EXTREME POLITICS

Whoever wins on Nov. 4, few Americans will harbor any illusions about their national unity. No matter which pairing one chooses—red and blue, Right and Left, coastal elites and flyover salt-of-the-earthers—there is no getting around our status as a country divided, a people set apart from one another as much by regional culture as by religion or political ideology.

A perfect time, in other words, to talk about secession—which is what will happen when the Middlebury Institute’s Third North American Secessionist Conference convenes in Manchester, New Hampshire a week and a half after the election.

American Conservative

Good introduction to the issue: America is hopelessly divided between left and right, and subdivisions within those categories.

Looking at history, national secessionist movements are relatively successful. Numerically, most of them failed – but the ones that succeeded now run most of this planet. Considering the magnitude of their demands, the vehemence of opposition, and the bloodshed they usually engender, they seem a successful type of political movement. Yet in the same historical perspective, non-national (non-ethnic) secessionist movements are a total flop.

Now, if anyone can secede at any time, that means the end of the state, the government, on the usual definitions. And not just of tyrannies and gulags, but also of ‘nice’ democratic governments. The explanation might be simply the fear of bloodshed and chaos – anarchy in the most negative sense. This does not explain why national secession has been relatively successful: it is possible to take an ethical position that “all secession is wrong”, but evidently very few people do. Distinctions are made, and conditions are set, but some secessions are accepted.

Democracy relies on a prohibition of secession. A democratic regime assumes a ‘demos’ – a unit of political decision-making which is constant between decisions. If every dissident minority secedes after every opposed decision, then there is no democratic regime. (There would be no political regime at all – at least not for standard political theory).

So democrats have concluded, like President Lincoln in the 1860’s, that secession must be suppressed. Since modern democracies are nation states, secession is now treated as an issue of national unity, and national identity: Lincoln was one of the last politicians who had to address secession as a classic political issue.

Paul Treanor

This is what they’re up against: democracies, which in theory thrive on internal opposition, instantly disintegrate if they let anyone secede — unless that group is ethnic, in which the nation neatly fragments with the host nation filtering out a single ethnic group.

Some philosophers have distinguished between the question whether and, if so, under what conditions a group has a moral claim-right to secede and the question of whether and, if so, under what conditions a constitution ought to or may include a right to secede. For example, while acknowledging that secession may sometimes be morally justified (where this presumably means the group in question has the claim-right to secede), Cass Sunstein has argued that constitutional recognition of a right to secede is incompatible with the principles of constitutionalism (or at least democratic constitutionalism)[3] (Sunstein, 1991). Sunstein argues that a basic principle of constitutionalism is that political institutions, including the constitution itself, must be designed so as to encourage citizens to engage in the hard work of democratic politics, where this means competing in the public forum on grounds of principle, with a minimum of strategic bargaining. Following Albert O. Hirschman, (Hirschman, 1970) he then contends that if the constitution acknowledges a right to secede then discontent minorities will be tempted to shirk the hard work of principled, democratic politics either by actually seceding when the majoritarian decisions go against their preferences or by using the threat of secession as a strategic bargaining tool as a de facto veto over majority rule. In either case, democracy will be undermined.

SEP

Neat thinking, but if a group is a minority with needs contrary to the majority, it’s never going to get what it wants in a democracy, anyway. Hence the reason that groups of a non-mainstream political alignment, or those who believe politics has become misinterpreted, want to secede — they are numerically inconsequential.

“The argument for secession is that the U.S. has become an empire that is essentially ungovernable — it’s too big, it’s too corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens,” said Rob Williams, editor of Vermont Commons, a quarterly newspaper dedicated to secession.

“Congress and the executive branch are being run by the multinationals. We have electoral fraud, rampant corporate corruption, a culture of militarism and war. If you care about democracy and self-governance and any kind of representative system, the only constitutional way to preserve what’s left of the Republic is to peaceably take apart the empire.”

Boston.com

This summarizes the American argument well. People to watch in the secession game:

• The Middlebury Institute
• Secession.net
• American Secession Project
• Alaskan Independence Party
• Second Vermont Republic
• Independent Nation of Texas
• Republic of New Hampshire
• Hawaii Nation
• Free State Project
• Parti Québécois
• Christian Exodus
• Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization
• League of the South
• Pan-Nationalism
• Lakotah Nation

What’s interesting is that these groups are from all over the political spectrum.

