Monday, June 25, 2007

People's Front of National Resistance

What is differing CRAP from revisionist, neo-marxist and out-right liberal parties and movements cloaked under marxism, is that we base our analysis on dialectal materialism on modern conditions, and are not trying to use outdated maps from the 1930;s in determining our allies, our friends and our enemies.

There are several differences now. Most of these differences are based on the miscalculations and open treason of the leadership of the left-wing intellectual vanguard. While socialism turned out to be national, capitalism have become international. In year 1933, there was still a national form of capitalism, with national banks, big corporations and a national bourgeoisie. Capitalism today is synonymous with globalisation.

Owners of modern corporations are anonymous. A corporation based in Germany could this day be owned by American cosmopolitans and tomorrow by Chinese capitalists. Long-term strategic planning has been outphased and replaced with short-sighted profits not exceeding the term of the CEO:s.

Modern capitalists are thus freely moving capital over a global market, and has thus become dependent on a global free market with supranational institutions and some sort of collective military force (NATO). Thus, even if it would theoretically be strategically wise of them of aligning themselves with nationalist movements to crush revolutionary sentiments, they COULD simply NOT do so, since that would cut off the legs of their movements.

Instead, through intellectual institutions, they have tamed the left, and what are left of the institutional communist parties of the Cold War era, are a sort of controlled opposition which is given the right to control culture politics and the interpretation of left-wing opposition to the power. It is interesting that the current liberal totalitarianism of the USA and the EU is based on both the legitimisation and delegitimisation of opposition. Socialists who are caring for theaters where people have right to wear dildos, or for the right of refugee smugglers to co un-caught, are "legitime". Socialists who actually care of the working people are demagogues according to liberal media, and thus "illegitime".

If you say the criticism which the media want you to say, you will eventually become minister in a centre-left coalition government (a sort of quisling government running errands for cosmopolitan international speculation).

If you say anything which truely threatens the ideals of neo-liberalism and free market economics, you are a dangerous extremist.

No wonder that a lot of AFA activists are then allowed in as journalists on LIBERAL newspapers. AFA are simply the stormtroopers of the liberals, who need multiculturalism in order to break working class solidarity (the Babel strategy).

Therefore, we could conclude that European nationalists today are not necessarily a regressive force. On the contrary, a historical opportunity of an alliance between labour and the petty-bourgeoisie has opened up. That could form the foundation of an anti-globalist people's front aimed at one realist, achievable target.

That target must be to destroy the liberal, totalitarian state of the EU, and replace it with a national liberation government which could secure truely free elections in European populist traditions.

There is only the system, and the enemies of the system.

The enemy of my enemy, is my ally.


Friday, June 8, 2007

Nerd Defense League

A revolutionary people's front against bullying and mass-culture

As capitalism devolved into consumerism in the late 1940;s, due to the need to get rid of excessive production over-capacity, led to the establishment of a mass-fashion culture based on the lowest common denominator. Suddenly, the values of the lumpen-proletariat - excessiveness, debauchery, promiscuity and testosteronocracy, became the guiding principles in popular culture, spreading from the USA to the rest of the world, efficiently destroying all earlier class identities, as observed by Pier Paolo Pasolini.

In such an environment, brilliance and interests on science and development are certainly not looked upon as evolutionary preferable traits, and are thus frowned upon by an hostile surrounding pack - a mass building up a hierarchy based on the lowest possible form of caste graduation of human beings, namely sexuality.

Mass culture is a poison which, among other things, especially hurt persons of above average intelligence and prevents them from joining the creative class due to peer pressure and bullying, thus harming their self-confidence and forcing them into a docile role as "Dilbert's" on the working place. Actually, nerds are rejected by the capitalist society which is dependent upon them. They are not the ideal, even though they are the part of the working class which is most responsible for the technology we have been granted with.

They are not on the giant propaganda posters.

They are not seen as moviestars.

They have a lower status in their companies than bosses and consultants who've never done anything but talking, living off their "social competence". The creative class wants to create and be free from the inhibations of capital. It is a great myth than our current capitalist stage of civilisation is benevolent to nerds. In fact, nerds are locked down on as the lowest caste.

