a nuclear power plant then it is to put one up. While I oppose genetic engineering like Le Dragon, I cannot help but critique his solutions on certain technologies. I am in 100% agreement that the global conspiracy has hijacked technological development but just because a group of evil parasitic elites wish to use technology for evil does not mean that good people cannot use technology to empower people and to empower their nations.

Le Dragon talks so much about the "Human spirit" perhaps something metaphysical or a nod to his Cathar Gnosticism's divine spark, but yet whats so great about the "Human spirit" if it cannot conquer technology for its own benefit? I agree some degree of luddism is needed, but Le Dragon offers no real solutions other then a vague list of technologies he does not like and vagues ones he approves of. Many of the technologies he lists as inherently bad can be used for good, some I agree are bad but Le Dragon goes into pure autism that any serious thinker would critique.
Last edited by Sandau-Nikolsburg on Fri Oct 11, 2019 1:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Greater Carloso
Diplomat
 
Posts: 913
Founded: Dec 24, 2015
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Greater Carloso » Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:15 pm

Image

Cárlos Tobón (@carlosmtobon)
Just now from Madrigal, Carloso

I can only describe 'The Next War' by the self-styled 'Le Dragon' as the ramblings of a mad, very dangerous man. Like all previous attempts to establish a personal utopia on Earth, i.e a 'no-place' as the Greeks called it, Le Dragon will fail miserably, at the great cost of countless French lives. Not only this, but Le Dragon has proven himself to be a rabid anti-Catholic! We will be monitoring his activity closely and will not hestitate to come down on him and his followers like a hammer if he threathens the safety of the Carlosian nation or its allies!

|⇧ UPVOTE| |⇩ DOWNVOTE| |REPLY|
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF CARLOSO
"Nation, sovereignty, unity"
SACTO SUPREME
MT (2026)

User avatar
Reorganisieren Reichregierung
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 473
Founded: Jan 23, 2017
Corporate Police State

Postby Reorganisieren Reichregierung » Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:48 pm

Image

Wilhelm III (@seinermajestat)
Just now from Berlin, Germany

All you deracinated rootless cosmopolitans should just hold your tongues and remain silent forever as you are all headed towards the dustbin of history. The best you could do is remain dignified as your dream of a global cesspool collapses because of it's inherent contradictions.

Your dreams of a Brotherhood of Man with social climbers such as yourselves as the masters of a herd of mediocrities addicted to sex, drugs and fast entertainment will never become a reality. Whether industrial society is destroyed and modernity is discarded, or the Dark Enlightenment comes and Fnargl ascends in all his glory, social chaos, Zionism and Trotskyite permanent revolution disguised with utter rubbish such as "humanitarianism" and "bringing democracy" will be forgotten relics of a dark age.

Nothwithstanding his opposition to technology, which is understandable given what the unthinking nihilists who populate the world do with it, the work of Kamerad "Le Dragon" is only the beginning. Let the world tremble!


|⇧ UPVOTE| |⇩ DOWNVOTE| |REPLY|
Last edited by Reorganisieren Reichregierung on Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:05 am, edited 4 times in total.
GROSSGERMANISCHES REICH DEUTSCHEN NATION
Canons: Kali Yuga | TSC
Overview | Government | Military | Economy

Generic Reich LARP nation #557753245. Call me "Reich", "RR" or by nation name only if OOC.

User avatar
Raterepublik Europa
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 7
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Raterepublik Europa » Sat Oct 12, 2019 1:37 am

OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL REPUBLIC

Image

Freiheit durch Solidarität​




It is with a great deal of concern that we now address the people of the world.

We recently released a statement condemning 'The Next War', a manifesto by 'Camarade Le Dragon', noting its reactionary, racialist and conspiracist bent while dissecting its claims to socialist identity. It appears our efforts have not gone unnoticed, as the author of the manifesto has released a statement of his own in which he launches a rambling, incoherent attack on the Council Republic and its ideals, while expanding on his own madcap theories.

It is increasingly clear that this 'Le Dragon' has no understanding of any of the technology he condemns as 'dangerous', and that his Luddism, like that of many who hold such outlandish beliefs, is based on his lack of scientific and technological comprehension. While he may not seek to reject all technology, it is clear that he seeks to return society to a pre-modern technological and social condition, out of some misguided belief that the removal of human progress is progress in of itself.

He openly admits his reactionary status and proceeds to attack the Council Republic while clearly lacking any real understanding of its workings, as appears to be the case with many topics for 'Le Dragon'. He fails to understand our commitment to libertarian socialist ideals, and our rejection of capitalist bourgeoise liberal values in favour of true, marxist, liberation from the social and economic repression of capitalism. He refers to our 'hedonistic technocratic liberalism', resorting to weasel-words in a desperate attempt to smear us and draw attention away from his ideological insanity.