The League of the South wants the old Confederacy; Vermont wants to be a liberal free state; Christian Exodus wants a small Christian theocracy.

These different groups agree on one thing however: they can’t get along, so the best way to get along is to separate into smaller groups, so that they don’t have to come up with 1 rule to fit 2 or more different inclinations.

One-and-a-half years after the Third Congress of the Comintern the conflicts within the German Communist Party (KPD) were not really resolved. After the occupation of the Ruhr by the French army, the conflict between the leadership majority and the left opposition erupted once again in full force. Differences emerged over the support given by the KPD to a left-wing Social Democratic Party (SPD) government in Saxony and the course to be adopted in the occupied Ruhr.

The party was now led by Heinrich Brandler, a founding member of the Spartakusbund. While many former lefts had turned sharply to the right, a new left-wing faction had formed under Ruth Fischer, Arkadi Maslow and—to a lesser extent—Ernst Thälmann. Fischer and Maslow were both young intellectuals who had joined the movement after the war. They had the majority of the important Berlin organisation behind them. Thälmann was a worker who joined the KPD through the Independent SPD (USPD). He was the leader of the KPD in Hamburg.

On January 10, the SPD government in Saxony fell and the KPD conducted a campaign for a united front and a workers’ government. While the majority of the SPD favoured a coalition with bourgeois parties, a left minority was for an alliance with the KPD. The KPD developed a vigorous agitation and published a “workers’ program,” which included among its demands: confiscation of the property of the former royal family; arming the workers; a purge of the judiciary, the police and the administration; calling of a congress of factory councils and control of prices by elected committees.

{ snip }

In Germany, the extreme right had previously been limited to remnants of the imperial army and small anti-Semitic parties. But in 1923 it started to grow and win a social base, even though it was much smaller than Hitler’s social base in the 1930s. Agitation against the “November criminals,” Jews and foreigners found a hearing amongst declassed petty-bourgeois elements and some impoverished workers affected by the impact of inflation. In the Ruhr, members of the extreme right presented themselves as heroic fighters against the French occupation.

{ snip }

In the following days and weeks there were numerous discussions and continuous correspondence with the leaders of the KPD, who frequently travelled to Moscow. Financial, logistical and military support was organised to arm the Proletarian Hundreds, which had been set up over the previous months. In October, Radek, Pyatakov and Sokolnikov were sent to Germany to assist the uprising.

World Socialist

Fascinating account of a part of history we don’t hear much about. Germany had several abortive Communist and Socialist uprisings, in 1918 and throughout the 20s and 30s.

Bill White, who formerly ran Overthrow.com (until the FBI confiscated it), is now in jail on the charge of threatening jurors.

“Right now,” said Mr. White, the head of the American National Socialist Workers Party, “we’re facing the potential of a half-black candidate financed by Jewish money going up against a white candidate financed by Jewish money, who are both advocating the same policy. So you’ve got two terrible choices.”

On Friday, about three weeks after that interview, Mr. White was jailed on suspicion of making threats against a juror who was on a panel in 2004 that convicted a white supremacist of plotting to kill a federal judge.

{ snip }

There have been sporadic reports throughout the country of Obama signs vandalized with swastikas, windows smashed at local Obama campaign offices and racist pamphlets dropped on doorsteps. Overt and thinly veiled racist comments about Mr. Obama have been caught on camera at rallies, and a Republican women’s group in California — the Chaffey Community Republican Women, Federated — has made headlines for a flier that showed Mr. Obama’s face on a faux food stamp that also included watermelon and fried chicken.

NYT

As part of a roundup of white supremacists capable of violence, apparently, Bill White was snatched.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Tom Bondurant says the charge involves alleged threats to a Chicago jury foreman in the 2004 case of Matthew Hale, who was convicted of soliciting the murder of a federal judge. Bondurant has declined to comment on the case, but says the trial will be in Chicago.