In the Soviet Union, all children with exceptional intelligence were given resources to develop themselves. Scientists lived in apartments of great quality and got food home-driven to their door-step. They were allowed to conquer space and granted all the resources they ever would need to make it possible.

Heck, even in MEDIEVAL EUROPE, exceptional children were granted to study at the universities by their local parish, no matter their original social class. In current day West, such children are given Luvox, stamped with asperger's, and taken to underfunded schools where they are to be blamed for the constant bullying received day in and day out, and told by apathetic underfunded teachers that it is their fault because they are "socially incompetent" and not interested in drinking, smoking and fucking like apes.

Children are today forced into social roles at school, in roles that they have never asked for, never wanted, and they are constantly told to accept that as a fact. As a status quo. As a dictatorship of status quo. If a child in the 1940;s smoked heavily, drank and copulated in a park bush, that kid would be sterilised. If a child today read excessively, excel at school and refuse to take part in the monkey culture amongst his peers, he is marked as sick, because he do not do as the majority of blind consumers.

Communism is not to turn everyone into the strength of the weakest link of the chain, and of the slowest ship of the convoy, but to LIFT up people to a higher level. That would not mean that everyone would be equally good at everything, but that everyone would be asked, permitted and expected to try to do violence on himself and turn from a primitive being to a citizen. It is an enlightenment ideal, not an ideal of a braindead mass, today realised in capitalist west.

What we need to do now, is to wage a multi-front war against mass-culture, both in the working places, in the psychiatric clinics and in the schools. The children are now an integral, socialised part of the system of class, and constantly brainwashed with the myths which the cosmopolitan international dictatorship of the bourgeoisie wants to promulgate in order to support status quo of degradation and decay.

Nerds must be organised and turn into a revolutionary force against mass-culture, against americanism, against the dictatorship of the status quo. This organisation will lead to the emancipation of the nerds and their freedom to define their own identity independent of those labelled "higher" on the social ladder. The nerds ought to take leadership over the working class-children and grip them away from being emancipated into capitalist consensus culture.

The war is everywhere.


Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Cottrell & Cockshott

On Economics

One really interesting aspect of the contemporary left-wing intelligentsia is their complete, almost ritualistic unwillingness to define exactly how the economic system of their future socialist world would be managed. It is almost as they are caving into the mythos of bourgeoisie prejudices about socialists as confused utopians. Modern socialists are given a piedestal of feelings, of soft politics, while the liberals reserve economics as their domain (and the left largely complies, mostly because the leftist intelligentsia are stooges and useful idiots for the globalist agenda).

To add it on, the current left-wing intelligentsia seems to be allergic against mathematics and clear definitions. When, if ever, it is pressured to talk about economics, it pukes up the mandatory references to Marx without ever mentioning that the alienation from labor is not solved through more labor but from automatisation brought by capitalism, causing unemployment thus proletarising the population, and that the communist society will be one digital, automatised society. The modern authorities on socialist economic theory, apart from Marx and Keynes(!), are Michael Albert, Murray Bookchin and Amartya Sen, who reminds of the three apes in that famous sculpture. Albert and Bookchin are positive towards creating a system where the labor intensity of the work determines the output in consuming ability - something which is outright idiotic since it would reward inefficient types of production. Sen is just talking about social capital and other new labourite rethorics. Some are talking about fair trade which essentially is a dress of christian guilt put on laissez faire free-trade, mixtured with charity.

CRAP intends to form the vanguard and basis for a new socialist Europe. Therefore, it is essential that we are employing the most modern and pragmatic socialist economic theories and empirically validates them towards reality in order to produce an economic environment adjusted to the interests of the European working class. Therefore, since technological development and geo-strategical resources are constantly switching hands, we cannot tell exactly how our economy will work, but we could offer some blueprints.

We should discuss "hard economics", not the "soft economics" of social welfare in this article.

Initially, our economic policies will be directed towards nationalising the energy sector, and make Europe self-sufficient on energy. That is a federal, strategic interest of enormous proportions.