But that is not why we are so concerned. No, our concern lies in the fact that we recognise many aspects of his rhetoric, such poison having been spouted throughout history by various mad demagogues and tyrants. We recognise the shadow of ultra-reactionaries and radical traditionalists such as self-proclaimed 'superfascist' Julius Evola in his call for a rejection of modernity. We recognise the hell-on-earth unleashed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia in his call for pre-capitalist agrarian 'socialism'. And we recognise the madness of Judenhass in his rants against Zionism, and the dark spectre of all the murderous violence unleashed in the name of such venomous hatred.

If one should just look at his words and his followers, one will swiftly realise exactly the sort of man this 'Le Dragon' truly is, and what his true goals really are. Therefore, in the interests of preserving world peace, and with a desire to save potentially millions of lives, we call on all those who are opposed to this madness, be they socialist or capitalist, to form a united front and help us thwart his lunatic ambitions, before it is too late. We gratefully accept the offer of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to join in this struggle, and thus proclaim the formation of the Anti-Dragonist Front.
| ★★★ The European Council Republic ★★★ |
Councilist Republic based on the ideals of Soviet Democracy, Worker's Self-Management and Decentralised Planning

User avatar
Munkcestrian Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 2398
Founded: May 01, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Munkcestrian Republic » Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:52 am

When asked for his thoughts on The Next War, George Fenwick II said "it's pretty 8), actually", although he confessed to not reading it in its entirety due to it being "long as fuck".
if you like my posts please make sure to downvote my factbooks.
DON'T CLICK
"lmao child you come into MY region"
no, this nation does not represent my
views. i cannot believe i have to clarify this

for RPers
my views explained

User avatar
Unified Soviet Socialist Republics
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 436
Founded: May 09, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Unified Soviet Socialist Republics » Sat Oct 12, 2019 6:48 am

Image
OFFCIAL COMMUNIQUE OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



TO:European Council Republic
FROM:Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
CC:Empire of Greater Nifon, Republic of Greater Carloso
SEC:STANDARD
SUB:The Menace of the French Khmer Rouge


Greetings

It is the intention of the CCCP to oppose the Reich who has been suspiciously supportive of the Khmerists in France. Therefore the CCCP since it stands with you in the opposition of this dangerous ideal would like to offer assistance and cooperation to your countries. It is the hope of the Soviet Government that our nations can work together to eliminate this threat to world peace.

-S.Lavorov, Foreign Minister of the CCCP

User avatar
Bulgar Rouge
Minister
 
Posts: 2417
Founded: Dec 08, 2013
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Bulgar Rouge » Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:46 am

Image
FROM: People's Committee of Foreign Affairs, Bulgar Rouge
TO: Interested parties
ENCR: Open

Ideological study groups across the Democratic Republic have carefully analysed the pronouncements made by the individual styling himself "Camarade le Dragon". The people-masses have thus properly and wisely assessed the work, titled "The Next War", and hereby release their collective response.

The people-masses of Bulgar Rouge view the release of "The Next War" positively, as it concisely sets the tone for the general struggle we all need - the violent rise of natural forces, driving both man and environment, against the formal frameworks of idealistic order, liberal democracy, monetary relations and pyramidal hierarchies.

Responses to this work so far are merely a sad palette of rabid political degenerates whose hour of end is nigh: clowns in uniform referring to themselves as "monarchs under a divine mandate"; ideological dogma fanatics of the Marxist-Leninist strain; capitalist tyrants who would sell their own kin if that would save them from debt or bring their balance sheets into the green; and many other breeds of retrograde filth who desperately seek to preserve and resuscitate opposing corners of the same order that is living its final days.

Even so, the people-masses regard the approach of "Camarade le Dragon" as weak. It does not seek the dismantlement and destruction of urbanites - the nesting layer of monetary value. "The Next War" fails to explain how society must be restructured, whereas the Bulgar Rouge have devised the most effective and lasting reform possible: Year Zero. The book provides good sentiment of the invisible chains of 21st century financial order, but delivers little in the way of lasting and efficient tools that would prevent the weed from growing again. It also espouses the family unit - a degenerate pre-revolutionary system which treats humans as individuals. Every true agrarian revolutionary of the people-masses is aware that humans are merely units of an organism, and this organism can achieve far greater power through total unity, than it can through singular instances of brilliance. Finally, no true revolutionary work belongs to the people-masses if it is composed by a single person, a single embodiment of will. True revolutionary work is rarely written in form; it is, instead, a violent outburst of mass will, a faceless, leaderless mass uproar that sweeps the rot like a tidal wave.

This being said, should this new French revolutionary movement succeed, it may pave the way for a transformation of the Western European region into a fertile ground for the seeds of genuine agrarian revolution. The victory of natural forces over formal frameworks is certain. The weaker ones will not play a decisive role in channeling these forces, and will thus delay our victory, a victory which must come as soon as possible."The Next War" represents weakness and is ideologically wrong in many aspects, but it does show the way to combat - even if in a somewhat misguided way.

This nation does not reflect my RL views.
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:I'm only saying that, well, even commies have reached the level of selling counterfeit and drugs in their storefronts, we can't be any less.

The Holy Therns wrote:Politicians make statements. It's their substitute for achievement.


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Factbooks and National Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Brezzia

Advertisement

Remove ads