Hale was the leader of an organization which held similar neo-Nazi beliefs as White’s organization. White has said he posted information about a juror online, but he made no threats.

WSET

See more about Matt Hale below.

While there are no direct threats listed in the federal complaint against White, documents detail how White is accused of posting the juror’s name, address, and cell phone number on his website overthrow.com.

White is also accused of calling the juror to verify his information.

WSLS

Interesting.

A federal criminal complaint said the juror, identified only as Hale Juror A, received a cell phone call this past Sept. 11, from a man who asked the juror’s name, whether the juror lived at a specific address, and whether the juror had served on the panel for the Matthew Hale trial. Afterward, the caller said, “that’s all I need to know” and hung up, the complaint said.

Hale Juror A received about 50 cell phone text messages afterward, some of which were garbled, but others of which had messages in support of white supremacy, the complaint said.

Upon receiving the complaint, authorities entered Hale Juror A’s name into Google, and found a posting on a Web site, which purported to include the juror’s name, date of birth, and home address, and claimed the juror “played a key role in convicting Hale,” the complaint said. The entry also included the juror’s purported cell and office phone numbers, the name of a partner and a cat, and a color photograph, the complaint said.

CBS

Probably they’re mad that others harassed the guy. White has also posted names and addresses of the Jena 6, columnist Leonard Pitts, and several ADL staffers.

He is charged with obstruction of justice.

The FBI accuses him of threatening a federal juror from a 2004 case involving white supremacist Matthew Hale.

WSLS

Obstruction of justice?

William White of Virginia was indicted Tuesday in Chicago on charges he sought to harm the foreman of the jury that convicted white supremacist Matthew Hale in 2004 of plotting to kill U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow. The judge had ruled against Hale in a trademark-infringement suit.

White listed the foreman’s address, phone numbers and the name of a pet cat under the heading, “The Juror Who Convicted Matt Hale,” according to the indictment.

Chicago Tribune

It’s the cat that did it.

An admitted racist since the age of 12, Matt Hale became one of the most effective and best-known leaders of the far right after he became head of the World Church of the Creator (as it was then known) in 1996. Under Hale’s PR-savvy guidance the group regularly gained publicity for its activities and for the violent incidents associated with its members. A 1999 decision by the State of Illinois to reject Hale’s application for a law license, due to his past “conduct,” is widely thought to have helped trigger a murderous shooting spree by his follower, Benjamin Smith, in which two people were killed and nine injured – all of them members of racial or religious minority groups.

In November 2002, the World Church of the Creator lost a trademark infringement lawsuit brought against it by the Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation, which had successfully trademarked the name “Church of the Creator” years before. A federal judge ordered Hale’s group to stop using its name, to give up its Web addresses and to turn over all printed material bearing its name. Hale refused to comply. In January 2003, upon arriving for a contempt of court hearing, he was arrested for soliciting the judge’s murder. During Hale’s incarceration, special administrative measures were imposed to reduce his ability to communicate with his followers. In April 2004, Hale was convicted of one count of solicitation of murder and three counts of obstruction of justice. Without Hale’s leadership, the Creativity Movement has fallen into decline.

ADL

Matt Hale was indicted and convicted for, when a subordinate said he might do something to Judge Judy Lefkow, basically telling him “your life is your own.” Shows how if you run a potentially dangerous organization to those in power, you need to explicitly tell others not to do illegal stuff.

If convicted, White faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

WBBM

There’s the readout, but that’s a maximum. Probably if he is convicted, he will get less than that.

Interestingly, Bill White did not just target jurors and anti-white-supremacist activists. He also targetted fellow white activists:

Google cache of: Charles Martel On VNN Forum, where Bill White outs a fellow White Nationalist.

Original post: The Juror Who Convicted Matt Hale on Overthrow.com, which doesn’t exist in the Wayback Machine or Google Cache, but there’s an archive of the forum post. The information is incorrect except for date of birth, cell and work numbers. Obviously, do not use this information for illegal purposes.

The indictment of Bill White (PDF) has more legal information.

We are unsure of where this case is going and will post updates.