Thereafter, we should increase the strength of our labor unions by giving them control over the productive forces of labor and including all industrious in their profession, thus turning the unions to syndicates, corporations or guilds. Note that would also fulfill some modern anarchist and syndicalist goals, in a BETTER way than those groups are able to formulate by themselves.

Thirdly, we should institute a grand council of representatives of all these syndicates to determine and follow up the economic development of Socialist Europe. In short, it would be central planning but with some market socialist functions.

Last, we would abolish the market system at it's core, and completely turn over to planning. But not central planning - but CYBERNETIC, integral planning of Cottrell and Cockshott. These two, one economist and a programmer, has formulated a new economic system which went largely ignored by the left-wing intelligentsia because of it's rationality and it's focus on mathematics.

CRAP is different. We are appreciating brilliance, and not silencing the part of the creative class which is known as "nerds". Inventors are naturally socialists since capitalism is limiting them and regressing their inventions.

Here is the manifesto of Cottrell and Cockshott, which must be as important for the modern marxism of CRAP as the Krutov manifesto.

When you, as a CRAP activist, is pressured about our long-term goals of socialist economic planning, you will see that this book is of great help.


Prussian heroism

One could see that different civilisations have different class values and have developed different forms of capitalism. For example, the Asian form of capitalism in it's present form is patriarchal and based on a collectivist view on the state as an extended family, remniscent of Asian confucianism which have predetermined much of the economic and cultural development of the Chinese zone.

I will not dedicate this article to the inherent differences between Russia and Europe, which is necessary to do in order to understand how our new European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will work compared to the USSR, but rather define a historic rift between two closely related cultural identities in Europe, which most Europeans may feel more affiliated with than with the old Soviet Union, namely the differences between anglophilic culture and germanophilic culture.

Both of these cultures were inherently focused on work, moralism and based on protestant values derived more from Calvin than from Luther. Both of these cultures emerged fully during early trade capitalism in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, and reached their highest manifestations until the crisis of capitalism was fully unleashed in year 1914, in the forms of Victorian Britain and Vilhelminist Germany.

Both these countries had historically during the two centuries before the Great War developed a close bond, which was broken by the competition over markets, German need for prestige and British needs of "continental balance". Though their seemingly similar character though, they had inherent differences which must be looked upon closer.

Victorian Britain was the then ideological fortress of capitalism and "commercial enterprise", free trade (it is easy to be for free trade when you control one quarter of the world's surface), as well as the myth of the entrepreneur. The capitalist was seen as the epithome of human development, almost as a representative of an emerging, supreme master race. The philosopher Herbert Spencer for example, wanted natural selection to solve the social problems in society.

Vilhelmine Germany was a result of British interests in Europe. It was founded by support from Britain, to stiffle the Second French Empire and open up new markets in Europe through the Zollwerein. It was an unintentional result, and the differences in interests and directions between the German and British social system would later on destroy Old Europe.

Vilhelmine Germany did not have capitalism as it's supreme guiding ideology, though it was a capitalist power, and an imperialist power, it did not live by the glorification of the capitalist, of free trade or of the attitudes of the bourgeoisie. Rather, the German culture looked down on trade, on cosmopolitanism and on banking.

In Germany, capitalists were called "industrialists" in official imperial propaganda, were they were depicted in a positive light. The word "capitalist" defines an individual who is controlling capital, and hence is a buyer of labor while not doing any work by himself. The archetypical capitalist looks like the penguin in Batman and wears a high hat. An industrialist in contrast, gives as a word the impression to rather be defining a large, bossy man with a shaved head who regularily inspects the work place and rather identify with his own workers than with other industrialists, just like a medieval feudal duke rather identified with his vassals than his likes.

One could therefore say that in Germany, pre-modern feudal values of social responsibility, and discarding of commerce still prevailed until the 20th century. The German patriarchal form of capitalism was not remniscent to the more family-based variants of capitalism and corporatism in the Latin countries, but to get a frame of reference, one might just look at the Nordic welfare system which was originally founded in Vilhelmine Germany by Bismarck. Social welfare was almost unique of Germany, and more generous than in any other contemporate state.