After the first two decades of environmentalism, a problem arose: people sympathized with the environmentalists, but didn’t see the root of the problem. Further, they were terrified of more Government regulation and didn’t want another group vying for power in Washington and Brussels. So, out of the consternation that followed, the Deep Ecology movement was born.

We believe that true ecological sustainability may require a rethinking of our values as a society. Present assumptions about economics, development, and the place of human beings in the natural order must be reevaluated. If we are to achieve ecological sustainability, Nature can no longer be viewed only as a commodity; it must be seen as a partner and model in all human enterprise.

We begin with the premise that life on Earth has entered its most precarious phase in history. We speak of threats not only to human life, but to the lives of all species of plants and animals, as well as the health and continued viability of the biosphere. It is the awareness of the present condition that primarily motivates our activities.

We believe that current problems are largely rooted in the following circumstances:

• The loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance. Correspondingly, the assumption of human superiority to other life forms, as if we were granted royalty status over Nature; the idea that Nature is mainly here to serve human will and purpose.
• The prevailing economic and development paradigms of the modern world, which place primary importance on the values of the market, not on Nature. The conversion of nature to commodity form, the emphasis upon economic growth as a panacea, the industrialization of all activity, from forestry to farming to fishing, even to education and culture; the drive to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation. All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological or biological sustainability on a finite Earth.
• Technology worship and an unlimited faith in the virtues of science; the modern paradigm that technological development is inevitable, invariably good, and to be equated with progress and human destiny. From this, we are left dangerously uncritical, blind to profound problems that technology and science have wrought, and in a state of passivity that confounds democracy.
• Overpopulation, in both the overdeveloped and the underdeveloped worlds, placing unsustainable burdens upon biodiversity and the human condition.

As our name suggests, we are influenced by the Deep Ecology Platform, which helps guide and inform our work. We believe that values other than market values must be recognized and given importance, and that Nature provides the ultimate measure by which to judge human endeavors.

Deep Ecology movement

This was a more sensible approach because it came closer to a whole vision of a new society to replace the past, in which we the people can see our activities continuing in an altered form.

In extreme politics, we have to deal with the threat people feel from any new form of regulation. They hear NO when we talk about important things; they are accustomed to government and social welfare groups obstructing their lives, not empowering them.

Deep ecology aims to get around this by telling the truth about the root of the problem — too many humans, zero focus on the human-environment interaction as a fundamental part of our society; it’s sort of a tag line we add on to things like “oh and it’s green so you get tax credits” — and also suggested a different order, based on a spiritual concept of harmony and love.

Interesting; beats the hippies for radical, that’s for sure.

As part of my ongoing search for the political soul of America, I’ve started reading up about fringe groups on both right and left. One that really interests me are the far-rightists who go unrecognized by the far right, and there seem to be quite a few of them. This suggests to me that the far right, like other human groups, may be experiencing a rise of groupthink unrelated to its politics.

But for today, here’s excerpts of one of the more interesting documents from the far-right — Interview with a Revolutionary Klansman:

I joined the Ku Klux Klan in 1984. It was one stop in my search for truth. I have always been a radical. In the late 1960’s I became associated, through a friend, with members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) . The SDS was a college campus-based Maoist sect that was heavily influenced by the communist Progressive Labor Party. I was not a member of SDS but I consumed most of their literature and immersed myself in their philosophy, particularly in opposition to the war in Vietnam.

Believing there was no solution to be found in the middle of the road, and not finding the answers I was looking for in the radical left, I began to migrate toward the right. As fate would have it, my interest in history was channeled into an organization called the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV). This was about 1982. Through that association I met a race-conscious Christian minister who showed me the connection between political thought and the Bible. The SCV is a historical society and I soon became discouraged with their lack of political activism. I started attending my minister friend’s church and looking for a new outlet for my radical views. Many of the old- time SCV members talked favorably of the Reconstruction Era Klan and the seed was planted in my mind. I began looking for the Klan. It took me about a year to find it. After joining the Invisible Empire I gained access to a wealth of information about the enemies of our race and way of life.

I became immersed in the Klan, giving it all my time and energy. Soon I was placed in charge of the state of Florida and we began to grow. Always maintaining a revolutionary consciousness, I began to attract people of like mind. We became the most active Klan in the country. The Florida Klan was known for taking. unusual positions and addressing odd issues. We made it a point to never do what was expected of us.