It was not a question of unlimited handouts, but of a form of system of responsibility, giving the worker (vassal) certain rights (privilegies) for service (duties) for the company. It was a conservative system, reactionary even, but yet surprisingly modern and durable. That Germany became the greatest industrial power in Europe in just 40 years, despite it's social welfare system and with protectionism as it's preferred trade policy, is something which libertarians conveniently chose to ignore (when they are not mocking Bismarck or Vilhelm II).

For those of you who think that we are praising a right-winger now, let us say two things.

First, Bismarck, when becoming chancellor of Prussia in 1862, offered Karl Marx the position of royal treasurer.

Second, what we are saying, is that a socialist Europe cannot, if it want to survive, employ a continuation of present americanised liberalism and consumerism, because those values worship the most improductive aspects of both production and class society. We cannot have a society where the celebrity, no matter if it is a pop star or a gender theorist, is uphold as an ideal, since it is sterile and improductive.

What we might need is ironically maybe a return to Prussian militarist, feudal and guild socialist values, akin back to the traditional European preference of valuing physical, material work over abstract idealist capital. In any way, we need to build up a confidence in the worker to defeat his feeling of alienation from work, and to progressively integrate the socialist project as something integral to European traditions, not something alien to them.

Yes, we know that Prussia was the favourite hate object of a lot of socialists during the 19th century. We do not contest that it was a reactionary monarchy. What we want to stress, is that some of it values, the despise of the middle-hand, of the capitalist and speculator, and the worship of the labourer, the officer and the "industrialist" shows forward to a unification of the European productive classes in the industrial and farming sectors against the prostituted classes.

Europe is a vehemently anti-capitalist culture. It only needs to awake. And we are the bell of dawn.


Monday, June 4, 2007

On the G8 riots

Anarchism as a form of Retardism

Quite symptomatic, is'nt it?

It is also quite symptomatic that one that is not buying the aesthetic, cultural and mythological values of the modern left is denounced as a fascist. If you do not listen to their music, worship the primitive values of stone-throwing and of "violence against fascists" you are against them. It is not about ideology, but about preferences, often of a cliche-esque liberal search of identity. If you join with a political group, you should adapt to their ways of using language, to their dresscode and to their imaginative pictures of reality. No matter if you are a liberal or an anarchist (often, these two extremes are one and the same).

The braindeadness of the activist environment is manifested through their favourite ritual, their habituation to go rampage with street-stones and then get a well-deserved beating by the working class boys of the police. Their slogans, their propaganda, their dresscode and theire ideals are all of the most puberesque and simplistic nature. Their political analysis is to lump together all of their opponents, real or imagined, with fascists. Thus, "fascism", we are made aware of, is the dislike of hiphop music, the dislike of promiscuous behaviour, the respects for traditions and elders, and everything that even breathes criticism of uncontrolled immigration.

All of that is an example of a self-alienating political position which is a good incubator for the "rebellious youth" in the academia. No true industrial worker, retiree or serious anti-globalist analyst would follow such demented characters, who believe that Jagtvej 69 equals the Louvre or the Egyptian pyramids. They wear tons of PIN;s, have rings in their noses, and colourful clothes. They are advocating a sexually promiscuous way of living, and an attitude of sloth and disregard for common interests. The belief that these people could pose an alternative to the current globalist system is horrendous.

Notice as well, that the anarchists/libertarian socialists are nourished by the globalist system. They are maybe "harassed" by the police (after going berserk at everything). They are given benefits from the governments, in the form of money to their "houses of youth", to their garage bands, to their "street theater" and to various projects related to Identity Politics.

One thing we could see, is that these libertarian socialists are sharing more in common with the globalist political establishment, than the establishment is having in common with the petty-bourgeoisie fascists. They are both "open", for "diversity", for "multiculturalism", for "HBT persons", for "free trade" (which the ultra-leftists call "fair trade". They want to abolish the European subsidies to farmers. They want to rip the food from the mouth of the European worker and give it away to the petty-bourgeoisie farmers of the third world.