{ snip }

I brought my revolutionary philosophy with me to the Klan and simply applied it to this struggle. It’s true that the Klan has been reactionary and some Klans continue to be, but the whole truth about the Klan is not widely known. The Klan in the 1920s was involved, in some parts of the country, with pro-union activities. For example, in Williamson County, Illinois back in 1922, a mixed-race crowd of union coal miners attacked strike-breakers killing 20 of them. This incident was called the Herrin Massacre. Within two years, Herrin and the rest of Williamson County backed one of the nation’s strongest local Klan organizations. Many in the 1920s and 30s shared joint Klan-union membership. The United Auto Workers, the Southern Tenant Farmers Union, and Akron rubber workers were all examples of unions with Klan support.

The Klan has historically tried to organize colored divisions. Klan leaders met with Marcus Mosiah Garvey and gave a monetary gift to Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam. The Socialist Party and the Klan formed a 1924 alliance in Milwaukee to elect John Kleist, a socialist and a klansman, to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The Klan has at times appealed to militant workers.

I believe to be reactionary is fatal to our goals and I constantly preach against it. I encourage the study of left-wing and right-wing movements. I say we should take what we can from every source.

{ snip }

Sometime in 1990 we began holding joint demonstrations–the Klan in their robes and the Africans in their dashikis. Needless to say it sparked quite a backlash. Many klansmen were angry at me for even considering such a thing. In my view it was a match inspired by God. Why should we have a problem with black men who are strict racial separatists and want to establish a homeland on the continent of Africa? I have even publicly endorsed the payment of reparations to blacks but only for the purpose of repatriation back to Africa.

I believe that all people have a right to self-determination, a right to choose their own government, and their own religion. Clearly, blacks in America have not had those opportunities. As Minister Louis Farrakhan said: “If we can’t get along together, then we need to separate.”

I’m a revolutionary white separatist, not a white supremacist. I don’t feel superior to any man because of the color of my skin but I understand that the Aryan people (making up only about eight percent of the world population) must have a separate land uninfluenced by other races or by the criminal government that occupies Washington D.C. I’m not naive enough to believe we can get it without a very bloody struggle.

More recently, I have established a working relationship with a faction of the Nation of Islam. We have held several meetings with representatives of the Nation and I am learning from them. They have a great deal of truth. Although I am a Christian and don’t agree with every teaching of Islam or the Nation, I do respect them and their faith.

{ snip }

Stetson Kennedy, the famous anti-klan activist, author, and historian has corresponded with me and we have talked on the phone. Although I don’t agree with everything he stands for I respect him as a fellow activist. I believe he feels the same about me. You see, I’m not threatened by other philosophies and movements that oppose me. I believe the better cause will win in the end and so I respect anyone who gives 100 percent to their cause. I don’t respect people who waiver on their beliefs or are frightened to stand up for anything. In that regard I have even met with homosexual activists.

I certainly don’t agree with the queer lifestyle but as it turns out, even queers have some common ground with the Klan. They hate the government as well. They approached me about it and requested a meeting. All I can say is when blacks and queers are willing to look past our differences, sit down with the Klan and acknowledge common ground against the government, then the government is in deep shit.

Folk and Faith

Fascinating.

He clearly comes from a leftist background, but has started leaning to the right because he believes its methodology is superior.

PRESERVATION OF TRADITIONAL VALUES AGREEMENT

Knowing that in the modern time, the tail (technology, individualism) often wags the dog (all of us living together in civilization), we collect these declarative values for the preservation of our cultures that arose before human consciousness, and by all inclinations, will preserve us where our technology and bureaucracies fail. To endorse this document is to endorse the RIGHT OF individuals to pursue these values, not these values as a SINGULAR form of government for all. They are:

1. Right to determine sexual role models and roles. We can say monogamy, polygamy and/or homosexuality are natural.

2. Right to ethnic self-determination, and if need be, ethnic segregation.

3. Right to speak the truth even if it is offensive to others.

4. Right to our own religious practices.

5. Right to regulate and govern our food, medicine and recreational drugs.

6. Right to ostracize or eject members from our community who violate this credo.

If you approve of our right as INDIVIDUALS to live by the above, please affirm this document with “yes, we support the Preservation of Traditional Values agreement” below, your organization, and the date.