They both hate traditional European culture, whether in the form of catholic conservatism, old state socialism, or "fascism".

Many of the current political leaders are representatives of the 1968 generation, which could be called the beginning of the "New Left".

Thus, the current "radical activist environment" is not an opposition but the future establishment in being.

We must first and foremost attack the system relentlessly, it's values and it's doctrines and worship of the market. We must attack false criticism and false conciousness which is infecting all radical criticism and leading to stagnation on thoughts.


Sunday, June 3, 2007

On the western marxist establishment

The greatest enemy of the western working class today, is the collective known as the western marxist establishment. There, we are talking about the French and Italian "new left", the Frankfurt institute and the neo-marxist and post-colonial thinkers. The whole 1968 establishment is a part of the political power, and it's most right-wing aspects have even had seat in European governments (in the forms of the Italian left, and the former foreign minister of Germany). The university intelligentsia, cosmopolitan, queer and chic, is loved by the liberal newspapers. They criticise the power, but they are never offering ANY sustainable or feasible alternative.

From 1968 and onwards, the leading "marxist" thinkers of Europe have become politically accepted critics of the bourgeoisie power. And why not? The current bourgeoisie is not national, not even supranational, but global. When western marxists are kicking against racism, prejudices, homophobia, anti-immigration sentiments, nationalism and some aspects of US foreign policy, they are doing it with the support of the elites in their respective states. The current bourgeoisie represents the very same values, cosmopolitan, liberal, tolerant, open-minded. As long as the neoliberal economic dogma (in a left-wing pack) is advocated through fair-trade, support of free migration, support of abortions and neglect of the core groups of the left.

No socialist party will be supported by the liberal media unless it caves in to the issues by heart of the liberal ultra-rightists, namely market economics, urbanism, deterioration of the national labour market, support of minority cultures, and support for the corporate power (masqueraded with a false support of the petty bourgeoisie).

We could conclude that there is in existence a strong "neo-marxist" presence on western universities, represented by such subjects as sociology, social science, neo-marxism, and various "humanist teachings". In essence, the soft, female-sounding subjects at the university are derived to the self-castrated, effeminised marxist establishment, while economics (a social science) and the technical subjects are handed over to the right.

The right despises the humanist and aesthetic subjects, while the left despises the technical skill-orientated subjects. In the 1930;s, the left led the struggle for the future, but nowadays, all the modern left could produce aesthetically is photos of social alienation and degeneration, and post-modern assaults on the values of the previous generations of communists. These "humanists" which are polluting the mindset of the youth do exactly fit into the Kazscynskean definition of the leftist mental mindset (Industrial Society and it's future).

If we look at the universities as a system where the establishment (economic, political, cultural) renew itself and spreads down to new generations, we could see that "marxism", in terms of gender theoretics, aesthetics and humanism plays an important role in creating an intelligentsia which stands unified in a false opposition to a power which have built and defined that intelligentsia. In short, the intention with the creation of the neo-marxist intelligentia was probably to "civilise" the barbarian working class and pacify the communist movements. The latter goal has largely been accomplished.

But exactly as predicted by the Soviet bolsheviks of old - when marxists turn away from the working class, the working class will turn to another force to protect them. The national petty-bourgeoisie, composed of local capitalists, bureaucrats and some genuine representatives of pre-capitalist elites, are mounting a counter-offensive against the neo-liberal globalism of the NWO system. With increasing support from the working class, the European petty-bourgeoisie nationalists are forming a populist and in some essence genuinly fascist alternative to the world order of globalism.

The left, with Hardt and Negri as foremost representatives, is unable to take up the challenge since it nowadays prefer to speak with the new language of political correctness, and as the positions of the globalists wither to pieces, so will the leftist intelligentsia fade.

Our goal must be to build up a new political movement, neither national or global, but European in it's essence. Europe is being colonised by the forces of international political capital, and must be fended. The petty-bourgeoisie do not hold the ability to create anything which will be able to create a dynamic and living Europe. We got it.

Now it is time that we smash the western marxist establishment, before it suffocates by itself.