CORRUPT

More perennial philosophy attempts from moderns.

What most political systems want is derivability. You, the citizen, get given a simple principle, and using “common sense” — actually, they mean knowledge of the physical and pattern order of our cosmos — you can then derive how the other rules work.

Capitalism for example is simple. Earn money, and then anything that doesn’t affect others directly is legal.

Same with morality. Don’t hurt anyone else. Defer if conflict arises. All principles can be ascertained from a quick scan of memory and some thinking.

For more complex societies, like those with hierarchy and customs and consensual values — the situation is more complex.

Although the idea of an independent candidate makes most laugh, Ron Paul has redefined the political spectrum with his candidacy. While Paul is running as a GOP candidate, that does not obscure the position that he takes, which is clearly beyond what either major party can accept. He is for all practical purposes an indepedent.

We laugh at independents because we know that most Americans have taken one side or the other, and use that idea set as common ground with others to drum up public support for their businesses, personalities, films and books. You can convince anyone you’re a friendly good guy by being liberal and permissive, or convince those experienced enough to be cynical that you’re a realist by drawing a clear line between what’s acceptable and not. It’s more than a political view; it’s a definition of your personality, and a reflection of the audience to which you want to appeal. In a more cynical statement, we want liberal neighbors and conservative bankers and lawyers, because those are the personalities who either leave us alone or work carefully with our money, respectively.

With this in mind, Paul’s success is nothing short of amazing. Candidates like Nader and Badnarik appeal to a small few who are already alienated, but scare off most voters because the single-minded single-solution approach they have taken does not address a range of problems. Paul took basic conservative values, and applied to them a traditionalist twist as interpreted through the mechanism of modern libertarianism. He is both recognizably part of something we would like, which is a solid and moral conservative leader, and a bridge to a new way of thinking about government.

This new method relies not on dividing the political spectrum into good and bad, and fighting the bad while promoting the image of the good, but on removing the easy breeding ground for behavior that leads to bad. While conventional Republican doctrine is that we must fight bad, and liberal doctrine is that bad is misunderstood and need more nurturing, Paul’s doctrine is that bad arises where the good give it space. He suggests we strengthen the good by eliminating their bureaucratic responsibility to support the breeding ground for bad. It’s more akin to natural selection than the Nanny State created by most Republicans.

While at first it seems relentlessly pro-capitalist, Paul’s theory reduces capitalism to a means to an end, with his outright attack on usury culture and the form of moral inattention that allows large corporations to strike from behind government as a shield in the name of civil rights. He suggests instead making the individual less obligated to those corporations, thus removing their shield, while cutting out the illusion that government is here to help. By doing so, he makes capitalism secondary to the question of individual survival and the ability for the smarter among us to escape the rest.

We could then construe Paul’s division of the world into smarter and less smart, and honest and parasitic, and see his basic statement as an unwillingness to support parasites — or the well-intentioned bureaucracy that comes about through our fight for good versus evil. He knows that the more territory a government commands, the broader the lowest common denominator gets, and because there is a single entity trying to provide for all this people, how rapidly government becomes a defender of the broadest rights to existence. In effect, this makes it support parasites and crusade against biologically more intelligent people who will naturally try to escape the masses of clueless television zombies.

In this sense, Paul is not only a defender of the oldest form of conservatism, which encourages not commerce but a strong positive leadership, but is also an endorser of indirect soft eugenics. Allow natural selection to work for us, Paul hints, and the endless stream of criminals both white collar and street level will slacken, because what they rely on is a society of chumps who will defend their right to do nothing of import and excuse their criminality in the name of fighting good and evil.

Garden variety libertarianism has never reached this level of clarity because it focuses too much on the good/evil split of personal and civil rights, insisting on increasing those to absurd degrees while ignoring the fact that giving good people rights equally gives those rights to bad people, who will then wreak havoc as best they can. Paul’s Libertarianism is focused less on rights than a single right: that of honest, intelligent people to use their income to support their own families instead of the breeding of proto-criminal idiots.

When we see this clearly, it becomes obvious that Ron Paul, like the best of politicians who unite opposing factions into a singularity, is an alternative to the left/right split of American politics. He is conservative but unwilling to moralize over individual behavior because he believes that nature will sort out what morality cannot. Let the individual do what he or she wants, Paul’s theory goes, because those who act according to conservative values will prosper and the others will fade away. Avoid worrying about both fighting evil, and defending the rights of those who want to behave like idiots; let the natural consequences of their actions judge them.

What right and left have been able to agree on, over the past thirty years, is that our present path is fraught with error because we are ruled by cynical, corrupt and avaricious corporations and bad government. Both sides agree that localization, or smaller local governments handling problems, is superior to a large federal bureaucracy trying to come up with one average solution for 300 million people of different regions, cultures, intelligences, values and goals. This is why natural selection localized libertarianism of a less-than-embracing attitude toward capitalism has infused the extremes of both left and right.

For example, when we look at the National Anarchist parties gaining precedence worldwide, we see people who are basically liberal in outlook but have come to believe that a localized, national state is the best way to defend their culture. The rise of nationalist Bolshevik parties in Russia also shows this “third way,” and more of these leftists are endorsing a Paul-style post-dogma doctrine: do not crusade against evils, but give them no subsidy at the expense of the rest of society through the mechanism of the bureaucratic state.

On the far right, the only interesting activity has been the rise of the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, a pre-Paulite conservative libertarian outfit, and the change of the American National Socialist Worker’s Party toward a “traditionalist” outlook that emphasizes cutting ties with the parasitic and nurturing the best of an organic population toward a localized, ethnic-cultural state. In these changes, we see the far right drifting away from the idea of constant warfare against an enemy toward a doctrine of defending the best against the obligation to support the potentially parasitic.

Another way of looking at this is to divide society not between haves and have-nots, but between those with the personal organization and intelligence to be haves, and those who lack these probably biological traits. The former can rise given a chance to show their abilities, while the latter are not composed enough to ever rise, and so will always try to find ways to invent obligations of the former group to subsidize the latter. The potential haves know they are outnumbered, so instead of tackling the potential have-nots directly, they’re cutting them out of the benefits plan.

This allows those who are personally organized, intelligent and driven to build for themselves a nice life and to have happy, healthy families. They don’t want to wage war against the potential have-nots, but they also don’t want to spend their tax money on keeping these people alive to cause trouble. Let nature sort it out. If the potential have-nots are able to organize themselves into a society, and support themselves, they then become potential haves and eliminate their own threat potential. If not, well, who wants to pay for those who will then turn against us? Support the best and ignore the rest.

In running for president, Ron Paul acknowledges that he has a slight chance of winning. What matters more than winning the public show of the presidency, however, is in winning the hearts and minds of the smart people in our television-and-minivan-blighted nation, and convincing them that a politics of denying the support of idiots through Nanny State bureaucracy is more productive than another war against potential have-nots in the style of the war on terror, the war on drugs and the war on crime.

Instead of another misdirected war, Paul tells us, we should return to the roots of conservatism, which is a connection to nature and the natural process. That he has communicated this to so many, and united supporters from both left and right, is the real triumph of Ron Paul’s candidacy and surpasses anything that can be done in a single presidential election.

***

Chris Stevens is a writer for CORRUPT who specializes in the political clash between Platonic and individualistic politics in the modern time. He can be reached here.

The Enlightenment was the idea of rationality, and his definition of Romanticism is probably limited, because while it celebrated human choice it based itself on the antiquities and beauty of nature.

Death metal, more profoundly than black metal, understood that the Enlightenment was a rejection of nature along with the church, and that the best aspects of Romanticism were its praises of nature and the chaotic, bloody, struggle-bound process by which our world came about.

Death Metal Blog

Is heavy metal music counterculture, or counter-counterculture?

“Sabbath was everything that the 60’s weren’t. Their music was so cool because it was completely anti-hippie. I hated the Beatles, Jethro Tull, and all that happy shit.”
–James Hetfield, Metallica

Normal, functional members of society agree with the statements of Jokela shooter Pekka-Eric Auvinonen, although most condemn his actions. “People believe society is screwed up,” said CORRUPT agitactivist Olli Herjata, “and they see how his words have been censored, and think that any society which cannot accept valid criticism from an invalid source will not last long.”

When CORRUPT released statements supporting the shooter, they were among the first, and were misunderstood in that they offered no moralization on his actions, but pointed out repeatedly that his criticisms of society were valid. “We’re not looking for Utopia,” Herjata said. “We believe our current society is headed toward a slow doom of devolution, and we prefer a society that’s rising, making beautiful things, and in which it’s fun and not so utilitarian to live. Utilitarianism, capitalism, and school shootings are all symptoms of our lack of direction and our tolerance for morons.”

CORRUPT

Compare to Klebold and Harris at Columbine:

what the fuck is the point if onlu some people see what I am saying, there will always be ones who dont, ones that are to dumb or naive or ignorrant or just plain retarded. If I cant pound it into every single persons head then it is pointless. fuck mercy fuck justic fuck morals fuck civilized fuck rules fuck laws… DIE manmade words…people think they apply to everything when they dont/cant. theres no such thing as True Good or True Evil, its all relative to the observer. its just all nature, chemistry, and math. deal with it. but since dealing with it seems impossible for mankind, since we have to slap warning labels on nature, then… you die. burn, melt, evaporate, decay, just go the fuck away!

you see, anything and everything that happens in our world is just that, a HAPPENING. anything else is relative to the observer, but yet we try to have a “universal law” or “code” of what is good and bad and that just isnt fucking correct. we shouldn’t be allowed to do that. we arent GODS. just because we are at the top of the food chain with our technology doesnt mean we can be “judges” of nature. sure we can think what we can think what we want, but you can “think” and “believe” you can judge people and nature all you want, but you are still wrong! why should your morals apply to everyone else. “morale” is just another word. and thats it. I think we are all a waste of natural resources and should be killed off, and since humans have the ability to choose… and I’m human… I think I will choose to kill and damage as much as nature allows me to so take that.

we eventually made it to bed at about 5AM. got up at 10, went to safeway got some donouts and then I took Vodka home. the bottle of Tequilla is almost full and is in car, right by my spare tire and right by the bottle of irish cream. heh heh. I’ll have to find a spot for those. and by the way, this nazi report is boosting my love of killing even more. like the early Nazi government, my brain is like a sponge, sucking up everything that sounds cool and leaving out all that is worthless, thats how Nazism was formed and thats how I will be too!

Journal of Eric Harris

A similar idea: morality and laws are human concepts without necessary correspondence to reality, and most people stupidly follow them which makes them weak. (Despite the frequent mentions of Nazis, I don’t believe Harris and Klebold were Nazis, although clearly they were less than friendly to the idea of other races.)

If we see morality and laws as human concepts that are unrealistic, is that the fault of morality, or a morality that has drifted away from reality?

The film “BOPE: Tropa de Elite” is rocking Brazil right now. Despite leaking to the internet and (more importantly) to Brazil’s vast network of street DVD dealers weeks before, it hit theaters nationwide this past weekend and is breaking records.

The film’s explosive success and the way it resonates with practically everybody in all corners of Brazilian society make it certain to have a profound influence on the subject it tackles: society’s response to corruption, crime, and drug use.

Since BOPE’s protagonists are elite Rio police who shoot drug dealers, kill for revenge, summarily execute corrupt police and freely use torture–sometimes on children–this is a very scary possibility.

BOPE

People are always concerned about the more immediate problems: earning a living, avoiding disease and warfare, keeping criminals away.

When crime becomes too vicious, people get rid of it the only way they can — by finding a government more vicious than the criminals. And if dissidence becomes illegal? Well, don’t be a dissident.

Most people are disconnected from politics except as it immediately affects them. As a result, they could care less about abstruse topics like human rights, international politics, and free speech. How does free speech help you earn a living, unless you work in newspapers?

BOPE is just the latest in a series of such events. Interestingly, one occurred first in the USA, where the “war on drugs” allowed police to become paramilitary — something that nation had up until then resisted.